The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1835.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock

THE LONDON GAZETTE

THIS EVENING.

WAR-OFFICE, MARCH 13, 1835.

I2th Ragiment of Foot.—Assistant-Surgeon T. F. Cotton, from
the 14th Regiment, to be Surgeon, vice Orton, deceased, March 13.
13th Foot—Ensign G. A. Tytler to be Lieuteuant, by purchase,
vice Bolton, who retires; R. H. Yea, Gent., to be Ensign, by
purchase, vice Tytler, March 13.
14th Foot—Staff Assistant-Surgeon H. Drummond, M.D. to
be Assistant-Surgeon, vice Cotton, promoted in the 12th Regi-
giment, March 13.
„ . _ _

19th Foot—Surgeon J. Wyer, from the 74th Regiment, to be
Surgeon, vice Waterson, who has received a commutation,
March 13.

tllth Foot—Ensign and Adjutant T. Hodgetta to have the rank
of Lieutenant, March 13.
34th Foot.—Lieut. W. Colt to be Captain, by purchase, vice
Thompson, who retires; Ensign E. Heathcote to be Lieutenant,
by purchase, vice Colt ; J. Simpson, Gent. to be Ensign, by pur-
chase, vice Heathcote. March 13.

•13d Foot—Lieut. J. T. W•Jones, from the half-pay Unattached,
to be Lieutenant, vice W. G. Bvam, who exchanges. March 13.
511 d Foot—Lieut. S. R. Streatfield to be Captain, by purchase,
vice Heathcote, who retires; Ensign B. Palmes to be Lieutenant,
by purchase, vice Streatfield ; Gentleman Cadet G. Campbell,
from the Royal Military College, to be Ensign, by purchase, vice
Palmes, March 13.
_ _ _

56th Foot.—H. D. Crofton, Gent:, to be Ensign, by purchase,
vice Burnall, who retires, March 13.

pith Foot—Lieut. A. B. Baxter, from the half-pay 43d Regi-
ment, to be Lieutcnent, vice Spence, appointed to the 89th Regi-
ment, March 13.
62d Foot—Ensign R. A. Shearman to be Lieutenant, by pur-
chase, vico D'Anvers, who retires; T. K. Scott, Gent., to be
Ensign, by purchase, vice Shearman, March 13.
64th Foot—Ensign W. Lucas to be Lieutenant, by purchase,
eice Peaeocke, who retires; A. B. Parker, Gent., to be Ensign,
by purchase, vice Lucas, March 13.

-67th Foot—Staff Assistant Surgeon E. H. Blakeney to be As.
sistant Surgeon, vice Cumming, promoted in the 74th regiment
March 13.

74th Foot—Assistant Surgeon A. Cumming, from the 67th re.
giment, to be Surgeon, vice Wyer, appointed to the 19th regiment
March 13.

DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY.
JOSEPH HORSLEY ELLIS, timber merchant,_ Southampton,
JOHN SHRIMPTON WILSON, coach proprietor, Agnes.
place, Waterloo-road.
WILLIAM WILLIAMS, shopkeeper, Panteague, Monmouth.
shire.

BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED.
WILLIAM OKILL, share-broker, Liverpool, from March 24,
to April 11, at one at the Clarendon Rooms, Liverpool.
BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED.
JOSEPH BAILEY, cattle•dealer, Sparsholt, Hants.
JOHN PIIILLIMORE HICKS and CHARLES EDWARD
HICKS, clothiers, Eastington, Gloucestershire.
JAMES DICK' SSON, laoe manufacturer, Nottingham.
JAMES LE COUTEUR, woollen-draper, St. Peter's Port,
Guernsey.

