The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1835.

detail. The' Right Hon. Hon. Baronet, however, says that
with respect to great sums, that is latterly impossible. He
considered that his Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) had
done only justice to an opinion ofthe House on a former
occasion, in calling upon them to enable him to fulfil what
appeared to be the established regulations in conformity with
the Act of Parliament for the appropriation of monies
not voted for specific purposes. If it be said that all naval
money Can be applied to any servic strictly naval, then this was
unnecessary, but if the House was of opinion that it was not
necessary, it was not constitutional to appropriate money
to any other purpose than that for which- it was originally
granted; he thought then, under such circumstances, it would
be necessary to empower the Admiralty to pay those demands
which his Noble Friend had shown to be so much required.
He thought the House would act wisely to enable the Govern-
ment, by this vote, to carry on the business of the country.
These were the feelings he had always entertained, and he
thought that the House would best consult the interests of the
public service by acting in this manner.
Lord ASHLEY observed that in the Appropriation Act
there was a distinction in the words regulating the half-pay of
the army, and the half-pay of the navy. In the one
the words wore " to defray all demands for the
half-pay of the navy up to the 31st of March." In the
other it was "to defray all demands for the half pay which
shall come in course of payment on tha 31st of March." They
were in the habit, in consequence of this arrangement, of
defraying the expenses of the old quarter out of the
quarter which succeeded it, add at the present time,
they had not one farthing to pay there documents. It was
for this reason that he asked of the H>n. Gentleman and the
House to allow him to go into Committee, and pass these
votes. Unless these votes were passed to-night, it would
occasion much difficulty and embarrassment.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM apprehended that if the Appro-
priation Act was as had been stated on the other side,
and that the half-pay demands could not be paid,
until these votes were passed, he ( Sir James Graham) for
one would be sorry to take any steps which would
occasion the stopping of the half-pay of any officer.—( Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") He thought however that the ar-
rangement was a very irregular one. •
After a few words from Mr. W. WYNNE,
Mr. PRYME said, if there was a difficulty he could re-
mind the House of the cause and' the authors of it.
Did it not arise from the dissolution of the late Parlia-
ment ? That had priven the assembling of the Parliament
beyond, the occustomed time. of meeting, the present
Parliament having met late in February, instead of early in the
month of January._( Hear, hear.) This was one of the evils
of the unnecessary dissolution of Parliament.---( Hear, hear.)
Dr. BARING remarked, there was difficulty in regulating
the public accounts, but desired that the views of the Riglrt
Hon. the Secretary of War would have their due effect. It
might be true that the House could not carry its control
into every department of the public accounts, but it would be
well to have a fixed time for the consideration of the estimates.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether the Noble Lord
(Ashley) would take the votes singly or altogether.
Sir R. PEEL—The question is, whether it is most advi-
sable for the HoUse to pass two votes, both as to the half-pay
and pension together, or pass the one first and leave the other
to some future occasion. His Noble Friend wished to con-
form to the feelings of the House. On Friday it is usual
to give notice in the Gazette that the half-pay
of officers will be paid in obedience to the votes of
the House.—( Hear.) His Noble Friend did not wish to
publish such a notice without the sanction of the House—for
if he:published such a notice, would it not naturally create
surprise that he should pledge the honour of Government
to make payments before the House authorised them.
The safe course which he ( Sir Robert Peel) considered:for
the House to take wbs, to sanction the votes to-night
much safer than leaving the payments to be made out of an
appropriation of monies granted for other purposes. The
exigencies of the public services may require indefinite
appropriations on some occasions, but he did not think that,
the House having passed a vote of monies for two or three
heads, the Executive Government would devote it tojother
purposes.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

and his colleagues to seize upon the revenues of the colony, he
did make use of it : but it was in following up the assertion. of
the Noble and. Learned Lord, who said that the Governor had
seized on the revenues of Canada. If he had done sa then the
blame must be attributed to the Noble and Learned Lord and
his colleagues. He had not blamed Noble Lords opposite for
the course they had pursued, but he stated that the grounds of
complaint of the petitioners were quite different from those
urged by the Noble and Learned Lord opposite. No blame
was attributed on account of the instructions sent out to the
Governor. What the • petitiOners complained of was delay,
and that the home Government had done nothing to redress
their grievances.

