The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 4.
Mr. DIXON presented a petition from the Shipping
Association of Glasgow, praying for the protection of
the West India interest. The Hon. Member concurred
entirely with the prayer of the petition.
Lord DUDLEY STEWART presented a petition from
Arundel, praying that that borough might return a
Member to Parliament itself, and not be joined with
Littlehampton. He said, that the towns were so far
distant from each other that they could never be joined,
but so near (being in the same trade) that they could
never agree. He was persuaded, that if the two towns
were joined, the feelings of the people would run so high
that no election could take place without riot or bloodshed.
Mr. CHOKER had been requested to support the peti-
tion. He was informed from good authority that there

were many churches nearer to the church of Mundt.'
than was that of Littlehampton. He hoped than
these towns were not joined so as to benefit are
particular interest, but it so happened, that by the town
of Littlehampton being thrown into the borough of
Arundel, the interest of the Duke of Norfolk would there
predominate.
Lord ALTHORP said, the arrangements made for
joining these towns under the Boundary Bill, were made
by independent gentlemen, and the boundaries were fixed
with reference to no particular interest but that of jus-
tice. The gentlemen who were Commissioners were in-
capable of such conduct as that imputed to them by the
Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. CROKER said that the Boundaries Bill was
fixed to come on for discussion on Wednesday. He was
anxious to know from the Noble Lord whether it would
come on that night or not ?
Lord ALTHORP at present thought that it would he
convenient to bring it in on Wednesday, but if not, there
was an open day when it might be convenient for the
House to take it.
Lord DUDLEY STEWART then presented a petition
from the Corporation of Arundel, complaining that that
town contained more than 300 ten-pound tenantry, yet
Littlehampton had been joined to it, in order to send a
Member to Parliament. The Hon. Gentleman said,
that the instructions which had been given to the Com-
missioners, and sanctioned by that House, were, that to
no borough of more than 300 101.-houses; should any pa-
rish he added, except it was immediately contiguous. He
considered this as a case of injustice, and hoped the peti-
tioners would be allowed to make out their case at the Bar
of the House, or that it should be referred to a Select
Committe. When the Boundaries Bill came before the
House, it this clause was not altered, he would give it his
most uncompromising opposition.
Sir R. VYVYAN hoped that as a case had been assert-
ed by the petitioners, the Noble Lord opposite (Althorp)
would allow them to make out their case at the bar ; if
not, lie begged of his Noble Friend to press his motion for
a Select Committee, and if lie (Sir R. V.) stood alone, he
would press it to a division.
Lord ALTHORP thought that the proper time for the
discussion of this case would be when the Boundaries Bill
was before the House.
After a few words from Mr. CROXER, Sir C. WETHE-
RELL, and Sir M. W. RIDLEY, the petition was ordered
to be printed.
Lord I). STEWART declared himself as favourable to
Reform as he had ever been, and dial not conceive that in
opposing one clause in the Boundaries Bill, he was doing
any injury whatever to the cause of Reform. He
thought Ministers deserved the gratitude of the country
for the course they had taken, and only hoped that that
great measure, the Reform Bill, would to-night, in another
place, be brought to a triumphant conclusion.—The
petition was then ordered to be printed.
Sir R. VYVYAN understood that it was intended to
propose a Bill in one of the Houses of Parliament to enable
the Members of Government to find an easier access into that
House, and he wished to know whether Ministers intended
to give it their support. He also wished to know, in re-
ference to the petition just presented, whether the Noble
Lord, in certain cases, would consent to hear evidence at
the Bar, or would refer the matter to a Committee up
stairs?
Lord ALTHORP stated, it was not the intention of
Government to propose any such Bill as the Hon.
Baronet alluded to. With regard to the other question,
he could not at present pledge himself to any
particular course ; but this he would say, that wherever
any difficulties occurred, he would give every requisite
means of information.
Mr. DUNDA S gave notice that he would move the second
reading of the Edinburgh Police Bill to•morrow.
Lord ALTHORP moved that the Order of the Day for
receiving the report of the Ways and Means be now read.
Mr. LITTLETON wished to put a question to
the Noble Lord, on a subject of great importance, and
relating to which lie had presented a petition iuis evening
from a Committee of country ..,..okers sitting in London.
The Committee prayed to be allowed to offer evidence
on behalf of the country bankers, before the Secret Com-
mittee now sitting on the Bank Charter. And he begged
to ask if the Noble Lord would have any objection to
such a proceeding ?
Lord ALTIIORP said, there was no doubt that it
would be necessary to call evidence before the Secret Corn-
mitte, but he wished to know whether the Hon. Member's
proposition
was to hear Counsel.—(No, no, from Mr. Lit-
tleton.) As it was a Secret Committee, he could not consent
that Counsel should be heard, but it certainly was his
intention to propose to the Committee to receive such in-
formation as the country bankers could give.
Mr. LITTLETON expressed himself satisfied with the
Noble Lord's answer.
Mr. GOULBURN was desirous of ascertaining at
what period the Noble Lord intended to call on the
House to make provision for the civil charges of Govern-
ment. At the commencement of the present reign, the
House, in reply to the King's speech, expressed its readiness
to provide the necessary charges of the Civil Governmen',
and to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown. The
Crown had been provided for, and after a lapse of 18
or 19 months, it appeared that not one step was
taken to provide for the Civil Government. The subject
was very important, inasmuch, as instead of providing for
the Judges, the Ambassadors and other high officers, there
had been only small votes on account.

