The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-19 00:00:00

LON :N, TUESDAY,-E VENING EDITION,-FEBRUA li,Y 19, 1839.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF Co7lllllo2l7s—Fas. 18.
The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before
Four o'Clock.

Mr. CRAFER presented papers from the Treasury,
and Mr. TIERNEY presented returns from the Stamp-
office.

Mr. BANNERMAN presented a petitio❑ from
Aberdeen, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to esta-
blish a market in that town.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from
Bradford, in Wilts, praying for leave-to bring in a Bill
for the purpose of lighting and watching that town.
Mr. BELL presenfed a petition for leave to bring in
a Bill to extend the line of the North Shields and Tyne-
mouth Railway.

Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from
Salford, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to establish
water-works in that town.
Captain CHETWYND presented a petition pra3-
ing for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the line of the
Birmingham Railway from Stone to Rugby.—Referred
to the Committee on Private Bills.
Mr. BANNERMAN presented a petition from
Aberdeen, signed by 9,000 persons, against the pre-
sent Corn-laws. The petitioners prayed to be allowed
to substantiate their statements at the bar, and that if
they made out their case, a Bill might be passed for the
repeal of the Corn-laws. The Hon, Member presented
two other petitions to the same effect.

Mr. PinsIDARVE presented a petition from the
magistrates, clergymen, &c. of Redruth, complaining of
the increase of crime in that neighbourhood, which they
attributed to the want of a more efficient constabulary
force.

Mr. BENNETT presented a petition from the town
of Hindon, Wiltshire, and its vicinity, in favour of the
Corn-laws, and complaining that if those laws were
abolished, the agricultural laboure:s would be thrown
out of employment—(Hear, hear)—and begging the
House not to suffer those laws to be repealed;
also a petition from Sutton Mandeville in the same
county to the same effect.

Mr. WARD presented a petition from the Magis-
trates, Bankers, and Merchants, of the town of
Greenock, representing, in the strongest terms, the in-
jurious effects of the Corn-laws, signed by three hun-
dred persons ; another petition to the same effect, from
a town in the neighbourhood of Glasgow ; and another,
with a similar prayer, from a small island in the Firth
of Clyde, complaining that the Corn laws prevented
persons of all classes from obtaining employment. One
of the petitions prayed that evidence might be heard at
the bar of the House.

Mr. G. W. WOOD presented a petition from Ken-
dal, signed by several farmers and persons connected
with agriculture. The petitioners were of opinion that
the Corn-laws were injurious alike to the interest of
agriculturists and manufacturers."
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND MAR-
RIAGES.

Mr. HODGSON presented .1,, petition from the
Ministers and Elders of the Church of Scotland, of
Berwick-upon-Tweed. The petitioners stated that they
conceived the marriage rite to be a religious insti-
tution, and observing a Bill before that House for
the amendment of the Act for the Registration of
Births, Deaths, and Marriages, they call the atten-
tion of the House to the provision which required the
presence of a Registrar in order to render the marriage
valid. The petitioners also complained that they were
obliged to publish the bans of marriage before the Board
of Guardians instead of before the congregation, and
they prayed that these clauses might be amended.
CORN•LAWS.

Mr. BRAMSTON presented petitions from various
parishes in Essex against the present system of Corn-
laws. ,

Mr. E AST H 0 PE:presented a petition from Leicester,
signed by 13,000 inhabitants, and agreed to at a public
meetings of the inhabitants. The petitioners depre-
cated the continuing of the existing Corn-laws.
as injurious alike to the agriculturist and the manufac-
turer. They stated, that unless in fancy articles, the
manufacturing trade was so completely broken up
by competition abroad, that it was nearly destroyed.
They further stated, that at a time when the
working classes were, by the operation of the
New Poor-law Act, driven upon their own re-
sources, it was the more important and just that they
should be relieved from all taxes on bread. The peti-
tioners prayed for a total repeal of the Corn-laws, in
which hi (Mr. Easthope) cordially concurred. The
Hon. Member then presented a petition from another
place in Leicestershire, signed by seven thousand
persons, to the same effect, and praying to be heard
by Counsel at the Bar.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND EXTENSION.

Mr. BLAIR presented seven petitions from places in
Wigtonshire, complaining of destitution, and praying
for a grant in favour of Church extension in Scotland.

CORN-LAWS.

Mr. THORNELY presented petitions from three
places in Staffordshire, praying for a total repeal of the
Corn-laws.

General FERGUSON presented a petition from
Nottingham, to the same effect.
Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from a
parish in Cheshire, praying that a fixed duty might be
imposed upon Corn imported, in place of the present
fluctuating scale of duties.
Mr. STANSFIELD presented a petition from
Huddersfield, praying for the total and immediate re-
peal of the Corn-laws.
Lord GRIMSTONE presented a petition from Hat-
field, in Hertfordshire, against any alteration in the
Corn-laws.

