The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-06 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1832.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, M.4ReH 5.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented two petitions
from parishes in the county of Louth, for the abolition of
tithes in Ireland. The Noble Marquis stated that, on
Thursday next, he would move certain resolutions con-
firmatory of the first report of the tithe committee. A
Noble Lord had a motion for that night, but be hoped that
did not press so much but that it might be postponed till
the following evening.
Viscount STRANGFORD, under the circumstances
stated by the Noble Marquis, had no c,bjection to postpone
his motion on the Glove Trade till Friday.
The Earl of SHREWSBURY presented several peti-
tions from places in Ireland against the tithe system.
Lord KENYON in moving that the House do go into
Committee on the Agricultural Labourers' Bill stated that
he did not think it necessary to trouble their Lordships
with a long statement in explanation of the principles of
this Bill, as it had been long before their notice, and he
was not aware that there would be any opposition to it.
The Bill was really what the preamble stated it to be, an
Act for the better employment of the agricultural poor.

Viscount MELBOURNE did not intend to offer any
opposition to the Bill. It certainly did interfere a little

with property ; the power which it gave for enclosing
lands interfered with the rights of the lord of the manor
as it at present stood, but as he saw the Noble and Learned
Lord opposite (Eldon) had given the Bill his attention,
he of course was satisfied.

The Bill then went through a Committee, when a few
verbal amendments were introduced. The Report was
ordered to be received to-morrow.

Lord LONDONDERRY said, in rising to put the
questions to the Noble Earl (Grey) of which he
had given notice, he hoped to be answered with the

courtesy usually shown in that House. It had long been
the practice in that House for Noble Louis to put ques-
tions to the Government upon subjects such as those to
which he was going to allude, and he believed no

one had availed himself of it more than the Noble
Earl, when he was upon that (the Opposition) side of the
House. He hoped that the feelings of ill temper which
were raised on a former evening were now laid aside,
and would not be brought forward again, but that
the Noble Lord would answer him with that courtesy
which he usually showed in that House. The questions
that he was about to ask related to heavy allegations
which were brought against the conduct of Lord
Ponsonby while in Belgium, as Minister for this
country—they were put forward by a General in the
Belgian service, and were published in the news-
papers with the name of the party bringing forward
the charges attached, so that there was no conceal-
ment. Lord Ponsonby was charged, while in that
country, with inciting a large party to insurrection
in favour of the House of Nassau—he himself
being one of the principals and when that conspiracy
was nearly brought to a conclusion, the Noble Lord was
charged with having abandoned that party, and de-
serted those who, but for his suggestions, would never
have been concerned in it. These were grave
charges to ba brought against any man acting as a
Minister of this country, and were calculated to injure
the interests of this country by giving a bad character to
its diplomacy. He called upon the Noble Lord, if in the
House, to stand up in his place and deny.these allegation•,
if possible : and if the Noble Lord was not present, he
hoped hie relative (the Noble Earl opposite) would give him
reason to believe that the charges were without founda-
tion. lie trusted that the Noble Earl, with his usual
courtesy, would answer these questions to the satisfaction
of the House. He had no ether wish than to set the cha-
racter of our diplomatists right with the country.
Lord PONSONBY rose for the purpose of most posi-
tively contradicting the statements alluded to by the Noble
Marquis.—(Cheers.) He would not at the present mo-
ment enter into any explanation of the conduct he had
pursued, as he did not consider the Noble Marquis as
his judge.—( Hear, hear.) He stood before their Lordships
upon his character, and had it not been for the Noble
Marquis bringing the subject before the House, he
should have scorned any notice of such a question.
He called on the Noble Illatquis to bring forward
those documents on which he founded his assertions, and
he should have no difficulty in answering for the conduct
he had pursued. The statement alluded to by the Noble
Marquis was as foul a calumny as the mind of man could
invent.—(Laud cheers.)

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY could assure the
Noble Lord that he felt extremely happy in having been
the means of calling on him in that House to proclaim
to the country and Belgium, that the scandalous al-
legations promulgated were totally without foundation,
He should sit down satisfied with having done a great
service to the character of the diplomacy of the country.
Earl GREY thought that 110 man could have had
even a suspicion that the Noble Lord had been guilty of
the acts attributed to him ; and Ise was sorry that the
Noble Marquis should have thought it necessary to
call for a formal contradiction of them in that House.—
The accusations were devoid of truth.—(Loud cheers.)
The Noble Lord had uniformly acted according to in-
structions, and in a manner to entitle himself to
the approbation of the Government and the country
at large. How the Noble Marquis could have
brought himself to believe that the Noble Lord could so
far degrade himself as to be a party to an insurrection he
could not conceive ; such a character was as remote from
the Noble Lord as the suspicion of it, he (Earl Grey) should
have thought, would have been from the mind of every
man who heard the statement. With respect to the state-
ment of the Noble Marquis, of his declining to answer
questions, he had only stated that he should do so, in order
to avoid giving opportunities of entering into discussions.
The Noble Marquis had charged him with having taken ad-
vantage of putting questions for the purpose of raising discus-
sions, he could assure the Noble Marquis he had never done
so. If questions were:put he should not hesitate to answer ;
but he hoped the irregular manner in which advantage was
taken of those questions for the purpose of making de-
clarations against the Government, would not be perse-
vered in. He was happy that his noble relative had
satisfied the Noble Marquis of the propriety
of his conduct, and he was sure that every person who
had heard the statetnent must feel equal pleasure.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY moved the second
reading of the Pluralities Bill.

