The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-23 00:00:00

ROADS.

Upon the Earl of SHAFTESBURY moving the second
reading of a Dover Road Bill,
Lord BROUGHAM said the Post Horse Duty
must be given up, or the roads and post-horses would
equally be ruined.—(Hear, hear.)
Earl STANHOPE presented several petitions
against the Poor Law Amendment Act. •
DEANERY OP EXETER BILL.

Lord MELBOURNE moved the second reading
of this Bill, the object of which was to remove the re-
striction put by the Ecclesiastical Appointments Sus-
pension Bill upon the appointment of a Dean of Exe-
ter, who must be a canon residentiary, or a
prebend--sometimes both. Great inconvenience re-
sulted from this restriction as the office of Dean was
one of great importance in the Church.
Lord LYTTLETON was understood to oppose the
Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER said he should not oppose
the second reading of the Bill, but he should in
Committee move an amendment. He begged to
ask the Noble Viscount whether he would lay on the
table the communication which had taken place between
the Chapter of Exeter and the Government on the
subject.
Lord MELBOURNE said that the papers were of
so confidential a nature, that he did not think they
ought to be produced. The Noble Lord also added an-
other observation in answer to the Right Reverend
Prelate, but in so low a tone of voice, and from his hack
being turned to the gallery, it could not be heard in the
Gallery.
The Bishop of EXETER, with some warmth, said,
what the Noble Lord had imputed to his advice he would
call upon the Noble Lord in a higher character than that
of a Member of that House to say whether the Chapter
had not in communications with him asserted that they
did not forego their claim to a free election. He
called upon th Noble Lord to answer that question.
Lord MELBOURNE said he declined to answer
the question.
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed to-morrow.
The Bishop of EXETER gave notice that to-morrow
he should move for the copy of a letter from Dr. Bull to
Lord Melbourne, dated 00th of April last, touching the
vacant Deanery of Exeter, and also for the production
of any other documents that might illustrate the claim
of the Chapter to the free election to the Deanery of
Exeter.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 22.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'Clock.
BERKELEY AND GLOUCESTER INCLO-

_ ___•_
SURE BILL.
Mr. G. BERKELEY moved the second reading o;
his Bill.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY thought that the third read-
ing of the Bill should be postponed till to-morrow, or
that it should pass subject to the Standing Order which
be intended to propose, which was, that in all In-
closure Bills a clause should be introduced to the effect
that a proper space should be set apart for the recrea-
tion of the poorer classes : no such clause existed in the
present Bill.
After a few words from Mr. G. BERKELEY the
Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. G. BERKELEY moved the third reading of
the Tretherne and Saul Inclosure Bill.

Mr. HARVEY must oppose the third reading of
this Bill, unless a clause similar to the one he had re-
ferred to was adopted. If it was not he should like the
sense of the House upon it.
Mr. G. BERKELEY did not think he had been
fairly dealt with by the Hon. Member for Southwark,
in opposing the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. HARVEY said it was not the Bill, the third
reading of which the Hon. and Gallant Member had
just moved, in particular, that he intended to oppose,
but it was his intention to prevent, if possible, all Bills
of a similar description, passing, unless they contained
a clause similar to the one to which he had adverted.

Captain PECHELL hoped the Hon. Member for
Southwark would not persist in his amendment.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said if those who had the
charge of the Bill would pledge themselves to intro-
duce the provisions of which he had spoken he would
not oppose the further progress of the Bill.
Mr. BERKELEY having given the required
pledge, the Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. LOCKHART brought up the Report on the
Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway Bill.
The Melbourne (Cambridge) Inclosure Bill was read
a third time and passed.
The Reports on the London and Birmingham and
the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Bills were
brought up.
Mr. BAINES brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Leeds Soke Committee Bill.—The Bill
was then read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. DAVENPORT the Stafford-
shire Potteries (Stipendary Justices) Bill was read a
second time.

Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition from
Manchester against the Birmingham and Manchester
Extension Railway Bill.
Mr. SANFORD moved the third reading of the
Par•ett Navigation Bill.

Sir C. BURRELL opposed the third reading, and
thought he could best explain to the House the grounds
on which he did so by reading an extract from a petition
he held in his hand. The petition stated that a petition
against the Bill had been presented on the Bth March,
but that the signatures had been cut off from the peti-
tion and attached to another with a totally different
prayer. Under such circumstances, he hoped that the
Bill would be deferred until the subject was brought
under the consideration of the House.

