The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-03 00:00:00

TilE SUN, LONDON, FRLt)AY, JULY 3, 1833

House?
Mr. O'CONNELL—I said no such thing, and I congra-
tulate the Noble Lord on his extreme valour. I rejoice at it. 1
If he had taken my words and repeated them, he would have
found that there was net- the least occasion for this most un-
necessary display.
Lord STANLEY.—Then I beg the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman to repeat his words.
Mr. O'CONNELL.—My words were what I said twice,
that I should be glad to hear of any job too contemptible for
this House to think of.
Lord STANLEY—No ! those were not the words.
Mr. O'CONNELL—Yes, they were. I was in posses-
sion of the chair. I have said part of the words, I mean to
repeat the remainder. lam interrupted.
Lord STANLE Y—l rise to order. I ask whether it is
consistent with the orders of this House that any Gentleman
should use the words, that he should like to know how any
Member sitting in the place in which he sits can speak of any
job as being too contemptible ?
Mr. O'CONNELL—In the first place I wish the Hon.
Member had allowed me to finish. I said two things. I
said I should have been glad to see any job too contemptible
for this House to think of, and I added to that, that sitting at
the side of the House in which the Noble Lord sits, no job
was certainly too contemptible for the House to think of. I
made that assertion, and I repeat it.
Lord SANDON—The Hon. and Learned Member turns
the charge of jobbing from one individual to all the Members
on this side of the flouse.—( A laugh.) He has no right
to accuse all the Members of any job ; I think we, on this
side of the House, have as good a right to stand on our
character as the Hen. and Learned Gentleman.
Mr. O'CO NNE LL—I did not mean to attack every indi-
vidual Member. I meant to attack that side of the House,
and I meant to attack them politically ; and, speaking of po-
litical jobs, I meant to say, not that they would adopt tho
jobs, but that they would condescend to think of them ; and I
make them a present of that purity which leads them to ima-
gine they would not think of them at all. lam ready to ad-
mit they would not think of jobs. I will suppose there is not
a single individual on that side of the House who would think
of a job, and we then come back to the question, whether or
no the town-clerk is to be a perpetual jobber, as every Mem-
ber of this House must be, if he were to sit permanently
here. I know of nothing that would so soon tend to make
us jobbers, as sitting permanently here. The more Members
are independent of control, the more are they under the
temptation of being jobbers. The Noble Lord's argument is
founded on this—that these persons were
.to be a political
Council ; and over and over again he talked of their being a
political Council. The intention of this Bill is to prevent
their being a political Council, or to give them a higher sphere
of duty than that of being a municipal Council. The inten-
tion was to make them a municipal Council for local pur-
poses. Politics may interfere, but the great object is to pre-
vent a permanent politician. With that view I oppose the
amendment. I think it would make a permanent jobber in
every Corporation—not attending to the municipal business of
tlfb Corporation, but keeping his eye on politics, and being
enabled to sell his politics to advantage, whenever it suited
any particular party to purchase.
Lord STANLEY—If I entreat the pardon of the Corn-
mittee for deviating in any degree from the question, I shall
do so without interfering with that order which I feel ought
to be observed. I shaenot, therefore, allude to the persona'
attack on myself, or to the attack directed against a body of
men by whom, agreeing with them on some points, and differ-
ing with them on others, I happen, according to the arrange-
ments of the House, now to be surrounded : but I shall wish
to advert, for one moment, if the Committee will allow me,
to an expression which, having been used in the Committee,
from whatever quarter it may come, I should be glad to take
an opportunity of referring to. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, the Member for Dublin, has spoken of me as sitting
on this side of the House. He has coupled that with an ac-
cusation which I hope it is not necessary for me in this House
to throw off from royself—(hear)—and which certainly I shall
take no notice of; but AS attacks have been personally made
against me on this subject, although it may appear of little
importance to any Gentleman in this House, and although
where this or that man may happen to sit does not obtain
that importance out of doors which I know is attached to
it in this House, I wish to say one word as to theof' this
place
I now happen to occupy. At the commencement
Session, under a different Administration, being unable

altogether to support his Majesty's last Government, and
at the same time wishing to offer them no factious or
violent opposition, I took that place in the House, which, us
far as place is considered, indicates neutrality between the two
contending parties- and no disposition to give a violent oppo-
sition. On the change of Government I maintained the same
place in the House on the same principle of independence of
office end independence of opposition. Being unconnected
with party, and wishing to follow my own views, I wished to
indicate, %Is far as I could, by the position I occupied, that I
intended co hostility to the Government of my Noble Friend.
