The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-08 00:00:00

MESSAGE FROM THE CROWN.

Lord ALTHORP brought up the following message from
his Majesty:—

" WILLIAM R.
" His Majesty acquaints the House of Commons, that, hav-
ing taken into His consideration the present state of reversions
or remainders vested in the Crown in Estates in Ireland, His
Majesty deems it proper that measures should be taken for
enabling Proprietors of Estates in Ireland, where the reversion
or remainder has become vested in the Crown by attainder, to
bar such reversions or remainders. W. R."

Lord ALTHORP, in moving that an humble address
be presented to his Majesty, in answer to this message, re-
minded the House that the giving up of this power was a very
considerable sacrifice on the part of the Crown.—( Hear, hear,
from Mr. O'Connell.) The effect of it, however, would be
very advantageous to a large proportion of the landed pro-
prietors of Ireland, and it gave him very great satis-
faction to be the bearer of this most gracious message.
It was an act of great kindness on the part of the Crown, and
he would beg leave to move an humble address to his Majesty,
returning him their most grateful thanks for his gracious mes-

sage.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he felt it his duty not only
to acknowledge this as an act of kindness and generosity
but also as one that would be eminently useful to the landed
proprietors of Ireland. As a professional man he had known
that there was the greatest difficulty in making out titles in Ire-
land—nearly the whole property of the country having
been forfeited three times over.—( Hear, hear.) This mea-
sure was long desired by the landed proprietors of Ire-
land ; and it was but fair to grant it, for it was only putting
them on the same footing with those of England. The mea-
sure would be of the greatest importance to Ireland, and
would be received with the utmost gratitude, the immediate
effect of it being to increase the rate of purchase of land in
Ireland.
Mr. LYNCH said that by this measure a great boon would
be conferred on Ireland—a great injustice would be done away
with—property would be rendered more secure, and the impe-
diments in the way of the sale of property would be removed.
He valued it, because it evinced a disposition on the part of
his Majesty's Ministers that there should not be one law for
England and another for Ireland. It was a good eommenee-
meat on the part of the present administration, and he hoped
such acts towards Ireland would now be found not to be in-
frequent.
Mr. SHAW was extremely happy to avail himself of
this opportunity also of expressing his grateful acknowledge-
ments for the present boon. He certainly considered it would
be of great advantage to Ireland.—( Hear, hear.)
The Address was then ordered.
Mr. ROSS presented various petitions from parts in WI -
shire, against a separation of Church and State.
CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS.
Upon the motion of Mr. CRIPPS, the House agreed to a
conference with the Lords on the County Coroner's Bill, and
the Speaker then left the chair.
Mr. eRIPP returned with the Members of the conferenee,

and said—l have to declare that the managers have been with
the Lords, and they have delivered their reasons for not agreeing
to the amendments, and they have left their reasons and the
Bill with their Lordships.—( Laughter.)
A Message from the Lords announced that their Lordships
had agreed to several Bills.
Mr. LYALL presented a petition from St. Botolph, Ald-
gate, against the separation of Church and State.
Mr. MAXWELL said he had made a motion some time
Igo for returns respecting the number of hand-loom
weavers ; he wished to know whether such return was ready?
Mr. P. THOMSON said it could not be made unless a
number of persons were employed to go about the country
to get up the information.
Mr. MAXWELL said he had suggested that overseers and
schoolmasters could very easily perform the task.
Mr. F. WARR brought up the Report of the Select Com-
mittee on Land Revenues.
Lord BRUDENELL presented a petition from Dodding-
ton, in Northamptonshire, in support of the Church.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.
_ _ _ _

Lord ALTHORP moved the reading—of the order of the
day pro forma.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.

