The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-04 00:00:00

to make it, while there were not twenty Members in '
the House. When he (Mr. T. Duncombe) entered
the House at half-past four o'c'ock there were only •
two Members sitting on the Opposition side of the
House, and then he was told that the proposition had
been made. It was taking an unfair advantage to
bring forward such a proposition at such an hour.
Would the Right Hon. Baronet guarantee that there
should be a House at four o'clock ? If he would not,
such conduct was most unfair.
Mr. BROTHERTON could see nothing unfair in
the proposition of the Government.
Sir R. PEEL said, it had been customary for the
House to sit at twelve on motion days, towards the
close of the session. He could not of course gua-
rantee that there should be a House at four o'clock,
but he would promise to be in his place himself.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—The Right Hon. Baronet
can always guarantee a House if he likes.
Sir C. DOUGLAS felt some difficulty in post-
poning his Bill until he had heard the opinion of the
Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Sir J. GRAHAM had been anxious that the Bill
should be postponed, because he had hoped that
the matter might have been settled out of doors.
The principal difficulty had been with respect to Man-
chester and Birmingham, but at present the difficulty
had been in a great degree obviated ; and as far as
Birmingham was concerned there was no difficulty at
all, there being a general disposition to obey the
charter. He should be inclined to say that the ques-
tion of compensation ought not to be decided in this
House, but be left to the decision of other authorities
and tribunals. On the whole he was prepared to sup-
port the arrangement that had been made, in order
to give every validity to the charter.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said the Bill would require
to be so totally altered to suit the views of ,the Right
Hon. Baronet that they might as well frame a new
one. He thought that any Government would be
entitled to the thanks of the community who should
close the breaches that had been created by the local
disputes. He would suggest that they should bring
in a general measure, embodying the views they had
expressed.
After some conversation, in which Mr. Aglionby,
Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Williams took part,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he would bring
in a Bill to give compensation to the Coroners who
held office under the Municipal Charters of Manches-
ter, Birmingham, and Bolton.
Sir C. DOUGLAS said that upon that understand-
ing he would move the postponement of the Order of
the Day for the Committee on the Bill till to-morrow.
The motion was then put and agreed to.
BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
The further consideration of the Report on the
Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill was postponed till
Friday.
MINES AND COLLIERIES BILL.
The consideration of the Lords' amendments on
the Mines and Collieries' Bill was postponed till to-
morrow.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that he could see no
reason to justify the proposal of the Government,
that the House should meet at twelve o'clock. It ap-
peared to him that the only motive for such a motion
was a desire to get rid of the House early in the even-
ing. He hoped that the proposal would not be perse-
vered in.
Sir R. PEEL said that he should not press the
motion if it were objected to; but he should move
the meeting of the House at twelve o'clock on Friday.
Mr. HAWES suggested that they should meet at
twelve o'clock on Friday, and that they should take
unopposed motions at twelve o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. V. SMITH asked whether, if the House met
at twelve o'clock on Friday, they should adjourn at
four ? _ _

Sir H. PEEL said that he did not propose that they
should adjourn at four. The Right Hon. Baronet
then gave notice that he would, to-morrow, move that
the House should meet at twelve o'clock on Friday.