Obsers ations have of late been made, which have rendered it
necessary for me to depart from that position—not to depart
from the principles on which I anted. Those principles will
not be changed—those principles have not been changed ; and
whether attacked publicly, where I can defend myself, or pri-
vately elsewhere, where I cannot, I shall pursue that course
which I feel myself bound to follow. When 1 found on more
than one suecessive night that sitting on the same side with
his Majesty's Ministers, and discussing the details of a Bill
which was in Come-duce, and which it was my earnest desire
to forward, my accidental voting on the other side, and my re-
turn to the seat which I occupied, were to be received with
cheers, which, coming from individuals, were cheers of per-
sonal insult, and which, coming from a body, intimated a clear
opinion on the part of that body, that I was not a person who
was fit for their society—an opinion in which I very humbly
ac juiesce—when I saw that opinion so plainly intimated that
it was impossible to mistake it, I felt it to be my duty, more
especially after the comments in the public Papers of the fol-
lowing day, which rendered it impossible to suppose that the
conduct was unintentional or was not to be continued. De-
sirous, on the one side, of not provoking insult—and deter-
mined, on the other side, not to give offence, I felt I had no
course to pursue but to withdraw from society which evidently
did not wish I should remain amongst them. There are per-
-ens who may think it necessary or worth their while to con-
s
-'iat may be the motives of my conduct. I changed my
seder
re_
:.-sleuse, because I wished to avoid giving or taking
place in this
!hat where I was I must hear, with regard
offence, because I fe::
in private could not be passed
t 6 myself, observations wh;c::
who will not justify their
over, occasionally coming from theeZ
Hear.) I wished
expressions either in public or in privaZa:s-4
;2cl for that pur-
to withdraw from such unpleasant collision,
. pose, and that purpose only, I sit where I do. 1 ussecs pardr
of the Committee. I will not deny that the attacks tease;
upon me have given me pain. I wish to set myself right with
those whom I most respect and esteem. I wish to set myself
right with them and with the public. I wish to state the cause
of a mere personal movement which may be interpreted into a
political change of opinion, and stating that I will not refer
further to observations coming from the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin—pronounced by wholesale on Gentlemen
who happen to sit at this side of the House, and individually
on myself, whom he has 'thought fit to select for an attack
which he considers worthy the dignity and decorum of the
House. I trust Hon. Members will feel as Gentlemen and
men of honour that, as a Gentleman and man of honour, I have
been justified in trespassing on the Committee.—( Cheers.) •
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I only wish to allude for one
moment to what has just been said by the Noble Lord. It was
a source of great pain to me, as my Noble Friend well knew,
that that difference of opinion took place which did take place
on a very important question. I have been very much pained
to see that in the course of this year there have been other
differences of opinion respecting that course of policy which
my Hon. Friend and I have thought fit to adopt. As to
the seat which my Noble Friend may think fit to occupy
in this House, that certainly is a matter which must be left to
his own particular choice ; and unless he had chosen to mention
it, I should not have felt myself at liberty to say one word upon
the subject ; but having mentioned it, I must say that if he
meant it as a political step, I think the cheers which took
place whenever there was a division in the Committee, pro-
ceeded rather from a disposition to cause a laugh than from any
other cause, and I think that my Noble Friend has attached
too much importance to those cheers to found any political step
upon them. With regard likewise to the comments of the
public press, I think that my Noble Friend would do better to
pursue that course of duty which he thinks proper in this
House influenced rather by the matters which came before the
House, and the conduct of the Members of the House, than
the comments which are made from day to day, often with
considerable virulence on the conduct of public men. lam
happy to hear my Noble Friend say that he did not mean to
imply that his political opinion had been at all changed by the
position he now occupies. I can assure my Noble Friend with
regard to his whole course of public conduct, whether at the
time at which I had the good fortune to agree with him, and
we acted together, or when in later terms we had the misfor-
tune to be of a different opinion, that I always thought that if
there was any man on whom no imputation could be cast of
acting from any unworthy or improper motives in his political
conduct, that person was my Noble Friend. I trust, that even
if we differ still more widely, I shall always be ready to do
justice to the conduct and character.of my Noble Friend. I
will not now enter into the question before the House, as that
has been sufficiently debated by others.