BANKRUPTS.
HENRY ROWED and JOHN WILLIAM GRENE-
SHIELDS, tailors, New Bond-street.
JOHN PHILLIMORE HICKS and CHARLES EDWARD
HICKS, clothiers, Eastington, Gloucestershire.
FREDERICK SANDON, druggist, Newgate-street.
JOHN PENN, bookseller, Leamington, Warwickshire.
JOHN SMITH, surgeon, Oxford.
DAVID ROBERTS, draper, Pwllheli, Carnarvon.
THOMAS BUMPAS, jun. grocer, Northampton.
JOHN NORMAN, innkeeper, Staffordshire.

BANK OF
AVERAGE of the LIABILITIL
ENGLAND, from the 16th Deem.
published pursuant to the Act, 3 am
LIABILITIES.
Circulation t;18,311,000 Securities C 26,657,00
Deposits

ENGLAND.
S and ASSETS of the BANK o:
Iber, 1834, to the 10th March, 1635,
-Id 4 W. 4, cap. 93, sec. S.
ASSETS.

£30,592,000
Downing-street, March 12, 1835.

£33,193,000

EXPRESS EDITION.

THE PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took took his seat at Five o'clock,
having sat before to hear appeals.
Mr. CAMPBELL (from the East India House) presented an
account of the compensation proposed to be granted to certain
officers, late of the Hon. East India Company's service.
Lord LONGFORD took the oaths and his seat.
CHESTER CRIMINAL COURT'S BILL.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER called the attention of
their Lordships to certain clauses in this Bill relating to the
expenses of executions and burials, which he thought pressed
rather hard upon the city of Chester. He therefore proposed
that the third reading of this Bill should be deferred until
Monday next.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was no new
charge thrown upon the city of Chester, and he saw no reason
for postponing the third reading of the Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

ECCLESIASTICAL REFORMS.
Lord BROUGH AM took an opportunity of referring to
certain votes in the House of Commons on the revious night,
relating to the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in
matters of tithe, and other motions respecting Ecclesiastical
matters, of which he could only be cognizant by looking into
the paper. He did not feel on the part of their Lordships
the least degree of jealousy of the other House, nor had he the
smallest objection to this proceeding, because he believed they
would exercise their power in a judicious manner; at the same
time he thought that nothing should be done which was not
founded on the report of the Ecclesiastical Commission of
1831-34. That commission was composed of men of the
highest talent and capability, who, after a patient investiga-
tion, furnished a report which, for learning, the soundness of
its views, and the correctness-of its conclusions, could not be
surpassed by the report of any other Commission. This was not
the first time he had panegyrized that report, for he did so in 1831.
Such opinions he still entertained on the subject. In conse-
quence of the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—on
which Commission was his Honourable and Learned Friends
(Sir J. Nicholl and Dr. Lushington), who assented to that re-
port, he (Lord B.) deemed it to be his duty to have Bills pre-
pared with a view to carry into effect the recommendation of
that Commission. Accordingly the Bills were prepared—six
several Bills referring to the six several subjects embraced in
the report were prepared, for the reason that some might ap-
prove one Bill and some another, and with a view to separate
matters relating to such multifarious topics, that otherwise
might have been combined in Bill. An objection, however,
was made to this separation, and after the six Bills were pre-
pared, in consequence of a further recommendation from the
Commissioners, which he was bound in deference to attend to,
he consolidated the six bills into one, and brought it before their
Lordships on July 12, 1833. They ordered it to be printed,
and it was precisely similar to that introduced into the Commons
last night. The title of the Bill was, " An Act to Consolidate
the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of England and Wales." The
title of that introduced last night into the other House of
Parliament confined it merely to England, although lie
hoped it was intended to be extended to Wales also.
It also proposed to enlarge the powers of', and to consolidate
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of England. That was the only
distinction. The third Act was one for the consolidation of
the jurisdiction, and to alter and amend the laws in cer-
tain matters ecclesiastical; and another was for the better
discipline of the clergy. The Bill, it would consequently
appear, had in view precisely the same objects. The Bill that
he ( Lord B.) had the honour of bringing under their Lord-.
ships' attention was not proceeded with—it was read only a first
time. At that time their Lordships would recollect that there
was a Bill in their Lordships' House relative to the East
India Company's Charter ; another relative to the Emancipa-
tion of the Slaves in the West Indies ; another, as to the Irish
Church ; and three or four law bills of great importance, all of
which were sufficient for them to
.get through this session.
On account, therefore, of the great importance of the business
they bad to do, he recommended that the Bill should stand
over till the next Session. He stated that there were two sub-
jects embodied in that Bill, which ought not to have been
introduced in it. The one was respecting faculties, and the
other as to the power of accommodating his Majesty's sub-
jects in churches ; but, in deference to the recommen-
dation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, lie yielded.
That Bill was then brought in for the first time, and ordered
to be printed, but never proceeded with for the reasons before
stated. In the Session of 1834, the opinion and assistance of
a learned person (Sir H. Jenner) was obtained, and a new Bill,
leaving out the rate clauses, and remodelling, if not entirely omit-
ting the clause respecting the law of real and personal estate,
was directed to be framed while he (Lord B.) held the Great
Seals, and was in the course of being framed, and would have been
at once presented to Parliament in the beginning of this session.
As it was impossible for them to tell what would be the fate of
the Bilt in the other House, there could be harm in re-
assuming their own measure ; and he should therefore
present it to their Lordships in the shape in which he held it
ought to be presented. He should not of course press any pro-
ceeding until he saw that the other Bill wat not likely to
come up. lie intended to leave out everything respecting
church rates, as that was not a fit subject for their Lordships,
because it related to the levying of money. The reasen he
had asked their Lordships to omit those clauses was, that an
Hon. and Learned Friend of his, the Member for Edinburgh
( Sir John Campbell) had brought in a Bill in the other
House of Parliament addressed to this very subject,
but that Bill did not profess to proceed on the
two Bills which he had now stated the title of to their Lord-
ships. and which were brought in last night by the Attorney-
General—that Bill did not profess to proceed upon the ground
of the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or
their Report. There was an unfortunate conflict of opinion
between the Ecclesiastical Commission and the Commission
on the law of real property. The Ecclesiastical Com-
mission took one view of some points, and the real property
Commissioners, one of whom was the late Attorney-General,
( Sir J. Campbell) took an opposite view of some of these
points. He agreed in the main as to sonic of the most ma-
terial ; among one was that of extending the statute of frauds ,

