The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-18 00:00:00

TAX ON NEWSPAPERS.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a meeting
of the citizens of London and Westminster, praying for the
Repeal of Stamp Duties on Newspapers. The petitioners ex-
pressed their surprise at the budget, and the proposal to
reduce the duty on glass, and on licenses for gin shops,
instead of removing that tax which prevented the salutary
extension of political knowledge.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. BERNAL and others broiight up the Slavery Com-
pensation Bill; also the Savings Banks' Regulation Bill; also
the Small Debts Recovery Bill ; also the Scotch Reform in
Parliament Bill ; also the Offences in Ireland Bill ; also the
Consolidation of Government Offices in Ireland Bill ; also the
abolition of Corporation Sinecures in Scotland.

CORPORATION REFORM BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the borough
of Gateshead, in favour of the Corporation Reform Bill.
The Duke of CLEVELAND supported the petition.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a petition
from the city of Chester to the same effect. His Lordship
said the inhabitants called upon the Mayor of Chester to con-
vene a public meeting, who, in imitation of the unhappy Lord
Mayor of London, refused, but with as little success, for
the inhabitants met in spite of him, and the meeting was more
numerous than it would have been had he not followed such an
unfortunate example.--[hear.l The petition was signed by
2,000 persons.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved that all papers relative
to the Irish Church should be printed.
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions in favour of the
Corporation Reform Bill from Devonport, Ress (Hereford),
the freemen and citizens of Hereford, Alton ( Hants), South
Moulton ( Suffolk), from 600 inhabitants of Kilbridge (York-
shire), from Carmarthen, from Totness (Devon), and from
Sutton Coldfield. __ _ _ _ .

Lord LYNDHURST, in reference to the last petition,
had received a letter from a very respectable individual at
Sutton Coldfield, stating that the only member of the Corpo-
ration whose name appeared in the petition was not present at
the meeting at which it was agreed upon; and that
so far from a majority having adopted the petition, no di-
vision at all took place ; indeed, that all the allegations in
the petition were incorrect. This showed their Lordships the
necessity of scrutinizing very closely the character of petitions
of this nature.—( Cheers.)
Lord BROUGHAM said that the moral which his Noble
and Learned Friend had drawn from the letter he had re-
ceived was very good, namely, the caution that their Lord-
ships ought to exercise as to petitions ; and from the manner in
which their Lordships had received it they seemed disposed to
act upon the principle that King James the First, who was a
great favourite, no doubt, with many of their Lordships, had
laid down, namely, that it was always better to tlocide on hear-
ing only one side of the question ; because, when both sides
were heard it puzzled one how to decide.—( A laugh.) He
begged, however, on the side of the petition to ~;.11l their
Lordships' attention to the fact, that the petitioners, by put-
ting their signatures to the petition, had pledged themselves to
the House for the truth of its contents; and this, he con-
ceived, went fur•her than a private letter received by his
Noble and Learned Friend. It was clear that the letter al-
luded to a different meeting from that at which the petition
was agreed upon.
Lord LYNDHURST repeated that the letter particularly
stated that the only member of the corporation who signed this
petition was not at the meeting at all.
_Lord' BROUGHAM—Let me see your letter.
Lord L YND HURST— Yes, if you will let me have a
copy of your petition.
Lord BROUG HAM presented a petition also in favour of
the Bill from Wenlock, Liskeard, and Leith.

The Earl of RADNOR presented petitions in favour of
the Bill from Ashton-under-Line and Andover.

The Earl of W INCHIL SE A presented a petition from
the freemen of the city of Lincoln, praying to have their
rights and privileges protected, and also petitions against
the Municipal Corporations Bill from the Mayor and Corpo-
ration of Tenby, and from the Corporation and inhabitants of
Evesham. The Noble Earl said that he had another petition
of a very different character to present to their Lordships. It
was from the city of Dublin, and had been agreed upon at a
public meeting held there. The petition had reference to a
Gentleman who held an official situation in that city, and it
prayed for an address to the Crown that a Commission might
he issued to inquire into the grounds of the petitioner's com-
plaint. Although he felt it his duty to present the petition,
he by no means concurred in the prayer for a Commission, be-
cause so long as the Courts of Justice were open, he depreca-
ted the issuing of Commissions upon such subjects.
The Earl of D A RTMOUTH presented a petition from
the inhabitants of the town of Ongly against the Municipal
Corporations Bill.
The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON presented a petition
against the Bill, from some place, the name of which we could
not hear.

