The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-04 00:00:00

.
,

PRICE sd.

Colonel RUSIIBROOK presented petitions to the same
effect from parishes in the counties of Essex and Suffolk.
Mr. GULLY presented petitions from a 'parish in the
West Riding of York, and from Pontefract, praying for the
total abolition cf Church-rates.
Mr. VERNON SMITH presented five petitions from Dis-
senting congregations in Northampton to the same effect.
Mr. HAWKINS presented a petition from Newport in the
Isle of Wight to the same effect.
Mr. TEN YSON D'EYNCOURT presented petitions
from Lambeth and other places for the abolition of Church-
rates.

Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from Ayr, signed by
2,200 persons, praying for the total abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. FOX M A UCE presented similar petitions from Perth
and Dundee.
Mr. HUME presented similar petitions from Woodbridge,
Merionethshire; St. Ann's, Westminster; Buckingham; from
800 householders of St. James's, Radcliffe; Wellingborough,
Sterne, Great Yarmouth, Saffron Walden, East Deering,
and Fravnlingham.—[The Hon. Member was about to make a
few observations upon the petitions, when cries of " N,o, no,"
resounded from different parts of the House.] The Hon.
Member thought that the course adopted by the Chair, on
the presentation of petitions, of not even allowing Hon.
Members to mention the names of them, was exceedingly
improper. If they were not to read the prayer of the petition,
or comment upon their contents, the reading the names of the
parties presenting them was the last refuge, and that by the
course adopted by the House was now denied them.---( Cheers. )
Hon. Members were entrusted with an important duty when
petitions were confided to their care, and he thought that they
gave up a most important right, and completely neglected their
duty, when they allowed themselves .to be prevented from even
naming the parties presenting the petitions.—(Cheers.) If
such an important right was to be given up, the best way
would be to abandon presenting petitions altogether. —( Cheers. )
The SPEAKER said it would be a great relief to him if
distinct motion were made on the subject, so as to settle the
point.

- Mr. HUME—Yes, Sir, it would be better that that should
be done, and I shall consider whether it ought not to be done—
( Hear, hear)—because the people must give up the right of
petitioning altogether, if the places from whence those peti-
tions come are not even to be mentioned.—(Cheers.)
Mr. G RE ENE presented petitions from the West Riding of
Yorkshire against the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. M. PARKER presented petitions from Tiverton, Ax-
minster, and eleven other places in the county of Devon, to
the same effect.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented petitions to the same
effect from Sheerness, and other places in Kent.
Mr. SANFORD presented a petition from a town in
Devonshire, the name of which we could not hear, praying
that in any arrangement for the abolition of Church-rates,
care would be taken for the support of the Church.—( Cheers
from'the Opposition.)
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from a parish
in Yorkshire in favour of the total abolition Of Church-rates.
Sir R. PRICE presented petitions from parishes in Here-
fordshire and Gloucestershire, praying for the total abolition
of Church-rates.

Sir H. VIVIAN presented several petitions from Bristol,
Clifton, and parishes in Gloucestershire against the abolition
of Church-rates.

Mr. BARNARD presented a petition from a Dissenting
congregation meeting at Greenwich in favour of the total
abolition of Church-rates.
Lord J. STE WART presented three petitions from pa-
rishes in the county of Ayr, with a similar prayer.
Sir H. WILLIAM,SON presented petitions from Sunder-
land, and other places, to the same effect.
Mr. VIVIAN presented petitions from places in Cornwall
against the abolition of Church-rates.

Mr. EGERTON' SMITH presented petitions from various
places in favour of the total abolition of Church-rates.
Lord GRIMSTONE presented petitions against the aboli-
tion of Church-rates.

Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE presented petitions from Win-
chester and other places, in favour of the total abolition of
Church-rates.

Mr. GLADSTONE presented a petition from feicestl2r,
against the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE presented 17 petitions from places
in Yorkshire, with a similar prayer.
Similar petitions were presented from different places by
Sir R. SIMF.ON, by Mr. NORTH, and by Lord GRANVILLE
SOMERSET.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition, signed by
19,064 inhabitants of Birmingham, for the abolition of
Church-rates; and from five Dissenting congregations, to
the same effect.

Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from the
Mayor, Aldermen, and 1,300 inhabitants of Worcester to the
same effect.
Mr. ELWE S presented two petitions from Essex against
the abolition of Church-rates.
Lord ASHLEY presented 26 petitions from Norfolk, and
11 others from places in Somerset and Sussex, to the same
effect; also a petition which bad emanated from a public
meeting held in London, signed by 2,000 persons, among
whom were many of that respectable class, the Wesleyan Me-
thodists.

Mr. FINCH presented a petition from the Scotch Church
in London against the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. GALL Y KNIGHT presented two petitions to the
same effect.

Mr. HARVEY presented petitions from Romford Union-
street Chapel, Christ's Church Chapel in the borough, from
Colchester, signed by the Mayor, all the Aldermen, a majority
of the Town Council, and 800 inhabitants, and six other
places, praying for the total abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. METHUEN presented petitions from Dover, Tow-
bridge, and two other places to the same effect.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the Dis-
sentii,g Congregation of NelA port-street Chapel, to the same
effect,

Mr. ROSS presented two petitions from places in North-
ampton, against the abolition of Church-rates ; also, a petition,
signed by 11 members of the Town Council of Northampton
to the same effect, and complaining that a petition had been
presented on the other side, purporting to come from the Town
Council, to which the names of only 13 members were attached.
Mr. VERNON SMITH had presented a petition signed
by 13 Members of the Town Council of Northampton, to
which the corporate seal was attached.
Mr. BA GOT presented two petitions from places in Der-
byshire, against the Abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented petitions signed by the re-
presentatives of 954 congregationst praying for the total abo-
lition of Church-rates. Also petitions to the same effect from
the Wesleyan congregation at Manchester, and another at
Blackstone. He had also a petition to present, signed by
1,200 inhabitants of Rochester to the same effect; and, as
their case was one of peculiar hardship, he should prefer with-
drawing it for the present, if the House objeeted to his stating
the particular facts alleged in the petition.—( Cries of " No.")
Sir CHARLES BURRELL complained that there was
an objection made to Gentlemen on his side of the House mak-
ing any observation.—(Opposition cheering.) The House
should come to some understanding one way or the other.—
( Rsnewed cheering.) If some Hon. Members were per-
mitted to make speeches, on the presentation of petitions,
it was any thing but fair play.—(Cries of " Order, order.")
The SPEAKER did not think that any thing which had
occurred in the course of the proceedings that evening could
have called for or justified the observations of the Hon. Mem-
ber.—( Loud cheers.) If the Hon. Member meant to impute
that any indulgence was shewn by him to one side of the House
rather than the other, it was quite uncalled for. The discus-
sions which had arisen upon the presentation of petitions bad
originated not upon that (the Ministerial) side of the House,
but the other.—(Cheers.) He (the Speaker) had endea-
voured to do his duty to all parties as fairly as possible.—
(Loud cheers.) He had done his best to promote the general
convenience of the House, and he was conscious that he had
endeavoured to do it equally.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL in explanation, assured the
House that he never had the slightest intention of impugning
the justice of the Chair in any degree. He had only spoken
hypothetically—he said if the House—not the Speaker—if the
House allowed one party to make a statement, then justice
would not be done unless the other party were also allowed.—
( Cries of " Oh, oh.")
Mr. M. PHILIPS was anxious to make a statement of the
allegations contained in the petition.—(Cries of " No, no.")
—He would therefore withdraw it then, and present it on
another opportunity.
Mr. GIL LON presented petitions from Dundee, Auch-
termuchty, Biggar, and another place, praying for the abolition
of Church-rates.
Mr. BAINES presented petitions to the same effect from
Berwick-on-Tweed, Amersham, Chipping Ongar, and twelve
other places.
Petitions to the same effect were presented by Mr. BOWES,
from Durham; by Sir WM. FOULKES, from several pa-
rishes in the county of Norfolk ; and by Captain NVE M YS,
from seven parishes in the county of Fife.
Sir R. INGLIS presented four petitions from places in
the counties of Oxford and Essex, against the abolition of
Church-rates.
Sir C. BURRELL presented petitions from West Grim-
stead and other places, against the abolition of Church-rates.
Sir JACOB A STLE Y presented a petition from Norwich,
praying for the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. WILKINS presented a petition to the same effect from
a parish in the County of Radnor.
Mr. HULSE presented a petition from St. Ives against the
abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. BARNEB Y presented a petition to the same effect from
Droitwich.
The Marquis of CHANDOS presented 19 petitions to the
same effect from the County of Buckingham.
Mr. PRA ED presented petitions to the same effect from
Yarmouth, and other places, in the county of Norfolk.
Mr. CRIPPS presented petitions to the same effect from I
Cirencester.
Sir HENRY SMYTH presented petitions to the same
effect from Colchester, and other parishes, in the county o
Essex.

