The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-05 00:00:00

POOR LAWS.

Mr. G. KNIG HT presented a petition from Nottingham,
signed by 1,700 persons, against the Poor-law Amendment
Act. The Hon. Member stated that he could not concur
with the sentiments expressed by the petitioners, as it was his
opinion the petitioners had misconceived the new Poor-law
Act. It was his belief that it was as beneficial a measure
as ever bad passed that House, and that it was calculated
to increase the comforts and happiness of the poor.
SHIPPING GAZETTE.

Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from Truro praying
that the Shipping Gazette might be relieved from the charge
of postage. The Hon. Member understood that the matter
was now under the consideration of his Majesty's Govern-
ment, and he trusted that the result of that consideration
would be that some relief would be afforded.
sixty-four indi-
Mr. HUNIE presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of the Island of Collonsay, in Argyleshire,
stating the distress that existed in that island, and pray-
ingvid u afol sr, tintimonyvweares smiganrkedsmbeyn ;
and
he
(Mr.
Hume) thought that two-thirds of the peti.tibners not be-
froerltieyf-eighTthoefpcev
ing able to sign their names was a sad disgrace to the
gentry of that country.
POOR LAWS.
Mr. WALTER presented a petition from the rate-
payers and gentry of Wigham, praying they might be al-
lowed to conduct the management of the poor on the same
principles as had hitherto given satisfaction to all parties.
The Hon. Member also presented petitions from Hyde in
Suffolk, and other places, against the principle of the Act,

NATIONAL EDUCATION—IRELAND.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Bishop
and Clergy of the diocese of Derry and Raphoe, praying
for an investigation into the operation of the system of Na-
tional Education in Ireland.
CARLOW ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the House that the peti-
tioners who had presented a petition on the 9th of March
last, complaining of an undue return for the county of Car-
low, had not entered into the required recognizances, and
the order for taking the petition into consideration was then
discharged.