Mr. C. PELHAM, as an independent Member of the
House, thought that in justice to himself and the House, the
observations of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
ought not to pass unnoticed. Were Hon. Members sent to
be servile slaves to a party or to do their duty to their country?
He had retained his seat on his side of the House, for the
purpose for which he originally took it on the other,—aedfor
that purpose only lie retained it. With regard to the ques
tion before the Committee, the Hon. Gentleman said, that
the officd of Town Clerk ought certainly not be a political
one. It appeared to him, that the Town Clerk could not
perform his duties efficiently unless his appointment was
permanent.
After a few words from Mr Sttew and Mr. H. HUGIIES, the
Committee divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment ••• 65
Against it ..
Majority against the amendment —GO
Mr. BORT H WIC K said that the Bill in its present shape
would bear hard upon Town Clerks who at present held office.
He knew an instance of a gentleman possessing an income of
1,0001. a year, in return for which he had given up the entire'
of his time, and the entire of his talents, for 30 years, besides
having relinquished his profession. If the Committee refused
to the Town Clerks who were to be appointed hereafter a
tenure for life, it was not to be expected that they would grant
that permanent appointment to those who were at present in
office. He felt that it would not be dealing fairly by the
Committee to press his motion to that effect to a division, when
it was quite certain, ;from the division which had just taken
place, that the result would be against him. He should there-
fore leave it over until the bringing up of the Report.
After a few words from Sir J. R. REID, which were not
heard in the gallery, it was resolved that clause 42, as amen-
ded, should stand part of the Bill.
On clause 43, which provides that no money shall be paid
except upon order signed by three or more Councillors, and
countersigned by the Town Clerk,
Mr. W ILK S suggested that the order ought to be signed
at the meeting of the Council, because otherwise it might
happen that orders would be hawked about the different
places for signature.
Mr. ESTCOURT thought that the order ought also to be
signed by the Mayor. It certainly ought to be signed at
the Council Board,-and nowhere else.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that it might, perhaps, be
desirable to provide that it should be signed by the Mayor, or
three or more Councillors.
Mr. W ILK S rose to propose an amendment to the effect
that he had already suggested. He moved that after the
words " signed by three or more Councillors," in the last
line of the clause, these words should be introduced—" at
the meeting of the Council at which the order is made."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the amend-
ment. It often happened that an order was made in sub-
stance but snot drawn up in form, and the introduction of the
proposed words might cause great obstruction to business.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that as all the offi-
cers of the Corporation were required to give security, and
as no money was to be paid but by an order in Council, there
could be no danger of abuse from the clause as it stood.
A conversation ensued in which Sir E. Knatchbull, Mr.
Cayley, Mr. Grote, Mr. Robinson, Mr. H. Hughes, Lord
Sandon, and others took part, and the subject dropped.
The Committee divided, when the numbers were :
For the amendment 65
Against it
Majority --- 41
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 44, 45,
46, 47, and 48.
Clause 49 was then put.
Mr. AGLIONBY suggested that any of the present Town
Clerks who were not re-appointed under the Bill should re-
ceive remuneration.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 50 being proposed,
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES said that the clause required
the presence of one• third of the Council to decide all ques-
tions that came before them. He should propose as an amend-
ment that the words "two thirds" be substituted for " one-
third."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was opposed to the amendment,
which he thought both unnecessary and inconvenient.
After a few words from Mr. E STCO URT, who was under-
stood to be opposed to the amendment, it was withdrawn.
This clause, as well as clause 51, was then agreed to.
Upon clause 52, which gave to the Council the power of
granting alehouse licences being proposed,
Sir J. GRAHAM rose to propose an amendment. He
begged to state his decided objection to the principle con-
tained in this portion of the Bill. It was proposed by the
clause that the Town Council or a committee of that Council
should have the power of granting alsehouse licenses only in
cases of boroughs to which a separate commission of the
peace shall have been granted. This he thought a very great
anomaly, and the converse of the case ought to have been
taken. Where a borough had a separate commission of the
peace, alehouse licenses were to be granted by the local au-
thorities ; but where it had not a separate commission of the
peace, county magistrates were to have the power of granting
licenses. This seemed to him a great anomaly, and a principle
quite the reverse ought to have been adopted.—( Hear, hear.)
