The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-14 00:00:00

WCRAW V. CUNNINGHAM.

Mr. Sergeant STEPHENS replied in this case, which was
part-heard last Friday, the question in which was, whe-
ther the Waterloo Hotel, Edinburgh, was bound to pay
rates to the city of Edinburgh, and also to the parish of
South Leith.
Lord BROUG HAM postponed giving judgment.
THE CORPORATION OF TAILORS OF ABERDEEN V. COUTTS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was heard on behalf of the
appellants in this appeal, the further consideration of which
was postponed till to morrow ; when we shall give a short
outline of the case.

Lord SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR, took the Chair at a quarter before 5 o'clock.
Several private Bills on the table were advanced a stage.
Lord ROLLE presented petitions in favour of Church-
rates from parishes in Devonshire.
IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL.
Mr. BERNAL, and other Members. of the House of
Commons, brought up the Irish Municipal Bill, the Marine
Force Regulation Bill, the Mutiny Bill, the Penitentiary at
Milbank Amendment Bill, the Edinburgh Police Bill, the
Royal Mint Bill, stating that the Commons had agreed to
their Lordships' amendments to it ;the Durham Turnpike
Bill, the Seven Oaks Road Bill.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG brought up a message from the
House, praying that their Lordships would allow Lord El-
lenborough and Lord Kenyon to be examined before the
Committee of the House of Commons appointed to in-
quire into the cases of Captain Barrow and two other East

India Captains.
Lord BANDON presented a petition from the vestry
of Paddington, against the Great Western Railway.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition
from Carrickfergus, complaining of the unequal operation
of the national system of education in Ireland.
The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions in favour
of Church-rates from Edmonton, in Middlesex ; from Brad-
. ..

well, by the Sea ; from Althorn, in Essex ; and from
Walthamstow, in Essex, the latter complaining of the undue
means by which a petition against Church-rates had been
got up there. The Right Rev. Prelate presented petitions
also from the parish of St. Stephen's, London, signed by
all classes, from the Member of Parliament to the humble

labourer.
Lord REDESDALE presented petitions to the same
effect from parishes in Surrey and Herefordshire.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions
with a similar prayer, from Bradley, and many other pa-
rishes.
The Bishop of DURHAM presented petitions to the
same effect from Stockton-on-Tees and various other

places.
The Lor) CHANcELLott took his seat on the Wool-
sack shortly after five o'clock.
The Duke of CLEVELAND presented petitions for
the abolition of Church-rates from Sunderland.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition in fa-
vour of Church-rates, from Clergymen in Chester, Liver-
pool, and other places.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented similar
petitions from Frome in Norfork, and fr,au parishes in
Suffolk, Sussex ; from a number of the lessees in the see
of Canterbury, and from other places.
The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from the
Bishop of Down and Connor, and 105 clergymen in the
diocese, complaining of the want of Church accommodation
there. They stated that there were 105 parishes i❑
the diocese, and that there would 'not be a sufficiency
of accommodation, unless fifty-one Churches there were
repaired or built. The petitioners further stated that
they had applied to the Church Commissioners there for
assistance ; but the reply was, that they had no means
of affording it. He (Lord Ripon) could not state any means
whereby this evil could be remedied ; but it was well worth
the consideration of their Lordships, that the Act appointing
those Commissioners had been in existence three >ears, but
they had not been able to afford a farthing for such pur•
poses as the petitioners required.
The Marquis of DOW NS HIRE supported the pe-
tition.

Y•y.Lord H ATHERTON said that he agreed ivith the
Noble Lord who presented the petition, that the
subject was one worthy of inquiry, and it was
because he thought so, he supported a measure in that
House last year, which would have taken from those pa-
rishes where the Protestant population was small funds for
the support of those Where it was large. He did notwish to
promote discussion on the subject, but be could not avoid
stating this.
The Earl of HADDINGTON said that the Noble
Lord stated that he did not wish to create discussion, but
had alluded directly to the Appropriation Clause, which
was the best mode of provoking it. He (Lord Hadding-
ton) supported the petition.
The Earl of RIPON said he had moved for a report
of the expenditure of the Church Commissioners in Ire-
land, and thought it should have been supplied before this.
In respect to the report of the Commissioners themselves,
he thought the Lord Lieutenant had not cothidered it worth
his while to send it to England.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND)
BILL.