TRINITY HARBOUR.
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Committee
on the Trinity Harbour Leith Bill. The Committee reported
that the Standing Orders had been complied with, and leave
was given to brine- in the Bill.
INCLOSURE BILLS.
On the motion by an Hoe. AIRMBER for leseve to bring in an
Inclosure Bill,
Major BE A UCLERK said that as he considered these Bills
interfered greatly with the recreation of the poorer classes, he
should upon all occasions move that five or six acres of land be
set apart for the recreation and amusement of the poorer classes.
--e( Hear, hear.)
Sir E. WILMOT moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Birmingham Railway Act.—Leave given.
TAMWOIiTH AND RUGELY RAILWAY.
Sir E. W ILMOT, in moving the further consideration of
the petition which he had presented two or three days ago re-
lative to this Railway, said the House would recollect
the consideration of that petition was postponed till to-
day, se order that Members might have time to con-
sider the merits of the petition. ' The Honourable Baronet
had subsequently moved that the Report of the Sub-Commit-
tee should be printed and delivered with the Votes. What
the object of the Hon. Baronet in doilies that was, he could not
tell—it could not be to prejudice the question, because that had
nothing to do with the question before the, House. The parties
presented this petition on two grounds—firet, that the decision of
the Committee was erroneous, and secondly, that the Committee
had acted under a misapprehension of the Stunding Orders of
the House. When the promoters of the Bill made out
the plan they did not insert it in the parliamentary docu-
ment, because they had never intended to take it.—(Hear.)
The Standing Order Committee considered the barn
ought to have been in the schedule, and they had reported to
the House, because the barn was not included in the schedule,
that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. He
hoped the House would refer back the case to the Standing
Order Committee, that they might have liberty to reconsider
it, and he would conclude by making a motion to that effect.
Mr. PO ULTER supported the motion. As a member of
the Sub-Committee, lie could state that it was thee r impression
that the House could give relief; and if such was met the view
then taken, he for one would have divided the Cemtsb:ttee on
the question of the compliance with the Standing Orders, con-
vinced as he was that all the requisite steps had been tale m by
the Company.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY would enter his protest against
the doctrine laid dovvn by the Hon. Member, that if the House
did not give relief, he would have divided the Committee upon
the subject. It never was intended that the Standing Orders
Committee should take upon itself to adjudge whether the
Bill should be proceeded with or not—their duty was confined
to the question of whether the Standing Orders had been
complied with or not ?—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear..")
If any other construction of what that duty was was suffered
to go abroad, it would be fatal to the proper conduct of the
business of that House. He would say no mere upon the
subject, but leave it to the Hon. Member for Devonshire to
make such an explanation to the House as lie might think
proper.
Lord E BRINGTON said the impression on the minds of
the Committee was, that, by giving so much power as was
sought by the Bill, to go on either side of this property, was
against the spirit of the Standing Orders. He, however, was
disposed to ask the House to assent to the motion of the
Honourable Baronet, and have this question again con-
sidered by the Committee, on the understanding that it
should be considered a special case, and that a special
summons should be sent to all the Members of the Committee.
He trusted, however, that it would be considered as the ex-
ception and would not again be adopted except under very
peculiar circumstances.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, though lie considered the ques-
tion as one cf very great importance, had the Minds of the -
Sub and of the Appeal Committees been made up upon clear
grounds, he would not have pressed the matter further. But
as it appeared that many of- the Members of the Sub-Com-
inittee laboured under a mistake, he trusted the House would
accede to his proposition. Ile agreed with the Noble Lord in
his hope that the case would not be made a precedent.
Mr. GREENE, as Chairman ()idle Sub-Committee on the
Standing Orders, begged to inform the House that there had
been no division on the subject of this Bill. They had come
to the conclusion that the Standing Orders had not been com-
plied with, and he doubted the propriety of referring back to
the same COmmittee a question on which they had already
given their decision.

