The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-19 00:00:00

UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

Mr. HUME postponed his motion respecting Universal
Suffrage to the Bth of June.
An HON. NIEMBEIt presented a petition from the Arch-
bishop of Armagh against the national system of education
in Ireland.
CHURCH COMMISSION (SCOTLAND).
_ .

Sir G. CLERK seeing the Secreiary for the Treasury
in his place, wished to call his attention to the discussion
that had taken place the other night, with respect to a
reverend gentleman in Scotland, relative to evidence taken
before the Church Commission. The report of what had
been stated by the Honourable Gentleman opposite had
given that Clergyman great pain, as it appeared to
convey the notion that he had practised some deception.
He (Sir G. Clerk) was sure that such was not the inten-
tion of the Hon. Gent. opposite, and he trusted that, for
the satisfaction of the Clergyman in question, he would
state the sources from which he received his information.
He believed it was not the intention of the Hon. Member
opposite to convey any imputation upon the character of
the Reverend Gentleman ; and if that was the case, he
hoped the Hon. Gentleman would feel no hesitation in
saying so.

'Air. FOX MAULE, in reply to the question of the
Honourable Baronet, said that the statement referred to
by him in The Sun Newspaper was substantially correct.
He had at the time endeavoured to guard himself
against making any reflections on the character of any one ;
he had merely stated to the House the official information
he had received, and he had no objection to lay on the table
of the House the official documents from which that answer
had been given.
Mr. CHALMERS trusted the Hon. Member would
lay those documents on the table of the House.
Lord CASTLEREAGH presented a petition from
Bangor, in the County of Down, for the better obser-
vance of the Sabbath.—( Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL presented a petition
from Penryn, in favour of the Exeter Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. NICHOLLS, the Cardiff' Gas

Bill was read a third time and passed.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT presented petitions from
places in Somerset and Exeter, against the abolition of
Church-rates.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Liberties of
Westminster, complaining of inequality in the levying of
the Window Tax.

r Mr. SANFORD presented petitions from Yeovil and
Kingsbury in favour of the abolition of Church•rates.
Many of them had signed a counter petition, being told
that by the Government plan the poor would be excluded
from the parish Churches.
Sir 0. MOSLEY presented a petition from a parish in
Staffordshire, praying that they might not be added to any
Union under the Poor-law Amendment Act, as they were
already incorporated under Gilbert's Act, and its provi-
sions were quite enough for them.
Mr. HOWARD, seeing the Noble Lord (Stanley) in
his place, wished to call his attention to a letter which he
had received, and which complained of the report of the
speech of the Noble Lord on the Irish Municipal Bill. The
letter was not long, and he would save the time of the
House by reading the letter, which was from one of the
Common Council of Carlisle, who thought the Noble Lord
had unfairly attacked the Corporation of Carlisle.
The SPEAKER said that it was contrary to all Par-
liamentary usage for Hon. Members to bring down news-
papers to make what they found stated in them a ground
for discussion in that House.
Mr. HO WARD merely wished to read the letter.—
(Cries of " No, no.") If the House was against him he
would not press the subject further ; but he thought
it his duty to state that the Corporation of Carlisle had been
the subject of severe animadversion by the Noble Lord
the Member for Lancashire. He (Mr. H.) thought that
the course he had adopted was the right one to pursue,
particularly as the House had nothing immediately before
it.--( Laughter.)
The SPEAKER here called upon the Serjeant, which
considerably increased the laughter in the House—the
Hon. Member for Carlisle turning quickly round at the call,
as if he supposed it was tho intention of the Speaker to
place him in custody.
A message from the Lords brought up several Bills.
On the motion of Mr. BARNARD, further consider-
ation of the Report on the London and Greenwich Rail-

way was proceeded with. The amendments were read
a second time, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed.
The farther consideration of the Report on the London and
Birmingham Railway was also proceeded with.
POSTAGE ON PETITIONS.

Mr. A. TREVOR seeing the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, one of the Commissioners of the Post Office
in his place, wished to draw his attention to a cir-
cumstance that had occurred relative to a petition
with which he had been charged ; a petition had been sent
to him through the Post-office in the usual way, for which
-he had been charged not less &sum than 31., on the ground
of its being of over-weight: He did not know what
the regulations of the Pest-office were on this sub-

ject ; but considering that the " right of petitioning
was one of the greatest which a subject could enjoy, he
wished to know if it was the intention of the Post-office
Commissioners, in the regulations they were about to adopt,
to remedy the inconvenience of which he then complained.
Mr. L ABOUC HERE said he was not qualified to
represent the Post-office in that House, and there-
fore was not prepared to answer every question that
was put in reference to that department.—( Hear, hear.)
With regard to the particular question just put to him, he
believed that what had been done in that case was accord-
ing to the general regulations of the Post-office. He be-
lieved that if the petition had been sent open in the usual
manner it would have been received free.
Au HON. MEMBER—Not if it was above six ounces in
weight.

