The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-13 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the chair at twenty-five minutes
past five o'clock.
Mr. HUTT moved for a return of the gross re-
ceipts of the Custom-house of Hull, for the year end-
ing the sth of January, 1834, disting the amount and
nature of the drawbacks.—Ordered.

Mr. GILL ON moved for a copy of the resolutions
entered into by the justices of the peace and commis-
sioners of supply for the county of Linlithgow, rela-
tive to the granting of licenses.
Mr. ROBARTS presented a petition from Maid-
stone against certain clauses in the Poor Laws' Amend-
ment Bill.

Mr. PINNEY presented a petition from a place in
Somersetsire against drunkenness.
Mr. R. SHAW presented a petition from Deben-
ham, praying for an alteration in the Church Rates'
Bill.

Mr. TOWER moved for a return of all grants of
any portion of forest or waste lands made for the use
and benefit of any parish to the commissioners of his
Majesty's treasury under the Ist and 2d William IV.
Ordered.

Mr. ROBIN SON presented a petition from the
Parish of All Saints, City of Worcester, in support
of the Established Church, and complaining of the
extent of demands made by the Dissenters.
Mr. COBB ET T gave notice that, before going
into Committee on the Poor Laws Amendment Bill
on Monday next, he should move a resolution to the
effect that, before any relief be granted in any parish,
an assessment be made equal to one-fourth the annual
amount of the revenues of the abbey lands and im-
propriate tithes of such parish.
Lord AL TH 0 R P wished to suggest some arrange-
ments respecting the business of the house. The
morning sittings of Tuesdays and Thursdays had been
approprieted to the committee on the Poor Laws Bill,
but he regretted to say little progress hed been made
at those during the present week. He would
not make a motion, but he asked the house
to add Wednesdays to the order days, and to allow
Government orders to take precedence on Wednesday
mornings.
Sir R. PE EL said that he had no objection
to such an '.rrangement as far as he was concerned ;
but he would take that opportunity of arguing
upon b's Majesty's ministers the necessity of fixing
days on which those important questions, the
University Bill, and the Irish Tithe Commuta-
tion Bill would be discussed. The anxiety
of the public respecting these measures could
not be exaggerated. The University Bill stood
for a second reading on Monday next, and he should
wish to ask the noble lord if he intended to bring it
forward that day.
Lord AL THORP certainly understood that it was
with the active concurrence of the house that the
course now pursued should be adopted. He under-
stood it was considered that the best mode of con-
ducting the business during the present session would ,
be to take one measure at a time. It was with this view
he had persevered in inducing the house to take into
consideration the Poor Laws' Bill as often as he could.
It would certainly be the most convenient mode that
the committee should be allowed to finish the Poor
Poor Laws' Bill before the house entered into any
other measure. There, necessarily, would be an
interval between the breaking up of the committee and
the re-consideration of the measure by the house, and
he had intended to take that interval in which to
bring forward the Irish Tithe Commission Bill.
(Hear, hear, hear.) At present, it was impossible
for him to pledge himself for any specific
day on which he might be able to bring forward the
measure.