Lord ALTHORP put it to the candour of the House and
the country whether the peculiar circumstances in which
he had been placed did not excuse him from any apparent
neglect.--(Hear, hear.) He felt it necessary that the
question should be settled as early as possible, and
he
apledged d
be, du
coulhimself thatt presentit Session.should
be settled, as
far
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that at the commencement
of the present Session, the Crown had recommended
the establishment of a municipal police throughout
the country, to prevent a recurrence of the scenes which
had taken place lately in Bristol ; and the House, in
their reply, assured the Crown that they would direct their
earliest attention to the subject. He withed to ask whe-
ther the views of Government had been altered by any
local obstructions, or whether it was still intended to
bring some such measure forward ?
Lord ALTHORP could not pledge himself as to the
period when he should bring the motion forward, but
could assure the House that the question was in a state of
forwardness.
Mr. WYNN-ivished to know from the Noble Lord
opposite, whether any measures were in progress to enable
his Majesty to incorporate the new boroughs under the Act
now in progress ? If any such measures were about to
be adopted, he thought it was but right that they should
be laid before the House.
Lord ALTHORP said, that from the wording of one
of the clauses of the Bill, it was necessary that some such
measure should be taken, but he could not say whether
these measures would be taken during the present Session.
Mr. IRVING wished to know whether the Noble
Lord had, as yet, made up his mind to adopt any mea-
sures for carrying the report of the West India Commit-
tee into effect? Another question be wished to put to the
Noble Lord was, that a Committee being now sitting to
inquire into the state of the slaves in the West Indies,
whether it was the intention of Government, during the
sitting of that Committee, to suspend the Orders of
Council issued on the 23d of November ?
Lord ALTHORP said, that-with respect to the first
question he would not give any answer. With respect
to the Orders in Council, they were law in the Crown co-
lonies, and would not be interfered with ; but in theother
colonies they could not be persevered in during the sitting
of the Committee.
_ _