Lord ELDON suggested the propriety of postponing
:he second reading till Thursday next, in order to afford
:be House a further opportunity of learning the merits of
Bill.

Lord KING would take that opportunity of saying a
few words upon the subject. Though he felt confident
that the Bill did not go far enough, yet he should not
object to its being read a second time, in the hope that it
would receive material alterations in the committee.
There were persons in the country who called
themselves moderate Reformers, and when they pro-
posed any measure of Reform it was sure to be the
minimum--so with the present Bill, which, in his opi-
nion, was one of the most unsatisfactory measures ever
brought forward in that House. Pluralities were
only to be justified where the livings were so small as not
to be sufficient for the support of the minister,
and the allowing of one individual to hold two rich bene-
fices savoured ton much of trading in Church patronage.
—(Cheers.) The Catholic Church with all its faults
did not allow of such proceedings, and he thought that
all those who wished well to the Established Church, espe-
cially at a time when it was a doubt whether the reli-
gion of the Established Church was that of the majority
of the kingdom, would do well to consider whether or not
a more effective Bill should be introduced.
After a few observations from Lord ELLENsoitoucx,
the second reading of the Bill was postponed till Friday.—
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 5.
Mr. CLIVE reported that the Committee on the Dor.
setshire election petition had met en Saturday, and ad-
journed and met again to-day, and were again obliged to
adjourn, in consequence of the absence of the Lord Advo-
cate and the Hon. H. Smith (two of the Committee) from
illness.

O❑ the motion of the HoN. MEMBER, Sir Charles
Bell, a medical gentleman, was called to the bar, and
examined as to the state of the Lord Advocate ; he stated
that the Lord Advocate was exceedingly unwell, and that
in consequence he had been prevented from attending his
duty on the Committee. From present appearances, he

(Sir Charles Bell) would not advise the Lord Advocate to
attend even to-morrow, if it were an ordinary occasion.
A discussion then took place as to the period during
which the Lord Advocate should be excused attendance.

Mr. LITTLETON assured the Houseihaiil;eillness
of the Lord Advocate was particularly observable, and
nothing was more calculated to bring on a return of
it thin attending to a long and laborious inquiry.
He therefore suggested that the Learned Lord should be
excused from further attendance on the Committee.

Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE reminded the House
that the parties would be put to very considerable expense
by any protracted or indefinite adjournment.
Mr. WILKS thought that before the House agreed to
the suggestion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Littleton) they
ought to have more specific evidence of a medical gentle-
man before them.
The SPEAKER thought it would be better to recall
Sir Charles Bell, and ask whether it was probable that
the Lord Advocate could attend to-morrow. The House
having agreed to it,
Sir C. Bell was brought again to the bar, and he said
he thought that the Lore! Advocate might possibly be able
to attend to-morrow, but he could not say whether the
Learned Lord would be able to give his continual attendance.
Mr. Seaton, a medical man, was then introduced, and
he deposed to the illness of the Hon. Mr. Smith, but ex-
pressed an opinion that he would be able to attend to-
morrow. .

After a few further observations, the attendance of the
Lord Advocate and Mr. Smith was excused for this day.
Lord MORPETH presented a petition from the agent
for a Bill for making a road from Doncaster to Selby,
stating that the Bill bad not been brought in in consequence
of a misunderstanding on his part of the standing orders of
the House, and praying for leave to bring in the Bill. The
Noble Lord trusted the House would grant the prayer of
the petition, as the speedy making of the road was ex-
tremely important. The House had granted him a si-
milar indulgence, under like circumstances, with respect
to the Bill for forming a new road between London and
Edinburgh.
Mr. STRICKLAND supported the prayer of the peti-
tion, and trusted the House would grant the relief prayed.
Sir T. FRENIANTLE, as a Member of the Commit-
tee on the standing orders, bad no objection to the granting
of the prayer of the petition.—The petition was ordered
to be read ;
And, on the motion of Lord MoaraTtr, leave was given
to bring in the Bill.
_ _

LEFROY presented a petition against the new
plan of education in Ireland. The Hon. Member con-
curred entirely with the prayer of the petition, but would
not at the present moment enter into the discussion of the
question.

- Lord ACHESON, on being called on by the Speaker,
rose for the purpose of presenting a petition, when
Mr. GRATTAN rose to call the Noble Lord to order.
Some mistake had arisen, as the Noble Lord had not put
his name on the list before he did in the morning. Ac-
cording to the ballot his name stood seventh, and the
Noble Lord's eleventh, on the Speaker's list.
The SPEAKER observed that the Hon. Member was
under a total misapprehension of the facts of the case.
The Noble Lord was in perfect order.
Lord COLE presented a petition from a parish in
Longford, against the New System of Education in Ireland.
Mr. WILI3RAHAM presented a petition from Mac-
clesfield, signed by 17,000 persons, against the Factories
Bill. The Hon. Member also presented petitions from
several other places on the same subject, and stated that
although he was opposed to some of the details of the Bill,
yet he was willing that it should go to a second reading.
Sir E. HAYES presented a petition from the Distil.
lers of Donegal, respecting the malt duties drawback.