Star.
London, England, 1830-12-07 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Lord NUGENT, and other membero, took the oaths and their hr.tti
DUMBARTON COMMITTEE.
Sir R. WILSON presented the report of the Dumbarton Election
Committee, which stated that the sitting! member had been duly re-
turned, and that the petition was not frivolous or vexatious.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented three petitions from parishes in
Kent, for the abolition of slavery.
Sir CHARLES LEMON presented a similar petition from a parish
in Cornwall.

Mr. LYTTLETUN presented seven similar petitions from Stafford-
shire.

Mr. JAMESSBROWN presented two similar petitions from West.
port, in Ireland ; and one from Newbridge, in Glamorgan.
Mr. TENNYSON gave notice that on Tuesday, Dec. 14. he
should present a petition from a majority of the Electors of Stamford,
complaining of the unconstitutional interference of the Marquis ot
Exeter, in the Election of the members for that borough.
Mr. Bit OWNLOW presented a petition from Armagh for Par.
liamentary Reform, and Vote by Ballot. The hon. member declared
that he had determined to support the vote by ballot, as the nto.t
effectual means of securing the right of election to the people. (Cheers.)
Lord ACHE SON declared he was friendly to Reform in Parliament.
but could not support the vote by ballot. It was the opinion of a di..
tinguished American now in this country, that the vote by ballot there
did not procure secrecy, nor prevent corruption.
111 r. O'CONNELL said, that if vote by ballot did not succeed, it cer-
tainly would not make things worse than they were at present : but he
maintained that it must succeed to a considerable extent. He had
' heard with surprise that corruption was prevalent in America. He
thought no one could bribe to get into Congress, as there were no good
places to be bestowed in return. For France, the people owed their li-
berty to the vote by ballot in that country, and this country owed i:s
prospect of Parliamentary Reform to the same cause.
Mr. BELL presented seven petitions from places in Northumberland
against slavery.
.Ir. BELL moved for a return of the quantity of coals exported fur
the last three years, and the amount of duty.—Ordered.
Mr. 11. DAVIS presented four petitions from parishes in Bristol,
for the repeal of the house and window tax.
Mr. TRAIL presented petitions front Kirkwall and Strome's, for
the abolition of slavery.
Mr. O'CALLAGHAN presented a similar petition front the city
of Cork.

Mr. MUNDY presented three similar petitions from Derbyshire.
Lord BRABAZ()N presented a peti•ion from Change Gorman, in the
county of Dublin, and from the working classes of the city of
for the repeal of the union. lie could not agree in the prayer of these
petitions, though there war a very general &position in Ireland for the
repeal of the union,
.which bad been called forth by the energetic mind
of his hon. friend, the member for V 1 aterford, which, he could not
but lament.

Mr. HODGES presented two petitions from parishes in Kent, fur a
commutation of tithes. He hoped ministers would take the subject into
their scions consideration.

Mr. O'FARRELL presented a petition from Naas, in the county of
Kildare, for the repeal of the Union. He hoped Parliament would re-
lieve Ireland, but not repeal the Ur.iou.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, one thing was certain, that there never was
so much misery in Ireland as at present, aster thirty years of uuion
with England, whose Parliament promised to do so much for its relief.
Lord KILLEEN presented four petitions from the county of Meath,
against the sub-letting and vestry ac:s.
Sir H. PHILLIPS presented eight petitions from Pembrokeshire,
for the abolition of slavery.
Mr. HOME DRUMMOND presented two similar petitions from
Stirling.

Sir FIUGH DALRYMPLE presented a petition from Haddington,
for reform in Parliament.

Mr. ADEAN presented a petition for the abolition of slavery from a
congregation in Cambridgeshire.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved for a return of the number of persons
appointed Judges in India since 1830, the amount of salaries and
emoluments, and the bar at which they had practised, whether English.
Irish, or Scotch. Ile believed that but three Irish Judges had been up-
pointed in all that time.

Mr. FERGUSON said he was confident the countrymen of the
hon. gentleman had their lull share of appointments in Indio; if any
had reason to complain, it was the Scotch.—(A laugh.)—The return
was ordered.

Mr. OTONNELL asked what were the arrangenier.ts made re.
spreting the office of Vice-Treasurer in Ireland?
Mr. S. It ICE replied that the salary of the Vice-Tressurtt of lie.
land, of 3,0001, and the salary of the Deputy, of 8001. were t.uppressrti.
and the duties were to be performed by a Chief Clerk of the Treasury alai
now had a 'misty of 1,0001. he was to have 2001. addition; and it was in.
tended, if possible, to save the expense of the Clerk. The saemii ;hos
would be 1001. a ytar, and the office, as a parliamentary one, would
be abolished.

11r. O'CONNELL said, the statement made 6howtd a strnv
position to lessen expense and diminish patronage. 'l'he bon. gentleman
presented a petition nom Portarlitigton, for parliamentary re(u.m. That
borough returns a member to parliament, and has but thrte resident
electors.