For instance, take the town of Guildford. That town was to
have a Council, the number of which would amount only to
eighteen, and yet it was intended to grant it a separate juris-
diction, and the Town Council were to have the power of
granting licenses. Whereas, the town of Huntingdon, the
number of whose Town Council would be twenty-one, was not
to have a separate jurisdiction or commission of the peace, so
that licenses would be granted in Guildford by the Town
Council, but in Huntingdon they would be granted by the
county magistrates. Such an anomaly remained to be
explained.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had been stated by
the Noble Lord, the Secretary at War, that magisterial
functions in boroughs ought not to be connected with any-
thing political. He fully admitted the principle laid down
by the Noble Lord. But this clause was in direct viola-

tion of the policy of the law respecting licenses.--( Hear.)
The power of granting licenses had-been hitherto considered
magisterial and judicial, and consequently had been entrusted
to the county magistrates.--( Hear.) The second anomaly
in this clause was, that it separated the judicial and magisterial
functions. In large cities the Town Councils would be deci-
dedly political bodies, and yet to them magisterial functions
were about to be entrusted by this clause. Besides, in coun-
ties a qualification was necessary to become:a magistrate. In
many counties the qualification was considerable, such as pro-
perty in real estate to the amount of 100/. a year. It had
been already decided that by this Bill no qualification was ne-
cessary for a Town Councillor. In large towns, where the
duties of town councillors would be most important, and where
according to this clause, they would have magisterial functions
to perform, no qualification was required o them.--( Hear,
bear.) There was another inconsistency in this part of the
Bill, though the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. C.
Hoblmuse) had contended that the people should have a right
to some share in the selection of their magistrates, this was
an anomaly. The Crown was the fountain of justice and the
conservator of the peace, and when that peace was broken it
was considered the King's peace, and persons were called upon
to defend it in the King's name. He did not deny that in an-
cient towns the magistracy was sometimes elective. The
present clause was, notwithstanding, a direct violation of the
present law, which placed licenses under the controul of the
county magistrates, because they were connected with the po-
lice of the country and were preservers of the peace—
and as that peace was connected with the Crown, all that
related to its preservation was entrusted to the magistracy
by the authority of the Crown. The power of granting
licenses, connected as it was with matters of police, and the
preservation of the peace, ought not to be transferred to any
persons, save those holding a commission under the Crown.
He believed that the magistracy exercised their functions to
the entire satisfaction of the country.—( Hear, and " No.")
He would appeal to the Hon. Members fcr Sheffield and
Leeds, where- there was no local jurisdiction, whether the
magistrates of the West Riding of the County of York bad
not properly and fairly discharged their duties, particularly as
far as regarded the granting of licenses ? He would also ask
the Hon. Members for Manchester whether the magistrates
had acted with impartiality there ? There was a remarkable
case in which the magistracy were elective—he meant the
town of Caernarvon. The inhabitants entertained the great-
est jealousy of the mayor and other corporate officers who were
elected by the people, whilst they placed the greatest confi-
dence in the Recorder, who was appointed by the Crown.—
(Hear.) His amendment was not exactly like that which
stood on the notice paper. It was like a clause which had
been introduced into the Act brought in by the Hon. Member
for Oxford in 1828, which gave the county magistrates a c3n-
current jurisdiction with the local authorities in the matter of
granting of licenses. He should move that the words after
" And be it enacted" in the clause be omitted, and that also
the 53d and 54th clause be struck out, for the purpose of in-
serting " that every borough to which a separate commission
of the. peace shall be granted, the justices of the peace for
the county or counties in which such borough shall be situ-
ated, shall, after the Ist of May, 1836, have a concurrent
jurisdiction with the local authorities in granting licenses;
and that in every borough to which no separate commission of
the peace shall be granted, the justices of the peace for the
county or counties in which such borough shall be situated,
shall exercise all the powers and jurisdiction to which they are
now entitled by law in their respective counties; provided al-
ways that nothing herein contained shall give such magistrates
the power of levying, or appropriating, or interfering with the
funds, of the said boroughs."