from devices of reality to bequests of personality. The
Commissioners of real property proposed making some
very extensive alterations in the law, to which the other
Commissioners had not directed their attention--( Hear. )
That being the case, he should wish to have an oppor-
tunity of bringing in a measure founded on those clauses
mentioned in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
he should wish to have an opportunity of seeing and consider-
ing the Bill brought into the other House of Parliament, not
founded on the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissions, but
founded upon the report of the real Property Commissioners.
With that view he should present the Bill with those new
alterations. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a
first time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not rise for the pur-
pose of obje,etiog to the Noble Lord's proceeding with his
Bill, but to enter into some explanation of the circum-
stances to which the Noble and Learned Lord had referred.
The Commission to which the Noble and Learned Lord
had alluded, was a Commission issued by the Govern-
ment of the Noble Lord. ( Hear, hear.) He agreed
with the Noble Lord, as to the merits of the individuals
who composed that commission, and also as to the merits of
their Report. That Report was made about three years ago,
and he believod that Report had been preferred and laid on
their Lordship's Table, although it had never been printed, or
at all events not circulated. He had made enquiry respecting it.
He believed that another Bill had been prepared, and very
considerably advanced; indeed, that it had been sub-
mitted to the consideration of Sir H. Jenner and Sir
J. Nicholl, when it was submitted to him it appeared to his
mind to be an extremely desirable measure. He con-
sidered that he had taken the proper course respecting
it—he wrote to the late Attorney General, asking him whether
he intended to bring in that Bill to the other House—that
Hon. and Learned Gentleman in :reply said he considered
the bill to belong to the Government. He (the Lord Chan-
cellor) then had some communication with Sir H. Jenner and
Sir J. Nicholl, and the result was that in his opinion the bill,
as it embraced two or three propositions, should be brought in in
so many different bills. Should the Bills, or either of them,
be thrown out in the other House, or should they come up in
such shape as to be disagreeable to their Lordships, then it
would be quite competent for the Noble and Learned Lord to
proceed with his Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had not the least objection to
postpone his Bill upon such grounds. It gave him very great
pleasure to hear what had fallen frcm the Noble and Learned
Lord relative to the real p.operty Commissioners. His opinion
was exactly the same upon that question, which gave it the
more weight, as they had not the slightest communication upon
the matter.

