The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-12 00:00:00

it would be fair to make these leases Into perpetuities, and
those terms were, of course, to be left to the Committee.
The Right Hon. Member for Tamworth bad said plausibly
enough, that as a month had el 'peed between
the announcement of the Bill, and its being introduced
into this Honourable House, Hon. Members ought
to have time for its consideration in some degree propor-
tioned to the time taken in its preparation. Now, the
time taken in its preparation had been occupied in recon-
ciling the different parts one to another. But whether that
had been chine properly or not, was not a question for con-
sideration in the second reading of the Bill. It was true that
on a late occasion they had witnessed much criticism un
the first reading of a Bill; but this was by no
means agreeahle to the ancient foams of the House,
or the practice of Parliament.—( Hear, bear.) It was
more consistent with the practice of the House, and
also with their convenience, to decide simply on the
second reading of such a Bill as this, whether
they approved of its general outline, or whether it was such
rotabery, and so little calculated to grant the relief it was
intended to do, that it ought at once to he rejected. This
question they would all be prepared to decide on Thersday.
Toe Hon. Member for Cockermouth had said that the
measure of conciliation ought to be considered, because
they were con-idering the measure of coercion. Now he
(Lord J. Russell) dial not consider that there was any
natural connexion between these two Bills of conciliation
and coercion. He should have been most happy, as he
was persuaded all Members who were friendly towards
Ireland would, if the case had called them only to bring
in a treasure of relief—of conciliation, without any neces-
sity for a measure of coercion. On the other hand, it
might have been possible to have had no measure
of relief; and yet, the disturbances of Ireland
being such, it might have been necessary to propose
a measure of coercion. If grievances existed, it was the
duty of the Legislature to redress them, and if disturbances
existed, the duty of Government was to restrain them.
He, therefore, protested against the doctrine which seemed
to have a fashion that this measure was to be postponed
and that this measure of conciliation should be consi-
dered in connection with the other Bill. It was the duty
of the House to consider them separately and give each all
the consideration they were able At the same time it was to
be remarked that it was expedient for Parliament to come
as soon as possible to some determination on the principle
of the Irish Church Reform Bill, in order that the coun-
try might see whether it was disposed to give that relief
which the present Bill proposed.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS begged leave to say that he
felt it his duty, at every stage, to make objections to the
Bill. He was certainly justified in requesting the Noble
Lord to take care that a sufficient interval should take
place between the first and second reading, so as to enable
those whose interests were chiefly affected, to have some
knowledge of the measure. He asked the Noble Lord
(Althorp) whether, if the measure bad contemplated
the abolition of one see in place of ten, he would have
permitted the Bishop and Dean of that see, whose inte-
rests were intimately affected, to be heard in that House?
He thought that less than six days would scarcely enable
gentlemen to properly consider and determine upon this
matter.

Mr. ROBINSON was favourable to the principle of
the measure, but recommended the Noble Lord not to he
precipitate, as it might be a dangerous precedent, and as
it was most desirable that this great question should be
discussed with calmness, moderation, and good temper.
Sir F. VINCENT said be bad voted with great
repugnance for the Irish coercive measure,
merely in consequence of the professsions of his
Majesty's Government to bring forward without delay
remedial measures, and he thought it exceedingly desira-
ble that as little time should .lapse as possible, before the
second reading of the Irish Church Reform Bill.
Mr. PETRE said, with respect to the Bill, it was well
known, and he trusted his Lordship would not give way.
The House then divided, wh.•n there appeared—
For the second reading on Thursday
Against it 46
Majority in favour of Ministers —l4l
KNARESBOROUGH ELECTION.

Sir W. INGILBY, in adverting to a petition presented
on the 18th F, bruary, relative to the above election,
moved that another petition, praying for extension of time,
be now read.

Mr. BOTCH opposed the petition, and said that the
effects of it won'd he as bad as if it were a Bill of Pains
and Penalties ; that the allegations made in it were di-
rected avainst him, as being an alien, and that it involved
his future prospects in life. He was anxious to state in
detail why he opposed the present petition. It was stated
on the flee of that petition, that he was an alien born out
of his Majesty's dominions, and that at the time of his
birth, his tither was the subject of a foreign stare.

Mr. C. W. WYNN sad, that it would be necessary to
call in some per•un to verify upon oath the statements
made in that petition, for if the allegations contained in it
were not so verified, it would not be necessary for the
Hon. Member to go into any arguments upon them.
The SPEAKER, iu reply to an observation of Sir W.
Ingilhy, said, that the question now was, whether there
was any body present to verify the allegations made in the
peti ion ? _ _ .

The Seijeant•at-Alms was then ordered to call in Mr.
James Man(lrrs, of Gravesend, the agent of the petitioner.
Mr•. Rich. Mr. lthrolers was ordered to state what were
the material circumstances which induced the petitioner
to prsy for delay. In an•wer to questions put to him by
'evrral lion. Member*, _ _

Mr. I%landers said, that the present delay was claimed
in order tn be able to better substantiate the petition of
the ltith of February. Certain material testimony was
necessary, and petitioner had proceeded to obtain that tea,
timt,ny on ,he 24th ul.. He acknow•le,tged that on the
Ist of February the existence of this material testimony
was !moan to petitioner. He then read several letters,
dared Dunk-rque, from a person who said there ezitred
some valuable documents to show that Mr. Rotch was an
American. To have these documents verified in France,
and to get them from that country, was the reason delay
MO now c•aimed.
Mr. Manilers was then ordered to withdraw.

Mr. C. W. WYNN said, that there were no sufficient
grounds for granting the prayer of the petiti•m ; and that
if such grounds as those were taken into consideration, ti e
election of no Hon. Member of that House would be lisle.

Mr. TENNYSON s.tid, that there would be no end to
such motions if the House were to agree to the one then
made. He thought there was no ground made out for
postponing the consideration of the petition, and suggested
tha' the lion. Baronet should withdraw his motion.

Sir W. INGILBY then withdrew his motion; and it
was agreed that the original petition should be taken into
consideratioft net Thursday next.
OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.

Sir A. AGNEW postponed his motion for a Bill or
Bills to amend the law relating to the observance of the
Lord's Day, till the 19th instant.
SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)