The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-19 00:00:00

with him, and have Ouch a stain of ingratitude imprinted
in his character.

Mr. F'ETRE said they were Justices of the Peace, under
the Indemnity Act, before the passing of the Bill.
Sir R. PEEL understood the Honourable Member for
Waterford to have stated that the English Catholics would
have been content with being made justices of the peace.
He (Sir R. Peel) might not be so eloquent as the Hon.
and Learned Member in his taunts, but he hoped they
would not prevent the English Members from doing their
duty. The Hon. and Learned Member spoke of the ragged,
shirtless beings; was that the way he spoke of the 40s. free-
hold.rs of Ireland ? He hoped that every one of the
forty-shilling freeholders entertained more enlarged no-
tions of civil and religious liberty than the Honourable and
Learned Member.

Mr. O'CONNELL begged to congratulate the Hon.
Member for Ilchester upon the defender who had stepped
forward to his aid on this occasion—a defender who had
kept him from his rights as long as he could, and who
bad at length conceded them to him voluntarily, and of
his own accord—that was to say, when he was com-
pelled to do so by the Irish people. He bad not said that
he wished the English Catholics to he nnenuncipited, but
what he said was, that the English Catholic Members
ho voted the other night against the forty-shilling free-
holders deserved to be deprived of the benefits of emanci-
pation. The Right Hon. Member for Tamworth wa•
possessed of a singular advantage with regard to this sub•
jec, for having been on both sides of the question, he was
enabled to speak with great facility on one side or the
other. There were politicians who, to keep office, ellen
wheeled about, and veered from one side to the other, and
y, t who were ready upon occasion to talk of principle. As
to the statearznts of the Hon. Member (Mr. Praed) he
(Mr. O'Connell) would be prepared on the proper occa-
sion to meet and to refute them.

Sir R. PEEL would not now go into the question whe-
ther or not he had veered about in politica for profit nr
for place—(llear)—but he would put it to the candour
and good sense of the House, whether the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had defended himself, by attempting
to divert the attention of the House by making an attack
on him (Sir R. Peel).—(Hear.) He agreed with the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that there were politicians
often destitute of principle ‘*(Cries of Hear, hear)—and he
would venture to add, that there were politicians who
scrupled not to keep a whole country in agitation, and
to prevent the return of tranquillity and prosperity
there, in order to promote tJselir own private and per-
sonal ends.—(Hear, leettr,) He would ask the House
if there was common sense in the position that Members
of Parliament, and those Members Catholic, should, on
account of their having given an independent vote, be de-
prived of their rights, and have a code of disabilities ap-
plied to them ? That was what the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman would do with them, if he had the power to do
so. He (Sir R. Peel) had seen in other countries men
professing principles of liberality like the Hon. Member,
and who, when they got into the possession of power, dis-
played such tyranny as had never been exhibited by the
greatest tyrants of ancient or modern times. He did not
doubt the sincerity of the Hon. Member to put his wishes
in execution, if he had the power to do so. When the
Hon. Member talked about the 40s. freeholders, did he
forget that he only proposed by his motion to give the
franchise to the 40s. freeholders in fee, who formed a small
portion of those 40s. freeholders to whose efforts the Hon.
Member attributed the restoration of his civil rights ? If
therefore, the Hon. Member for Ilchester could be accused
of ingratitude in reference to the 40s. freeholders, with
how much more justice would not the charge of ingratitude
lie against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who had ex-
cluded the great body of the 4.05, freeholders from the be-
nefits of his motion?

Mr. JERNINGHAM, while he gave the 40s. freehold-
ers of helm.' credit for the most prodigious effort., he
bad voted against their enfranchisement on general prin-
ciples.

