The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, J'ar 16.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Five o'clock.
Mr. CAMPBELL brought up copies of the correspondence
relative to the case of Mr. Buckingham,
Mr. BARNARD presented a petition from Greenwich, in
favour of the Greenwich and Gravesend Railway.
Sir F. POLLOCK presented a petition from the owners
and occupiers of land in Godmanchester, praying that the
rights of freemen might be preserved under the Corporation
Reform Bill.
NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from certain architects,
complaining of the delay in delivering the plans and other par-
ticulars relative to the building of the new Houses of Parliament,
and praying that an inquiry may be instituted into the cause
of it ; also that the plans might be exhibited in some public place
in order that public opinion might be passed upon them. The
petitioners also complained of the orders that had been issued
to take down part of the ruins of St. Stephen's Chapel, and
that several architects had been prevented from visiting the
ruins in order to ascertain whether they were in a dangerous
state or not. The Honourable Member trusted that means
would be taken by his Majesty's Government to facilitate
the admission of architects to view the ruins, in order
that the opinion of professional men might be ascertained as
to the necessity of removing them or not.
After a few observations from Mr. HOPE, the petition was
ordered to lie on the table.
CORPORATION REFORM.
The Earl of LINCOLN presented a petition from the bur-
gesses of Nottingham against certain parts of the Corporation
Reform Bill. The Noble Earl did not see how destruction
of the rights of the petitioners would promote the good of the
town of Nottingham. In his opinion, the effect of the pre-
sent Municipal Reform Bill would be, not only to deprive the
burgesses of their privileges, but of their property.—( Hear.)
The petitioners further complained that the effect of this Bill
would be to deprive them of many valuable rights, arid amongst
others the right of pasturage over 1,176 acres of land. He
put it to the Noble Lord the Secretary of state for the Home
Department, whether it was right or just to deprive of their
privileges and property so large a class of poor persons? He
hoped the House would not allow these clauses to remain
part of the Bill.
Mr. A. TREVOR entirely concurred in the prayer of the
petition.
Mr. PRYME said, that every kind of waste and spoliation
took place where the right of common prevailed, and nothing
could be more beneficial to these burgesses themselves, than
that this property should be vested in the hands of a Town
Council.
Mr. PL UMP TR E had been requested to support the prayer
of the petition, which he did most cordially.
The petition was then laid on the table.
RIGHTS OF FREEMEN.
Mr. R. LUSHINGTON wished to ask a question of the
Noble Lord opposite, viz., whether he meant to bring in a
clause to preserve to existing freemen their political rights ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had no intention to introduce
any clause to that effect. As he understood the Bill, it did
not take away any rights from existing freemen. It was not,
necessary, therefore, to introduce any such clause. Those
who now had rights would continue to enjoy them.
Mr. MILES moved for an Address to His Majesty for cer-
tain Returns respecting the Boundaries of certain boroughs in
England and Wales.—Ordered.
Mr. E WART presented a petition from the owners of
small tenements in Liverpool, praying for a change of the Law
as respected them.
Mr. AGLIONBY strongly supported the prayer of the
petition. He trusted some measure upon the subject would
be introduced by the Government. They would easily sur-
mount the difficulties which were in the way of a private Mem-
ber of the House.
The ATTORNE Y. GENE RAL thought the question was
in very good hands, when in those of the 'Hon. Member for
Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby). He trusted that during the
recess he would turn his special attention to the subject, and
be prepared in the next session to introduce a measure upon it.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he had already two Bills prepared,
and would most willingly give them into the hands of the
Attorney- General, if he would promise to press them through.
Sir R. GREISLY and two Hon. Members (names
unknown) presented petitions upon the Corporation Bill, but
from the noise in the House, it was impossible to catch the
purport, or the names of the places from whence they came.
Mr. HOPE presented a petition from 309 freemen of
Gloucester, in which they stated that the freedom of the city
had now become valuable, and complaining, that under the
present Corporation Bill these rights would be abolished.
CORPORATION BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL presented several petitions in favour
of the Municipal Corporation Bill, but owing to the low tone
in which the Noble Lord spoke, it was not heard from whence
they came.

TELE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 17, 1835.

in any stage of the Bill he chose, to state all his objections to
it--as he had not yet heard those objections, he would not be
expected to have answered them.—( Cheers and laughter.)
Col. SIBTHORP was similarly situated with the Hon.
Baronet. The Noble Lord was bringing and pushing forward
one of the most important of Bills, without the House
being in possession of any knowledge of what the real
principles of it were, brought forward as it had been. There
had been three editions of it printed, the last of which had only
been put into the hands of Hon. Members that morning ;
in fact his own copy was not yet dry.--( Laughter.) Then how
was it that they could have made up their minds upon such
short notice, and without discussing the principles of the Bill ?