LABOUCHERE was not aware there was any
limitation as to weight, but he would make enquiries about
it. He would state now, as he had done before, that the
object of the Post-office Bill was to consolidate the law
relating to the Post-office, and not to make any altera-
tion in the rates of postage.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. A. TREVOR wished to ask the Noble Lord op-
posite, on what day he intended to proceed with the fur-
ther consideration of the Church-rate question ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was his wish, as
soon as he could proceed with the public business of
the Government, to bring on the resolutions
with respect to Canada. After that he should
proceed with the Irish Poor Law Bill, and likewise some
Scotch Bills that were in the House ; and then he should
endeavour after that to fix a day for the further considera-
tion of the Church-rate question.
Mr. A. TREVOR—Then the Church-rate question is
postponed sine die—no day is fixed ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I cannot fix a day till I
know when the other business will come on.
ILLEGAL SOCIETIES.

Colonel VERNON wished to ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Ireland, whether the Government were in
possession of any information relative to the designs and

organisation of Societies, in the most considerable manufac-
turing towns in England and Scotland, having for their
object the separation of Ireland from this country, and the
destruction .of Protestantism.

Lord MORPETII said that no such information had
reached the Government.
FIRE INSURANCES.

Col. SIBTHORP had a motion to make when the
Budget was brought forward, relative to the reduction of
the duty on Fire Insurances ; and begged to know whether
the returns he had moved for would be granted.
Mr. BARING would inquire, and let the Hon. Member
know to-morrow.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to bring under the notice
of the House a question regarding its privileges, which
he felt to he of very great importance, and which ought
to be decided, after the most mature consideration
of the subject. If the Report of the Poor-law Committee
had merely referred to such a breach of the privileges of
that House as had on former occasions been committed,
he should not have hesitated from proceeding according to
the forms and practices of the House ; and in order to state
what it was, he should merely refer to the last reso-
lution of the House upon that subject, dated May,
1832—and on which, after various proceedings rela-
tive to the evidence given before a Select Committee,
which had been printed in a Dublin Newspaper,
it was resolved that Mr. Sheehan, who had committed that
breach of privilege, should be committed to the custody of
the Sergeant-at-Arms. He should not bring that case
under the consideration of the House i❑ the manner which
its importance deserved, if he did not state that it was the

impression of the Poor-law Commissioners that the breach
of privilege committed by the publication in the True
Sun Newspaper, of parts of the evidence, and some of the
documents presented before that Committee, had been
made according to the directions, or under the controul, of
a Member of that House, who was also a Member of the
Committee. Such was the impression of that Committee,
it being known that the Member in question was proprietor
of that Newspaper. Now he felt quite certain that if that

- -
were the case, the Member of the House so con-
cerned in the publication of the evidence would
not allow the House to call to its bar the
printer of the newspaper, and suffer him to be committed

to the Sergeant-at-Arms, while the act was done by his
directions. That being the case, he felt it his duty
to bring the question under the consideration of the

House—(Hear, hear)—as a question upon which
they ought, after mature deliberation, to come to some de-
c:sion as to what should be the proceeding of that House.
It might be right (for he would not now enter into that
question, because he would rather do so on a future occasion),
that every Member of the Committee should have the pri-
vilege of publishing, in any Newspaper he chose, the
evidence taken before the Committee ; but if that was to
be the case it should be by resolution of that House.
In the first place, he trusted that if any Member of the
Committee had been concerned in the publication, he would
feel it his duty to come forward and state so, so that the
printer or publisher might not be punished for a fault over
which they had no control.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, confining himself for the
present to the mere question which had been put to him by
the Noble Lord, and reserving any observations which he
might think it his duty to make until the resolution of
the Noble Lord was before the House, he had no hesita-
tion in saying that no man would be more ashamed than
he would, if he could seek protection behind the backs
of either a printer or publisher.—(Loud cheering.)
He was the proprietor of the paper, and, as called upon
by law, he made affidavit of the fact at Somerset hlouse.
Both there and elsewhere he was the person who was re-
sponsible for its contents.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The Hon. Member had
taken the course which he had expected he would
do, and scorned to seek protection through his servants.—
(Hear, hear.) As the publication had not taken place
through the interference of any editor or printer of the
paper, but had been sanctioned by a Member of the Com-
mittee, he would alter the course he meant to have pursued.
He would propose the adjournment of the question
till to-morrow in order that Members might make
up their minds as to the propriety of the course he
would then propose. He would then move that according
to the undoubted privileges of the House, and in order to
afford due protection to the public business, evidence taken
before a Select Committee ought not to be published by
any Member of such Committee, or any other person. If
the House entertained that resolution, it would then be-
come the duty of every Member to conform himself to the
order of the House. The Noble Lord then moved the
adjournment of the debate till to-morrow.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY trusted the Noble Lord would
postpone this very important case until Thursday. The
debate of that evening might run so far into the next day
that it might be doubtful whether there would be a House
to-morrow or no ; besides Honourable Members might
have•occasion to give notice of an amendment.—( Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the proposal
of the Hon. Member, and would move that the conside-
ration of the subject should be postponed to Thursday next.
Mr. O'CONNELL said if no other person did so, he
should move as an amendment when the subject was again
brought forward, that the publication bona fide of what
took place before the Committees was not only advanta-
geous but useful to the public.