After a few words from Mr. RUTHVEN in support of
the petitions, they were ordered to he printed.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the Shef-
field Political Union, praying that as comprehensive a mea-
sure of Reform should he given to Ireland as had been
given to England. The Right. Hon. Baronet, he observed,
bad said, that if he (Mr. O'Connell) were in power, he
would exercise that power against the rights of others.
That was a matter of prophecy, and the Right Hon.
Baronet was a bad prophet ; but the way in which others
had exercised power was a matter of history.
Colonel DAVIES presented a petition from the Wor-
cester Political Union, praying that a just and liberal mea-
sure of Reform should be granted to Ireland.
After a few words from Mr. ROBINSON in support of
the prayer of the petition, it was ordered to lie on the
table, and to be printed.
Mr. HUNT would take that opportunity to put a ques-
tion to the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
with regard to the Bank Charter Committee. He wished
to know from the Noble Lord, whether it was his inten-
tion to lay on the table of that House the evidence taken
b-fore that Committee? If it was not the intention of the
Noble Lord to do so, he (Mr. Hunt) begged to give no-
tice that he would on the earliest day possible move that the
Members of that Committee be exonerated from secrecy.
Lord ALTHORP said that, at present, it was not his
intention to lay the evidence before the Hnuse, as many
facts might come before the Committee which it would not
be proper to bring before the House or the public, and he
certainly did not think that the Members of the Commit-
tee should be exonerated from secrecy.
Mr. HUME would to-morrow move for a return of
the number of forgeries committed against the Bank of
England in regard to the funded property in its possession,
and would, on that occasion, present a petition from the
creditors of Marsh, Fauntleroy, and Co. complaining of the
Bank in that instance.

Mt. ROBINSON had a question to put to the Noble
Lord. A quarantine of 27 days was imposed in the port
of Genoa on all British shipping as soon as the cholera
broke out in this country, and a similar quarantine was
imposed on the French shipping when the cholera reached
France. In consequence, however, of the immediate re-
monstrance' of the French Consul at Genoa on the sub-
ject, the period of quarantine for French vessels was re-
duced to seven days. A similar remonstrance from t' e
English merchants was forwarded through the English
resident at Genoa, but it was unattended to. He wished
to know from the Noble Lord why that was the case ?
Lord ALTHORP was not aware of the circumstance
to which the Hon. Gentleman had alluded, and therefore
was unable to give any answer to the inquiry.
Sir F. BURDETT was anxious to know from his
Noble Friend, Lord Althorp, when he purposed to pro-
ceed with the Committee of Supply, as on that occasion a
question, connected with the supply of water to the me-
tropolis, would arise, and which had already been before
the House. Great inconvenience and expense in the
supply of good water had arisen in the metropolis, and
would continue until the question to which he had alluded
was settled, and it was most desirable that it should be
known when it was likely to came forward.
Lord ALTHORP was most anxious to press forward
the Reform measure, as it was of great importance that
the two Bills now before the House should be got rid
of, in order that the registration consequent upon them
might he proceeded with. Until these Bills were disposed
of, he (Lord Althorp) could not positively say the time
when the Committee of Supply would be proceeded with.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to ask whether the Govern-
ment bad abandoned the Irish Jury Bill, which had been
some time since disposed of by this House, or was it their
intention to press it?
Mr. STANLEY said that the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman had asked that question on a former occasion,
when be (Mr. Stanley) gave the only reply that he could
give, and which he now repeated,—namely, that his Ma-
jesty's Goveonment had no intention of abandoning the
Bill, on the contrary, he (Mr. Stanley) had within the last
few days requested his Noble Friend at the head of the
Home Department to press forward the Bill in the other
House of Parliament.

Mr. GOULBURN inquired when it was probable that
the Irish estimates would he brought forward.
Mr. STANLEY replied, that the estimates would be
laid on the table in the course of this day or to-morrow, but
it was impossible, at present, 14 him to say when they
would be moved in.

Mr. LEFROY begged to be permitted, before the order
of the day for the further consideration of the Irish Re-
form Bill was read, to present a petition upon that mea-
sure. The petition was that of the Protestant Co' oser•
vative Society of Ireland, suggesting several amendments
to the measure now before the House. Amongst others,
the petition suggested that the qualification should he a
301. instead of a 101. qualification, by which means the
franchise would he enjoyed by the same cla,s of persons
in Ireland as in England. The petitioners concluded by
praying the House to pass no measure of Reform that did
not contain the amendments proposed.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT objected to many of the pro-
positions contained in the petition, but particularly be
deprecated such a suggestion as that which sought to re-
quire, in a poor country, a franchise of 301., while, in
a richer country, the franchise was given to a 10/. house-
holder.

The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. LEFROY, on moving that the petition be printed,
was satisfied merely to remark, that the object of the peti-
tioners would be m t, if the measure was so modified as to

".~ r

t°