Lord HOWICK was of opinion 'that the licensing of ale-
houses was not at all connected with judicial functions.. He
was told that the Crown was the fountain of all authority in
matters of this sort, and that no magisterial functions ought
to emanate from the people, but be in the appointment of the
Crown. Now, one of the greatest abuses of the boroughs was
the present state of the magistracy.—( Hear.) They existed
under no controul either of the Crown or the people, but
they were purely a self-elected body.—( Hear.) They would
be now elected by the people, but they would hold their com-
missions from the Crown.—( Hear.) Having introduced that
principle into the Bill before the House, they could not have
followed that principle if they left the distribution of ale.
house licenses to the county magistracy. The distribution of
those licences would place a great deal of political power in
the hands of those who possessed such authority, and he,
thought it best that it should be taken from the magistrates,
and transferred to the town council. The power of granting
licenses was not conferred upon magistrates by ancient Acts
of Parliament. He believed that it was-,not until after the
Revolution that the power was granted•to them: He owned
that it was difficult to place such a power safely in the- hands
of any body of men, but less mischief would arise from the
power being vested in the town council rather than in the ma-
gistrates.—( Hear.) It was on those simple grounds that he
supported the clauses of the Bill which the Right Hon.. Ba-
ronet proposed should be omitted.
Mr. BAINES said that with respect to the town of Leeds,
the county magistrates had no concurrent jurisdiction with the
borough magistrates. The power of granting licenses was
entirely in the hands of the borough magistrates. Ho begged,
for the satisfaction of the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir J. Graham),
to mention one fact, which was, the result of the way in which
licenses were now granted in Leeds. ' Whilst the people of
that place were, by-a large majority,- in favour of the popular
Representatives, the publicans were, by a majority of two to
one, against them. The magistrates in Leeds were highly
respectable, and if the present system so operated under re-
spectable magistrates, what must it be where they were not
so ? He thought this fact a sufficient answer to the arguments
of the Right Hoar Baronet, and, at the same time, a very
cogent one, against continuance of the present system.
Sir J. GRAHAM said.thatzle was not contending in favour
of the borough magistrates of Leeds. In Sheffield, where the
'county magistrates had a jurisdiction, the case would be found
quite the reverse.
Mr. 1-PARKER said that Sheffield was not a borough
town. It, and its matters of police, had been always under the
jiiriadietion of county magistrates. He thought the licensing
system and- matters of police were so cicscly connected that
they should not be separated. For his part lie wished to see
the power applicable to both placed in the same hands, and
he entirely agreed that the town council was as likely to
exercise this jurisdiction fairly as any other body that could be
chosen for the purpose. With such an impression on his mind
he could not do otherwise than support the clause.
Mr. B. HOY must admit that the power ought to be in the
hands of persons residing on the spot, and he knew that much
abuse had arisen because this was not the case.
Mr. POTTER said that nothing could be more corrupt or
improper than the present system, for it placed the whole body
of publicans completely under the control of the magistrates.
Mr. M. PIIILL IPS fully agreed that the town council was
more likely to exercise this power impartially, and, at the same
time, discreetly, than the magistrates, knowing, as they must,
all the persons within their locality.
Mr. ESTCOURT considered that the object of this clause
was to give to the. town council more power than they ought
to possess. He feared it would lead to jobbing far more than
anything that now existed, and although so much had been
said againSt the impartiality of the magistrates, he must assert
that they had almost invariably exercised the power placed in
their hands with fairness and justice. He, therefore, should
give his support to the amendment of his Right Hon. Friend,
thinking it would be an improvement of the Bill, as the effect
of it would be to call in the aid of the county magistrates.
Colonel SIBTIIORP did think that taking the power
from the hands of the magistrates to place it in those of the
town council would endanger, rather than contribute, to the
tranquillity of the town. It was his belief that the Noble
Lord in endeavouring to avoid Scylla would inevitably rush
on Charybdis.—(Laughter.)