Sir R. PE EL said that if the noble lord's intima-
tion amounted to this, that it would not be expedient
that one measure should be laid on the table until
another was disposed of (and that as in the present
instance) applied to measures of a very multifareous
nature. it would be impossible to form an idea when
the Irish Tithe Commission Billl might be brought
forward. For his own part he saw no reason why the dis-
cussion should not be introduced upon the principles
of this most important bill.
Lord ALT HO R P said a few words, which were
not heard.
Sir R. PEEL said that he believed the proposal
in the committee would be, whether certain clauses in
the measure brought forward by the government for
effecting certain alterations in the church of Ireland
should be omitted or not.
Sir E. KNACHBULL said that if the noble
lord's intention, or if the understanding of the house
was, that one single measure such as the Poor Laws'
Bill, should be finished before any other was entered
upon, he was afraid that those measures alone which
were in the hands of his Majesty's government alone
would receive any attention. However that might be,
he really thought the house ought to know what was
to be done next week. If business was to have Mon-
day, Wednesday, & Friday, there would only be two
days remaining for other business ; and he should be
glad then to be informed what the course intended to
be pursued during the next week was. What was to
become of the whole of the business that stood for
Wednesday for instance ? He himself had something
for that day. Was it to be postponed till the following
Tuesday, or was he to have no opportunity whatever
for bringing forward his discussion ?
Lord AL THORP was understood to say that those
Orders of the Day which stood for Wednesday next,
would be taken at the Morning sitting on Thursday.
Mr. GO ULBU RN objected to have such important
measures discussed in the morning. Private busi-
ness occupied the house every morning till one
o'clock, and there could not be a more inconvenient
mode of conducting the public business, than taking
of the time of the house in discussing them for two
days a week, and for two hours each day, such a mode
would render the debates interminable.
Sir J. SC ARLETT said that if it was the
wish of the house to banish all men of business, they
would do the public business in the morning. ( Hear,
hear.) It would be utterly impossible for him to at-
tend at the morning sittings, and he did not think
the alteration would be any improvemext. ( Hear.)
After a few words from Lord AL THOR P which
were wholly unintelligible,
Mr. O'CONNEL L said that the house was
already sufficiently infested with lawyers—(Loud
cries of " Hear,") to make it undesirable that anS
proceeding should take place, which should not be for
the accommodation of the public but the lawyers. It
was very extraordinary that any gentleman in that
house should think the attendance of lawyers, however
respectable, of more importance than the interests of
the people. He was of opinion that the house ought
to sit by day, and never would the public business be
well done till it was confinedwholly to day-time. There
was great inconvenience in night business, and a great
quantity of public business of great importance was
hurried through that house without sufficient consider-
ation, in consequence of the discussions taking place
in the night time. ( Hear, hear.) For both clients
and the house could not have the attendance
of the members who were lawyers. He was for
preferring the public, and leaving the clients by them-
selves. Let gentlemen consider that there were in that
house members from the remotest parts of Ireland and
Scotland, and who were there at a distance from 100
to 1,000 miles from their own residences, and there-
fore he did not think it was paying sufficient defe-
rence to those who came from distant parts to
say they were to sit up debating all night
for the convenience of those who lived near. He
and all the other Irish members who were
lawyers, were obliged to come here, there being
no other place at present to which they could be sent.
( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He hoped that before
they were a year older, a resolution would be
passed to the effect that they should do no business
at all by night. All other public bodies did their

business by day, and there Was no public assembly in
the world that did business over midnighl, except the
Dritish House of Commons, and sometimes a short
snatce of the Lords. ( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Sir J. SC ARL ETT never meant to view the ques-
tion as one personally to himself, and if the house were
to agree to sit during the day, the house would not be
merely fiilled with lawyers, but exclaiming Irish law-
yers. (Laughter.
Mr. ROBINSON said that no member knew from
one day to the other what would be brou,gl.li at in the
house, or what would not. ( or Hear, hear.,)
It would be only a
indulgence Tr.;,tter of ‘eourteaey that the utmost
snould be
.given to Wery hon. member
cons.'.dtent with duty, If any one were to look over
the notice-bee+, he would find 20 orders ofthe
wdaays,
and 20 notices of motions for every night, which
a ',lisgrace to any deliberative assembly. ( Hear,
hear, hear.) He would not mention any one in
particular, but as far as government were concerned,
they should bring forward their measures at an earlier
period of the session, because every member liked to
have an opportunity of deliberating upon them.
It was only last night that the Attorney General brought
in new bills ; he did not object to them, but he did
object to the time at which they were brought in, and he
he felt satisfied that not tenth of the business could be
got through during the present session. He thought
it uncourteous to hon. members—although he did not
mean to apply that term to the noble lord himseif, for
he thought, if any thing, the noble lord was
rather too courteous ( Hear, hear, hear), but it was
uncourteous on the part of government towards hon.
members to bring forward questions at such a late
period of the session.
Lord AI ORPET H complained that the noble lord
was charged by one party with bringing forward too
much business, and by another party with not doing
enough, ( Hear, hear.) He thought both charges
' were equally unfounded, because every measure must
go through certain stages before it can be passed into
a law. He was satisfied they never would be able to
get through the business of the house, unless some
hon. members would observe a little more abstinence,
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," in the number of ad-
dresses they felt it their doty to make to that house.
( Cheers.)
Lord ALTHORP said a few words in explanation.
He believed the Poor Laws Bill could not be brought
in sooner, and that little time had been lost since the
bill had been brought in.
After a few words from Mr. G. W. WOOD and
Sir E. KNATCHBULL against the proposition,
Colonel DA VIE S rose to bring forward the resolu-
tions of which he had given notice, that during the rest
of the session the house will on Tuesdays and Thursdays
proceed to orders of the day at the sittings between
twelve and three, in addition to the business already
appointed to be done at this meeting. And, secondly,
that orders of the house have precedence of petitions
on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The SPEAKER then put the question, that the order
of the day for the house resolving itself into a com-
mittee on the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill be read.
Lord ALTHORP rose, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 12.
RUSSIA-DUTCH LOAN.