- Sir JAMES GRAHAM would not in an ordinary case vote
for sending the Bill back to the Committee; but it appeared
to him that there were very strong reasons for making this an
exception to the general rule.
Sir' E. \VILMOT stated that he understood from the peti-
tioners that they could give sufficient reasons to meet the ob-
jections raised before the Standing Orders Committee.
The SPEAKER said that a reference back to the Com-
mittee must be taken in the nature of au appeal to that House
from the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. There-
fore, in ordinary cases, whether they affirmed or not the opi-
nion of the Standing Orders Committee, he would suggest
that it was desirable that the reference back to that Committee
should not be made in the words of the motion of the Hon.
Baronet. The object of that reference should be stated most
specifically, in order to show what was the intention of the
House in referring back the Bill. If that were not
the case they would establish a preccdcnt in or-
dinary cases for referring hack Bills to the Standing
Orders Committee. In this case lie thought that there were
very strong reasons why a reference should be made. In the
first place as he collected from what he heard in the course of
the debate, the Standing Orders Committee had rejected the
Bill on the first point without examining the others. Now lie
thought that all those points ought to be heard.
If it were referred back to the Standing Orders Committee,
they should state their reasons for the decision which they
had adopted, because then it would appear not as a prece-
dent for the practice of the House, but that the House had
adopted the extraordinary course of sending it back to the
Standing Orders Committee for the purpose of getting further
information from them upon the subject. He thought the
adoption of such a course would save time, and more fully
bring the merits of the case before the House.
Lord EBRINGTON said he would adopt the course sug-
gested from the Chair.

- Mr. POTTER deprecated the House coming to one deci.
shut one day, and another on another, as he felt convinced it
tended to lower the dignity of the House. The Committee
had reported forty cases in which the Standing Orders had
not been complied with. The Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R.
Peel) possessed great influence in the House, no doubt ; but
still that influence was not to induce the House to come to
one decision one day, and a totally different one the next.
Sir ROBERT PEEL, with some warmth, observed, that
he had never said one word to any individual upon the sub-
ject, with the exception of the Hon. Member fur Monmouth,
who had told him he meant to oppose it.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL made a few observations, which
were inaudible in the gallery.
Sir R. PRICE thought it impossible to resist sending it
back to the Standing Orders Committee. If he understood
the suggestions from the Chair, the Committee were to give
their reasons for the decision they had come to. Under all
the circumstances be agreed the matter should be referred back.
Lord G. SOMERSET said, that after the very uncalled
for insinuation of the Hon. Member for Wigan, he felt hound
to say that in what passed between him and his Hon. Friend,
the Member for Tamworth, the Right Hon. Baronet stated
he should support the decision of the Standing Orders' Com-
mittee.
Mr. POTTER did not mean to impute to the Right Hon.
Baronet that lie had used any undue influence. All he meant
was, that anything proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet
would have great weight in the House.--'(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PE EL said the system of canvassing for private
Bills was most abominable.—(Cheers from both sides of the
House.) He had conic down for the purpose of supporting