The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-08 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SIEAKER resumed his seat at a quarter past five
o'clock.

A message from the Lords announced that their Lord-
ships had agreed to several private Bills.
Colonel DAVIES presented a petition from Heathfield,
in Sussex, complaining of the mat-administration of the
poor laws, and praying for their amendment.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, on the Bth February he moved
for certain returns connected with the charities of England
and Ireland ; those relating to England had been duly
returned, but those relating to Ireland had not; and he,
therefore, moved that the returns be made immediately.—
Ordered.

Mr. GILLON presented two petitions from the
burghs of Falkirk and Ayr against certain parts of the
Scots Burghs Reform Bill.
Sir Et FERGUSON moved that the Warwick Bo-
rough Election Committee have leave to sit on Tuesdays,
Thursdays, and Fridays, notwithstanding the sitting of
the House. _ _ _

After a few observations from C. W. Wynne, Mr. Cur-
tele, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Warburton, the motion was
agreed to.
Lord ALTHORP laid before the House returns of the
salary and emolv.ments of the Master of the Rolls, and
also of the Vice-Chancellor.

Upon the motion of Lord ALTHORP, the order of the
day was read on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
On the motion that the Bill be read a third time,
Mr. O'CONNELL rose, as it was understood, to make
some observations and to move some amendment, but
Mr. STANLEY informed the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman that there had bee❑ a distinct understanding that
upo❑ the third reading there should be no discussion, but
that the debate should be on the question that the Bill do
pass.
Mr. STANLEY moved that two riders be added to
the Bill. —Agreed to.
Mr. SHEIL moved that a rider be added to the
Bill, to the effect that the income of the Arch-
bishops of Ireland be fixed at 4,5001., and
that of the Bishops at 3,0001. a year. Although
the income of the Bishops was proposed to be reduced,
yet their patronage would be enormously increased. It was
proposed that the Bishop of Armagh should, for instance,
pay over to the Commissioners, from his income, which was
at present 14,944/., but which would be increased by the
amount of 6,2601., and if it were to be augmented to
20,0001., he would still only have to pay 4,500/. to
the Commissioners, and be at liberty to pocket the balance.
This surely could not be the intention of Government.
According to the provisions of this measure, while
there was a deduction from the income of only one Bishop
(Derry) there was a most enormous increase of ecclesiastical
patronage give❑ to the others. Was this proper ? There
was no fixed standard ; the payment should be adapted
to the services performed ; but instead of the standard of
service, they took, what was no criterion at all, the standard
of
,locality. It was upon these grounds that he wished
this clause, which he proposed as a rider should be agreed
to by the House, which would have the effect of reducing
the revenues of the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin
to the yearly sum of 4,5001., and of the Bishops, to the
sum of 3,5001.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion. Unless the House
agreed to such a proposition, ❑o efficient Church Reform
would result. He thought the amendment should be
adopted, even if there were no other advantage to be de-
rived from the equality of income which it would establish,
than the prevention of translations, which were so incon.
venient and disadvantageous to the best interests of the
Church.
The clause was then brought up and read a first time.
Mr. STANLEY rose—There was only three ways
of disposing of the patronage of the suppressed
bishoprics, vesting it in a body of Commissioners,

vesting it in the Crown, or vesting it in the Bishops;
Vesting it in the Commissioners was certainly the hest
way to remove jobbing, for they would be sure to play
into each others hands.—(Hear, hear.) As to vest-
ing it in the Crown, he thought the patronage
of the Crown in the Church of Ireland already sufficient,
and the Ruse must give Ministers credit for not
having wished to take it themselves.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) They well knew, however, the charge which
the candour of some Hon. Gentlemen would have raied,
had Ministers thought the Crown the best deposi-
tory of the patronage of the suppressed Bishopricks.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) With respect to the Bishoiis,
although they might, like other men, be influ.nced by
particularly their friends and relations, yet in spite of all
th it was said against them, he would maintain,
that if they wished the patronage of the Church
in Ireland to be bestowed according to merit, and not
from political motives, though if they wished ohscure
merit to be rewarded, they could not do better
than vest this patronage in the I3ishops.—(Hear, hear.)
Does the Honourable Gentleman believe the public
would obtain the benefit of the difference in the in-
comes of the Bishops ? What would then be to pay
into the public Treasury ? It would be the tenants and
not the public that would benefit.—(Hear, hear.) If this
rider was carried, it would be contradictory of the rip-
ciple and enactments of the Bill, and lie should therefore
oppose it.—(Hear.)
Mr. A. JOHNSTON moved the previous question.
The Hon. Member alluded to the oath taken by Members
on assuming their seats, which he contended was diame-
trically opposed to such a motion as that the Hon. and
Learned Member had made.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARLBOROUGH STREET.

O❑ Saturday Amelia Saunders, a young prostitute,
well known to the police, Sarah Thompson, and William
Oxley, the latter a journeyman butcher, were brought
up, charged with having robbed a gentleman, named
Brewster, of 40/. in bank notes, a check for 10/., anti four
sovereigns.
William Noble Brewster, Esq., of Titchfield-street,
stated that on Friday night, being rather inebriated, he
was induced to accompany the two females to a low house,
where he fell asleep, and on awaking, found himself
alone, and that his purse, which contained the above sums,
had bee❑ taken out of his pocket. He gave information
to the police, and in a short time the three prisoners
were taken into custody. . .

11I'Donnell Irish, police sergeant, was informed of the
robbery, and having received certain information, he went
with the prosecutor to a house in Lisson-grove, and there
found the prisoners Thompson and Oxley. The prosecutor
immediately identified Thompson, and witness told her of
the robbery. She denied all knowl.fdge of it, but being told
that a search must take place, the male prisoner called the
prosecutor outside of the room, and in the presence of wit-
ness, he said that the girl Thompson had come home and
told him of the robbery, at the same time showing him
the purse, containing ail the money, except two sovereigns.
The prisoner said he was very angry at what was told
him, and he took the purse from her, intending to seek
out and restore it to the owner in the morning. The
prisoner then pulled out the purse and gave it to the pro-
secutor, who remarked that he had acted like on honest
man, and he would present him with a sovereign. Witness
would not let the affair be arranged in this manner ; and
he then took both prisoners into custody. The prisoner
Saunders was found in another house, and she gave up two
sovereigns to the policeman.—Committed.