The Earl of RIPON said that with respect to the seizure
of the revenue, his Noble and Learned Friend ( Lord
Brougham) had not used the words as if applied to himself,
but had merely repeated the words of the petition.—( Hear,
from Lord Brougham.) What the Noble Earl had said re-
specting his immediate predecessor was perfectly satisfactory.
The observations of the petitioners did not apply to the late
Secretary for the Colonial Department, but to a former Se-
cretary, his Noble Friend (Lord Stanley.) If there had been
any seizure of the revenues, the charge must apply to his
Noble Friend. But the truth was that his Noble Friend did
not consent to any seizure of the revenues of the province, or
to any appropriation of its funds, as mentioned in the petition ;
but, on the contrary, his Noble Friend prohibited the appro-
priation of the said revenues. After the inquiry instituted by
the other House into the grievances of Canada his Noble
Friend intended to bring in a Bill respecting the appropria-
tion of the revenues of that colony. The imputation of hav-
ing ordered the Governor to seize on the revenues was with-
out any solid foundation.

Lord BROUGHAM said that the Noble Earl who spoke
last was correct, for he (Lord Brougham) made no charge;
if there was any it was contained in the statement of the pe-
tition. He said that the charge might be right or it might be
wrong ; that was the petitioner's affair ; he had nothing to
do with it, and could have no opinion on the subject. There
was no charge in the petition against the Government for not
recalling Lord Aylmer. The charges were against Lord
Aylmer, but not against the Government for any instructions
transmitted to that Noble Lord

Afrer a few words from from the Earl of ABR R.DEEN,
The petition was then laid on the table, afro,- vnich the
House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Menen

The SPEAKER took the ch&L- a quarter before 4 o'clock,
but the gallery was not opene,: half-past 4, in consequence
of there being two Ballots Windsor and Canterbury.

Mr. CRAWFORD 0re,,,,..1ed a petition from the aorpo-

IRISH CLERGY.

Mr. HUME did not believe that either the expense or the
trouble would be found near so great as the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet anticipated, and if it were ten times greater, he thought
that the inquiries ought to be made.
Sir 11. HARDINGE said that the Million Act had occa-
sioned two millions and a half of simple calculations, had oc-
cupied 95 clerks, 40 extra barristers at five guineas per day,
and had cost 25,0001. There was certainly no difficulty in
making out that part of the returns spoken of by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin, but in producing other informa-
tion connected with tithe, it would be very expensive, and
cause much delay and inconveniency, and it was his duty to
point this out to the House.
BANKRUPTCY COURT.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY moved for a return of the number
of assignees appointed under the Act, establishing the Court
of Bankruptcy, the number of fiats removed, amount of debts
proved, dividends paid, expenses incurred, &c. &c.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