Mr. SANFORD said the petition had been be-
fore . the Committee, but the Members of it did not
think it proper to stop the proceedings upon the Bill
upon such a fabrication.
Mr. WYNN thought that inquiry ought to be
made into the case on the part of the House, and if
fraud had been committed it ought to be punished.
Mr. WARBURTON quite agreed with the Hon.
Member ; but it was to be borne in mind that the irre-
gularity complained of was on the part of the op-
posers of the Bill, and not on the part of its pro-
moters.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COURTENAY said though the question was
connected with a miserable little river, still it was de-
serving of attention, because it involved the question of
a very salutary reform made by the House in Private
Committees. The Hon. Member for Westminster had
apposed the Bill, but now finding out that the
case represented to him was a rotten one
he was not in his place to carry out that opposition.
The Hon. Member for Westminster had been misled
by the misrepresentations, having for their object to in-
duce gentlemen who bad not heard the evidence to come
down and vote concerning matters of which they were
ignorant.
Sir R. PEEL suggested that it would be proper for
the House to pars the Bill, and afterwards to in-
stitute inquiries on the subject, and if any
person should be found to have been guilty of fraud,
they ought to be subjected to punishment. It was
very hard upon the promoters of the Bill that they
should suffer from the improper conduct of the opposers
of it, because it would be always in the power of the
opponents of any Bill to get up an opposition by act-
ing in this manner.
Sir C. BURRELL would withdraw all further op-

position to the passing of the Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
MANCHESTER AND BIRMINGHAM EX.
TENSION RAILWAY.

Mr. POULETT THOMSON said he had pre.

sented a petition the other day from the Earl of
Lichfield, respecting the improper use which bad
been made of his name, relative to the above
undertaking. - A. petition-bad also. been presented
from Mr. Baxter, a solicitor, from Atherstone.
The petitions contained serious allegations of breaches
of the Standing Orders ; he thought it important
that the petitions should be referred to a Committee
to inquire on the subject. Great opposition had been
given to this Bill, and parties had made use of names
improperly, as it appeared, and consequently enor-
mous sums of money had been unnecessarily expended.
Not anticipating any opposition to the appointment •f
this Committee, he begged to move that the petition of
the Earl of Lichfield and Mr. Baxter, relating to the
Manchester and Birmingham Extension (Stone and
Rugby) Railway Bili, be referred to a Committee.
Sir E. WILMOT said that he had presented the
petition of Mr. Baxter, although not aware of its merits.
Sir R. PEEL said the only question was whether or
not the Standing Orders had not been improperly per-
verted. On the 16th day on which the Committee
sat, he was informed that his case was before the
Standing Orders Committee. He said that he had
no case, and that he never authorised any person
to interfere, and then heard for the first time that he ap-
peared as an opponent of the Bill. Although these
orders were for the protection of property, when gen-
tlemen were satisfied, they must be surprised to find that
others undertook their case. He therefore heartily sup-
ported the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. AGLIONBY could not have consented to the

appointment of a Committee had the object been to pre-,.
judice the case of the Railway before the Standing
Orders Committee. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
said the names were improperly used. That would
imply that something like fraud had been used by some
of the parties. In his (Mr. A.'s) opinion, the names were
not improperly used. It was the Standing Orders which
were improperly made, and from its not being clear and
explicit an expense of 12,0001. to 20,0001. had been lost to
the parties, and the Committee had sat for twenty-two
days. The rule stated that any party should be at
liberty to appear on any petition which might be re-
ferred to the Committee, provided the matter com-
plained of shall be specifically stated in such petition.
Here was a petition alleging specifically that a parti-
cular field was wrongly described. There was nothing
on the face of the Standing Orders to prevent that
being proceeded with. If the Right Honourable
Gentleman would take that into consideration be

would be doing a great service to the public.
If the House granted a Select Committee, he hoped
it would take the whole case into:its hands, and,on that
understanding he should not oppose the appointment of
the Committee.

Lord G. SOMERSET thought a case had been
established for inquiry.
After a few words from Mr. GREENE the follow-
ing Committee was appointed :—Mr. Poulett Thom-
son, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Lord Stan-
ley, Mr. Hume, Lord Granville Somerset, Mr. Loch,
Mr. Greene, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Williams Wynn, Sir
Eardiey Wilmot, Sir James Graham, Mr. Edward
Ellice, Mr. Fresbfield, Colonel Davies. Power to send
for persons, papers, and records ; five to be the quorum.