The Sun. — 1841-04-23 (London, England)

WEST.MEATH presented a petition from Adiane against the Intrusion of Ministers in the Church of Seodand.  The 1114rquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from Belfast praying for the abolition of Patronage in the Church of Scotlend. One from Truro in favour of the Jcwish Declaration Bi.l, and one from the traders and ethers residing in %A-ardour-street, S praying that the tolls on bridges in London might be abolished.  The Earl of CHARLEVILLE begged to be allowed to occupy their Lordship's attention for a few moments, while he made a few statements in order to clear his character from some imputations which had been thrown on it by the Noble Mar. quis (Normanby) opposite. On the occasion of his moving their Lordships the day previous to the holi• days, the Noble Marquis gave a strong contradiction to several statements made by him (Lord Charleville), and said that he had not taken any pains to inform him. self as to the truth of his information, and especially he charged him (Lord Charleville) with omitting to state that Mr. Biddulph had expressed his entire satisfaction with the Jury which hod been impannelled in his case. He bad never known Mr. Biddulph before the attack made upon that gentleman's life. He believed Mr. Biddulph was considered a Conservative in politics, lout by no means an active or prominent partisan. The Noble Lord then read a letter from that gentleman, stating that he (Mr. B.) had not approved of the pahcl, for the Jury se'ected to try the prisoners who had attempted his life. He read a'so a letter from Mr. Baker, to the effect that the Attorney-General refused to object to a juror named Collins (who was a man of very bad character), upon the trial of the persons accused of murdering a man named Powell, who was a servant of Mr. Baker. In reply to the charge of the NoVe Marquis (Normanby), that ho (Lord Charleville) had employed a man of infamous character, named Goulding, in the search for the murderers of Lord Norbury, he had only to say teat Goulding bad been in the police upwards of 17 years. The Marquis of NORM ANBY said that he had now nothing to add to his former explanation upon this subject. He had already given their Lordships the statements of Mr. Moore, the Solicitor General, and Mr. Dale, the Crown Solicitor, and he would have brought down the letters of those gentlemen, if he could have imagined that the Noble Earl was disposed to take up their Lordships'time by again reverting to the subject. The Earl of CHARLEVILLE said that the Noble Marquis had accused hint of knowingly employing a man of bad character.  Tile Marquis of NORMANBY assured tile House that he had not intended to convey any such charge. He hal oily said that the Noble Earl, having been himself so far imposed upon as to employ a person of notoriously infamous character, who had beco convicted of fraud and perjury,ought to be a little mistrustful of his sources of information.—( Hear.) The Eallof 'WICKLOW said the explanation of  the Noble Marquis was anything but satisfactory. It was evident that in the case of Mr. Biddulph the Government officers did not challenge objectionable persons ; whereas in the case of the Orangeman, Samuel Gray, the prerogative of the Crown was exercised i❑ tho strictest manner.  The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that the conduct of the Officers of the Crown in the cases brought before their Lordships by his Noble Friend (Lord Charleville), was calculated to sacrifice tie lives of those gentlemen, who, with himself and his Noble Friend, had the moral courage to uphold the institutions of the country. His Noble Friend was net a pensioner upon the public, nor a political adventurer, but a gentleman of ample fortune, who had a good house to receive his friends in, and bad the good sense to live in it.—(Great laughter.) After a few words from the Earl of Charleville and the Marquis of Normanby in explanation, the conversation dropped. The Earl of