Mr. BARING, on the motion for bringing up the
report of the Ways and Means Committee, wished to
know whether it was the intention of the Noble Lord to
bring in any Bill this Session with respect to the Rus-
sian loan ; and he also wished to know whether it was

true that this country was under an engagement
for a considerable sum, for the purpose of placing a Ger-
man Prince on the throne of Greece:
Lord ALTHORP said, with respect to the latter
question, one of the grounds on which the Russian
loan bad been defended was that Russia' had not admitted
the separation was complete. Since that period, however,
she had admitted the separation. Another convention, how-
ever, had been made between Russia and this country ;
the subject of that convention was not yet ratified, when
it was it would be laid on the table of the House, and then
such measures as were necessary would be brought
forward. Till that period, the payment of the Dutch
Russian Loan would be suspended.—(Hear, hear.)—
With respect to the other question, it was one

relating to negotiations not yet completed, and therefore
he trusted the Hon. Member would not press the subject.
Mr. HERRIES expressed his satisfaction at hearing
the new decision of submitting this question to Parliament,
and that the payments of the loin till then were sus
pended. That was something gained by the discussion to
which he had given rise, though the majority decided
against him. He rose, however, to enter his protest
against what the Noble Lord stated as the ground of the
opposition to the motion.—(Hear, hear.) On the part
of the Government the line taken was the ground assumed
by the Law Officers, that the separation had taken pl ce.
He admitted that one person on the side of the Govern-
ment had made use of the argument that the separation
was not complete as far as Russia was concerned ; but the
ground laid down by the Law Officers, on which all their
arguments were founded, was, that the separation was com-
plete.

Lord ALTHORP—The Right Hon. Gantleman ad.
mitted that one person had made use of that argument,
and that one person was the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs.--(Hear, hear.) The argument used by the Law
Officers undoubtedly was, that the separation was complete
as far as this country was concerned, but that the separa-
tion was not complete for Russia, who had never acknow-
ledged it.
Mr. CROKER reminded the Noble Lord that the Se-
cretary of State for Foreigr. Affairs only made u,s of that
argument in his reply at the close of the debate. Then
he did not insist on it, but only threw it in as a make
weight, if it were necessary to assist other arguments which
the Noble Lord described to be irresistible.—(Hear.)
The report of the Committee of Ways and Means, grant-
ing 4,000,0001. from the Consolidated Fund, was brought
up, read, and agreed tn.
REFORM BILL (SCOTLAND).
Lord ALTHORP moved the Order of the Day for the
House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House
on the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill.
Sir J. WALSH took that opportunity of stating, that
as he found his intention of giving Members to the Uni-
veraities of Scotland was not likely to meet very efficient
support, he meant to abandon it.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON complained that the Bill enacted
no qualification for a Member representing a Scotch county.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that he thought that
that was a very inconvenient time to discuss that subject.
If thought necessary, a clause could be proposed on bring-
ing up the Report on the Bill.
Sir G. CLERK observed, that the Learned Lord did
not seem to know much about his own Bill; for clause 35
required that a Scotch county Member should have a
heritable estate of 5001. a-year.
The Howe then went into Committee on clause 6.
Sir G. CLERK objected to this clause, on the ground
that it disfranchised those who had purchased their votes,
and which purchase had been recognised by the law of
Scotland ; in which respect the Scotch Reform Bill differed
from the English, because the latter had to deal with bo-
roughs, the mode of voting in which was punishable if
detected to be such as described by the advocates of the
Bill. He wished to call the attention of the House to a
passage that appeared in the Edinburgh Review, which
no doubt would pass for very great authority with the
Learned Lord. That passage stated that whatever Reform
toak place, care should be taken to leave all existing rights
untouched.—(Hear, bear.) But the present Bill alto-
gether extinguished existing rights, or at least so increased
the franchise that the whole character of the former state
of things was destroyed. Under these circumstances, it
was his intention to move for the omission of this clause
altogether.
Mr. C. BRUCE supported the same view. This Bill,
if allowed to pass in its present state, would give a violent
blow to the rights of the people. When the English Bill
was proposed, Hon. Gentlemen complained of its making
their hair stand on end ; and with respect to the Scotch
Bill, he might say, that its effect was
Vox faucibus pceit."
Hitherto the law of Great Britain had always respected
property; but in this Bill, which was to be the panacea
for all evils, the greatest of all evils was committed—that
of violating the rights of property. He was aware, that
it was unpopular to ask fur compensation for this Reform
measure ; but he must risk that imputation in this case,
for be was fully convinced of the justice of making com-
pensation for that which was taken away. It was said
that elections ought to he pure. He granted that ; but
the condition by which the use of the privilege was regu-
lated had no necessary connexion with the means by
which it was transferred. He could cite a similar case in
English law. The purchase of an advowson had nothing
to do with simony—it was very distinct from simony;
and it seemed to him that exactly the same considerations
applied to the purchase and the use of the right of voting
in Scotland. Neither could he admit the proposition,
that because a law was pe.ssed for England, a similar law
was required for Scotland. He could not admit this, and
former Parliaments had not admitted it, as might be seen
by reference to the One-pound Note Circulation, and to
the Cholera Prevention Bill, in which the Scotch Mem-
bers properly insisted on a recognition of Divine Provi-
vidence being inserted. These were two instances; and
he heartily hoped that the Government would allow the
Reform measure to be a third, as he was well persuaded
that the present Bill, instead of conferring a benefit, would
be inflicting an evil in Scotland.