_ _ _ • _
Sir ED'W AR D COD RINGTON said he rose on a ques-
tion of Breach of Privilege, as in the course of the discussion
on Friday last on the subject of a petition in which he had felt
himself called to take part, he had been misrepresented in his
statements. The observation which he made was that great
intimidation had taken place at the election for Devonport,
and that he considered it arose very much in consequence
of Mr. Dawson having hoisted the Admiralty flag, as well as
from the activity of a General of Marines. He did not say
that he canvassed under the Admiralty flag. In consequence
of this statement having gone forth in the public prints,
Mr. Dawson had written to him, in which he gave that state-
ment a flat contradiction. He (Sir E. Codrington) had also
given it a flat contradiction in his answer to that gentleman.
Mr. Dawson had sent that answer, as well as the rest of the
other correspondence, to the Times and the Morning
Post. He ( Sir E. Codrington) should not detain the
House, whether the best course would not have been to have
given him an opportunity of contradicting such a staterr\ent in
his place in that House. It was not, however, so much of
this part of the statement, as it was upon the subsequent course
pursued by the Morning Post in commenting on the correspon-
dence, which, in his opinion, conveyed a censure so strong that he
felt bound to bring it publicly before the House. The Hon.
Baronet then read the statement complained of, in which they
vouched for the accuracy of the report, and concluded by ob-
serving that, in comparison of such conduct on the part of
him (Sir E. Codrington), a direct falsehood was a respectable
and manly vice. He was not much afraid of it, as far as af-
fected his character, still he thought it necessary to take some
notice of it. He was not, however, anxious to press the mat-
ter further, but would just leave it for the consideration of
the House to deal with it as they thought fit.
Lord CLE MENTS begged to call the attention of the
House to a passage which appeared in the Morning Chroni-
cle of that morning, purporting to be a report of a few obser-
vations which he had made on the subject of Orange socie-
ties. The Noble Lord read the passage, and observed that he
had said no such thing.—( Hear.) He had always consi-
dered it unbecoming the character of a Member of Parliament
to protect or encourage exclusive societies, for he considered
all illegal and exclusive societies baneful to the peace of
Ireland. He had never encouraged the formation of either
Ribbon or Orange Societies. What he did say was that he
was surprised that the formation of Orange Societies, in the
county of Fermanaph, should have been attributed to the
corruption of the Ribbonmen of the county of Leitrim, and
that an infusion of some of the spirit of the people of the
county of Leitrim would be useful to Fermanagh, as Leitrim
was one of the most peaceable counties in Ireland.
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN rose amidst loud cries of " Or-
der, order."—He complained that tho Morning Herald
of that morning.—(Great laughter.) Words had been
attributed to him which he had never used. The report alleged
that he had stated that a party of Orangemen, on a Sunday,
had marched into Trim, headed by a Clergyman, armed with
a pistol, and that the men were in the service of the
Honourable Member opposite. He (Mr. 11. Grattan)
had said no such thing ; but be had stated that these
Orangemen had marched into Trim, and that they were after-
wards in the service, if not in the pay, of the Hon. Member.
He had to complain of this as a very great breach of privilege,
and he trusted that that paper would be more correct in its re-
ports on another occasion. The case of the Hon. and Gallant
Officer was one which loudly called for the interference of the
House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose.—No man was more
indisposed than he was to bring forward the subject of breach
of privilege, or to find fault with the gentlemen who are has-
tily compelled to write the reports of the proceedings of this
House ; yet he thought that the language used by the news-
paper in question, in reference to the Hon. Admiral, ought
to be taken notice of. The Noble Lord then proceeded to
read the paragraph complained of, which appeared in the
Morning Past of yesterday. He thought it not advisable
to bring a question of this kind to issue when the passions
are excited in favour of one party, a Member of this
House, and to censure another not belonging to it. He there-
fore gave notice that on to-morrow he should bring the
question of breach of privilege in reference to this paragraph
under the consideration of the House.
DUBLIN ELECTION.

Sir J. CAMPBELL presented a petition from certain in-
habitants of Dublin praying, as far as we could catch its pur-
port, that the order of the House for examining the sufficiency
of the sureties, in the case of the Dublin Election petition be
discharged.
Mr. C. W. WYNN was understood to object to receiving
the petition, lest by so doing they should seem to sanction its
prayer.
Mr. S. RICE thought that every petition should be re-
ceived which did no: contain improper expressions, and was
open to no other
.objections stronger than those wLich were
made a:Tainst the one before them. By receiving a petition
they did not sanction its contents—( Hear, hear)—but to
reject petitions upon slight grounds was a bad l.recedent,
and unjust to the community. If by permitting tl e petition
they approved of its prayer or contents, he should hesitate as
to receiving it ;_ but as that was not the case, he thought it
better for the House not to interfere, and not to express an
opinion on such an occasion. He concurred in the general
principles laid down by his Right Hon. Friend; but he did
not think that there were sufficient grounds to reject this
petition.
Mr. F. SHAW hoped the petition would not only be re-
ceived, but that the House would take the matter up, and
make some inquiry into the circumstances. He meant to
make no charge against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
opposite, but now for a second time the security and solvency
of two highly respectable gentlemen were impugned. He
could state that there were not two more respectable and
solvent men in Dublin. One was the Lord Mayor of
Dublin.—( Hear, hear.) They were both gentlemen in
business, and it was of the utmost importance to their cha-
racter that these charges should be investigated. Both those
gentlemen, when their solvency had been impugned on a for-
mer occasion, had travelled from Dublin for no other purpose
than to meet the charges that had been made against them.
He would declare, upon his word as a gentleman, that he be-
lieved each of the gentlemen to be worth at least 20,0001.
( Hear, hear.) He trusted that the petition would be re-
ceived, and the matter investigated, provided it was not to
put off the ballot upon the Dublin Election petitions.
They were gentlemen whose personal property was at the
very least worth 40,0001. per annum; he entreated the
House not to let this go off on a mere point of form, but to
investigate the matter ver) closely.—(Cries of " Question.")
Mr. H. MAXWELL said he was perfectly satisfied, and
he would vouch for the perfect solvency of the two sureties.—
( Question.)
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL hoped the House would allow
the petition to be brought up, and then decide upon the
question in its own way ; he did not mention the Lord Mayor,
for the best of reasons, he did not know it himself. . The
petition was respectfully worded, and he hoped it would be
allowed to lie on the table.
After a few words from Mr. H. GRATTAN,
my, G OULBURN rose, and said that the question for the
House to consider was, not whether it should receive the peti-
tion, that was a small matter, but how far the House would
commit itself by so doing, for they might be driven into this
alternative--either to an inquiry into the solvency of the par-

