Star.
London, England, 1831-04-21 00:00:00

OILDNANCZ ESTIMATES.

The House, on the motion of Mr. TENNYSON, went into a Com-
mittee of Supply.
Mr. TENNYSON moved the remaining ordnance estimates. He
moved resolutions for grants.
For the Corps of Royal Engineers6l,oool.
For the Royal Artillery in Ireland and the Colonies 271,0001.
For the Royal Horse Artillery, Riding-house, &c. 36,0001.
For Barracks, &c. 23,0001.
For the Office of Ordnance, Barrack Master, &c. 64,0001.
For the Military and Civil Contingencies of the Ordnance Office,
146,0001 _ _

Mr. HUME, who bad only recently entered the House, said he ab-
stained from making any observations on the estimates. He was r' ady
to vote any money to carry on the service of the country; after what
bad tranepired on the preceding evening, he considered it was useless
to consume time in examining the estimates ; lie agreed to the grants,
in the hope that the government would lose no time in sending them
back to their constituents. As to making any progress with the Re.
form Bill, constituted as the house now was, lie thought that was quite
out of the question. (Cheers.) With one half of the house at issue
with the people, what was to be done? He saw no resource but in
appealing to the people, and he trusted that the Government would
lose no time in adopting that course. Those being his sentiments, he
should throw no obstacles in the way of the propositions now made ;
he should give his hearty concurrence to the grants, and they were
the first he had entirely agreed to—and he did so in the hope that the
government would lose no time in resorting to dissolution ; any other
course that could be adopted would be useless.
Resolutions agreed to.
Mr. TENNI SON then moved several other grants, amongst them
was one for ordnance superannuation allowances, &c. 297,000.
Agreed to—Report to.iwurrow.
Mr. C. W. WY NN moved that the House go into a Committee on
the Lord Stewards' Oaihs Bill.
Sir R. INGLIS opposed It.
11Ir. WYNN defended the Bill, as it tended to repeal the unnecessary
multiplication of oaths.
The Bill then went through a Committee—Report agreed to, and
the Bill ordered to be read a third time on Friday next.

JURY LAWS IN IRELAND.
Mr. CRAMPTON moved the second reading of the Administration
of Justice (in Ireland) Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know whether the hon. gentleman had
attended to the subject of impanelling juries in Ireland ? Was it likely,
should the session continue, that they should have a bill on such a sub-
ject? The question was most important, and ought to be considered
fonhwith.

Mr, CRA PTON replied, that the bill which he found in the
government office v as ir.ore extensive than be had expected it to be ;
it was to impannel all the laws relating to juries in Ireland he was
giving to it his moat earnest attention.
ItUTHVEN said these laws required alteration. Persons in
Dublin had got excused from attending on juries by paying two gui-
neas ; might not others get improperly placed on juries by the corrupt
exercise of such a power ?
Mr. CRAMPTON said he was no defender of abuses in the sheriffs'
office. He should oppose them quite as much as he would the practices
and existence of rotten boroughs.
Sir C. WETHERELL observed, that the allusion to " rotten bo-
roughs" was not in very good taste; surely, those places were not to be
compared with dirty, rubbishing practices in a sheriff's' court in Dub-
lin.—( Much laughter.)
After observations from Mr. JEPHSON and Mr. S. RICE, the mo-
titn► was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be committed Friday next.
An Hon. Mutant presented a petition in favour of the reform bill
from Marlborough. He stated that it had been agreed to at a public
meeting, and contained signatures of the highest respectability, as well

