The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-31 00:00:00

POST OFFICE.

Lord ASHBURTON presented a petition signed by
the bankers, solicitors, and inhabitants of the metropolis,
complaining of the large amount of postage charged in this
country, which, in their opinion, with which he concurred,
tended to disturb social relations, and '.o injure the com-
mercial interests, and those of science and literature. The
complaint of the petitioners was not against the officers of
the establishment, but against the system.—(Hear.) He
would not enter into the subject at length, but would
refer them to a pamphlet written very recently
by Mr. Rowland Hill, which fully confirmed him
in his opinion that the great evils of the system
could be obviated without injuring the revenue. What
that gentleman proposed was, that a great reduction should
be made upon postages generally, and that an equal charge
should be made upon all letters, whether they were carried
20 miles or 200 miles. And although this seemed at first
sight to be inconsistent, yet it was shown by Mr. Hill
that the amount of additional charge for the longer
distance was scarcely more than for the shorter dis-
tance ; for the amount for conveying a letter to
Edinburgh, which was four hundred miles distant from
London, was only the 36th part of one penny, and it was
not equitable to charge so much more for the postage
of a letter sent to a distance, where the difference
of charge was so little beyond that for one which was
sent to a short distance. Another proposition of Mr.
Hill was, that all letters should be paid for when
they were put into the post-office, for it was shown that a
great delay arose from the carrier having to stop at each
place where he delivered letters, where he had to receive
postage, which caused the employ necessarily of a larger
number of persons. The Noble Lord then observed that
a great decrease had taken place in the post•office revenue,
which was the result of the large amount of charges ;
whereas almost every branch of revenue increased, in conse-
quence of the decrease of the amount of taxation. He .would,
as an instance of this, adduce the increase in the amount
of the revenue derived from the tax on stage-coaches,
which in 181.5, was 217,000/. and in 1835 amounted
to nearly 500,000/.—(Hear.) Besides this the increase of
cases of the fraudulent conveyance of letters was such as
demanded the attention of Parliament. The Noble Lord
concluded by presenting the petition, and moved that it be
read by the Clerk.
The Clerk then read the petition at length, which
prayed for a uniform and decreased rate of postage.
Lord DUNCANNON said that the pamphlet referred
to had been under the consideration of the Post-office for
some time, and although it was not thought advisable to
adopt the plan generally, yet some of the propositions in it
would be ad-oPted.
The Duke of WELLINGTON hoped that in any
plan uniformity would be observed.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that according to the
plan proposed by Mr. Hill, if a lower rate of postage were
charged, a larger number of coaches should be employed in
order to carry the increased number of letters calculated on ;
he was glad, however, that a portion of the plan would be
acted on ; he would beg of the House to recollect that when
at a former period it was compulsory to pay postage in ad-
vance, a great outcy had been raised, and in reference to a
portion of the petition which complained that no improve-
ment had taken place in the Post-office department, he
would say that considerable reforms had taken place there.
—( Hear.) He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had consented to reduce the rate of postage.

Lord AS H BUR 'FO N said that he did not intend to cast
any blame on the officers employed in the Post-office ; and
in reference to the increase of letters, a carrier could deliver
a much larger number of letters in the same time if they
had been paid in advance than if he had to collect the
postage.

The Duke of RICHMOND said that in respect to
foreign letters a greater length of time was occupied in re
ceiving a part of the postage than if no part of it had
been paid.
'Lord BRADFORD presented a petition from Birming-
ham in favour of Church-rates, and stated that the peti-
tioners referred to a petition which had been presented by
a Noble Lord opposite against Chuch-rates, which they
stated had been signed by women and children, and by per-
sons in a state of drunkenness, although it was said to be
signed by 19,000 rate-payers.
Lord BROUG H A M said that he could not have stated
that the petition had been signed by nineteen thousand
rate-payers, aware as he was that there was not so
many rate-payers in Birmingham ; as to the charge that
the petition was signed by women and children and drun-
ken persons, such charges were almost always made against
petitions numerously and respectably signed. The Noble
Lord then presented petitions against Church-rates, from
6,000 inhabitants of Southwark ; from Swansea ; Mile-end ;
from Battle in Sussex ; and from Bath.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented peti-
tions in favour of Church-rates from the Archdeaconry of
Bath and from Blackburn.
SHROPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

This Bill was read a second time on the motion of Lord
KENYON.