SOUTHWARK AND HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from the
Directors of- the Southwark and Hammersmith Railway,
praying that the parties who had imposed upon that House
might be called to the Bar and punished.
Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition signed by
96.5 inhabitants of Kingston-upon-Hull, praying for an in-
vestigation into the case of the private Richard M'Cor-
mick. Also a petition from the same place in favour of
the Bill for establishing County Boards. The Honour-
able Member then presented a petition from Fenton, in
the Staffordshire Potteries, praying fur the total aboli-
tion of the Corn Laws, and a petition froth Bradford, to the
same effect. Also a petition from the Merchants and
Shipowners of St. Ives, praying that the Shipping Gazette
might be allowed the same privilege as was afforded by the
Post-office to a similar publication in many respects its inferior.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition
from Edinburgh in favour of the Trinity Harbour Bill ;
also one from the same place, numerously signed, praying
for the total abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. HUME was about to move for returns relative to the
expenditure for the Army and Navy, but at the suggestion
of Mr. P. Thomson, he deferred the motion till to-morrow.
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from the Les-
sees of Church Property in Durham, praying that in any
iteration that may be made in the ecclesiastical property,
their interests might be protected.
WILLS. •
Sir R. INGLIS wished to ask the Attorney-General
when it was his intention that the discussion should
take place on the second reading of the Bill for the Alter-
ation of the Law with respect to 'Wills.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not name any
particular day, but he thought that the Bill might be read
a second time without discussion, inasmuch as the Lords
had sent it down in the same shape as the one of last session.
Any objection that was desired to be made by any Hon.
Member might be taken in Committee, and he would take
care that the Hon. Member for Oxford should have
notice when that Committee was appointed. Perhaps,
on that • understanding, the Hon. Member for Oxford
would allow him to move the second reading of the Bill the
The SPEAKER suggested to the Hon. and Learned
Member that that could not be done consistent with the
Orders of the House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then postponed the
second reading of the Bill.
Mr. YOUNG presented petitions from Tcignmouth
praying that the Shipping Gazette might be relieved from
the payment of postage ; for the repeal of the duty on
Marine Insurances ; and for the repeal of the duty on Soap.
Mr. HUME gave notice, that he would on the 13th
instant move that an humble Address be presented to his
Majesty, requiring him to appoint a Committee for the
purpose of inquiring into the alienation of lands set apart
for the support of the Church in England and Wales, and
to ascertain and report the terms of such alienation, and
the authority under which it was made.
BUDGET.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave
notice that he would make his financial statement on the
Bth of May.
OXFORD AND GREAT WESTERN RAIL.WAY.
Petitions were presented relative to the Oxford and
Great Western Railway Bill, by Mr. Palmer, and several
other Hon. Members.
Captain PECHELL had pledged himself to satisfy the
House when the report upon that Railway Bill was
brought up, that it was unworthy of credit —( Hear, hear.)
The landholders who had petitioned were thrown over-
board—the Committee had refused to entertain the subject
of their complaints, and he (Captain Pechell) now came to
obtain that justice for the landholders from the House
which the Committee had denied them.—(Hear.) The
Committee had come to a resolution that the preamble
should not form part of the Bill, and it had been proved
by evidence that of the sum stated to have been subscribed
8,0001. was fictitious, and numbers who had intended to
take shares had withdrawn their names in disgust. The
Committee was hostile to the landowners throughout,
and they had drawn up a Report which he said was un-
true. The parties who petitioned against the Bill were
utterly astonished to find that one of the Provisional Com-
mittee of this concorn sat in the chair in the Committee.—
( Hear, hear.) They were utterly confounded, and
could not make it out.—( Hear, hear.) The Corporation
of Oxford, too, had borrowed 10,000/. of the Govern-
ment, and their tolls would be lost if this Bill passed. It
was, therefore, the duty of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to take care of his money by throwing out this Bill.
He had nothing to do with the measure—he had no
shares in it—and he came, to use a phrase that had been
adopted by other Hon. Members, "stark naked"—(Laugh-
ter)—hefore the House with respect to that measure. The
line, he would fearlessly assert, was of no public benefit ;
and such was the feeling with respect to it, that one of
the clergymen who had been examined before the Com-
mittee stated that he would sooner ace Church-rates abolished
than the railroad carried through the Church-yard of his
parish. The Hon. Member concluded by moving that
the farther consideration of the Report should be pro-
ceeded with that day six months.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX seconded the motion.
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, in reply to the observa-
tions of the Hon. and Gallant Member opposite, begged to
state that he had presented a petition to the House in favor
of the Bill, signed by 1,100 of his constitueuts, and that
the three county Members were in favour of the Bill. The
assents to the Bill occupied six miles, and the dissents
only four, but the assents were increasing every day.
He trusted the House would not deny to his constituents
the benefit which they had prayed for.
Lord G. SOMERSET wished to offer one observation
with regard to the proceedings in the 'Committee. He
wished this line or some other should be carried from the
Great Western Railway to Oxford, but at the same time he
thought that when parties presented petitions against a
Bill, they should be heard by their Counsel in Committee.
He had seen the petition, but was not able to dis-
cover any informality whatever in it.—(Hear.) He
was inclined to the Bill being sent back to the Committee.
Although he should vote against the proposition of the
-Hon. and Gallant Member for Brighton, he should think
it his duty subsequently to move that the Bill be recom-
mitted, to afford the parties whose interests were affected
thereby an opportunity of having the matter fully inves-
tigated.
Mr. H AWES thought the House ought to be apprized
that the Bill had gone through a Committee without any
opposition. There had been no division upon the preamble,
and these parties had then an opportunity of being heard
against it. The Hon. and Gallant Member for Brighton
had also an opportunity on that occasion of cross-examining
the witnesses in favour of the Bill, and he thought it unfair
that it should be again re-committed.
After a short conversation, in which Mr. Young, Capt.
Pechell, and Sir George Sinclair took part,
Mr. ROEBUCK said it appeared to him that the House
laboured under some mistake. It was said that the
Counsel for the petitioners had not been allowed
to cross-examine witnesses. Now, it appeared by the Re-
port that the petitions of Captain Pechell and Mr. Peel
were not sufficiently specific to entitle them to be heard
against the preamble of the Bill, and therefore their Coun-
sel were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses —(Hear.)
Mr. R. PALMER considered that the Hon. Member
for Lambeth laboured under an error. He (Mr. Palmer)
thought it was clear that this was a case which tlip House
should refer back to a Committee, and he would suggest to
the Hon. Gentleman opposite if he would not gain his ob-
ject by taking this course ?
Mr. HARCOURT begged leave to make a few re-
marks in answer to the charges brought against him by the
Hon. Member for Brighton. Though his name appeared
as one of the Provisional Committee for the Railway, he
was not its Chairman, nor had he ever taken any part in
its proceedings. It was a line of Railroad which he least
desired ; but as it was one supported by him,
and as it would be, as he thought, for the benefit of his
constituents, he gave it his support. By the state-
ment of the Hon. Member it would appear that the land-
holders had not been heard by the Committee. Such was
not the fact—the case was completely contrary. He, as
Chairman, had suggested that the preamble of the Bill
should be postponed until the resolutions had been
considered, which was acceded to, and the conse-
quence was that the Hon. Member had the opportunity
that day of presdnting a petition which being referred to
the Committee, he next day appeared before them by
Counsel and was heard for four days. The Committee sat
for seven days, which was surely consideration enough for a
line of ten miles. He regretted very much that the
Hon. Member, as a landlord, considered this undertak-
ing as inconvenient to his land ; probably it might be ;
but he (Mr. Harcourt) would say, as a landlord,
that so thoroughly convinced was he that the undertaking
would have no prejudicial effect on the land through which
it passed, that he determined to give it his support.
He thought it a useful undertaking for the country, and
could not but express his regret that the Hon. Member
for Brighton was not satisfied with the disposition that had
been shown to accommodate him. He (Mr. H.) could
not consent to the farther postponement of the considera-
tion of the Report, and should therefore give his decided
opposition to the amendment of the Hon. Member for
Brighton.
Captain PECHELL then withdrew his amendment.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET then moved the re-
committal of the Bill.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when the numbers were—
For the Amendment
Against it
Majority
The Report of the Committee was then further con-
sidered and the Bill ordered to be engrossed.