The Noble Lord upon the suggestion of the Hon. Member
for Middlesex had sub silentio shoved (with an appropriate
gesture) into the Bill, five new clauses of which the House
had never before heard.—( Loud laughter.) These daises
could not possibly be understood by the House, and he
very much doubted whether they were understood by
the bench opposite.---( Continued laughter.) How, in
the name of common sense, was the House to be
called upon now to agree to the principle of the Bill ?
They could not possibly have examined minutely into the
principles. When Members rose upon his side of the House,
their voices were drowned in the conversation of the Benches
opposite—of Hon. Members opposite, who came there for
no other purpose than to support the Noble Lord—( Cheers)—
that was the only object for which they were there.—( Loud and
reiterated cheering.) He put it to the House and the country, and
he wanted it to go forth to the world, whether this was the
proper manner of legislating ?—( Hear.) He would tell
the Noble Lord that however he might manoeuvre in that
House there would be justice done to the country in another.
They called upon this House to pass a most important measure
upon the suggestion of the Noble Lord. He cautioned the House
most particularly not to trust to the suggestions of the Noble
Lord, and not to put any faith upon the promise of a discus-
sion on the third reading.—(Laughter, and cries of " Oh !")
That Bill had been throughout conducted with the same poli-
tical subtlety and hypocrisy which had characterised other Bills.
Mr. C. BULLER postponed his motion fora Bill to pro-
vide a competent tribunal for the trial of controverted elec-
tions until Monday next.
Mr. GRANTLY BERKELEY rose in pursuance of a
motion of which he had given notice for the adaptation of a
portion of the Strangers' Gallery to the accomodation of ladies.
It might seem strange that such a motion was now proposed,
for in former times, when people were less gallant than
at present, even so long ago as 1761, ladies were not
only allowed their places in the gallery, but were admitted
to the seats beneath it. In the Irish Parliament House ladies
were fully admitted, and in the House of Peers now,
the ladies were allowed to take their seats on the most inte-
resting occasions; and he would ask why they should he ex-
cluded from the Lower House ?—( Hear.) lam well aware
continued the Hon. Gentleman, that there is an erroneous
opinion entertained by a few, a very few, as to what is deemed
the too great interference of Ladies already in the political
world, and I have even heard of some men who are sufficiently
selfish in their confined notions of lawful rule and right of su-
premacy, to say, that they ought to take no part therein ; but
this narrow reasoning I deny. So long as a female head can
singly wear the Crown of England let them not hold so false a
doctrine. Are there any to be found hardy enough to assert
that the female portion of the population does not contain a
vast share of the better intellect of the country, or that in very
many instances it does not fall to their lot to think of, and to rule,
the line of conduct which man in his more apparent wisdom may
pursue ? And is it not often in their power (a power which no
one can take from them) by their influence to decide a con-
tested election for county or town ? It is—there cannot be a
doubt of it. Well, then, I ask the House if—as it cannot
divest them of weight in matters over which their mental worth
must ever give them sway—if it would not be better—if it
would not be but an act of justice—to concede to them an op-
portunity of listening to a debate in an honoured situation,
to which they are so thoroughly entitled ? Before the recent
conflagration they had it in their power to preside over our
political hemisphere, and I am not aware that the sittings of
the House were later on that account ; then why not permit
them a less lofty, but more comfortable accommodation ? I
have been assured by one or two Right Hon. Members (but
who, I trust, have too much gallantry really to oppose me),
that the only reasons on which they hesitated as to whether
they should support me or not were, that if the ladies were
admitted, they feared that those gentlemen who could speak
would always, and on every subject, be addressing themselves
to the Gallery instead of to the legislative portion of the
House, and that it would tend to lengthen the addresses, and
increase the number of orators. To the first of these fears I
have to say, that I much doubt now, whether, in some in-
stances, Hon. Members do not address themselves to those
beyond the walls, or rather to the Galleries, instead of to the
minds of those in actual deliberation. Did they not do so,
some Right Hon., Learned, and Gallant Friends of mine
would not persist in their speeches so long after they had
become in reality tedious as twice told tales, vexing the dull
ears of drowsy men, and obviously useless, from the fact that
every Member in the House had long before made up his mind
as to the vote which he should give. Again, I deny that it
would be likely to increase the number of orators, for this
reason :—lt strikes me that I have heard eight or ten words,
indifferently delivered and applied within these walls, which,
after a night's rest, or a journey into the country, became
wonderfully refreshed and magnified, appearing in the papers,
to the eyes of the admiring public, both male and female, not
only of twenty or thirty lines' duration, but embellished with
sundry cheers, teeming with wit, poetry, and pathos, and
ending in a reception widely different from that which in my
mistaken imagination I held them really to have received. I
maintain, therefore, that such orators (if such there should
still be)—whose speeches thrive from a few hours' rest, from
a journey, or, with mushroom celerity, during the hours of
darkness—that they would for their own sakes remain silent,
in order that their female friends at least might still lean on
the fond recollection that the power of former eloquence had
not departed, but only slumbered till some more weighty call.