Mr. R. FERGUSON said that no claim to compensa-
tion for the loss of the superiority votes could be fairly set
up, since, in point of fact, their real value was nothing.
The parchments might, at some future period, become
valuable to the antiquary; and would, probably, be
hung up in the libraries of the Baronial Halls of their de-
scendants, as a curious exposition of the ancient political
system of Scotland.
The LORD ADVOCATE supported the clause, and
contended that the value of the superiority votes was merely
nominal ; formerly their value was real; it depended on
property held of the Crown of the annual value of forty
shillings, or feudally of the value of 4001. Scots. But
they had long since been separated from property, and
were sold separately. If any one superiority should be
found to contain property of 101. yearly value, the owner
of that superiority would, of course, still continue to pos-
sess his vote. It was absurd to talk of compensation
under such circumstances ; the proprietors of the boroughs
in schedules A and B were just as much entitled to com.
pensation as the owners of superiority votes.
Mr. PRINGLE supported the claim of possessors of
superiorities to compensation; many persons had given
,money value for their purchase, on the faith of their re-
' cognition by the existing law of the land.
Mr. J. CAMPBELL said, he should not detain the
House upon this subject : he thought the other House had
set them a noble example by disposing in three days of
that which had cost them so many pangs to part with.
(Cheers, responded to by cries of Hear, hear! from the
Opposition benches.) Indeed he hoped that at the moment
he was speaking, the Reform Bill had become the law of
the land. The superiority votes were quite distinct from
land or property, they were of no real or intrinsic value,
and therefore ought not to be represented. Hitherto pro-
perty had been unrepresented, but this would no longer be
the case, the principles of this Bill being that property
should be represented.

Lord LOUGHBOROUGH contended for the right
to compensation.

Mr. KENNEDY thought it monstrous at this time of
day to talk of compensation, and he should not trouble the
House with any arguments on the point, for he thought
his Honourable Friends opposite could scarcely be serious.
The votes differed very much in value. He had given 501.

For votes, but he knetv others who had given 2,5001. and

he should like to know what ratio of compensation they
could fix on under such circumstances.

Sir GEORGE WARRENDER admitted that the idea
of compensation for the superiorities was entirely out of
the question.

Air. HUME was of opinion that there could be no de-
parture from the principle of the Scotch Bill or from that
general principle of Reform to which the House was
pledged, if they omitted the clause altogether. In the
English BA: they bad preserved the rights of freemen, and
he saw no reason why they should not extend the same
privileges to the holders of superiorities in Scotland.
Lord ALTHORP could not consent to the omission of
the clause. In arranging a new Constitut;on, it was a
most desirable thing that they should not lend themselves
to the preservation of fictitious votes ; besides, all the
holders of superiorities would have a vote for property
elsewhere.

After a few words from Mr. DixoN in support of the
clause, and from Sir C. FORBES against it,
Sir GEORGE MURRAY said he thought the Member
for Middlesex bad in this instance taken a perfectly riAht
view of the case, and be would support an amendmtnt
tor the omission of the clause.