On the motion for the reading of the Lords' amendment on
this bill,
Lord JOHN RUS SELL said that so many amendments had
been introduced that the Bill was almost a new one.—
( Hear, hear.) At the same time it would be very inconve-
nient in the present period of the session, protracted as it had
been, whether by the fault of the House of Commons or the
fault of the House of Lords,he would not give any opinion, to
enter again into any long and extensive consideration of the
measure, without a chance of being able to arrive at a conclu-
sion. By the amendments which had been introduCed by the
House of Lords, a new tribunal had been created. To that
tribunal he did not altogether object, for he remembered some
years ago, when he carried up to that House the Pcnryn Dis-
franchisement Bill, the House of Lords differed from the House
of Commons with respect to the measure, and threw out the Bill.
He was, therefore, inclined in favour of the construction of any
impartial tribunal, from which a fair and just decision might
reasonably be expected. The way in which the House of Com-
mons had proposed that that tribunal should be constituted,
was, by forming a Committee of the House of Commons,
chosen in a particular manner, and empowered to receive
evidence on oath. In this proposition the House of Lords did
not concur ; and in the amendments which they had made to
the Bill, they proposed, instead of the tribunal which the
House of Commons suggested, a tribunal of a nature entirely
new, consisting of five Members of the House of Lords, and
seven Members of the House of Commons. Such a tribunal,
he repeated, was perfectly new. It was true that by Act of
Parliament, such a tribunal had been created for East India
adjudications, but that Act had never been carried into
effect. But, although the tribunal thus proposed by the
House of Lords was new, he did not think that there were
sufficient grounds to prevent the House of Commons from
determining to make the experiment. He said this the
more readily, because he observed with satisfaction, that in
the Lords' amendments it was proposed that the Commis-
sion for constituting the tribunal should issue only in cases
in which the House of Commons addressed his Majesty for
that purpose. Whenever, therefore, that course might appear
unsatisfactory to the House of Commons, the House would
retain the right of proceeding without it, and of resorting to
the established usage of passing a bill of disfranchisement
through the House in the usual form, and then sending it to
the House of Lords for their concurrence. He was by no
means of opinion, however, that a tribunal consisting of seven
Members of the House of Commons, and five Members of the
House of Lords, would make a bad tribunal. But there was
another change proposed in the Lords' amendments, and that
change was, that over the tribunal so constituted, a judge of
one of the Courts of Record at Westminster should preside.
Now, admitting that it might be very desirable that some
person of legal endowments should assist the Parliamentary
tribunal in its investigation, he (Lord John Russell) cer-
tainly would have wished that the House of Lords had
not 'chosen one of the judges of the land for that pur-
pose. It was a point, however, which, in his opi-
nion, the House of Commons might safely yield. But
there were some further propositions connected with
this chief proposition. One was, that the judge should
base the sole power of determining what evidence should be
admitted, and what evidence should be rejected. Now, un-
questionably, he could not consent to limit the powers of Par-
liament in this respect, as it was a limitation which might
prove exceedingly injurious. He should therefore propose to
disagree with that part of the Lords' amendments, and substi-
tute the following proposition—namely, " That the Court,
composed of twelve Members of both Houses of Parliament,
should determine what evidence ought to be admitted, and
what evidence ought to be rejected ; and that it should only be
in cases in which the Members for and against were equal,
that the Judge should be called upon for his decision." There
was another objectionable proposition in the Lords' amend-
ments, which was to the effect, that the Court of twelve
Members was to make a species of finding, and that
the Judge was to determine whether or not that finding
was correct. Now, whenever a Member of the House
of Commons, or a Member of the House of Lords, pro-
nounced a judgment on a political offence, he must natu-
rally be subject, and must be prepared to meet whatever im-
putations might be cast upon him by the press, or by the
country at large. But he should certainly dread to see a
judge, whose integrity and independence ought to be preserved
free from the slightest suspicion, placed in a situation in which
either the House of Commons, or the House of Lords, or the
public, might impute to him that his judgment had been influ-
enced by a political bias. He decidedly objected, therefore,
to those parts of the Lords' amendments which rendered the
judge the sole arbiter of the propriety of evidence, and gave
him the power of making an award with respect to the finding
of the Commission. In other respects the Lords' amendments
required to be somewhat altered. They had left out all pro-
vision by which parties who established charges of bribery and
corruption should have their costs defrayed by the Treasury.
Now it was obvious that if the House of Commons determined
that such parties had made good their charges, they ought
not to be left to bear the costs and expenses themselves.
He intended to propose, therefore, that whenever a Com-
mission issued, the costs and expenses of the par-
ties should be defrayed out of the Treasury. An-
other of the Lords' amendments, related to the clause
respecting the inquiries now pending, into the boroughs of
Carrickfergus, Liverpool, Stafford, and Hertford, proposed
that those inquiries should extend only to cases of bribery at
the last election. Now,undoubtedly they ought to extend to cases
of bribery at former elections, especially with respect to Liver-
pool, in which place the most scandalous instances of bribery
had occurred. It was his intention, therefore, to propose that
the inquiries should be instituted into this last and previous
elections. Although he still saw some difficulties in proceed-
ing by the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords, he still
wished to try the experiment ; it being in the power of the
House of Commons to avoid that proceeding by not addressing
the Crown, and then to adopt either the established usage of
the Bill, or any new measure. The amendment in this point
made by the Lords was, he believed, introduced with a view to
constitute a tribunal agreeable to all parties, and which would
reconcile the manner of receiving evidence adopted by the
House of Commons, which was perhaps rather too hasty, with
the manner of receiving evidence adopted by the House of
Lords, which was perhaps rather too slow. Regretting, there:
fore, that the case had occurred at so late a period of the
Session, he should move that the Lords' amendments be read
a second time.