NEWFOUNDLAND BILL.
The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned
debate on the Newfoundland Bill was then read.
Mr. PAKINGTON said he wished to state to the
House the reasons why he should give his unqualified
support to the measure introduced by her Majesty's
Government. The Honourable Member for Mont-
rose had stated on Saturday last that the Committee
which sat last year upon this subject was a one-
sided Committee. Now, he thought there never was
a Committee which was ess liable to such a charge, for
it embraced distinguished Members on both sides of
the House—it embraced the Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Colonies, the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, the Noble Lord
the Member for the City of London, the Hon. and
Learned Member for Cork, and the Right
Honourable Baronet the Member for Devonport.
It was no part of his intention, when he moved for
that Committee, to afibrd scope for acrimonious feelings
on the one hand, or recrimination on the other. He
moved for that Committee for the sole purpose of de-
monstrating that the time had arrived when some
remedy was required for the grievances of the colony.
The proceedings of that Committee were cut short
by the sudden dissolution of the late Parliament, and
the evidence taken before the Committee had never
been laid on the table of the House. He would now
turn the attention of the House to the statement made
by the Right Hon. Gentleman relative to the conduct
pursued towards the Roman Catholics in the colony;
and he regretted the language which the Right
Honourable Gentleman made use of. He (Mr.
Pakington) could confirm all that was said on
that occasion by the Noble Lord, relative to the conduct
pursued by the Roman Catholic priesthood who sought
to turn the liberal institutions of that colony into a
means of securing power to them. He had in his
hand a petition signed by 1,000 inhabitants of New-
foundland, complaining, in strong language, of the
Roman Catholic priesthood, who coerced those
who were 'not of their own opinions. He
had also a petition from the Chamber of Corn-
merce of Newfoundland, complaining in still stronger
language of the interference of the Romish priesthood.
If there was persecution—and he did not deny that
there was—in the colony of Newfoundland, it was
practised by the Catholic priesthood themselves. He
now turned to the real question before the House.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork
said, that the constitution given in 1832, to New-
foundland, had worked well, and had conferred many
blessings on the colonists. But had not the legislature
of Newfoundland been charged with three of the gravest
crimes of which a legislature could be charged ?
The Assembly had been charged with tyranny and op-
pression, with mismanagement of the public finances,
and with interfering and tampering with the adminis-
tration of justice. Those charges could be sustained
by the strongest evidence. In proof' of the first
charge he -would allude to the celebrated privilege
case, in which a private individual having had
a quarrel with a Member of the House of Assem-
bly, was arrested for breach of privilege, and having
been released by writ of Habeas Corpus, the Assembly
caused the Judge and the Sheriff to be arrested,
dragged through the streets as criminals, and com-
mitted for breach of privilege, and the Governor was
obliged to prorogue the Assembly, in order to pro-
cure their release. With regard to the second charge,
he would state that the Assembly had dimi-
nished the stipends of those opposed to them,
and had increased the stipends of their supporters ;
and in proof of the charge of tampering with the ad-
ministration ofjustice he would state that a messenger
of the House, who had been twice convicted of
assaults, had been continued in his office,
and that a door-keeper of the House of
Assembly, who was the brother-in-law of a Ca-
tholic priest, having committed an assault on
a person named Leek, and Leek having applied to a
Magistrate, the House appointed a Committee, sum-
moned Leek and the Magistrate before them, and
suppressed all investigation. The Noble Lord the
Member for London had done right in suspend-
ing such an Assembly, in accordance with the
recommendation of the Governor of the Colony
He contended that no Colonial Minister could do less
than suspend a constitution that had been so abused.
He did not think that the reports of the outrages at
the elections had been exaggerated.' The only ques-
tion before the House was, whether or not the Noble
Lord at the head of the Colonial Department had
adopted the best means of dealing with the difficulty.
The constitution of Newfoundland had been de jure
granted, and nothing but the most extreme necessity
could justify the Government in doing away with
the existing liberal institutions. He trusted to see
the same institutions in Newfoundland as existed in

Canada.
Mr. C. BULLER said that there was every reason
for sending the Bill to a Select Committee. It ap-
peared to him that the measure of the Government
could only have the effect of taking power out of the
hands of one party who had abused it, and placing it
in the hands of another party who would be equally
sure to abuse it.
Sir H. DOUGLAS said it was quite clear to him
from all he had heard on the subject, that they had
committed a very great error in conferring, in 1832,
that constitution, which they were then about to take
away from the colony. A case had been made out,
which showed clearly the necessity of retracing thcir
steps, and this was another proof of the reaction which
followed from intemperate action. They must now
either take away the constitution, or modify it ; of
the two evils, he preferred the latter ; and he would,
therefore, support the Bill before the House. He
entirely approved of the proposal with respect
to the qualification of voters. He thought the com-
bining together of the aristocratic and the democratic
principle was fraught with danger. There had been
too much of the democratic principle infused into the
colonies of the empire. He would give the Bill his
cordial support.
Mr. V. SMITH would not follow the Gallatit
Officer who had lust sat down through the details he
had gone into. He would apply himself to the ques-
tion raised by the Hon, and Learned Member for