In answer to a question from the Duke of CUNIBERLAND,
Lord BROUGHAM said the diffetence between his 13i1
and that of the House of Commons was, that the latter con•
tained noting about church-rates and wills.

other parishes where such was not the case. They had drawn
up a memorial complaining of such a course to the Commis-
sioners of the Poor Law Bill, but the memorial had been
neglected, and they were thus obliged to abide by the
decision of the Commissioners that the arrangement was
to be carried into effect, and that this parish was to be
united with eighteen others, whereby those other parishes
would take the advantage of this parish, which as he had be-
fore observed, was enabled to maintain its own poor. It would
appear that this particular district was not like many others in
the neighbourhood ;—there were many landed proprietors and
gentlemen residing there who employed the poor, and conse-
quently reduced the demand on the inhabitants, as well as in-
creased the comfort of their labourers. They, therefore,
loudly objected to having the poor of other parishes forced on
them, which would have the effect of reducing them to the
greatest distress. There was, however, one part of the Bill
of which they loudly complained, inasmuch as by its provisions
wives might be sent to one workhouse and husbands-to another.
If this were to be generally acted upon, he (the Noble Marquis)
was convinced it would create the greatest discontent through-
out England, and he begged most loudly to protest against
such an act of injustice. He had communicated this fact to
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, and he earnestly called his attention to it,
for it appeared that the Poor Law Commissioners had apower
superior to the Secretary of State himself.
Major BE A UCLERK said he did not object at the time of
the discussion on the Poor Law Bill to this power being granted
to the Commissioners, but he considered that it was a
most unjust proceeding to force the poor of one parish on
the industrious of another. lie hoped his Majesty's Ministers
would take the subject into consideration, as many districts with
which he bad acquaintance had complained to him of this pro-
eeeding,--many of them declaring that they would rather
die than go to a worklusnse.
Mr. WILKS considered that every parish in the country
was under great obligations to the Noble Marquis for having
brought forward the petition. They wers: told that this parish
supported its own poor.—( Hear, hear.) Wni, then, should
there be any interference with an arranffemei:!; which
was satisfactory to all parties ? It was too bad that suet: an
arbitrary power should be placed in the hands of people, by
whom it was so much abused. He hoped the House would
take the subject under consideration.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. POULTER presented a petition for the better ob-
servance of the Lord's Day.
Sir MICHAEL S. STEW ART presented two petitions
from Greenock and Lochwinoch, for the protection of the
Church Establishment in Scotland.
Mr. J. MAXWELL presented a petition from 1,700 hand-
loom weavers of Glasgow, complaining of want of employment,
and pray ingrelief.
Captain PEC HELL presented a petition from the inn.
keepers and licensed victuallers of Brighton, complaining of
the additional tax imposed upon them by the License Bill of
last Session. They also prayed to be relieved from the respon-
sibility of making good the property of visitors which might
be lost in their houses.
LICHFIELD SELECTION.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from an individual whose
name we could not learn, which stated that he had entrusted it
to the Hon. and Learned Member for Chester ( Mr. Jervis)
complaining of an undue return for the city of Litch-
field, with the understanding that it should be presented
on the last day allowed for that purpose. That the
Honourable Member had presented it upon the 6th instant,
and the petitioner having been out of town was unable to per-
fect the securities within the limited time. The question then
was, whether the petitioner had been deprived of his right by
his own negligence, or by that of an Hon. and Learned Member
of that House ? If the latter had been the case, he (Mr.
Hume) was satisfied that the House would not deny the peti-
tioner an opportunity of perfecting his securities.
Mr. C. W. WYNN hoped the House would not listen to such
an excuse as that urged by the petitioner in the present instance.
The parties complain that they bad not time to enter into the
recognizances, but he did not think that under the circum-
stances, the House, without notice, should go into the matter.
Would not the better plan be to bring the matter again under
the notice of the House ?
Mr. HUME agreed, and svould do so on Monday. -
Mr. Sec. GOULBURN trusted that as the petitioners
had most clearly violated the Act of Parliament, the House
would not allow them now to come and succeed in such an ap-
plication, because it was alleged that a Member of that House
had not acted according to the instructions he received. If so,
they would open too wide a door, and set their own rules at de-
fiance. It appeared that the petition in question was entrusted
to an Hon. Member, with instructions not to present it till the
10th, which was the last day for receiving such petitions—but
that the Honourable Member had presented it on the 6th,
and they complained that they were not aware that the
time for entering into the recognizances had come—but
the votes of the House were published and it ought to
be known to every one. He considered it would be very im-
politic to open the question afresh.
Mr. HUME said the parties in question never saw the votes,
and did not know any thing of what had passed relative to
their petition. He trusted that the House would not punish
any one because of the forgetfulness of any Hon. Gentleman.
Sir J. CAMPBELL said he believed there were many pre-
cedents for extending the time to parties in such circumstances.
As to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Secretary relative
to the votes—it was well known that the votes were printed for
the convenience of the House, but they were not supposed to
get into the hands of the public. It was clear the parties in
this case had not the means of knowing their time, and there-
fore would it not be better to allow further time for the consi-
deration of the matter ?

