The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-12 00:00:00

CORPORATION REFORM.

The Hon. MEMBER said that the last petition he had to pre-
sent was signed by 700 electors of Colchester, expressing their
approbation of the Municipal Reform Bill, and praying that it
do pass into a law.—( Cheers.)
IPSN'v ICH ELECTION.

Mr. C. BARCLAY presented a Petition from Thomas
More Kirk, and gave notice that to-morrow he would move
that the Petitioner be brought to the bar and discharged.

CARLOW ELECTION COMMITTEE.

The floN. MENIBER begged to ask the Learned Member
for Dublin whether he had made use of a statement, that by
the decision of the Carlotv Election Committee no man could
have a franchise under 91d. per annum?
Mr. O'CONNELL bad no hesitation in admitting that he
did make that statement, and he was sorry for it, as he should
have said thirty.

Mr. BARCLAY (as Chairman of the Committee), would
express his surprize that any individual—(" Order, " Chair,
chair," and confusion.)
Mr. HUME rose to order. This discussion could not be
continued unless the documents on which the statements were
founded were before the House.

The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member having asked a
question and received an answer, could not now enter into any
argument on it.
Mr. BARCLAY again attempted to address the House,
amid loud cries of " Order," " Chair," &c. from the Minis-
terial Benches. •

The SPEAKER ?gain interposed, and reminded the Hon.
Member that he was out of order.

Mr. II A RCL AY again rose, but was met by loud cries of
" Order," in the midst of which the Hon. Member resumed
Lis scat.

Mr. HUMS moved the Order of the Day for resuming
the adjourned debate on printed papers, for the purpose of
postponing it till to-morrow.—Agreed.to.

BUSINESS OF THE EVENING.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL would take the present opportu-
nity of stating that he intended first moving the Order of the
Day for resuming the debate on the second reading of the
Municipal Corporations ( Ireland) Bill. He would then
go into Committee on the Bill relative to Compensation to
slave owners ; and thirdly, his Noble Friend the Secretary for
Ireland should move the third reading of the Church of Ire-
land Bill.

Mr. HUME asked a question relative to the order fur the
detention of letters in the Glasgow Post-office, on the 22d
of last month.

Mr. I. ABO UCIIERE did not know why the motion for
laying the order in question on the table had not been com-
plied with.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND.)
The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on
the 2d reading of this Bill having been read,
Mr. F. SHAW rose to repeat his protest against the House
entering upon the di,eussion of so important a measure at this
late period of the session, more especially before the evidence
of the Commissioners relative to Dublin was before it. The
Hon. Member proceeded at some length to reiterate his objec-
tions to the Bill, which he denounced as being most iniqui-
tous and unfair in its details.
Mr. BARCLAY also complained of the Bill, and pro-
ceeded to comment upon its details. He thought the object
was to hand over the Corporations to the hands of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dublin, in whom the respectable
portion of the people of Ireland had no confidence. He com-
plained of tho Hon. Member having obtained his information
relative to the decision of the Carlow Committee from a rela-
tion of his who was on it.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not know whether he was to answer
the charge against himself or not. The Hon. Member agreed
that there should be no reform in the Irish Corporations, be-
cause they had no confidence in him. The Hon. Member
had eulogized himself, but he (Me. O'Connell) did not
coincide in that eulogium, more especially as that eulogium
appeared to be against the facts. He denied the assertion
that he (Mr. O'Connell) had received any information from
a relative of his on the Committee, but he repeated his
assertion without imputing improper motives to the Hon. Mem-
ber opposite, that if the decision of the Carlow Committee was
allowed to stand, 101. freeholders would require a qualification of
301....4 Hear.) Ile did not believe that a worse tribunal existed
than the Committees of that House, and he was sure that the
Carlow Election Committee would not rescue that tribunal

from the general opinion of its inefficiency.
Mr. LE FRO Y did not mean to enter into any discussion;
-would only say that he was not opposed to any reform that
/434 Said a tridency to make these Corporations answer the purpose
kJ, - for which they were instituted, but to ascertain what those
ends and q*ts were they must have the charters before them.
***" ..r ' It was his:in ention to move that these charters be laid on the
me 2.".
i. v' ' table of the House, but he would content himself for the pre.
".—
.1...2 .e,')
#k