Lord MELBOURNE said that the Irish Municipal
Corporation Bill having been brought up from the other
House of Parliament, perhaps it would be convenient for
their Lordships then to determine on what day they would
take the second reading. What he would propose was,
that the Bill should be read a first time and printed, and he
would move the second reading on Tuesday, the `?sth inst.
The Duke of WELLINGTON wished to remind the
Noble Viscount of a passage in the King's Speech, and of
a passage in the Address of their Lordships cm that Speech,
relating to Ireland, in which Municipal Corporations, Poor-
laws, and Tithes, were referred to.—[The Noble Duke here
read the particular passages in the Speech and Address.]
A Bill relating to the first of those three subjects only had
been introduced into their Lordships' House. Another
subject, the Poor-laws, he believed had beeribrought under
the consideration of the other House of Parliament ; but
the third, relating to Irish tithes, had not been brought
under the consideration of either. It. really appeared
to him before the House was called on to discuss the prin-
ciple
or details of the Municipal Corporation Bill,
it ought cp know what the other measures were,
the subject of which were alluded to in his Majesty's
Speech and in the Address. Under these circumstances
he requested the Noble Lord to postpone the consideration
of this measure to a future period ; and he was the more
particularly anxious the House should not proceed with
it on a very early day, because a Noble and Learned
Friend of his (Lord Lyndhurst), who took a very
distinguished part in the discussion of the measure
last year, was absent on account of a domestic misfortune,
and would be unable to attend in his place for some days.
Under all these circumstances, he trusted the Noble Lord
would postpone the second reading of the Bill to some more
distant day.
Viscount MELBOURNE said, with respect to the
three measures alluded to by the Noble Duke as referred
to in his Majesty's speech, he would state that one of them
had been brought into that House, and was the sub-
ject of their present discussion.—(Hear, hear.) Another
was the question of Poor-laws, and the principle of the
Bill on that subject had already been fully opened in the
other House, but it was yet a question whether or not it
would be adopted by Parliament. The third was the ques-
tion of Tithes, and upon that subject a notice would shortly
be given in the other House, and the Bill would be brought
in as soon as the state of the public business would permit
it. He thought, therefore, that these measures would be
before their Lordships in quite sufficient time to decide
upon them calmly and deliberately. He regretted the
cause that had prevented the attendance of the Noble
and Learned Lord, and would be most happy to do
anything to meet his convenience ; at the same time per-
sonal feelings could not be allowed to weigh too much in
matters of importance to the country generally. He should
therefore feel it right to persevere in fixing the second
reading of the Bill for the day he had already stated.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH understood the Noble Vis-
count to state, that all the three measures would be before
that House before the second reading of the Irish Munici-
pal Bill.
Viscount MELBOURNE had stated that they would
be sent up to that House as soon as possible.
Lord BROUGHAM understood from the Noble Chief
Baron that Lord Lyndhurst would be in attendance when
the English Municipal Amendment Bill was brought for-
ward. He merely inquired with reference to the judicial
business of the House.
Lord ABING ER made an observation across the table,
which we did not hear.
The Earl of WICKLOW moved for a return of all the
petitions presented from Ireland against the reform of the
Irish Corporations, and in favour of their total abolition.
Lord HADDINGTON suggested, in addition, that
all the petitions presented on the subject of Irish Municipal
Reform be incladed.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE did not think the re-
turn would be an accurate or complete one, inasmuch as
one Noble Lord (Cloncurry) had had a large number of
petitions to present, but had withdrawn them in consequence
of an allusion having been made in them to the term
" aliens," which had been used by a Noble and Learned
Lord in that House.
CHURCH-RATES.

Lord SKELAIERSDALE presented petitions from
Preston, and other places in Lancashire, in favour of
Church-rates.

Lord RADNOR presented several petitions in favour
of the Ministerial measure for the abolition of Church-
rates.
The Earl of HARROWBY presented petitions against
the abolition of Church-rates ; but the names of the places
from which they came were not heard in the gallery.
Lord ASHBURTON presented petitions against the
abolition of Church-rates, from Sarum, from various
places in Somersetsh.ire, and from Dorchester, and other
places in Dorsetshire. The Noble Lord also presented a
petition from an individual residing at Croydon, against the
extension of the South Eastern Railway.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that as the
Noble Lord opposite had just presented a petition from
Warminster, against the abolition of Church-rates, he
would take that opportunity of presenting a petition in
favour of that measure, from the same town.—[The
petition, on being read, appeared to come from Westbury,
when the Noble Lord said that he had fallen into the mis-
take on account of the propinquity of Westbury to War.
minster.—( A laugh.)]
The Marquis of HEADFORT presented a petition
from Feversham against the abolition of Church-rates.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented petitions
or the abolition of Church-rates from Brighton and several
other places.
The Bishop of RIPON presented petitions from various
places in Yorkshire against the abolition of Church-rates.
Lord BROWNLO W presented similar petitions from
places in Lincolnshire.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from
places in Norfolk, Surrey, and Sussex, against the abolition
of Church-rates.