Lard RIPON then postponed his motion relative to
Colonel Arthur until Thursday.

lIUNICIPAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the third read-
ing of this Bill.
Lord ABINGER moved a verbal amendment to the
first clause, which was agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved, as an amend-
ment to the 12th clause, that the last two lines should be
left out, and these words substituted—" and in case any
borough shall be divided into wards, that person who is
assessed to the greatest amount shall preside at the election
of Councillors.
After some discussion the House divided—
Contents 49
Non. contents
Majority for the clause —s
The clause was then added.
A number of verbal amendments were introduced, and
the Bill was then passed.
On the motion of Lord ABINGER, the Limitation of
Actions Bill went through Committee.

On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the Re-
corder's Court Bill was reported.
On the motion of Lord GODOLPHIN, the Sunday
Notices Bill went through Committee.
The Earl of LICHFIELD presented two petitions
from Great Yarmouth, one in favour of the Irish Municipal
Bill, and the other for the abolition of Church-rates.

The other Bills on the table were adranced a stage.
The Earl of S HAFTESBURY, on behalf of the Bishop
of Exeter, postponed the Right Reverend Prelate's notice
of motion for a copy of the resolutions (if any) of the Poor
Law Commissioners, prohibiting inmates of poorhouses at-
tending Divine Service on Sundays out of the poorhouse,
until Thursday next.
The House then adjourned till Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 30.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.

Mr. DENNisTouN, the new Member for Glasgow, in the
room of Mr. Oswald, was introduced by Lord Wm. Ben-
tinck and another Hon. Member, and took the oaths and
his seat, amidst loud cheering fro; the Ministerial benches.

Mr. WASON brought tip the Report of the Committee
on the Ipswich Improvement NIL
On the motion of Mr. TOWNLEY the Over Inclosure
Bill was read a third time and passed.
BRIDLINGTON HARBOUR.