I Air. C. GRANT eupportid the deuce, and observed
1

, •.

hat be made as great sacrifices in favour of Reform by
he destruction of the right of titng 410)4. 4111,7iPritir
..o
s any man_ .in Scotland.
P!,
After a few words from the Loal..!.lartaceTAlA
RAE, the clause w.a13,91-4ered...to,,taiAkilltipthe Thl
without a division. •
•
The seventh clause was then moved.
Sir W. RAE objected to this clause for its ..fc.urpxit),.;
and contended likewise, that its effect would be, to oxc!-
power the landed interest in all places,wherc manufaetukss
were established. As there was to he a new arrangement
for Scotland, they ought to attend to the interests of the
landowners; and grant, as in England, additieval Members
to the counties.
The LORD-ADVOCATE defended the provisions 91
the clause.
The clause, with some verbal amendments, was agreed t
[lt was understood that the English Reform .Bill had
been brought down from the Lords, and, that the Loris'
Messengers were in waiting to present it.]
Mr. Alderman WOOD moved that. the. Chairman do
report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
This motion occasioned a great outcry among tbeScottli
Members, and several among them rose together to op-
pose it.
Lord ALTHORP said, he knew the object whielt the
Hon. Alderman had in view in making this motion, and
the cause of which gave him fully as much plc sure as
it could give the lion. MeMher ; but he trusted that the
motion would not be persevered in, as it would occasion
some inconvenience to have the progress of the Scotch Re-
form Bill in the Committee interrupted at this moment.
Sir ANDREW JOHNSON, who spoke amidst great
confusion, said that he objected to any unnecess.ry delay,
and that so great was the excitement about the Re-
form Bill in Scotland, that the Scotch Members would
have no peace till it was passed. He trusted that no need-
less delay would be thrown in the way rif;the,Bill passing
speedily.—(Loud cries of Divide, and No.)
Lord ALTHORP certainly did not wish the House to
divide upon this subject, but they must do so if the Hon.
Alderman determined to persevere in his motion,
was to be hoped he would not.
Sir R. PEEL had more confidence in the judgment of
the Noble Lord than in that of the Honourable Alderman,
and if the House did divide on this motion, he should cer-
tainly divide with the Noble Lord.—(Divide, divide—go
on, go on.
Lord ALTHORP hoped that the House'tvould not, on
account of any temporary feeling, however 'gratifying in
itself, adopt any course that would unnecessarily delay the
progress of the Reform Bill. At the same time he
wished to observe, that if it should Lc cound impo'ssible
for them to obtain the attention of the House till the tem-
porary adjournment had taken place, they must adjourn,
as it would be the course that would occasion the least
delay.

Air. DICKSON thought it extremely disresPectful to
the Scotch to interrupt this measure, and he, for one,
would divide the House fifty times rather than suffer it.
Sir C. FORBES found fault with the manner in which
the Scotch Reform Bill had been treated in that House.
If the Members were not prepared to give it their atten-
tion, they might as well adjourn to receive the Message
which he understood had been sent down'to them from the
other House. However, he hoped that they would go on
with the Scotch Reform Bill, and not lose the opportuniT
of considering it upon the 4th of June, the anniversary
of the birthday of our late most gracious Sovereign
George 111.
Lord ALTHORP was surprised at the observations of
the Hon. Baronet, especially when he considered what had
been the course adopted by the Hon. Baronet with respect
to Reform.

Sir G. WARRENDER—As a friend t f the 'Sctitai
Reform,—(hear, hear, and oh !)—he was a friend of the
Scotch Reform Bill, though he was Opposed to the other,
—(hear, hear,) —and, as a friend of the'Scotch 'Reform
Bill, he would not consent to this motion, which would
unnecessarily delay it.
Mr. Alderman WOOD denied that he had any wish (3
interfere with the progress of the Scotch Reform Bill.
All he wished was, that the liodse should have the grid.
fication of receiving the English Reform Bill, which was
now ready to be presented to them from the other House ;
and he could not concieve why he should he suppesed cite-
less about the Scotch Reform Bill, merely because he.
wished them to adjourn for ten minutes for the purpose he
had. mentioned.