Mr. BROTHERTON presented petitions from Sal-
ford and two other places, praying for the total and
immediate repeal of the Corn-laws.

Mr. H. SMITH presented a petition from a parish
in Essex, praying that the House would agree to no
alteration in the present Corn-laws.

Mr. BAINES presented a petition from the Town
Council of Lancaster, praying for the total and imme-
diate repeal of the Corn-laws.

Sir G. STRICKLAND presented petitions from
Marsden. Settle, Todmorden, and another place, with a
similar prayer.

Mr, Fl NCH presented a petition from St. Peter's,
armingliam, praying for a total and immediate repeal
of the Corn-laws, and of all laws affecting the impor-
tation of grain. The petitioners also prayed to be
heard at the bar. The Hon. Member also presented a
simlar petition from Old Swinford.
Mr. BARING WALL presented a petition from
Guildford against any repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. TURNER presented a petition from Truro,
praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Colonel SIBTHORP presented ten petitions from
different parts of Lincolnshire against any alteration in
the Corn-laws.
Sir E. FILMER presented several petitions against
any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. EATON presented petitions from 22 parishes in
Cambridgeshire, to the same effect.
Similar petitions were presented by Mr. Dick from
parishes in the county of Essex ; by Mr. Breadley, from
Nahum, Girton, and other places in the East Riding of
the county of York ; and by Sir W. Heathcote, from
parishes in Hampshire.
Mr. DENNISTOUN presented a petition from
Glasgow signed by 43,000 persons praying for a repeal
of the Corn-laws.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented petitions from 38
parishes in Lincolnshire, comprising 80,000 acres of
land, against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Sir B. HALL presented two petitions from Maryle-
bone in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Sr W. YOUNG presented petitions from parishes
in the county of Buckingham against any alteration.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from Margate,
signed by nearly 1,000 persons, praying for the imme-
diate abolition of the Corn-laws. This petition had
in a great degree originated from the circumstance
of the Hon. Member for East Kent (Sir E. Knatch-
bull) having stated that the public feeling in that
county was nearly unanimous in favour of the Corn-laws.
Also a petition from Honiton, in favour of the Poor-
law Amendment Act, but praying for alteration in the
clauses relating to pauper lunatics, and in the case of
aged and infirm paupers.
Lord W 0 RS LEY presented a petition from a
parish in Lincolnshire, praying that no alteration be
made in the Corn-laws.
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL presented a
alteration in
petition from a place in Kent, ligainst any
the Corn-laws.
THEATRICAL AMUSEMENTS.
Mr. DUNCOMBE had a petition to present, com-
plaining of an arbitrary restriction on the amusements
of the people. The petition was front the proprietors
and managers of Drury-lane Theatre, who complained
of the unjust interference of the Lord Cham-
berlain with the amusements of
the people
on the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent.—( Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member went on to say, that while
theatrical performances were prohibited in Westminster,
it was only necessary to cross OY.ford-street—(Order,
order)—which was not under the jurisdiction of the
Lord Chainberlain.—(Loud calls of " Order.") He
believed he was perfectly in order. It was laid down
he believe:l the other day, that when a petition was
presented complaining of grievances, the prayer of that
petition should be immediately discussed. He appre-
hended this was a complaint of grievance of that de-
scription.
The SPEAKER intimated the Hon. Member was
not exactly correct in the view he had taken.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said the petitioners complained