Mr. WARBURTON said that the Noble Lord had justly
observed that the proposition contained in the Lords' amend-
ments was perfectly new. When it was considered that the
object of the Bill was to regulate the election of Members of
the House of Commons, and to guard against the influence of
bribery in those elections, they would certainly fail in their
duty if they did not give themselves an opportunity of delibe-
rately investigating all the clauses of the measure. It had
been truly observed by the Noble Lord, that justice to the
public demanded that some new mode of conducting measures
for the disfranchisement of boroughs in cases of bribery was
necessary. But the question was, whether, if the House
agreed to the amendments made by the House of Lords in the
Bill sent up to them by the House of Commons, they would
not abandon every prospect of being able, under any circum-
stances, to disfranchise a borough whose misconduct subjected
it to such punishment. A great proportion of the Members of
the House were absent, and there could be no opportunity of
considering a measure of so much importance in detail. For
these reasons he thought all the notion of proceeding with the
Bill in the present Session should be abandoned, and he would

move as an amendment to the motion of the Noble Lord,
" That the Lords' amendments be taken into further considera-
tion this day three months."
Mr. O'CONNEL L seconded the amendment. At so' late
a period of the session it was utterly impossible duly to consi-
der so extensive a change in one of the most important con-
stitutional tribunals of the country. It appeared to him to be

extremely objectionable to allow the House of . Lords to have

anything to do in the first instance with the determination of
what cases of alleged bribery in the election of members of the
House of Commons should be proceeded with. That decision
should be exclusively retained by the House of Commons, and
no communication upon the subject ought to be made to the
other House until that House had arrived at a judgment upon
the point. They ought no more to allow the House of Lords
to have anything to do with originating a measure referring to
the election of a member of the House of Commons, than they
would allow the House of Lords to have anything to do with
originating a pecuniary measure. He did not think that the
tribunal proposed by the House of Lords was a good one.
The proposition went to suppose that seven members of the
House of Commons, and five members of the Lords could act
together cordially on such a subject. Now, recollecting the pro-
ceedings on the Beform Bill, and recollecting the efforts which
were then made, and made ineffectually, to get rid of the inter-
meddling of Peers at the elections of Members of the Hous• of
Commons, he was at a loss to understand the kind of logic
which would admit Peers to be members of a Court in the
first instance to sit upon such subjects. At any rate it was a
point of great importance, and ought to stand over until it
could be deliberately considered. To the appointment of the
judge of one of the Courts of Record to preside over the pro-
posed tribunal, he had a great objection. He did not wish to
see a judge mingling legislative with his judicial functions.
And with respect to evidence, a judge would have his legal
notions constantly outraged by having that kind of evidence
brought before him to prove cases of bribery at elections,
which he would not listen to in one of the Courts of West-
minster Hall. When it was also considered that a judge so
placed, would have to enter into all the bustle and turbulence
of a committee-room, and would be subjected to the influence
of all the bad passions of a contested election, he put it to the
House whether it would be right to drag the pure ermine of
the judicial robe through so much filth. They were now in
the month of August; it would be much better to wait till