The Motion was then withdrawn.
The Clauses seven, eight, nine and ten, after 601/IC
merely verbal amendments had been made, Were agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 were also agreed to, after a few of.-
servations.
The House resumed, and
The CHAIRMAN having reported progress, obtained
leave to sit again.

REFORM BILL FROM THE LORDS.
The SPEAKER having been informei by the Sageat.
at Arms that there was a Message front the Lords, put the
question that the messengers be called in ?
Mr•. STUART WORTLEY telt it to be his duty to
protest in the most solemn manner against the mockery
that had been enacted in the other House. He had no
hesitation in asserting that this was not a Message from
the House of Lords-(Laughter)—Ind as such he protested
against it.

The question for calling in the messengers was then
agreed to.

Two Masters in Chancery made their appearance-at
the table of the House, and delivered several Rills, as agreed
to by the Upper House, and, among others, the English
Reform Bill, agreed to wi!ll amendments.
Lord ALTHORP moved the Lords' amendments lie
taken into consideration this day.—Agreed to.
Lord ALTHORP then moved the Lords' amendments
be printed.

Culonti SIBTHORPE again gave his decided opposition
to the Bill in all its parts.—(Coughing). Honourable
Gentlemen who coughed did not understand the Bill.—
(Coughing.) He did not, however, include the Noble
Lord in that accusation. The Noble Lord never coughed,
ind never sneered ; but nevertheless he must object to
taking the amendments so early as proposed by the Noble
Lord.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME suggested that the Bill ought to be printed
as well us the Amendments.

Lard ALTHORP said that that would delay the mea-
sure ; and he thought that if the Amendments were
printed with references to the Bill, they would be perfectly
comprehensible.—(Hear, hear )
Mr. HUME ob,erved that he should be sorry to propose
;my thing that should delay the Bill for a single moment.—
Motion agreed to.

NORWICH ASSIZES BILL.
Mr. R. GRANT moved the third reading of the Nor-
wich Assizes Bill.

Mr. BARING moved, as an amendment, that the Bill
be read a third time this day six mouths.
Mr. R. GRANT contended, that the removal of the
Assizes was a matter of public expediency.
Sir R. PEEL opposed the Bill, on the ground that it
was inconvenient for that House to interfere with the de-
cision of the Judges.
Mr. HUME supported the Bill, which be said was celle I
for by the whole county of Norfolk.
Lord ALTHORP said, that Parliament had in forme'
eases interfered with the decision of the Judges respecting
the places in which the Assizes should be held, and he
thought that, in the present instance, there was nothing
disrespectful to the Judges, in the course which the House
was called upon to take.
Mr. CAMPBELL supported the Bill.
Mr. R. COLBORNE was opposed to any interference
vith the Judges in questions respecting which they were
most competent to decide.
Mr WEYLAND thought it was most astonishing that
the people of Norfolk, who had petitioned for this measure
over and over again, should never have their wishes grati-
fied. It was very strange that there should be no means

of removing the Assize unless the Judges pleased. He
.upported the Bill.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed the Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
FORGERY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave notice that he
would, on Thursday se'nnight, bring in a Bill relative to
the punishment for forgery.

On the motion of Si; JAMES GRAHAM, a new writ was
ordered to be issued for Taunton, in the room of 11.1 r.
Labouchere, who has accepted the office of one of the
Commissioners of the Affairs of India.

The other Orders of the Day were then dispost d of, and
at a Quarter-past One the House adjourned.