The'SPEAKER said, that if the mistake had been com-

mitted by an agent, it would not be a ground for a party
to apply to that House ; and the circumstance of the person
making the mistake being a Member of that House, and not
an agent, did not alter the case.
Mr. HUME said, that as the opinion of the Speaker was
against allowing further time, he felt it his duty to with-
draw the petition.
The petition was accordingly withdrawn.
CONFIDENCE IN HIS MAJESTY'S MINISTERS.
Mr. HUME said he bad received a petition this morning
from Leicester, stating that the petitioners had received with
much pleasure the decision of the House upon the
choice of Speaker.—( Loud cheering and laughter.)
And next to the announcement of the election of the

Right Hon. Gentleman—(renewed cheers and laughter
from the Ministerial benches)—that they had felt most grati-
fied by the adoption of the Amendment to the Ad-
dress—(tremendous cheering from the Opposition benches)—
in reply to his Majesty's speech. But while they felt this,
they could not but express their alarm and apprehension at the
tenacity with which his Majesty's Ministers—( Tremendous
cheers and laughter)—Mr. Hume repeated, they could not
but express their alarm and apprehension at the tenacity with
which his Majesty's Ministers clang to the offices of the
Government which they had so sur►:eptitiously obtained—
( Renewed cheering, which continued for some time)—
that they could not forget that the present Mink:l.ers had been
the most determined opponents of Parliamentary Reform, and
of all Municipal Reform—( Great cheers, and counter clieers
from the Ministerial benches)—that they had publicly avowt:s4
principles which they now for the sake of office deny, and
that their promises were mere hollow pretences to con-
ceal their determination to retain substantially all abuses.
The Petition was signed by upwards of 2500 persons, and it
humbly entreated the House to keep a vigilant and watchful
eye upon the measures that should be brought forward by his
Majesty's Ministers in order to secure those reforms in the insti-

tutioniof the country which were so essentially necessary,and not
to grant any supplies for a longer period than three months.
--( Cheers and laughter.) He entirely concurred with the
prayer of the petition, and he could assure the House that
in the whole course of his life, there never was anything he
so much regretted as the determination he had made last