that they were deprived of a third part of their income
by the interference of the Lord Chamberlain. If the
complaint were not immediately discussed Lent would
be over, and, according to the old saying, while the
grass was growing the horse would starve. It was his
intention immediately to move an Address to her Ma-
jesty, that she would graciously please to issue her
orders to the Lord Chamberlain not to restrict in the
City of Westminster, those amusements which were
permitted in other parts of the country. He would
at once bring up the petition and take the
sense of the House upon the subject. He would beg
leave now to move an Address to her Majesty.—(Cries
of " No, order.") He was quite surprised at his Hon.
Friend the Member for Nottingham. He was once a
great stickler for the rights of the people. He had
been present when his Hon. Friend was a candidate for
Westminster, and bad heard him advocating those
rights on the hustings.
Sir GEORGE CLE.V.K said he felt it was out of
order for any Hon. Member to interfere with a notice
of motion before the House ; but a motion could not be
brought forward without notice.
Mr. P. THOMSON suggested that the petition be
printed, and that the Hon. Member give notice of a
motion for to-morrow for that purpose.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said, if the Noble Lord would
only say that he would take the subject into consideration,
so that the rational amusements of the people might not
be interrupted, he would consent to withdraw it ; but it
was too bad, when balls, and concerts, and clubs were
permitted,to remain open in every part of the town.—
(Cries of" Order 1")
The SPEAKER said he was sure he need not re-
mind the Hon. Member that there could be no order in
the proceedings of that House if they were to revert to
what were the alleged rights of individuals on all occa•
sions, without reference to those which the House had
observed.—(Cries
was of "
H anear .")
established for the general convenience. It would be
impossible to carry on the business of the House if
somelie msiy.gshttemobve that was
ser not oabt
or-
der of that House that Orders of the Day should
have precedence on certain days, and notices
of motions on certain other days, yet unques-
tionably, according to the strict abstract rights of
Members of Parliament, any Member who consulted
only hi's own convenience might make a motion which
would entirely defeat all these arrangements. He would
put it to the good sense and feeling of the House
whether they ought not, for the sake of the people,
whose business it was their duty to transact
—whether it was not for the general ad-
vantage that the business should be conducted accord-
ing to fix and certain rules. With respect to the par-
ticular motion which the Honourable Member
brought forward as a fit subject for discussion, he
would submit to him whether it would not be more fair
to the parties whose interests were likely to, be seri-
ously affected by it to give them an opportunity of see-
ing how far it might . interfere with their interests.
According to all forms, and the common courtesy of
that House, such a motion should not be brought on
without notice, unless it was meant to set at defiance all
those rules which had been laid doWn for their guid-
ance.—( Hear, bear:)
Mr. DUNCOMBE contended that one of the rules
of the House was, that all petitions complaining of per-
sonal grievances should be entertained and discussed
when presented. That was his case.
The SPEAKER would leave it to the Hon. Mem-
ber to take whatever course he thought proper under
the circumstances.

Mr. DUNCOMBE—If the House would allow the
case to come on to-morrow, he would have no objec-
tirn to postpone it ; but these people were starving
in the meantime. His motion was so rational and
so reasonable, that the House could have no difficulty
in agreeing to it.

Mr. LEADER, said it certainly had been his inten-
tion to have seconded the motion of the Hon. Member
for Einsbary. The Bon. Member told bim that he in-
tended to present a petition, and had asked him to
come down to,the House to second it, and as the matter
concerned the substance of many, and the amusement
of all his constituents, he felt himself bound to do so.
He certainly did not intend to oppose what might ap-
pear to be the wish of the House, and if there was any
rule against it, they ought to abide by that rule. If it
could be arranged to take the subject into considera-
tion the first thing to-morrow.—(Loud cries of " No,
no.") All they asked for was, that the matter
should be fairly discussed before Wednesday, because
every day lost was so much pecuniary loss to individuals,
and so much amusement lost to all. Unless, therefore,
some arrangement was come to, he must second the
motion of his Hon. Friend.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL wished to know who
were the petitioners.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—The lessee and performers.
If the Noble Lord would say thpt the subject was one
that ought to be considered, then he would only lay the
petition on the table ; if not, then he should insist upon
;aking the sense of the House upon the subject.
The SPEAKER inquired what was the earliest day
the performers would be affected unless the motion was
put?
Mr.. T. DUNCOMBE stated next Wednesday—
Wednesday and Friday.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought that the petition might
be looked upon in the light of a public grievance, and
as such an exception to the rule laid down with respect
to presenting petitions.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the question
entirely depended upon whether it was such a case
of personal grievance as that the House would
decide upon taking the discussion immediately. As far
as he collected the opinion of the Speaker, he seemed
at first to doubt whether it was such a case that the
House would hear it now, but he thought that his im-
pression afterwards was that as these persons would
certainly suffer in their means of, subsistence on Wed-
nesday next, that therefore the petition came within the
rule of a grievance, and therefore that the discussion
should take place. With the latter sentiment, he
(Lord J. Russell) xas disposed to concur.

The SPEAKER said that the question was whe-
ther the HonourAle Gentleman should not present the
petition now, and take an opportunity of having it dis•
cussed in the course of the evening.
Mr. T. DLTNCOMBE would much rather that the
House should dispose of it now in one way or other.
He did not see what objection the House could
have to the petition. There could be no doubt
that the Crown had the power of directing the Lord
Chamberlain not to interfere.