BIRMINGHAM. AND GLOUCESTER R..AIL-
WAY
The amendments to this Bill were read a second time,
and the Bill ordered.to be engrossed.
MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAIL WAY.

The amendments to the Manchester and Leeds Railway
Bill were read a second time, and the Bill was ordered to
be engrossed.
LONDON AND SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY.
The amendments to this Bill were also read a second
time, and the Bill ordered to be engrossed.

SHEFFIELD AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY.
On the motion that the Manchester and .heffield Rail-
way Bill be read a second time,
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET considered that
Members would not do their duty unless as in the present
case they considered the risk which would be incurred by
the public in carriages descending such an inclination as
would exist in this line.

Mr. PARKER defended the line of Railway which had
been adopted, and referred to Lord Stanley as to the cor-
rectness of his statement.

Lord STANLEY considered that the line of Railway
would be dangerous in consequence of the inclination re-
ferred to, and when it was considered that there would also
be a tunnel of three miles in length, he thought the Bill
was objectionable.
After a few words from Mr. WALKER and Lord G.
SOMERSET, the Bill was read a second time.
In answer to a question from Mr. Robinson, respecting
foreign bonded grain being manufactured into flour,
Mr. P. THOMSON said that he would have no objec-
tion to such a manufacture, but it must be under lock, in
the same manner as foreign sugar was now refined for ex-
portation.
Mr. ROBINSON did not consider that at all an an-
swer to his question.
Mr. P. THOMSON said that he would bring in a Bill
authorising such a manufacture.