O'Cf)N NELL also p-esented a petition from Radical Reformers
meeting at the Rotunda, in Blackfriars-road, for parliamentary reform.
They were very gild the Tories were out of office, but hoped the house
would watch the Whir, who had brought the national debt on the
country, and always, when :n place, forgot their promises made when
out. (A laugh.) He was of opinion the present ministry would not
forget their promises.
Mr. O'CONNELL also presented • petition fot reform from Mr.
Henry Hunt, and the inhabitants of Olaattuthury ; and similar petitions
from Ipswich and Stockport ; and petitions against the Union (tom
Tam, and from the bricklayers, whitetimiths, and chairmen of Dulthn,
and eight parishes in Ireland. As the Right Honourable Member for
the City of Waterford had, on a former night said that the moat Amin.
Ettlaireelopponet.t. of the Union in Parliament, after it was pard,
their opinion that it was itrerocable, lie had row in his hand a
letter written by Mr. (kaftan, ten years after the Union had posed.
stating that be would present a petition fur its repeal, and give it Ma

I

r

I

S

support ; but It was useless to bring forward the:guidon till it was.
supported by the great body of the Irish people. The Honourable
Gentleman read the letter.
Sir JOHN BURKE said, he declared on the hustings at the corn-
menennent of the Galway Election, that he was against the Repeal of
the Union, yet he was elected, which showed the opinion of his con-
stituents ; but certainly the Learned Gentleman's letter to the people of
Ireland had produced a great champ in that opinion.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, Lad Oriel, who had led the oppo-
sition to the Tinton, considned It irrevocable. This was also the opt.
nion of Mr. Fox and others, by whom the Union was condemned.
Mr. T. LRFROY said, the majority of influential persons in Ire-
land were against the repeal of the Union.
Mr. O'CONNELL remarked that the hon. gentleman (Sir John
Newport) had not answered the main al ion, namely, that Mr.
Grattan bad not been favourable to a repeal of the union. Be (Mr.
O'Connell) could assert truly that the feeling was now becoming very
general throughout Ireland, favourable to the repeal of the union. He
bad received a number of votes of thanks for his exertions in the cause,
from many quarters, even from avowed Orangemen. With regard to
the hon. member for the city of Waterford's repeated attacks upon the
Irish Parliament, he (Mr. O'Connell) was certain it could only apply to
the concluding term of its existence; be acknowledged that the last two 1
years of its being was disgraceful, but if the preceding fourteen yens
were taken into account, it would be found, that under that good resi-
dent and downright Parliament, every thing in the country was
in prosperity. The honourable member then proceeded to state that
he thought the agitation of this question of the repeal of the Union
semi the only means to preserve tranquillity in Ireland. That
country during the time of its local Parliament, except the last six
years, was happy ; but let them look to the history of Ireland, and it
would show that such had not been the twee since the Union. The ques-
tion was one that could not, nor would it be now put down ; and In
taking the part which he had done, he had been working for the interest
of both countries.

OALWAT tLiCTIOX.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to present a petition from Robert Ar.
chibaki Douglas Creaden, who had petitioned against the return of
the sitting member. He had tendered the required securities, who
were men of undoubted qualification ; but when they were brought
before the examiners to ratify their recognisance', an objection was
made to one of the names, a Mr. John Lynch Alexander. The
gentleman's name was John Lynch ; but he, for distinction, always
assumed the name of his father, who was Alexander Lynch, and by that
name he was known. It was necessary to state, that in 0' alway,
a. well as other places, there existed tribes or clans. who were
all individually of the same name, and it was absolutely neeesery to
adopt some distinguishing mark to persons. In Galway there were 13 of
these tribes or family names. Mr. John for this reason,
adopted his father's name Alexander ; bat the examiners the
sitting member's agent had turned round and put In an affidavit, de.
Glaring that then was no Mr. Alexander. and in consequence
of which the examiners refused to accept the recognisance. The
present petition prayed that the recognizance might be ordered to be
accepted.
The SPEAKER put the motion, and the petititioner was heard at
the Bar on his petition and then retired.
Mr. O'CONNELL then moved for an extension of the time to ten
days more.
The SPEAKER explained the law on the question, and the rule of
the house in such eases, and when he put the vote,
Mr. GOULBURN ruse to oppose the motion for the time being ex-
tended, on the ground that the examiners had acted very properly in
refusing the recognisance, because of the misnomer. If it was a ems.
tom for a man to take his father's Christian name as a surname in Gal.
way, it was no reason why such should be the case in that House, and
he considered, that if the time was on that account extended, it would
be admitting a very bad precedent.
Mr. S. RICE supported the motion. The hon. member stated, that
the practice of adopting the cluistian name of fathers was very gene.
ral in that county as well as many other places. In his own family he
received many letters, and it was only by names being thus adopted
that he was enabled to tell from whom he had received the letter. The
gentleman in question was best known by the surname of Alexander ;
and if he had put that name to a bill be would be compelled to pay
the rum,
Mr. CAMPBELL supported the motion.
General GASCOIGNE spoke in opposition.
Sir R. PEEL asked if a sheriff' could levy upon the gentleman under
that name ? [Several members. from their seats answered in the affirma-
tive.] The hon. baronet proceeded to regret it as an unfortunate thing,
that Irish gentletnen could not favour the house with their real names,
instead of adopting the names of their fathers, as in this ease. He
thought it was a bad precedent to admit ; for the house might in time
be asked to acknowledge people by nicknames.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the motion, and stated his
knowledge of the practice of names being so adopted.
Mr. O'GORSIAN MAHON said, that Mr. John Lynch Alex-
ander adopted the name in all his bills and transactions, and that
he recovered in Courts of Law in the same name. _ _ _

The SPEAKER put the question, and the extension of tan days
was allowed.