February ; and the Noble Lord might then come forward with
some matured proposition on the subject. If such a tribunal
as that proposed by the House of Lords were established, it
might prove wholly inoperative By Mr. Pitt's India Bill, a
similar tribunal was instituted for the trial of offenders in In-
dia. That tribunal had existed for above forty years, dur-
ing which time there had certainly been offenders, but not
a single trial by that tribunal had taken place. He hoped,
therefore, the Noble Lord would relinquish all further proceed-
ings this session.
Mr. HARDY thought the Bill, as amended by the House
of Lords, ought not to be passed. .
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, with reference to what
had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin,
that no disfranchisement bill ever could, or ever did pass the
House of Lords without witnesses being examined at the bar of
that House. If it were the opinion of the House that the Lords'
amendments to this Bill were too important to be agreed to
without more consideration than it was practicable to give to
them at present, he would not oppose the motion made by the
Hon. Member for Bridport.—( Hear, hear.) During the re-
cess he would endeavour to prepare a measure that should be
more full and satisfactory.
The amendment proposed by Mr. WARBURTON was agreed to.
FINES AND RECOVERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Mr. LYNCH, the Fines and Recoveries
(Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES' BILL.
Mr. LANGDALE moved the third reading of the Roman
Catholic Marriage Bill.
Lord A L THORP stated that it was the intention of his
Majesty's Government to take the subject of the marriages of
Dissenters generally into consideration, and to submit to the
House at the earliest possible opportunity, a general measure
on that subject. He hoped, therefore, that the Hon. Member
would relinquish this particular measure, as the object of it
would be more advantageously comprehended in a general
8i11.._( Hear. )
Mr. HUME expressed his satisfaction at what had fallen
from the Noble Lord, and entreated his Hon. Friend to
comply with the Noble Lord's suggestion.
Mr. WILK S was extremely happy to hear the eommuni-
cation which had been made to the House by the Noble Lord.
But however great the grievances of the other classes of Dis-
senters on the subject of marriages, he thought those of the
Roman Catholics still more severe. Upwards of twenty
thousand Roman Catholic marriages would probably take
place in the course of the year, and unless some legal measure
were adopted to guard against such an evil, the whole of the
children born from those marriages would be bastardised, and
the women thrown into the workhouse.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM said a few words which we were
unable to hear.
Mr. O'CONNELL observed that the measure would be of
the utmost importance, not only to the English Catholics, but
also to a large proportion of Irish Catholics residing in Eng-
land. It was impossible to induce the lower classes of Irish
Catholics to be married by Protestant clergymen. They
would be married by their priests. The consequence was that
in the course of five or six years, the woman becoming rather
old, the man sought some other female. The marriage was
declared illegal, the children were bastardised, and the unfor-
tunate wife thrown into a workhouse like a criminal. Al-
though, therefore, he hoped his Hon. Friend would not press
the Bill now before the House, he also hoped that his Majesty's
Government would see the urgency of the case, and would
adopt, without delay, some measure for meeting it.
Dr. LUSHINGTON admitted the existence of the evil
described by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin ; but
also thought that the remedy for it would be more advan-
tageously comprehended in the general measure, which his
Noble Friend had stated it to be the intention of his Majesty's
Government to introduce.
Mr. LANGDALE wished to be guided by the sense of the
House. It was with reluctance that he had originally taken
up the subject, from feeling his own inadequacy. But he had
'been stimulated by a sense of the various evils which existed
at present, and of the urgent necessity of putting an end to
them. It had been asserted that he had brought forward this
Bill against the sense of the Catholic clergy in this country.
Now, not only was that not the case, but he had not advanced
a single step in it without previously consulting the highest
Catholic authorities. His own opinion was, that if the House
agreed to the Bill under consideration, they would facilitate
the Noble Lord's intentions respecting the measure which
should comprehend Dissenters' marriages generally. But upon
the whole, and desiring to conform to what appeared the wish
of the House, he believed he should best consult the interests
of those whose cause he had advocated, by withdrawing the
Bili for the present Session.—( Hear, hear. )
After a few words from Mr. TENNYSON, who considered
that the Hon. Gentleman, in deferring the measure, was acting
most judiciously, the Bill was withdrawn accordingly.
COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
The Bill was read a third time and passed.
CINQUE PORTS PILOT BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. HUME said he was sorry to see an important interest
legislated for in this partial and unsatisfactory manner. There
was no subject which more deserved the serious attention of
the Government, as a general measure, and he could not but
consider it a reproach to a country so eminently naval, that it
had not been long since legislated for in a comprehensive man-
ner. He trusted that during the recess, Government would
appoint some individuals, of competent knowledge and impar-
tial minds, to look into the subject, with a view to its being
properly entertained by that House during the next session.
Mr. HERRIE S deprecated the Bill, which was founded
on wrong principles.
Sir T. TRO LIBRIDGE defended it, and said that the
principle was in direct accordance with the recommendations
contained in the voluminous reports which had been presented
to the House. The object of the Bill was not to injure the
boatmen, but to facilitate the putting on board of pilots on the
whole homeward-bound trade of the country.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAL COMB said the ruin of the Dover and Deal
boatmen, was involved in the principle asserted in the Bill.
He should therefore move, by way of amendment, that it be
read a third time that day six months.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG would not oppose the Bill. At the
same time he was sorry it bad been brought forward, as he
looked upon it as a small isolated portion of a great and im-
portant question.
The Amendment was withdrawn, and the Bill read a
third time.
On the question being put that the Bill do pass,
Mr. G. F. YOUNG proposed to add a clause by way of
rider, to extend the exemption from pilotage to British con-
stant traders not exceeding 200 tons burthen, between the
ports of Boulogne and the Scaw inclusive, inward and out-
ward bound, and whether entering the Thames by the North
or South Channel.