Lord PA LM E RT S 0 N agreed with the hon. mem-
ber that if Russia had violated the stipulations of the
treaty with her she would have forfeited the con-
tinuance of the payment, and if the British go-
vernment had good reason to suppose that Russia
contemplated a violation, it would be their duty
to suspend any payment that was due till they
should have ascertained that Russia was pre-
pared to fulfil her engagements. Beyond that he
(Lord P.) did not agree with the hon. member, that
this was a case to authorize the British Government
to postpone, or refuse to make good its payment. He
could not therefore agree to the proposed restriction,
as that would imply a suspicion of the good faith of
Russia, and would express a condemnation of her
acts, which in his (Lord P.'s) judgment, they
did not deserve, and he would therefore move the
previous question. The hon. member (Col. Evans)
seemed to think that his convention had a wider
scope than it really had. And if he (Colonel
Evans) had not only attended to the words
but remembered the manner in which it was formed,
and the circumstances that led to it, he would then
have seen that it did not bear the extended application
which he ( Colonel Evans) was disposed to
make. What was the history of that convention ?
There was a difference of understanding upon the
subject of this convention between him (Lord Pal-
merston) and the hon. member for Westminster. He
( Col. E.) seemed to consider that there was a condi-
tion attached to a continued payment of sums stipulated,
applying to all the affairs of Europe of any period.
Now, in his opinion, it applied solely to the affairs of
Belgium ; it was quite obvious that this only
could be the fair construction put upon it. There had
been a former agreement between Russia and this
country by which this country was bound to make an
annual payment to Russia upon the continuance of the
union between Holland and Belgium. ( Hear, hear.)
As the house well knew, the separation of those
two countries had since occurred but not in the
manner contemplated by the framers of the con-
vention, and therefore he did not consider that
they could with good faith claim a complete
cessation of this payment. The separation between
Holland and Belgium had not taken place contrary
to the wishes of the British government, which
was a condition of the cessation of this payment.
The separation did take place between Holland and
Belgium, and he should say, moreover, the original
convention contemplated a separation of Belgium
and Holland by French invasion and by the force of
French arms. The separation did take place, and it
took place in consequence of internal differences be-
tween the northern and southern provinces. That
separation was sanctioned not by this government,
but by the five powers. The British government,
with a view to the preservation of the peace of
Europe, were most anxious that that separation
should take place, and that it should be sanctioned by
a general treaty. Therefore they felt they had but
one alternative, which was to continue their good
1 faith. That being the case, it formed an obvious scheme
for the interpretation of the conditions imposed on
Russia, and he had no hesitation in saying that if at any
time the Russian government endeavoured in any way
to undo the arrangement of the treaty of November,
1831, the government would be entirely released from
the payment, and would make that exception. Now
with regard to the particular case mentioned by the hon.
and gallant member, namely, the unwillingness of
Russia to unite with France against Holland. He
could not maintain that Russia, by refusing to concur
in that operation, had entitled government to sustain
the forfeiture. Russia declined having recourse to
that particular mode of operation, but she did not
say she would not carry into execution the treaty of
1831. She proposed other means of carrying that
treaty into execution. Having thus far answered the
observations of the hon. member, lie was per-
fectly ready to admit that if the case did arise
which was contemplated in his resolution, it would
be the duty of government to suspend the payment.
The question having been put,
Mr. HUME thought the motion was prema-
ture. He doubted very much whether Russia was
inclined to fulfil her engagements, although she
was bound equally with Great Britain to preserve the
integrity of Belgium. He repeated that Russia was
not fulfilling her engagements with this country, and
that the money which was to have been paid on the
faith of the fulfilment of these engagements should not
be paid. On the contrary, he believed it was to the
influence of Russia that the present unpleasant
differences existed between Belgium and Holland.
( Question.)
The question was then put, and negatived without
a division.