Mr. BETHEL brought up the Report of the Commit•
tee on the Bridlington Harbour Bill.
Mr. PEASE gave notice he would take the sense of the
House on the third reading of the Bill.
Sir O. CLERK begged to ask whether the clause for
imposing passing-toll had been omitted from the Bill ?
Mr. BETHELL replied in the affirmative.
DUBLIN AND KILKENNY RAILWAY.
Mr. FINN presented a petition from.,Kilkenny in favour
of the Dublin and Kilkenny Railway Bill.
AGRICULTURAL BANK.
Mr. MA HER presented petitions from Enniscorthy and
other places, signed by a number of shareholders of the
Agricultural Bank, against the Bill for dissolving the Com-
pany and vesting its funds in trustees.
Mr. BRADY presented a petition from Newry against
the Mersey Conservancy Bill.
Mr. H. BRIDGMAN presented a petition from Coot-
hill, signed by a number of magistrates and landholders,
against the Bill for dissolving the Agricultural Bank of
Ireland.
Mr. BROTHERTON brought up the Reptirt of the
Committee on the Angerstein's Estate Bill.
WISHAW AND COLTNESS RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. J. MAXWELL, the Wishaw
and Coltness Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.
Lord G. LENNOX presented a petition from Rother-
hithe and the parish of St. George, Southwark, against the
Collier Docks' Bill.
Lord DARLINGTON moved the further considera-
tion of the Report on the Ellesmere and Chester Canal Bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from the Corpo-
ration of Bath against certain clauses of the Bath Gas Bill.
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Agricultural Bank of Ireland Bill. They re-
ported that the Standing Orders had not been complied with.
On the motion of Lord J. STUART, the Ardrossan
and Johnston Railway Bill was read a third time and
passed.
Mr. E. TENNENT moved the recommittal of the Bel-
fast Harbour Bill for the purpose of adding a clause.
Sir C. BLUNT presented a petition from Lewes in
favour of Rennie's Brighton Railway.
Mr. POULTER, presented a petition from the Coroner
of Dorset against the Coroners' Expenoles Bill.
Mr. WILKS presented petitions from several parishes
in the county of Leicester, in favour of the abolition of
Church-rates.
Sir J. TYRELL presented a petition from Saffron-
Walden, praying that the law might be altered with respect
to the payment of rates by persons inhabiting houses of the
value of less than 10/. a-year.
Lord SANDON presented petitions from different pa-
rishes in Liverpool and Rochdale, against the abolition of
Church-rates, and for the better observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. RUTHVEN presented a petition from Kildare,
praying that the surplus property of the Church might be
applied to the purposes of education.
Mr. VESEY presented petitions from Kildare and
Queen's County against the present system of national
education in Ireland ; also petitions against the renewal
of the grant to Maynooth College.
Mr. HODGES presented petitions from different parts
of Kent, in favour of the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions from Sheerness,
Stroud, and other places in Kent, in favour of Sir Andrew
Agnew's Bill for the better observance of the Lord's Day.
Mr. SANFORD presented petitions from two parishes
in Somersetshire, in favour of the Ministerial plan for the
abolition of Church-rates.
Major MACNAMARA presented petitions from seve-
ral places in Clare, expressing great confidence in his Ma-
jesty's Ministers.
Mr. MAHER presented two similar petitions.
Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition from the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland against the
Bill for the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages
in Scotland.
RATES OF POSTAGE.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from the inhabitants
of London, relative to the Post-office regulations, pray-
ing especially for the adoption of a reduced scale of
postage, uniform for all distances, from the Metropolis.
The Hon. Member stated that the petition was signed
by Twenty two of the most eminent merchants of the
City of London, and by Dr. Babbage, Dr. Arnot, Dr.
Birkbeck, and other scientific and eminent men.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Union Chapel,
Poplar, in favour of the Government plan for the abolition
of Church-rates.
Mr. MILES presented a petition from Somersetshire,
praying for a better remuneration for Coroners.
Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from Portsea, in
favour of the Brighton direct line of railway.
Sir C. BURRELL presented petitions from Worthing,
Walsall, and three other places.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from a congregation in
Kingston-upon-Hull, in favour of the Ministerial measure
for the abolition of Church-rates.
Lord ASHLEY presented a petition against the Church
Rate Abolition Bill from a parish in Norfolk.
A message from the Lords brought up several Bills
which had been agreed to.
BRIGHTON RAILWAY.
Upon the motion for the further consideration of the re-
port of the Brighton Railway Committee, Captain AL-
SAGER rose for the purpose of moving that the report
approving of Rennie's Line should be referred back to the
Brighton Railway Committee. The Committee, after a
careful deliberation of all the evidence before them, bad
come to the decision that Rennie's Line was the proper
one to be adopted for the convenience of the public,
Such being the case, he should move that that Report be
adopted, and that it should be referred back to the Com-
mittee on the Bill of Rennie's.direct line, in order that the
necessary clauses might be inserted, and that the landhol-
ders on that line might have the opportunity of coming in
before that Committee and have their rights protected. It
was not his intention at the present moment to occupy the
time of the House, as he felt no doubt that some consider-
able discussion would take place on the subject, and be
should therefore wait till that discussion had taken place,
in order that he might reply to the arguments used.
The Noble Lord, the Chairman of the Committee, taking
a different view to that which he (Captain Alsager) took
upon the subject, intended, he believed, to move an amend-
ment to his motion ; he should, therefore, reserve any far-
ther observation until the Noble Lord had made his state-
ment.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX rose for the purpose of
opposing the motion. It was not his intention in doing so
to trouble the House at any length. The House was
aware that sometime since an instruction had been
sent to the Committee on the Brighton Railway Bill to
make a Special Report, in order to enable the House to
decide upon which was, or was not the best line. If the
Committee had done so, he should have had no ob-
jection whatever to the motion of the Honourable
and Gallant Member ; but he must maintain that the
Committee had given the House no information on
the subject, but had taken upon themselves to form an
opinion, instead of leaving it to the House to say'which was
or which was not the best line. It was carried *by a large
majority that the Committee would not report specially as
to the cuttings and embankments. Now he would ask whe-
ther the cuttings and the embankments were not a most
important feature in railways ? if the Committee
thought it right not to report specially to the House on
those subjects they ought at least to have done justice
to the engineer, who in his evidence stated that the cuttings
on Rennie's line would have caused an expenditure of
money which would have been totally unjustifiable. Not
one word of that statement appeared in the report. He
did not ask the House to say that Stephenson's line was a
preferable one to Rennie's. All he required was that
the merits of every line should be well under-
stood. It might be asked, how was the Committee
constituted ? He would tell the House in the course of
the last Session the Committee sat for no less than 52 days,
and in the present 35. There were generally not more
than five or six Members only present, but after sitting
twenty-eight days, upon the first division with respect
to the question of engineering, no less than forty-five
Members voted, not more than six of whom had
been present one day during the sitting of the Committee.
Could the House rely upon the Report of a Committee,
several members of which bad not heard one word of the
evidence that had been given before it ? o'2 members of
that. Committee, who had only attended nine days during