night, of his' intention not to bring forward the motion he
had given notice of, which would have fulfilled the
prayer of the petition. ( Hear, hear, hear.) The
principal means by which that House could control the Mi-
nisters of the Crown was withholding the Supplies, and although
he agreed with the petitioners, he could not but think that the
House ought to have anticipated a petition like the present,
and taken the sense of its members as to whether Ministers had

or had not the confidence of the country.—(Hear, hear, and
loud cheers.) He trusted the time was not far distant

when the subject would be brought forward. He could only
again regret that circumstances had occurred to render it ne-

eessary for him to withhold his motion, but he begged it to be
understood that although it might appear that there was dis-

union among the reforMing side- of 7tfie House on many sub-
jects, still, upon all great points, they were united.—( Cheers.)
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
ELECTION PETITIONS.
Mr. S. RICE rose to resume the discussion, which had
been postponed the day before, respecting the letter from Mr.
Wallace relative to a petition against a return at the last elec-
tion, which bad been lodged with the clerk of the Crown Of-
fice in Dublin. He considered that there would be no objec-
tion to receiving this petition in the usual manner; and no
error or omission ought to debar any individual from the right
of petitioning. 'He would move that the discussion of
this subject be further postponed until Monday week, to give
an opportunity both to the Clerk of the Crown Office in Dub-
lin, and to the petitioner, to forward to that House further
particulars in the matter.
Mr. C. W. WYNN, after a few observations which were
inaudible in the gallery, read the regulations respecting 'elec-
tion petitions, from which it appeared that all :inch petitions
must be printed within 14 days, and be accompanied with a copy.
lie requested that the House would not allow a petition to be
stopped in its progress by any officer.
Mr. LEFROY said he would wish to call the attention

of the House on behalf of the Members for the city of Cork,
that the subject might be postponed from the 2d of April
until after the Assizes. There had been a question against
the validity of the election of the present Members. Seve-
ral persons had been summoned, most of them public of-
ficers, whose attendance would be required at the time
of the Assizes, which generally occupied about a fort-
night, and would therefore interfere with the attendance in this
House. If they were compelled to be brought over at the
date of the present petition, it would be attended with great
inconvenience to the parties summoned themselves, as they
comprised the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Town Clerks of the
city as well as a great expense to the petitioners themselves.
The Hon. Member contended that the same principle had been
acted upon in the case of a petition against the sitting Mem-
ber for Clonmel. He would remind the House that the duty
of the Clerk of the Crown was of a very multifarious and im-

portant nature, and that it would be quite impossible to procure
his attendance ; he therefore moved that the petition be taken
into consideration on some day after the Easter recess.
Mr. P. O'CONNOR denied that a case had been made
out by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite for postponing

the consideration of this petition. It was well known that no
Cork City Assizes lasted longer than three or four days.
Under those circumstances, he trusted that the House would
not suffer the rights of the petitionersao be interfered with.
No case had been made out for the postponement ; and with
respect to the attendance of witnesses, only a few of then,
would he required at the commencement of the sittings of the
Committee.

Mr. O'CONNELL said the Carlow case which had been
alluded to had been postponed for the purpose of accommodat-
ing both parties. There was no business done the day after
the ballot in such election petitions. The following day would
be a Saturday, so that if the case was stated, and one witness
examined, there would be sixteen clear days after the com-
mencement of the Assizes, to enable the other witnesses to
attend. So far as his experience went, he could corroborate
the statement of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, that
no Assizes for that city lasted longer than three or four days.
Mr. JACK SON said that although the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin was perfectly correct with respect to the
Assizes for the City of Cork, he had completely lost sight of
the business of the County of Cork.---( Hear.) He was sura
that the object of the petitioners was justice, but he was much
afraid that it would not be done if the prayer of the petition
was granted..

