The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-06 00:00:00

Heusi) had been entertained with: e‘itracts of a speeli of
Jr.a O'Connell's, with 7.l.tir,p'ect to whose conduct the task
not devilve him to speak, nor was it a part w
his (Jut!, to criticise his tropes and metaphors.
(Laughter.) • The Noble Marquis had felt himsel'
hurt at the laughter which had taken plac-
e the House when he read that part of that speech, sup.
posing that it had been levelled against him ; he could
sure the Noble Marquis that a was entirelt mistaken on
tkit pint, but the parts of the speech he had s lected teen
of such a nature that it was impossible for the House to
refrain from laughing at V em. tt the House knew what
tf e of ject of the Niibte Marquis was in bringing forwarti
this motion, or the course of poiicy he wished to be pursued,
they were much more enlightened upon the sutoject than
lie (1... rd Plunkett) was. What were the fart,
which had been stated by the Noble Marquis?
Why that a person hail been cruelly murdered in the
county of Westmeath, and that the p rsons charged with
the murder had escaped because there was no evidence on
which they convicted. He had yet to learn that any man
in this country or in Inland c‘itild be prosecuted without
evidenee.

(LEFT SPEATAI:G.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

On the motion of Sir M. S. STEW ART, the Lags Har-
bour Bid was read a third time) end pawed.
Mr. TREVOR present '1 a ,petition from some place,
the name of which tve could not hear, against the Birming-
ham and Undor. Railway.
Mr. EVANS presented a petition from the leaseholders.
bankers, merchants, and traders of Leicester, in favour of
the Birmingham and London Rail-way.
Mr. BUCK presented a petition from the parish of
Exeter, against the Exeter Improvement Bill.
Mr. DIXON presented a petition from John Long, a
writer in Glasgow, praying he heard by Counsel agninst
the Bill for making a railway between Edinburgh and
Glasgow.; The Ron. Member then moved the third read-
ing of the Bill for extending the period for building the
additional bridge over the river Dee, at Chester.
On the motion of Mr. DuNnas, the second reading of
Morton's Patent Slip Bill was postponed until this day
week,

Qn the motion of Sir T. FREEMANTLE, the House
n'ent into a committee on Col. Clayton's Divorce Bill,
Sir G. CLERK in the Chair. Mr. Harrison appeared as
counsel for the petitioner. After eeveral witnesses had been
examined,

The House resumed, and the report was brought ❑p.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Vicar,
Churchwardens, and Trustees of St. Pancras Church,
3liddlesex, aliainst the Metropolitan Cemetary Bill.
Mr. HUME gave notice that he would move on Mon-
day for a return of the number of persons holding more
than one dignity or living, with the salaries attached.
A message from the Lords announced that their Lord-
ships had given concurrence to several private bills.
Colonel DAVIES moved for a return of the expenditure
of the colony of New South Wales, Van Dieman's Land,
during last year, on account of the transportation of con-
victs.

Mr. BURKE presented two petitions, most respectably
signed, against the pre,ent system of education in Ireland.
Captain GORDON bore testimony to the respectability
and importance of the petitioners ; they were of that class
of society which entitled their opit ions to the bighe,t
consideration.

Mr. TREVOR was sure, that however advantageous
were considered the general principles of education, unless
they were grounded upon true scriptural doctrine,, they
woulJ be of little importance. •
Mr. LEFROY, in supporting the petitions, called
the attention or his Majesty's Government particularly
to the fact, that not only was the feeling of England and
Ireland generally against this measure; but, what was more
extraordinary, the whole bench of Bishops, entirely so, as
a system ot religious instruction. He hoped this would
induce them to retrace their steps, and to leave the matter
as it was before, under the Kildare•street Society system.
Mr. RUTHVEN thought it was not placing the bench
ot Bishops in a very attractive attitude to introduce them,
as the Hon. Member below him had done, as the enemies
of general knowledge and instruction. He hoped, at all
events, that their exertions would not, if dir,cted i❑ that
way, be of any avail.
Mr. LEFROY had not represented the Bench of
Bishops as the enemies of education—he had only adduced
their opposition to this measure, as he had a right to do,
as a system of religious education, to prove that it was not
a system that should be sanctioned either by the Legisla-
ture or the nation.
NAVY CIVIL DEPARTMENTS' BILL.