as those or the labouring class. It said that the general approval of the
bill was alike in all ranks rand cations in the country.
Mr. HI N P rose and paid that he was not ready to subscribe so rea-
dily to that statement, that the approval of the bill was now so very
general. With regard to the labouring classes, they had all at6r st ap-
proved of the measure, expecting that it would be a great good to the
country, but at that time they were under a delusion ; and now, when
they had time to reflect, they bad declared themselves very differently.
With regard to the noble lords and honourable gentlemen who had de-
clared themselves ready to surrender their rights to their boroughs, be
(Mr. Hunt) did not attach much weight to these facts, as he thought
that they had retained them as long as they could, and only now made
the show of surrendering them, when they had imagined from eompul-
sion they must resign them. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME expressed his disapprobation and astonishment at the
conduct of the hon. member for Preston, who was thus night after
night getting up in his place and making such assertions as he was in
the habit of doing. He had all along professed himself to be a re-
former, but now he (Mr. Hume) was almost led to call in question his
sincerity. (Hear, hear.) He thought it highly censurable for the
honourable member to attach Improper motives to the distinguished in-
dividuals who had so nobly come forward and tendered their noinina-
tion boroughs, and he would ask the House what encouragement any
Nobleman or Gentleman could have in the conscientious discharge of a
public duty so prominent and praiseworthy as these surrenders were,
if their motives were thus to be maligned at the caprice of any in-
dividual on vague assertion. With regard to the labouring classes,
whom the Hon. Member had described as having been under the in.
fluence of a delusion, he (Mr. Hume) had had that day letters from
Manchester, from individuals who were likely td be the organs of pub-
lic opinion--the Editor of the Voice of the People, a paper published
by the people, the labouring classes themselves, and that gentleman had
, denied the assertion, that the people were not approving of the bill;
and expressed his astonishment regarding the grouuda on which the
hon. member for Preston had founded his assertions to the contrary.
The Editor of the Manchester Times had sent him (Mr. Hume) a si-
milar communication, and had offered to verify his testimony in any
way the most solemn or public. He (Mr. Hume) thonght that if the
hon. member for Preston was really the friend to reform that he had
pretended to be, instead of bringing forward so repeatedly evidence
which bad as repeatedly been contradicted, he ought at the present time
to have passed it over.
Mr. HUNT rose and said that he had been so often *nutted by
hon. members of that house, and by the press nut of doors, that he felt
himself bound to reply to the gratuitous attack that had been made upon
him by the hon. member for Middlesex. He did not know what there
had ever been in his conduct that could admit of the hon. member
(Mr. Hume) questioning his sincerity: there was nothing that could
deter him from declaring his opinion before him or any one else.
He repeated that the people had been under a delusion, but that
they now caw through it, and were desirous to get something for
themselves. He admitted that there were numbers who approved of the
bill, but there were 7,000,000 who were ..ot to be included in the
representation—they were all dissatisfied. The bill had not given all
that the people wanted, nor what he (Mr. Hunt) had approved of. He
wanted universal suffrage, that the labouring class might have a voice
in the representation, and that the voice should be protected by the vote
by ballot. The bill as it now stood was to give the right of voting
chiefly to the very clues of 101. rent-payers that he (Mr. Hunt) did not
reckon of the people at all. With regard to the noblemen and gentle.
men who made the sacrifice of their boroughs, he maintained that his
position was still the same, for he recollected that twenty-five years
ago, when he attended Reform Meetings, they had from one meet-
ing sent down a humble request to the Duke of Norfolk, that he
would commence, and show the example, by giving up one of his
rotten boroughs, but his Grace refused. Now, this was a proof that
he was determined to keep it as long as he could. He (Mr. Hunt) did
not believe that the bill would do any good for the people, nor did he
think that it was ever intended for the people's good. The present
ministry who had brought it forward had not reduced taxation ; they
had not reduced salaries nor pensions, and they had increased the civil
list. (The hon. member here made an appeal to an hon. member oppo-
site, who abruptly replied, " I do not know what you were saying, for
I was not listening to you.") Mr. Hunt concluded by saying, that he
was, nevertheless, determined to support the Bill, because it would do
away with the rotten boroughs.
Mr. HUME denied that he had made any attack on the hon. mem.
ber ; he had merely stepped forwaid to rescue honourable individuals
from the imputation of undue motives. He would remind the hon.
member, that the Duke of Norfolk now living had not come to his title
2.1 years ago, and could nut be the Duke that the hon. member had al.
luded to. Mr. Hume enumerated the names of several proprietors who
offered to surrender their boroughs, of whuse opinions he could speak
confidently as having declared themselves on the subject many years
ago. long before any such circumstances as the hon. member described
as compulsory bad existed. He thought that the hon. member, if be
pretended at all to support the bill, ought not to throw so many obsta-
cles in its way. He must be convinced of the difficulties with which
they were surrounded ; and his conduct was the same as if he would
throw a hundred weight into their carriage, after he saw the horses were
already scarcely able to move with their lead.
Colonel SIBTHORPE said he differed from the opinion of the hon.
member for Marlborough, and he thought that ministers ought to have
, given it mnre time fins consideration 4, and ha agreed with the honour-
' able member for Preston, ibat the people had been deceived, and those
who were to be deprived of their franchise had been most unjustly and
tyrannically treated. He approved of the conduct of the hon. member
for Preston, in the manly manner be had expressed himself. He (Col.
Sibthorpe) had opposed the measure contrary to his own interest, but
consistent with the dictates of his own conscience, and be could wish
that the bill was committed to the flames, and never heard of again.
Mr. H. HUGHES said that lie received communications from a
large portion of the population, who had been represented to the house
by the hon. member for Preston, as having approved of the bill, undet
a delusion, who had, even after a close disquisition on the particular
clauses of the b:11, denied that their minds had changed. On the con-
trary they had begged that no alteration should take place, nor any
measure be proposed that would impede or endanger the bill's passing.
When the clause was pointed out to them whereby their children might
be deprived of their freedoms, even that sacrifice they would make
rather than the bill should be endangered.
Sir C. WETHERELL said the citizens of Oxford did not under-
stand the bill; but when they knew it would disfranchise their children
they would certainly oppose it.
Mr. TENNYSON said the citizens of Oxford had formerly the good
understanding to send the honourable and learned gentleman to parlia-
ment, and he should not accuse them of being deficient in judgment.
He was confident they perfectly understood the bill—they perfeotly un-
derstood that 55 rotten boroughs were to be disfranchised—they per.
fectiy understood that Boroughbridge was never to send members again,
and that the learned gentleman must go back to them, or to some other
independent place, if he ever wished to take a seat in that house again.
The bill was well understood by the country at large, and they bad
fully expressed their opinion in its favour.
Sir C. WETHERELL presented a petition from certain freemen of
the city of Gloucester against the Reform bill, and a similar petition
from the corporation of Norwich. Also a petition from the inhabitants
of lloroughbridge, praying that they might be heard by counsel against
the Reform bill.