ties, or the truth of the allegations. He hoped that the Lamed
Gentleman would look into the petition, to ascertain if t con-
tained any allegations adverse to its reception by the ;louse,
and he believed the Learned Gentleman would exercis a just
and sound discretion.

SIR JOHN CAMPBELL would not discharge Is duty
to the petitioners if he withheld it. So far as the matter
rested with him, he certainly should persist in presenng the
petition.—( Hear. )
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSON said, the question of the
jurisdiction of
.the House, was not the one which theybad to
consider, but whether it should be received or not. le pe-
tition complained, however, of the conduct i the
sureties of the petitioners against the sitting mOsbers,
_one of whom was, he believed, an officer of that louse.
He admitted that the House ought not to set aside th deci-
sion of the Examiners who were the proper persons t, judge
of the qualification of the sureties, but he saw no reaon why
the petition should be rejected. A great deal too truch had
been said about qualifications of the ,Lord Mayor, ind the
impropriety of calling his credit in question : but every per-
son who became a security put his character and cedit in
question—( Hear)—and he hoped the doctrine wou3 never
he recognized in that House, that they were not at 11)erty to
question the qualifications of any surety. It would 1),1 a dan
gerous precedent to refuse to receive petitions complaning of
grievances.—( Question. )
Mr. JAMES MAXWELL bore testimony to the olvency
and respectability of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and tie other
surety to the petition.
Mr. ROBINSON observed that enough had alreati passed
to show the impoiicy of entertaining such petitions. If the
present was entertained, other Hon. Members world have
similar petitions to present ; and before many days they should
perhaps have a petition impugning the truth of the albgations
in the present petition.—( Hear.) The House, in his opinion,
had no jurisdiction in the matter, and he trusted it would not
consent to receive the petition.—(Loud cries of " Qeestion,"
and " Divide.")
Mr. LE FRO Y said, as it was now admitted upon 1,11 hands
that the House had no jurisdiction in the case, why, he would
ask, was the question pressed, unless for the purpose of
casting an imputation upon the solvency of an honourable
and respectable constituent of Dublin—upon the solvency of a
man who was well known to be worth more than twenty times the
amount of 5001., which at present was all he was to he answer-
able for? He felt it to be due to the respectable gentleman not
to press upon the House such a course as would have no other
tendency than to cast unfounded imputations upon an Hon.
Gentleman.—( Loud cries of " Question, question.")
Sir R. PEEL then rose and said it appeared to him that
there was a vast difference in the mere bringing up of a peti-
tion, and the question that it do lie on the table. The Mem-
ber presenting the petition might, not, in his opening
of its contents, put the House fully in possession of all
its facts. Supposing a petition to be presented in the
usual form, which, on being brought up, was found to contain
a charge affecting the personal character of any person, then
the House might object to its being laid upon the table ; but
if it was not brought up, the House could pot be aware of
the objectionable matter.—(Hear, he,r.) The House had
had especially appointed persons to judge of the
question of sureties, and the House should not encourage ap-
peals from them. He for his part would like to have the
petition brought up in order to have it read, so ihat he might
be able to judge how far it might go.
The petition was then brought up and read.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said that he had done his duty,
and he had nothing more to say in the matter.
The petition was then withdrawn.
COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN ENGLAND AND