sent with protesting against proceeding-With -tl:is Bill-at this
late period of the
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed to-morrow.
PRISONS' REGITLATION BILL.
On the motion of Lc,rd JOHN RUSSELL, the House
resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House upon this
Bill. W. R. Stewart in the Chair.
The several clauses of the Bill, down to the 15th, were
then agreed to without amendment. On this clause being put,
Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE rose to move that the
Bride Well Hospital be exempted from the operation of the
Bill. The Hon. Member concluded by moving a clause to
this effect.
Lord J. RUSSELL had consulted w:th a Noble Friend '
(the Duke of Richmond) upon the subject of this clause, and
the Noble Duke had informed him that he did not think that the
regulation of this Bridcwell would be improved by its being in-
eluded in this Bill. He would not oppose the clause, although in
1 his opinion, it militated against the principle of the Bill, and
was one which he certainly ►would not himself have introduced.
Mr. II AWE S saw no reason why the Bridewell should not
be included in the Bill, and would divide the House against the
introduction of the clause.
Sir R. INGLIS supported the clause. There was
strong evidence to show that this Hospital was well ma-
naged, and this he thought a sufficient case for excluding
this hospital from the operation of the Bill.
Lord HOWICK opposed the introduction of the clause,
which, he thought, a direct contradiction to the principle of
the Bill.

(LEFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The VICE- CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack
shortly More five o'clock.
CORPORATION BILL.

Petiti_ais were presented against the Corporation 13111 by
Lord Kenyon ; by the Marquis of Bristol from Bury St. Ed_
munds ; by Lord 1)e Grey, from Colchester; and by the Duke
of Ruthind, from Bath and Scarborough. . .

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a petition
from Holywell in favour of the Municipal Reform Bill.
Lord TENIPLEMORE presented a petition from Wex-
ford, praying for an alteration of the law respecting tithes.
The Duke of RICHMOND brought up the Report on the
High Ways Bill, which was ordered to be committed to-
morrow. _ _ _

The Sheriffs Declaration Bill was read a third time and
passed.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition from
Oswestry, praying that they might be exempted from the ope-
ration of the Corporation Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from
New Sal:2Til against the Corporation Bill.
Lord A SIIIWRTON presented a similar petition from
Great Yarmouth.
The Marquis of LANgDOWNE presented a petition
from the inhabitants of Portsmouth, signed by 1,900 -per-
sons, the first name at the head of the petition being that
of the Mayor of the Borough of Portsmouth in favour of the
Bill.
The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition from
the borough of Bewdley ; and Lord LYNDH UR ST from the
Borough of Yarmouth, against the Municipal Corporation Bill.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND.

The Earl of WICKLOW begged to call attention
to a circumstance of some importance, with reference to the
administration of police. A few nights ago a Noble Friend
of his having brought the subject forward, the Noble Viscount
opposite was reported to have stated that the exercise of the pre-
rogative of mercy, on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, was
judiciously exercised, as on that occasion the persons convic-
ted were equally guilty of the same offence, and equal
punishment ought to be awarded to all.—( Hear, hear.)
The Noble Earl then went at some length into the case,
and stated that the Jury had returned a verdict of aggra-
vated assault against the Catholic, and simple assaults against
the Protestant, party. Ireland generally had an experienced
Secretary when she had a young Lieutenant ; but at the
present moment she had the infliction of two young and in-
experienced men.—(Cheers.) He deeply lamented the feel-
ing that prevailed in Ireland. He lamented the feeling that
had been shown towards the Lord-Lieutenant. He thought
those who treated him so had acted most unwisely. They
should remember that he was the representative of the Sove-
reign of the country.
Viscount DUNCANNON said, the course pursued by the
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not without a precedent, in
fact, it was a very common one. The Noble Lord then, at
some length, defended the conduct of Lord Mulgrave.
Lord L YND HURST said that the Secretary of State
in England never varied the sentence of any person with-
out applying to the Judge who had tried the cause. The
course that had been pursued in Ireland he considered to have
been very impolitic, for it appeared that the Lord Lieutenant
had in repeated instances varied the judgment pronounced by
the Judges, without any consultation with that Judge, or any
accurate information as to the circumstances under which it was
pronounced.
Lord FARNHAM begged to say that he never heard
of any case that had occurred during his residence in Ireland
that had been at all interfered with by the Lord Lieutenant,
which the most fastidious person could find fault with.
He considored that, in all probability, the better way would
be for the Noble Lord opposite to lay upon the table a copy
of the memorial of the Jury to the Lord Lieutenant.
Lord PLUNKETT felt convinced from what he knew of
the Learned Judge, who tried those prisoners, that he had
not suffered any political feeling to interfere with his
administration of justice, and he was equally ready to bear
his testimony with the Noble Baron who had just sat down to
the correctness of the views of his Noble Friend the First
Lieutenant, and to his anxiety for the welfare of Ireland; but
he believed that after the trial had taken place, and the sentence
had been pronounced, a distinction was made with reference
to the degrees of guilt of the prisoners. The report of the
Learned Judge was laid before Lard Haddington, and there
was no reason to suppose that that report had not subse-
quently come before the Lord Lieutenant.
Lords LYNDHURST and DUNCANNON explained.
Lord VE SE Y contended that there was nothing- in the
case to justify the course taken.
(LEFT SITTING.)