Mr. C. BRUCE did not think the proposed change would
be productive of the least good. It was quite manifest that
the town council would be even more accessible to temptation
than the magistrates, and his opinion, therefore, was, that, un-
less a concurrent jurisdiction were given to county magis-
trates, the greatest hardships and oppression were likely to
arise in individual cases.
Lord SA N DON very much feared that this alteration was
nothing more nor less than a bribe for party purposes.—
( llear.) If corruption were to be apprehended, it was likely
to proceed from the town council rather than from the magis-
trates, for there could be very little doubt that the influence
and patronage of the former would be used to ensure- their
re-election.—( Hear.) The town council were, in his judg-
ment, about the worst body that could have been selected for
the exercise of this power.—( Hear.)
Mr. H. HUGHES rose amidst cries of " Oh, oh," " Di-
vide, divide." He was understood to say that during. the
whole of his Parliamentary life he had never known a single
charge of partiality in the granting of licenses established
against the magistracy of the part of the country with which
lie was acquainted, and, _as lie considered that the change was
any thing but desirable, he for one must offer to it his most
strenuous opposition.
Sir J: GRAHAM rose to reply, amidst loud and general
cries of " Divide, divide," " Order, order," and " Bar, bar
and it was not until after Mr. Bernal, the Chairman, had re.-
peatedly endeavoured to obtain order, by requesting Hon.
Gentlemen to be seated, that the Right' Hon. Baronet was
allowed to proceed. The Noble Lord opposite (the Right
Hon. Baronet observed) had said that, prior to the revolution,
the power of granting licenses did not rest with the Magis-
trates ; but this was evidently a mistake on the part of the
Noble Lord, for, by a statute passed in the year 1462, in the
reign of Henry VI., it was expressly declared that all ale-
houses should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Magis
trates, and that they alone should have the power of granting
licenses.—( Hear, hear.) This power, he contended, bad
never been abused down to the present time, and, therefore,
looking at the Town Council and the Magistrates, he must
say that in his opinion it would be much safer to entrust the
power of granting licenses to the latter rather than to the
former.—( Hear, hear.)
The House then divided. The numbers were—
For the Amendment ...
Against it ..........
Majority
Clauses 54 and 55 then passed
The House reported progress, and resumed its sitting on
public business.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved for leave to bring in a B'
to amend the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
Lord MORPETH said something which was not beard.
Mr. GO ULBURN said this deviation from the practice o
the House was attended with great inconvenience. It was
not fair that the simple introduction of a Bill should be ac-
companied with one-sided statements, which should rather be
made the subject of discussion at a more fitting time.
Mr. CRAWFORD said his object was to give the propo-
sition general publicity. The measure was based on the re-
commendation of various Committees of both Houses of Par-
liament. The Hon. Member proceeded to dwell on the pro-
priety of giving tenants protection against the encroachments

166
211
-45

of landlord:_,, and allowing them compensation for the outlay
of their capital on improvements. •
Lord MORPETH had no objection to the Bill.
Mr. WYNN said there was a difficulty in the House giving
sanction to an objectionable Bill. The Bill had for its object
to give compensation to ejected tenants. Why interfere be-
tween man and man? Parliament should not descend to that.

Mr. WARBURTON thought the Bill did not interfere
with existing contracts ; it gave the outgoing tenant some in-
demnification for his outlay.

After a few words from', Mr. Stmt. and Colonel PERCEVAL,
recommending the withdrawal of the Bill for the present, leave,
as we understood, was given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. P. SC ROPE moved fel- leave to bring in a Bill for the
relief of the poor in Ireland.
After a short conversational discussion between some Hon.
Members, during which Mr. Goulburn intimated that the Hon.
Member was poaching on the manor of the Member for Water-
ford ( Sir R. Musgrave) in introducing such a Bill, as the
Hon. Baronet had pre-occupied that ground of legislating fur
the Irish poor, leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. CALLAGHAN obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
regulate the pilotage of steam-boats.
MUSIC IN PUBLIC-HOUSES.
_ _

Mr. HUME moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal
so much of the Act of the 25th of George 11. as restrains the
amusement of music and dancing. He said this provision re-
stricting the amusements of the lower classes formed a clause
of an Act " to prevent theft," passed in the year 1752, but
had remained a dead letter until within the last eight years,
when, in consequence of the interference of a number of in-
formers, it had often been carried vexatiously into operation.