,1 ~..;~ .r ~..,

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUA*O 4.
Lord SHAFTESBURY sat as Speaker a little alter Five/,
.'clock, in the absence of the Loan CHANCELLORi
PONSONBY, Mr. HODGSON, Lord STANLEY, Lor4..
Moßerru, and other Members froth the CAnninoul,Tair.e,
in with seven private Bills; which were all read a first;

The Bishop of DURHAM presented •zi petition (ruin
iouth Shields in favour of the Durban.? Univoteity-Bill.'
Lord BERESFORD presOited• 'u'' jtetition from certain
eetnen of Berutielcupon-Tweett :resident in and
ondon, praying'that they might not b&dOprii;ecl tif 'their)
lective franchise: The' rights' of the' frehnen
vick-upon-Tafeecrvere" lbestowt4 upoifthem by' chsrtii";'''
rewards fof'seivices`'pertorined by then ancilstotEo
.11 the same Vak rier their LoidshiPs'"incestuos

many of them earned titles and metates for their servic,,
He could not understand upon what principle of jus-i.,
the hereditary privileges of these freemen con
be taken away from them aoy more ,than. the 't
Lordships' titles and estates could be taken fro,
them. Many of their Lordships were still in possesie,
of abbey lands granted to their ancestors for their services
and it behoved them, therefore, to cons Per well hefor
they set an example of depriving men of their hereditar:.
tights.

L.,rd SELKIRK presented a petition from Glasgow,
praying for inquiry into the state of the W.st
colonies.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a petition from the
parish of Maiden i❑ Kent against the proposed plan of
education in Ireland.

The Marquess of LONDONDERRY pretentel a peti-
tion from Mr, Jimes Scott, of Gl4sgow, against the Re-
form Bill.

Lord RADNOR presented s-veral petitions from
Wandsworth and other places, praying to be joined with
the borough near to which they were.
It being now half-pa•t five o'clock, the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR took his seat.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

Lord MONTAGUE presented petitions from the Pres•
leitery of Hamilton, against the new plan of education in
Ireland.
Lord BEXLEY said, that in the absence of a Noble
Viscount, who would have performed the task much b-tter,
he was desirous to present to tin it Lordships a petition
against the propos..d plan of education in Ireland, agreed
to at a public meeting at Exeter Hall. It was signed by
Foirteen Peers, twenty 3lemlwrs of the House of Commons.
136 Dissenting Ministers, and between 3 000 and 4 000
of the most respectable inhabitants of London and West-
minster. This petition could not he said to originate in
party spirit, for it was signed by men of all parties and of
all religious persuasions, with the exception, perhaps, of
Roman Catholics. For his own part, he wiS ready to sup-
port any measure of his :Majesty's qovarnment which
would have the effect of pacifying Ireland ; but it was be-
cause be thought the adoption of the prnposed plan would
have (xactly the opposite effect, that he objected to it.
. .

Lord WICKLOW would not troubh. the House with
any observations, hut that as he was the person.uvho first
brought the subject of the new plan of education in Ire-
land before the House, he thought that it was his duty to
take the earliest opportunity of inquiring of the Noble
Lords opposite (the Ministers) whether it was true, as
had been stated, that a very great change had been leter.
mined on by his Majest)'s Government in the arrange-
ments which they lately made for the education of the poor
in Ireland ? At a meeting of the General Asseml ly, the
Sacitor-Geveral for Scotland had stated, on the authority
of repeated communications from Mr. Stanley, his Ma-
jesty's Secretary of State for Ireland, that it was the de-
termination of the Irish Government to enforce the at-
tendance of the Protestant children at Bible classes in the
national schools ; but to excuse Catholic children from at-
tending to those classes. He looked upon that as a vital
and most useful change of the system, as we understood ;
and he thought it was due to the Government to make it
known to the public, if, in compliance with the petitions
which had been presented to both Houses of Parliament,
they bad really determined on such a change.
Lord MELBOURNE sand, that when the syst,m was
first promulgated it had been stated that changes might lee
from time to time introduced. And certainly there was
no objection in principle to that stated by the Noble Lord ;
at the same time he could not pledge himself that it was
at the present moment precisely in the contempl alma of his
Majesty's Government.