Now, granting that from the presence of ladies the language
of the House did assume a softer, a more poetical, and a
more civil style, where would be the harm of this ? I will
ask the House to look back upon the language and upon
the general spirit of coarse personality which has at times dis-
tinguished the present session, and to declare whether there
is not wide room for improvement, and whether the bitter tone
that has at times been used could not be mitigated by the
honey that could be infused by a better presence ? Why, I
contend that had the Gallery, or part of it, been tenanted by
Ladies, several Hon. Members of my acquaintance would
never have had cause to allude to a breach of privilege,
neither would a Right Hon. Friend of mine (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) have had sufficient obduracy of
heart to have inflicted a speech of five hours' duration had
he known that, for that time, he must have stormed the
tympanum of the female ear. Ireland herself, though ever
eloquent, were ladies present, might learn a happy lesson, and
throw off the rough and angry heather of her mountains, and
appear in the more quiet and acceptable, and far more persua-
sive and useful garb of her emerald vales. The sailor does
not always reach the richest haven on the crest of the wildest
wave, and violent language cannot persuade, while it must ever
offend; or, to use the words of the Sovereign Elizabeth,
" anger makes men witty, but it keeps them poor." I ques-
tion much if the admission of ladies would have any effect at
all, save the grace that their countenance ever gives ; or, if it
had, whether it would not confer more good than harm on the
character of debates in general. 1 therefore ask permission to
appoint a Select Committee to consider and report upon the
best means of setting apart and adapting a portion of the
Strangers' Gallery for the admittance of ladies during the de-
bates of this House ; such admittance to be granted or regu-
lated according to such form and manner as the Speaker shall
appoint. Also that directions be given with a view to the
same effect in the building of the new House of Commons.
A dozen Hon. MENIBEUS started up to second the motion ;
but we believe Mr. FaaNcii obtained the enviable distinction
of doing so.
The question having been put from the Chair, the sound
of the " ayes" shook the walls of the House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, without entering at all into the
merits of the question, would merely observe that he could
not acquiesce in the motion, because in his opinion, if it were
deemed advisable to adopt the proposition for the admittance
of ladies during the debates, it would be much better that the
House should do itself the honour of adopting it, instead of
referring it to the consideration of a select committee. More-
over, a select committee appeared to be quite unnecessary, as
the Hon. Member for Gloucestershire had moved that the
Speaker should appoint the form and manner in which the
ladies should be admitted.
The gallery was then cleared for a division.
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the ladies
The announcement of the number was received with voci-
ferous cheers.
On our return to the gallery, Mr. BERKELEY was read-
ing the names of the Committee amidst great confusion and
noise occasioned by the shouts of laughter with which some
of the names were received. The mirth of the House was
loudly renewed, when, during the appointment of the Committee
the Hon. Member made the proposition, which was instantly
acceded to, that the names of Mr. Pryme and Mr. Pease
should be added to the list.
The following was the Committee appointed :
Berkeley, Hon. G. C. Cowper, Hon. W. I. Norreys, Lord
Bagshaw, John Donkin, Sir It. O'Connell, D.
Beauclerk, Major Eaton, Richard J. Dssulston, Lord
Bernal, H. Elley, Sir J. I'arrott, J.
Berkeley, C. Ewart, W. Pease, Joseph
Berkeley, F. }ancourt, C. S. J. Pechell, G. R.
Buller, C. Forrester, Hen. C. Polhill, Frederick
Bruce, C. L C. Gore, W.O. Pryme, G.
Carter, J. B. Hume, Joseph Tracey, C. H.
Chaudos, Marquis of Milton, Viscount Worcester, hlarq. of
Chetwyml, W. F.
FEMALE EMIGRATION.

Mr. CHARIESIUSHINGTON postponed until Thurs-
day next, his motion respecting female emigration to Australia.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
On the motion of Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, a Return was
ordered to be laid before the House of the sums of money
voted to the College of Maynooth during the last five years,
the number of Professors employed therein, and their respec-
tive salaries.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

On the motion (as we believe) for postponing the order of
the day for the further consideration of the Report of the Im-
prisonment for Debt Bill,
Mr. HAVES represented the great importance of the sub-
ject, and hoped that an early day would be fixed for proceed-
ing with the Bill.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL declared that he was most
desirous to proceed with it; he bad done everything in his
power to expedite the proceeding - and with the concurrence
of his Noble Friend, he would take the earliest op. 21
the subject.
POST-OFFICE.
Lord. -LOWT-H-Er(ii4e tuiderstood), on the suggestion.