Mr. C. W. WY N N would not attempt to give an opinion
as to the duration of the Assizes. The Hon. Member's ob-
servations were almost inaudible in the Gallery, but we under-
stood him to say that he was opposed to the postponement of
the petition until after the recess. No circumstance connected
with any public officer should be permitted to cause such a
delay.
Mr. WARBURTON said it now appeared that the exa-
mination of the witnesses would not take place immediately
after the appointment of the Commission ; and Shat there were
sixteen clear days from the commencement of the Assizes.
Even admitting that the Assizes would last thirteen days,
Still there were three clear days for the witnesses to come
over. Could it not be arranged that the business of the citizens
might Le a little expedited ? Had not the Learned Ser-
geant opposite admitted that the criminal business seldom
lasted longer than five days ? It was his opinion that nothing
like a ease had been made out, and he thought that a very
dean case should be established before the House would in-
Cries of question.)
terfere.-..‘`
s. RIC,S thought that the grounds had been laid before
the House for postpCning the investigation of this petition to
so late a period. The:e were a great many other election
petitions to be taken into cousideration with which the present,
if postponed, would interfere.

. -
The motion was then agreed to.
on the motion " that the House do resolve into a Committee
of Supply."

IRISH CHURCH.

Lord J. RUS SELL said that it was well known to the

House generally that be had given notice of a motion of verygreat
importance for the 23d of March. He had to give his warm-
est thanks to the Hon. Member for St. Albans, for the hand-
some manner in which he had given up that motion entirely.
into his hands.—(Cheers.) At the time he gave that notice,
he was informed that the report of the Commisssioners would
be on the table of that House. He wished to ask the Hon. Bart.,
whether that report was likely to be on the table by that time,
for he had since been informed that such was not likely to be
the fact.—( Cheers.) He did not doubt for a moment
but that whenever such a report reached the Govern-
ment, it would at once be laid upon the table. He only
wished to say that on whatever day, whether on the
23d, or on some subsequent day, he should fix his motion,
he proposed to move a call of the House for that day.—
( Hear, and cheers.) He only wished to know whether
when the information he required would be offered, he would
be prepared to bring forward his motion either on the 23d or
any other day that would be fixed for convenience of all parties.
Sir H. HA RD INGE said that if the Noble Lord had in-
timated that he intended to put this question he shonld be pre-
pared to give him an answer as to date at which ho
expected the report—( Hear.) He could now only trust to
memory, and could state that some ago he made inquiries, and
was informed that the reporr would be made at the end of
March or the beginning of April--( Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") He would only say on the part of the Government
that they had not thrown any interruption or impediment in
the way of the Commissioners ; on the contrary, they had
shown every readiness to afford all the facility in their power.
When the report was received, the Noble Lord would be im-
mediately informed of it.
Lord J. RUSSELL—With regard to the answer he had
received, he begged to state that he had been informed by ene
of the Commissioners that there would be a report shortly
ready, but that there was also to be a general report.
He was informed, also by a Commissioner that some
of the Commissioners were not supplied by the Trea-
sury with funds to enable them to prosecute their inquiries.
If there was any delay, it was, he was sure, a delay of
form, but not of intention. Under the circumstances,
however, he wished to know the sense of the House on the
subject. At present it was his intention to wait till Monday.
In the meantime he would know the precise day to bring forward
the question, and then he would move a call of the House. If it
should be brought forward on an order day. He would move
an amendment that the House should go into a Committee of
the whole on the state of the Irish Church.
THE ADMIRALTY.

Sir E. CODRINGTON wished to ask the Noble Lord
(Ashley) if the Gallant Admiral now commanding the Ja-
maica station, and had been appointed a Lord of the Admi-
ralty,
received both salaries.
_ _ _

Lord ASHLEY said he was not entitled to both sala-
rises, and would not demand them.
Sir J. P. HERE SFORD could vouch for the Gallant
Officer that he would not receive it if it were offered to him.-...