Mr. WISE presented a petition from the city of Cashel, In Ireland,
in favour of the bill of Reform. He hoped his Majesty's ministers,
fully confiding in the justice of their cause, would go to the people, and
give them an opportunity of declaring their determination to support
the great charter of freedom.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SH lEL said, if the bill were passed it would have the effect of
allaying a great part of the emotion that existed in Ireland respecting
the repeal of the Union.
Mr. O'BRIEN thought the house had done more towards the repeal
of the Union with Ireland, by the vote of last night, than the member
for Waterford could do with half the Irish members at his back.
Mr. SCHONSWAR presented a petition from are ship.owne a of
Hull, praying for a revision of the quarantine laws.
Mr. WARBURTON hoped the subject would be taken Into consi-
deration by Government,
Lord STRATH AVEN presented a petition from Haddingtou in
favour of the Bill of Reform.

MI. JEPHSON presented a petition from 31allow in favour of the
iteform Bill.

Mr. LITTLRTON presented a petition from the working people
of Darlstone and its neighbourhood contradicting a report that they
were dissatisfied with the Reform Bill.

Mr. HUNT said the statement that he had made that the working
people of that district had expressed themseires dissatisfied with the
Bill was perfectly corrrect.
Mr. LITTLETON said there could be no doubt the declaration in
the petition applied to the statement of the hon. member for Preston,
in that House.

The SPEAKER said that being the case, the hon. member should
not have presented the petition ; it should be withdrawn.
Sir CHARLES H'ETHERELL said he believed a motion was
necessary, and moved that the petition be withdrawn.
Mr. S. RICE contended that the petition should be reeeivtd, aa de-
clarations that tt.e working people were dissatisfied with the bill were
made in other places besides that house, and it was to such declarations
the petition might allude.
The SPEAKER said if the house put the same construction on the
petition as the hon. member who presented it, they must reject it.
Mr. LITTLETON said the petition was not dictated to the pe-
titioners ; it arose from their own indignant feelings at the misre-
presentation of their opinions. It did not mention any thing said
in that house. The petition, was ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUNT presented a petition from the parish of Brastee, in Kent,
in favour of the Bill of Reform.
Mr. HU MR presented a similar petition from Kensington, and nine
others from places in England and Scotland; and a similar petition from
Shaftesbury, which was to be deprived of one of its members.
Mr. HUNT said the inhabitants of Shaftesbury had nothing to do
with their Representatives, and he was confident would be glad to give
up both.
Colonel TYRRLLL presented four petitions from Essex, for the
abolition of Slavery.—Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Cloek.