Mr. POTTER seconded the motion, and said that they all
wanted merriment occasionally.—( A laugh.)
Leave granted. To be read a second time on Wednesday
next.
Mr. HUME then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to limit
the expenses of elections, and the time of taking the polls at
them; and to abolish the qualifications of Members to serve
in Parliament.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the latter portion of the provisions of the proposed Bill was
liable to great objection, and he therefore suggested that the
Hon. Member should separate it from the former parts, which
he was inclined to approve of.
After a few words from Colonel Perceval, Mr. R. Wason,
and Mr. Hume in reply, leave was given to bring in the Bill.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at One o'Clock.

DOUSE OF LORDS, Jetr 2.
The Earl of SIIAPTESBURY took his seat on the Woolsack
at 20 minutes past five o'clock, as Deputy-Speaker. A Mes-
sage from the Commons brought up some private Bills.
The Sugar Duties' Bill, Western Australia Bill, and Isle of
Man Corn Bill, were read a third time and passed.
The Earl of FARNHAM moved for a series of Returns re-
lative to the composition of tithes in Ireland, arid the names
of all applications made to the Lord Lieutenant from parishes
in Ireland, with the names of the applicants.
Lord DUNCANNON had no objection to the making of
such Returns if the Government were in possession of them.

He had some doubt whether they were.
Lord FARNHAM said a Noble Lord had stated in another
place that these applications had been very numerous. As he
was extremely opposed to the re-opening of any composition,
he was extremely anxious to know how the matter really stood.
After a few words from the Marquis of WESTMEATH and
the Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
Viscount CL IFD E N said these compositions had been made
to the number of 1,497 under Mr. Goulburn's Act, which was
calculated on the price of wheat for seven years beforel 820, when
it was very high. Their Lordships were aware it was not now
of near the same value. He lamented that their Lordships
had thrown out the Tithe Bill of last year, unwisely he
thought for themselves, and very unfortunately both for the
country and the clergy, for he was firmly of opinion that if
they had got 77i per cent., they would have the full value of
their tithe according to the present price of wheat.
The motion was then agreed to.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice that to-
morrow he would put some questions to the Noble Viscount,
relative to a letter written to the Magistrates of Ireland from
the Lord Lieutenant.
AFFAIRS OF SPAN.
The Nona MAncluts then said, the House would recollect
the questions he had put to the Noble Viscount opposite
(Melbourn), relative to the troops now going out to Spain.
He had first asked whether the Order in Council was
issued on the part of the Government, or on the ap-
plication of the Spanish Ambassador ? The answer to
that was perfectly satisfactory. The other question was,
whether these levies, mercenaries, or British auxiliary force
—whichever the Noble Viscount called them---( Loud
laughter)—now assembling in the Isle of Dogs—(Laughter)
—were to be entitled to the benefit of the convention
of Lord Eliot ? He was quite sure the Noble Viscount
would not mis-state any fact; therefore he wished to ask
him what construction he put upon the Treaty. It was most
important for these troops to know, for there was a decree put
forth by Don Carlos in which any stranger joining the other
forces were excluded from the benefit of the Treaty, and ordered
to be instantly shot. That was directly at variance with
the statement of the Noble Viscount; and it was desirable
that these misguided men, now ready to embark, should be
disabused of the deception put upon them by the
Noble Viscount.—(Hear, hear.) He demanded to know
why that statement had been made, and why there was so
much delusion practised with regard to this aid to Spain, as it
was called. He could not hear the Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Home Department state that Don Carlos's support
was confined to two or three provinces, without thinking that
there was a great deal of ignorance or wilful misrepresentation.
It was well known that the facts were quite different ; that
Don Carlos not many months ago left this country with only one
attendant, and that now he bad 36,000 men well armed ; while
the Queen's troops, which then amounted to 56,000 men, had
been beaten at every point, and that more than 8,000 of them
had gone over to Don Carlos. Such a statement, made by a
Secretary of State, was sure to mislead this fruitless and
monstrously absurd exhibition. He in the meantime trusted
the Noble Viscount would answer his questions.
Viscount MELBOURNE—AII he had said upon a former
occasion, which he still maintained, was, that in his opinion
those persons now going out would be entitled to the benefits
of the Convention. It was impossible for him to say what con-
struction the parties in Spain might put upon the Convention.
