The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-02 00:00:00

The Manchester, Cheshire, and South Union Railway
Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Ellesmere and Chester Canal Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Mr. MAXWELL brought up the Report on the Pol-
lock and Govan Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. ANGERSTEIN the further
consideration of the Report on the London and Greenwich
Railway Bill (No. 2) was adjourned to the 12th of June.
Mr. E. TENNENT brought up the Report on the Bel-
fast Harbour Bill.

Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition from Dun-
dee against the Dundee Water Works Bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from the Copy-
holders of Hampstead against the Portland Cemetery Bill.
Mr. HUME thought if Government were to purchase
Primrose-bill, which he understood it was the object Of the
petition to keep open for the use of the public, they would
be conferring a great benefit.
Sir W. MILES presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Bristol against certain clauses in the Bristol Canal
Bill.

Sir R. VYVYAN brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Bristol Encroachment Bill.
__

Mr. T. DUNCOM BE presented a petition from Hamp-
stead in favour of the Portland Cemetery Bill.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Chairman and
Committee of a Company formed to construct a railroad to
Brighton without a tunnel (Mills' line), prayilig their plan
might be submitted to the engineer who might be directed
by the House to consider the plans of the other lines. The
Hon. Member moved that the petition be printed, and gave
notice that he should bring it forward on Tuesday next,
when the question relating to these lines was to be discussed,

ENGLISH MUNICIPAL BILL.
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
Lords° amendments to the English Municipal Bill were or-
dered to be printed.
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had two peti.

tions to present of very great importance relating, to the
privileges of the House. The first was from John D.
Nichols, who stated that for 30 years he had been printer
to the House, and that he had printed the votes and pro-
ceedings of the House, until he received the notice which
was the subject of his petition. The petitioner stated
that on the 14th of March the House made an or-
der that a petition respecting the Greenwich Railway,
denying allegations in a petition that had been presented
by another person of the name of Thomas Green, should be
printed ; that he had printed the petition under the order
of the House, and that since then he had received a notice
of action from a person calling himself the attorney of Thomas
Green. The next petition was from Messrs. Hansard,
who stated that another action had been actotally brought
against them by a person of the name of Stockdale, for an
alleged libel. Both the petitioners, Mr. Nichols and
Messrs. Hansard, prayed the House to give them directions
as to how they should proceed to defcnd actions brought
against them for obeying the orders of that Honourable
House. He (the Attorney-General) thought the best course
would be that these petitions be printed with the
votes, which, perhaps, might be done without an
action for libel—(A laugh)—and that a day should be
appointed for taking them into consideration. Probably
Tuesday next would be convenient for that purpose.
COLONEL ARTHUR. _ _

Mr. HUME presented a petition from an individual in
Van D:emen's Land, containing various complaints
against Colonel Arthur, for having withheld the
license of his paper by which he had suffered great
loss, and prayed the House to take his case into considera-
tion. The Hon. Member stated that this case was similar
to that of Mr. Buckingham's. _ _

Lord J. RUSSELL having moved the Order of the
Day for the second reading of the Poor Relief (Ireland) BR)