Mr. HUME considered that they ought not to entertain
such important subjects on the question that the Bill do pass,
and at such an extremely late period of the session.
Mr. MANGLES supported the clause.
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES would not oppose it, seeing
that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board
of Trade, acquiesced in it.

After a few %cads from Mr. P. TIIOMSON, the clause was
agreed to.
The Bill then passed.

The Report on the Consolidated Fund Bill baying been
brought up,
Mr. HUME intimated that on the motion for the third
reading of the Bill (this day), he should take the opportunity
of making some observations with respect to the finances of
the country.
On the motion that the Post Roads (Ireland) Bill be read
a third time,

Mr. O'CONNELL moved the addition of a clause, to the
effect that the trust of a certain line of road between Cork
and Tralee should not be excluded from the provisions of the
Bill.

After a brief discussion, in which Mr. O'REILLY, Mr. CAL-
LAGHAN, and Mr. LITTLETON, took part, the motion was agreed
to, and the Bill was read a third time.
The Creditors (Scotland) Bill was read a third time.
NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS.
On the motion of Lord A L THORP, the House went into
Committee on the Sessional Addresses.
Mr. HUME called the attention of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to the bad accommodation afforded to Hon. Mem-
bers in the House. The pestilential air, and the inconvenient
posture in which they were obliged to sit, in consequence of
the want of room, must have a most prejudicial effect upon the
strongest constitution. He really could see no objection to the
erection of a more suitable building. He observed that new
barracks and other public buildings were erecting in various
parts of the town, and surely the Members of that House were
entitled to similar attention. If they had a place fitted for
in Hon.
the purposes for which they assembled, those disturbances at
the lower end of the House which frequently interrupted the
proceedings Gentlemen,
Iwv would d
couldnotn
takeo
t obtain
place.bt
seats
The
fact was,that
the body of the
House, were unable to hear ; and the consequence was, that
they became tired by a long debate, and indulged in noisy con-
versation or cries denoting their impatience. It should be re-
collected that since the passing of the Reform Bill a greater
number of Members were in the habit of attending their duties
than before that important change ; and therefore there was a
more pressing necessity for enlarged accommodation. Many Hon.
Members were now prevented from giving strict attention to
the proceedings of the House ; and those who did persevere in
their attendance were almost incapacitated from repeating
their labours in a following session. There was not a single
public body which was not provided with a better building ;
and even the accommodation for the parish authorities in
Marylebone was princely as compared to that afforded to
Hon. Members. Under all these circumstances he trusted
that the Noble Lord, now that he was relieved from the con-
sideration of other important matter, would give his attention
to the subject with the determination to remove the inconve-
nience which had been felt and complained of by so many
Hon. Members.

Lord AL THOR P said that if it was the general wish of
the House that some steps should be taken, the Government
would be bound to consider the subject, but he certainly did
not think that they ought to discuss such a question, unless a
large number of Members were present.—( Hear, hear.) It
was indeed desirable that the business of the House should be
conducted in a manner most convenient to Hon. Members,
and he would admit that considerable inconvenience was expe:
rienced when there was a very full attendance. But, in his
opinion,
what they ought to look to, was the accommodation
given to the ordinary number of members who were present ;
and they ought also to consider whether, if the House were
too large, it would not be more inconvenient than it now was.
But, as he said before, the great objection was, that they ought
not to consider the subject in the last two or three weeks of the
session, when so few Hon. Members were present.

Colonel DAVIES supported the suggestion of the [Tom
Member for Middlesex.

Mr. WARi3URTON said, that besides the want of sitting