Sir CHARLES BURRELL thought the case was
one that called for the interference of the Crown.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose amidst much noise,
and was understood to say that he had no personal ob-
jection that the Lord Chamberlain should alter the
rules upon which he had hitherto acted, and to permit
the performances to take place at Drury-lane on Wed-
nesdays and Fridays.
Another HON. MEMBER rose to make a few remarks,
which were lost amidst general cries of "Divide, divide !"
Mr. ELLIOTT said that the order in question
was not a new one. The theatrical performers made
their engagements, well knowing of its existence. He,
therefore, thought that such a question need not be
decided by a division. Why did not the parties who
now considered themselves entitled to redress come be-
fore the House with a petition long since ?
Sir BENJAMIN HALL said his Hon. Friend
had asked, why did not those parties come forward with
their petition long since ? Now it was only last Friday
that the Lord Chamberlain's order was issued.—( Hear.)
The Hon. Baronet was understood to say that the
order was in a great degree inefficacious, as the perfor-
mers might go to Marylebone, or. the Crown and
Anchor, and act there.

Mr. CRES WELL contended that the application
ought not to be entertained, as the performers made
their engagement with the full consciousness that the
order would be issued as heretofore. They, therefore,
had no right to complain now. Other performers, as well
as those of Drury.lane, were interested in the present
system, and should have their rights considered as well
as the applicants. His opinion was that the House
would act irrationally and unadvisedly if it were to en-
tertain this application.
Mr. JARVIS was understood to say that the Crown
and Anchor, the Queen's Theatre, and Astley's, over
the water, were out of the jurisdiction of the Lord Cham-
berlain's order. This was a case in which not
only managers, and performers, but also a large
number of workmen, domestics, and other individuals,
ere concerned. If those persons could be thought
bound to live for seven days upon what they should have
for four, because it was Lent, he admitted that the
application should not be received.—(Laughter.) There
was no necessity for an Act of Parliament to in-
duce the Lord Chamberlain to alter what was merely
an old custom, and which certainly ought to be
relaxed. If the inhabitants of Westminster and other
districts of the metropolis were not allowed to enjoy the
innocent amusements of the theatre, he apprehended
that they would go to other places, where the amuse-
ments would be far from a harmless character.—( Hear,
hear.) On the ground of sound practical policy, and
also upon considerations of humanity they ought to
grant the prayer of this application.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. EVANS said a few words amidst loud cries of
" Divide and Question."
The House then divided, when the numbers
were—
Ayes
Noes
Majority against the motion . . —9O
CORN LAWS.
The SPEAKER said that it was for the convenience

PRICE sd.

of the House that the public business should begin
always at five o'clock, and as it was desirably
that the whole of the petitions on the subject of the
Corn-laws should be presented before the debate com-
menced, he should be ready to take the chair to-morrow
at three o'clock, in order to afford every facility.
Mr. PRY ME gave notice that he should to-morrow
move, as an amendment on the motion of Mr. Villiers,
respecting the Corn-laws, that it is expedient that the
lowest average price to which the duty of Is. per quar-
ter attaches should, from the 30th of June, bo dimi-
nished from 735. to 71s. ; that the lowest price to which
the higher duties attach be diminished by 2s. per
quarter ; that in each succeeding year the lowest average
prices of wheat be diminished by 2s. ptr quarter, and
that in this and the four succeeding years there should
be a diminution of one shilling on the lowest possible
average prices of foreign barley, &c.
Sir J. Y. BULLER gave notice that on Wednesday
next he should move to extend the time for the presenta-
tion of Petitions for Bills for the recovery of small debts.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER gave notice, that on
going into Committee on the Controverted Election
Tribunal Bill, he would move an instruction to the
Committee to insert a clause providing for the appoint-
ment of permanent assessors.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Shaw,
Lord MORPETH said that in a few days he would
introduce a Bill to regulate the distribution of
the grant to the Irish Clergy of last year. That it was
not the intention of Government to apply for the
reimbursement of the 100,000/. which had been ad-
vanced to the Commissioners for Public Works, and
that, with respect to the demands made upon the Clergy
for the Crown rents, he had received a memorial upon
the subject, which he had laid before the Commissioners
for the Woods and Forests.
Mr. PRAED wished to know what course the Go-
vernment intended to take with respect to the papers
relative to the building of the Royal Exchange. It was
a dropped order, and did not again appear in the paper.
Lord J. RUSSELL said his Right Hon. Friend not
being present, he could not well answer the question,
but it was not likely that it would come on to-night.
Mr. PRAED—Perbaps the Noble Lord would say
that it would not come on that night.
Mr. HA WES-0,1 Friday, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer decidedly said that it would come on on
Monday.

Mr. PRAED would decidedly object to the ques-
tion being brought forward that night, as no notice of
it appeared in the paper.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the
Committee on the Register of Births, &c., Bill, was
postponed until Monday.
JUDGES' SALARIES (SCOTLAND.)
Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the Com-
mittee in the Judges' Salaries (Scotland) Bill. The
several resolutions were read over and agreed to with-
out any opposition.