The Duke of CLEVEL AND presented a petition, nu-
merously signed, from the inhabitants and Corporation of
Darlington, in favour of the Bill, and praying that their
Lordships might pass it without delay, and without impair-
ing any of its essential provisions. With these two prayers
it was impossible that their Lordships could now comply, be-
cause they had already by the course they had pursued, most
improperly in his mind, caused great and useless delay at this
advanced period of the session ; and, as to not impairing any
of its essential provisions, although one-sixth part of the
Bill had not as yet been gone through in Committee, their
Lordship; had contrived to make alterations in it highly in-
jurious and detrimental, not only to the Bill, but to the
country at large. He had the misfortune of having a seat
in that House longer than any of their Lordships then pre-
sent, and during the whole of that time he had never- known
more indecency, more impropriety, or more irregularity in
their Lordships' proceedings than had occurred during the
progress of this Bill. lie should refrain from making any
observations upon the decision to which their Lordships had
come, although he could not but feel how highly detrimental to
the interests of the country and to the characters of re.
spectable individuals, who had been involved, it was to hear
such exparte evidence as that taken at their Lordships' bar,
and without giving those honourable men who had been
thus attacked an opportunity of exculpating themselves. It
was with great surprise and son,e little indignation that lie
heard a Noble Duke opposite hold out a threat of impeachment
against the first Minister of the Crown, and also threaten to
divide the House upon the question of going Committee
on the Bill, neither of which threats, however, +lin Noble Duke
thought proper to persevere in. The Noble Duke, also, had
made a statement that he had voted against the repeal of the
Test and Corporation Acts, against the Catholic Ra;ief Bill,
and against the Parliamentary Reform Bill. He confessed
that he heard those assertions from the Noble Duke with some
astonishment, although, perhaps, he ought not to be astonished
at the Noble Duke's opposition to the last of those measures,
arising, as no doubt it did, from a feeling of sorrow, in which
he (the Duke of Cleveland) might be supposed to have parti
ciputecl, at being compelled to relinquish six or seven boroughs.
For himself, however, he could say, that he felt no regret on
this head, because he considered the measure to be right and
for the general benefit of the country. He hoped and trusted
—he besought, he implored—that his Noble Friend below
him (Viscount Melbourne) would persevere in all the mea-
sures which he considered necessary for the benefit of the
country, and which met with the country's approbation—mea-
sures which he was sorry to say that House had persevered in
opposing in a manner detrimental to the public interests, and
calculated to bring about a collision with the other House of
Parliament.

Tho Duke of NEWCASTLE did not think it worth his
while to reply to the observations which had just fallen from
the Noble Duke, and he should, therefore, merely allude to
one curious resat It which the Noble Duke had made on the
subject of boroughs. He could assure the House that he felt
relieved from a great care since he had lost all borough influ.
ence, and he only resisted their abolition purely upon principle.
—( Hear, hear.) He could only say further that he had never
profitted by his boroughs, nor did he owe his Dukedom to
their influence.— (Tremendous cheering.) With this remark
he should close his observations.

The Duke of CLEVELAND rose, amidst loud cries of
" Spoke, spoke." He merely wished to express a hope that
the Noble Duke opposite would not conceive that he meant
any thing personal in the observations he had made. No doubt
the Noble Duke had acted from principle, and honestly ; but
as for the insinuations that he (the Duke of Cleveland) got
his Dukedom by his boroughs, he declared before that House,
and before God and his country, that he derived no advantage
from his promotion to the rank which he now held. He had
never asked for any thing—he had never been benefitted any
thing.
The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE presented a petition from
Devizes and Reigate, in favour of the Municipal Corporations
Bill.

Lord L YNDHURST presented petitions against the Bill
from bankers, merchants, and inhabitants of Dudley, signed by
400 persons, each of whom attached his address and descrip-
tion. ; and from Chard, in Somersetshire. The Noble Lord
also presented a petition from Great Yarmouth, praying that
that town might not be included in the Bill.
Lord \YHA RNCLIFFE presented a petition from the
mayor and burgesses of York against the Bill.
Viscount MELBOURNE presented petitions in favour of
the Bill from Edinburgh, signed by 8,000 persons ; from
Glasgow, Richmond, Dublin, Rochdale, Leith, Hithe,
Blackburn, Taunton, Limerick, Lymington, Bolton, Cork,
Teynmouth, Gainsborough, Melbourne, Bishop Stortford,
Haverfordwest, Haddington, and a petition from 134 freemen
of Liverpool, praying that their rights might be extinguished.
—( A laugh.)
Lord BROUGHAM had been requested from several of the
places where these petitions came from to support their prayer.
The Earl of H ADDINGTON, as regarded the Haddington
petition, was instructed to say that there were eleven voted for
it and eight against it.
IMPRISONMENT FOR BEBT BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM rose to move the first reading of a very
important Bill that had been sent to their Lordships from the
other House—he meant the Bill for abolishing imprisonment
for debt. It was not his intention at that stage to enter into
any discussion, but he should simply move that the Bill be read
a first time.
Lord LYNDHURST said that the Bill was one of the
greatest importance, and was true, ay had been stated, that
it was introduced into the other House by the Attorney-Ge-
neral at the commencement of the session, but it was impos-
sible that it-could be passed without having it referred to a
Committee up stairs. Whatever :disposition he might have to
support some of the provisions _of the measure, it would be
utterly layseible at this late period of the session to give it ,
‘,I•.(JE v C4l)
W"