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

Mr. LAMBTON begged to ask whether the Govern-
ment intended to introduce any measure this session relative
to harbours of refuge ?
Mr. P. THOMSON said the Admiralty had obtained
information relative to the harbours of refuge, but it rested
with the House to decide what sum of money they would
vote for such a purpose. He would suggest to the Hon.
Member the propriety of bringing in a Bill upon the
subject.
Mr. HUME observed that the measure was of a public
nature, and should be taken up by Government, instead of
leaving it to any private individual.
Mr. WARBURTON contended that the Government
was bound to put the House in possession of whatever in-
formation it had obtained, instead of suggesting the bringing
in of a Bill by any Hon. Member in the absence of all ne-
cessary information.
Mr. YOUNG gave notice that on an early day he
should call the attention of the House to the subject of
harbours of refuge.
Mr. TOOKE deferred the bringing in of his Bill re-
lative to the killing of cattle in Smithfield Market to Mon-
day next.
Mr. TREVOR understood that the Hon. Member for
Salford had a petition to present, relative to a statement
made by him when tho question of Church-rates was before
the House. He suggested to the Hon. Member the pro-
priety of postponing it to Thursday, when he (Mr. Trevor)
would be in his place.
Mr. BROTHERTON had a petition complaining of
statements made by the Hon. Member without good autho-
rity. That petition contained allegations affecting the cha-
racter of the Rector of Warrington ; and, at the sugges-
tion of the Rev. Gentleman, who was at present in town,
he had postponed its presentation to Monday ; but he had no
objection to defer its presentation further to -Thursday next.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord STANLEY—As the Noble Lord opposite had
deferred the subject of Church-rates, (as we understood) to
the Bth of June, and as the discussion upon that question
might• lead to a second day's debate, he begged to ask
what the intention of the Noble Lord was with re-
spect to the Irish Tithe Bill, which was fixed for
Friday the 9th ? He would be also glad to know
what day the Noble Lord would fix for the Committee on
the Irish Tithe Bill, and as a preliminary Committee would
be necessary to impose an additional tax upon the Clergy,
the Noble Lord would perhaps state the day when that pre-
liminary Committee would be moved for.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was his intention to
proceed with the Bill on the following day, and to bring
on the Irish Tithe Bill on the following Monday. He be-
lieved his Noble Friend proposed, before going into Com-
mittee on that Bill, in a Committee of the whole House,
to bring forward the resolution to which the Noble Lord
had alluded. At that moment he was not able to state
the time precisely, but would do so before Thursday next.
Mr. HUME hoped the Noble Lord would not interfere
with him on the Bth June. He had a motion relative to
the question of household suffrage, of which he had given
notice on the first day of the Session, and which he had
twice postponed, at the request of the Noble Lord. He
had fixed the Bth of June in order that he might not be
interfered with.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, if the Hon. Gentle-
man stood before him (Lord J. R.) ho would not attempt
to interfere with him. He would bring on his motion in
the regular course.
Mr. A. TREVOR said as he had been informed of some
gross inaccuracies in the statements made respecting the
number of persons attending the Church and those who
attended Dissenting Chapels, he would on the Bth of June,
move for returns on the subject, in order to show the coun-
try how the case actually stood in many large towns.
In answer to Mr. Maher,
Lord MORPETH said he had not yet received the
Report of the Commission on Railroads in Ireland, nor was
he prepared to say that the Government intended to afford
any assistance to the undertaking from the public funds.
Lord G. SOMERSET moved the reinstatement of the
Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Final
Registration of Electors Bill, when he was interrupted by
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, who rose to order. His name
was first upon the list of motions—Mr. Speaker had called
upon him, and he believed that he was in possession of the
House.
The SPEAKER said, according to the usages of the
House, the dropped notices should be first disposed of.
The dropped Orders of yesterday were then called over
for the purpose of being replaced.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he understood that the
Noble Lord opposite had stated, in consequence of a re-
quest from the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that he did
not intend the Committee on Church leases, which stood for
Thursday, Bth June, should supersede that Hon. Member's
upon household suffrage. Such being the case, he (Sir R.
Peel) presumed that the same courtesy would be extended
to other gentlemen who had notices on that day, of which
there were so many, and among thee one with respect to
Cracow—{Laughter)—that he was afraid there would
be no chance whatever for the House proceeding with the
Committee on Church leases.—(Hear, hear.) He
wished to know from the Noble Lord, whether in the
probable event of his not being able to bring on the
Committee on Church leases on Thursday, that Com-
mittee or the Irish Tithe Bill would have precedence on
Friday ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he certainly intended
that the Committee on Church leases should have pre-
cedence on Friday ; but it was not his wish to prevent
either the motion of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, or
that with respect to Cracow being brought forward.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that he should certainly
press his motion for the reduction of official salaries on
that day.
CHARGES AGAINST COLONEL ARTHUR.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose, for the purpose of
moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the allega-
tions contained in the petition of Colonel Bradley, which
was presented on the 1 7th of Yebruary. That petition

T.HE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1837.