(Hear.)
Sir GEORGE GREY said, whether he had received
two salaries or not, was not the question, but whether
he was not entitled to two for the last periods, becanse
in the event of his death his legal representatives would have a
legal right to sue for those two salaries.
THE NEW HOUSES. •
Mr. HALL wished to know from the Noble Lord opposite
whether it was intended to confine the plans for the new
houses to those submitted to the Committee by
Sir Robert Smurke, or whether it was intended to
throw it open to all architects, for if the former
course was intended to be pursued, he should submit a motion
to the House.—( Cheers.)
_ _

Lord G. SOSIE R SET.—Opinions had been expressed on
;he subject in the Committee, but it was impossible sor him
satisfactorliy to state what course was intended to be pursued
by the Committee.
Sir R. PEEL said that the report of the Commissioners
bad not been received. It was his impression they bad stated

it would be ready about the end of February.
Mr. BLACKBURN raid that it was in a state of forward-
ness, they were almost all printed, and the only obstacle was in
the form, as some places of small extent had not
been visited, and which he almost feared he should scarcely
be able to obtain. a report at all. This, however, did not
interfere with the principle of the Bill, as all the largets towns
had been all united, and the sports on them were complete.
Mr. PR YME observed that he was sorry this question had
not met with a more satisfactory answer, considering .the im-
'ortance of the question, and the great interest the public at-
tacr,OuAto it.
Sir::. PEEL said that every Member was certainly en-
titled to ab:c any question he pleased, and it was always his
intention to anywuhimas fully as he could.

Mr. P. THO.S:SON said he was anxious to know whether
intended proceeding with the estimates
the Right Hon. Bart.
this evening, or whether be was inclined to postpone them until
after April 2. when he hoped by that time the House and the
country would be put in posse,,sion of close reforms, both as
respected the Church, and this particular inquiry, which were
so anxiously looked for.
Sir R. PEEL said that he would bring forward the Esti-
mates as soon as possible; but he thought nothing was saved
by bringing forward such documents before the Government
had had time to do so in an accurate shape, and fit for prac-
tical purposes.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

SUPPLIES-MR. HITME'S MOTION.

Mr. Il UME said—the Right Hon. Bart. ( Sir R. Peel)
put a question to me last night respecting the motion of which )
had given notice. lam now able to state to the Right Hon. Bart.
that having consulted with my friends on this side of the House,
I regret to state that I find they do not concur with me in consi-
dering the question sufficiently decisive ; and I have therefore
been induced to postpone the determination I had come to
of opposing the Supplies, with the view to a subsequent mo-
tion, tending to show that this House has no confidence in his
Majesty's Ministers.
Sir R. PEEL—Is this, then, the motion of which the
Hon. Gentleman gave solemn notice some weeks since ?
(Loud cheers)—of which he found it incumbent on him to
give notice a week before.—( Repeated cheering.) I asked
the Honourable Gentleman, last night, if he meant to
bring forward his proposition of limiting the supplies ; and
he says he gave me a conditional answer. That conditional
answer was that the motion would be certainly brought on—
( Great cheering from the Ministerial benches)—either
by • himself or by some other Honourable Member. I now
ask the Honourable Member this question—whether the other
Honourable Member who was to have taken his place, has
also abandoned his intention ?—(loud cheers)—and whether
his motion of want of confidence in his Majesty's Ministers is
to be brought forward to-morrow?
Mr. HUME, as far as he was concerned, had no hesitation
in saying, that it would not; and although he considered that
granting limited supplies would be tantamount to a vote of
no confidence in Ministers, yet as his friends on that side
of the House thought that that would not be a decisive
indication of the opinion of the House, he had consented to
alter the course he intended to adopt.—( Cheers.)

Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to ask whether or not the
motion of which the Hon. Member had given notice was to
be brought forward to-morrow or not ?—(No, no.) If it
was not 'intended to bring it forward, he thought it but right,
after whet had taken place, that no time should be lost in
naming the day on which the motion would be made.—( Great
cheering.)
Mr. HUNIE said that if it rested with him, he should bring
it forward at the very first moment.