On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, the House re-
solved itself into a Committee on this Bi'l, Mr. Bernal in
the Chair.

Sir G. COCKBURN begged leave to call the attention of
the Committee for a few moments to the principal tendency
of this measure. The Bill, as it was represented to them,
was framed for the purpose of giving more efficient con-
trout over the management of public expenditure in the
dad departments. His opinion of it was, that it would be
much more inoperative for this purpose, as it appeared,
than as the Boards were formerly constituted. If
an admission audit were applied to the former ac-
counts, a touch more efficient measure than that now
proposed would have been the result: The Hon-
ourable Member for Middlesex had stated on a previous
evening that, under the operation of this Bill, accounts
would at least be as efficiently managed as under the
former system ; but the principle of this measure, he
would remind the committee, was to make an improve-
ment. It was a favourite principle in the Finance Cem•
allure, that individual responsibility should be put on those
who were in charge ot the different departments, as that
was the only means of securing adequately their attention ;
under this system, however individual responsibility
was studiously taken away. The only person :men-
tioned in the Bill, and that for a particular purpose, was
the Accountant-General, and all the re poneibility that
was formerly afforded to the public would now be done
away with. What was to be substituted for it ? A Lord
of the Admiralty was to be placed over each of then).
To remedy the evils complained of, it would be much better
if the individuals that were intended to be placed at the
heads of the Departments were constituted into a
Board by themselves, having no distinct responsibility
fur the due execution of their duties. The auditing of ae-
ceunts which was proposed under this system was all a
pretence, to which he saw every possible objection. There
was no sufficient responsibility any where, and those per-
sons who had the controul were kept in the back ground.
He was sure if all the details were to be brought
officially to the Admiralty, had to °vet look
to ()ser look she whole, could not possibly do their
duty. If at this moment it were set to work, it could
not go on for any length of time, even in peace ; but
if a war took place, it would completely stand
'cid, unless, indeed, it were left to others than those chiefs
who were entirely irresponsible. The Board of Ordnance
was the Board which had been more particularly held
op as a pattern than any other Board. Where that
Board differed from the present was this.--in the Board of
Ordnance a chief of each department formed themselves
into a separate Board, and they had a chief over them—
;he Commander-in-General—and they were each respon-
sible, one to the other. The whole thing, therefore, might
be traced to the Comtnander-in-Chi.-1, who certainly had
his subordinate agents, hut who was responsible for the
whole. Here the principle ought to be the same—there
[ ought to be responsitile, instead of irresponsibk persons
appointed. With these observations of objection he had
prepared a proposition which, he thought, would meet the
vie..s he had been holding out to the Committee.
and which was to the effect, leaving out the greater part
of the clause as it now stood, that after the number
of persons were reduced an adequate number of ,persons
should be appointed to superintend respectively one of
the several branches into which the civil department of
the navy might be divided, such petsous together
to be assisted by a claimant to conduct the business of the
respective Boards, the whole to be subject to such arrange-
ments as the person holding the situation of Lord High
Admiral should from time to time direct.
Sir B. MARTIN, in seconding the Amendment, went
into detail to show the improper mode in which the pasted
ledger was made up; when be intended to move fur cer-
tain returns, the Secretary of the Admiralty wrote to
the Navy Board, to ascertain certain particulars up to the
let Oct. knowing that he (Sir B. Martin) left office on
the 15th Sept. as if for the purpose of showing that the
olame, if any, attached solely to him, and showing what
number of clerks, and what was the time which was
occupied by them.—(Heir, hear, hear.) Tne answer
of the Navy Board, completely removed all particle
.0
blame from the Navy Board, and placed it on the Admf-
ratty Board. By a paper which had been laid on the
table ot the House, it appeared that at the time wi.en the
Right Hud. Batonet stated there were large arrears, there
were no arrears at all. It was said that Lord Melville
nad effected a reduction in the Navy .vards' so as to have
lily an establishment of 6000 men.; that order, upon
cooking at it, signed by Lord Melville, instead of
:nakin4 such a reduction, did not apply to re.mce the
number of men hut to seduce the wages, and to cause
. the payment of what was called ship-money to cease,
rather than order the discharge of the ;nen. The Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Grabora) then required the re
duction to be made to 6,000 men, and to reduce to ex-