With respect to the decree, he firmly believed that it was
a forgery, and did not emanate from Don Carlos, whose name
it bore. Then, as to what the Noble Marquis had asserted as
regarded a statement, or supposed statement, made in another
place by his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, imputing ignorance of the real state of facts upon the
subject of Spanish affairs, he (Lord Melbourne) really be-
lieved that his Noble Friend had most accurately described the
matter, when he said that the civil war was confined to three
of the Northern provinces of Spain.—(Hear.) He ( Lord
Melbourne) believed such to be strictly the fact ; and that no
opposition to the Queen's Government had been manifested in
any other part of that country. That statement of his Noble
Friend was certainly incompatible with what the Noble Mar-
quis had stated ; but he believed the Noble Marquis was in-
accurate in what he had said with respect to the desertion of
the Queen's troops, the losses sustained by them, and the
amount of the forces on the other side.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was sorry if he had
stavd any thing which the facts would not bear out ; but he
thought he had not, and he could not acquiesce in what the
Noble Viscount had urged.
Viscount MELBOURNE believed the Decree itself to be
a forgery—(Hear, hear)—and whether Don Carlos would or
would not succeed, was, at present, merely a matter of opinion.
The subject was then dropped.
DEFENCE OF A COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION.

Viscount DITNC AN N 0 N had received a letter in answer
to a charge preferred against one of the Commissioners of
Public Instruction in Ireland, Mr. M'Dermott, by a clergy-
man, Mr. Irwin, whose letter had been read to their Lordships
on a former night, by a Right Rev. Prelate. Now, this gen-
tleman, the Commissioner, had received recommendations for
the appointment, and was in every respect well qualified to
perform the duties imposed upon him, and he had done so in
the present instance. It was a little singular that none of
these complaints had been urged against the Commissioners,
except in their Lordships' House. The Noble Lord then
read a letter from Mr. M'Dermott, in which he denied having
been at a meeting on the occasion alleged ; but that he did
attend a meeting in 1826, in which he did speak, urging the
impolicy of keeping so many subjects (he was a Roman
Catholic) from the rights and privileges which they were
justly entitled to. He also defended himself against the other
accusations.
The Bishop of EXETER said that the Noble Viscount was
under a misapprehension when he said no complaint of Mr.
Irwin had been made except in their Lordships' House. He
(the Bishop of Exeter) did not make any objection to Mr.
M'Dermott because he was a Roman Catholic, but because he
was a Roman Catholic agitator. The Right Rev. Prelate
then read a letter which he had that day received from Mr.
Irwin, in which that gentleman stated that the meeting was
held at the town of Castlereagb on the 4th of November 1827,
and that Mr. M'Dermott was then chaired through the town.
This was, as he had just said, in Noverriber 1827.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—That was before the
passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER said he was obliged to the Noble
Marquis ; but he apprehended the passing of that Act did not
purge away all offences—it had no restropective effect. Ile
must inform the Noble Marquis and the House too, that Mr.
M'Dermott continued to retain the character of a political agi-
tator. Mr. Blundell also mentioned another gentleman who,
though a Protestant, was avowedly hostile to all establish-
ments. This appointment also was made by the Noble Vis-
count, in the second Commission named, the efficiency of
which was, of course, augmented by the names of the persons
intrusted to conduct a Commission of so delicate a nature :
this person, avowedly hostile to all establishments, was also
chosen, and this was (as we understood) Mr. Neil O'Dominick
Browne. An opinion having been formed of the intention
with which this Commission was framed, that opinion was
confirmed, or strengthened at least, by the appointments
made. It was thought to be the test of an intention to
destroy the Protestant Church in Ireland. This was the
testimony of a clergyman who was ready to submit the whole
case to their Lordships at the bar of that House ; and in truth
that clergyman was that moment below the bar, and was ready
to answer to any questions which might be put publicly or
privately to him by any of their Lordships. The character
of the agitator, of the Roman Catholic agitator, Mr. M'Der-
mott, did not rest solely upon the statements made to that
House by the clergyman and repeated by a Bishop ; but the
very arguments which had been raised only confirmed the
statement of his groat distinction as an agitator. During the