either Hon. Members who were desirous of addressing the
House, he would not trouble them further except by moving
s an amendment—" That an humble address be presented
!o his Majesty, paying his Majesty to be graciously pleased
to Appoint some military engineer, to whom the several
plans, SCrttenz, &c., of the different lines might be referred,
in order that suite engineer might give his opinion on the
merits of the respectiit4 lines, and that his Majesty would
be geseiounly pleased to ortL'r such opinion to be laid before
the House."—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. 'WARBURTON said that, as Rennie's line was
one of these lines, the subscription list of which had been
refused to the Committee of which he was Chairman (the
Dever and Deptford), and, as the evidence had ,been
completed on the subscription list of Rennies line, witlt
the approbation of that Committee, he was enabled tostate
some of the fending facts that had come out upon that
subscription list. It appeared that the Com,lany, which
was formed in February last year, for the purpose of pro-
moting this Bill, was conducted in the most unexceletion-
able manner. The parties who were allowed to sign the
subscription list were those parties only to whom, after
proper Investigation, shares had been. allotted, and to
whom the shares had come by sale and purchase.
Mr. WIGNEY rose to order, and submitted that the
Hon. Member was not right in stail;ng to the House what
had passed in the Committee.—(Cries of " Go on, go on.")
Mr. WARBURTON said that if it had been possible
for his Committee to have made its report previous
to the House taking into consideration . the report
on the Bill, he would not have addressed the House;
but he had stated to the Committee this morning the lead-
ing facts of the case. The course he was now pursuing was
entirely in conformity with the wish of that Committee.—
(Hear, hear.) He was perfectly willing to sit down, but
if the House was desirous that he should state the facts, he
would proceed.—(" Hear, hear," and " Go on, go on.")
The SPEAKER here made it few observations which
were inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. WARBURTON was about to proceed with his
observations, bat was interrupted by
Mr. WIGNEY, who said that the question before the
House was upon the engineering evidence of the lines; and
his humble opinion gas, that the Hon. Member for Brid-
port was out of order in going into details.—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.")
Mr. WARBURTON said, that if there would be ano-
ther opportunity for him to make the observations he
intended when the whole Report came to be considered, he
would not trouble the House farther on the present occa-
sion.
Mr. CURTEIS was not one of those who had
interrupted the Hononrable Member for Bridport.
He considered the proposition most unfair upon the ma-
jority of the Committee. He (Mr. Curteis) was one of
that majority, and he thought the decision they had come
to was perfectly fair and justifiable. If that decision was
now reverted to, the House would be establishing a most
dangerous and unjust precedent. If the majority of the Mem-
bers composing the Committee were, as was asserted, favour-
able to it, why had they not come to the rescue of the line ?
In adopting Rennie's line, the House would be sanctioning
one, which by its junction with the Dover and South Eastern
lines would hereafter afford the best and most advanta-
tageous course of Railway communication to the large dis-
trict of country connected with them. He hoped the
House would, under these circumstances, pause before
it set aside the deliberate decision of an impartial majority.
Mr. C. BARCLAY felt his duty to his constituents
equally binding with that of the Hon. Member opposite,
and he should best discharge that duty by supporting
the proposition of the Noble Lord (G. Lennox). The
Hon. Member here went into some of the details of the
engineering difficulties of Rennie's line, and contended that
it was by no means the most eligible from the nature
and amount of those difficulties. Be would cordially sup-
port the proposition of the Noble Lord.
Mr. CRAWFORD hoped the House would not de-
cide upon the question of a Brighton line , without more
minute enquiry than any which had yet taken taken place.
It was in evidence before the Committee that the ground
was to be purchased for 170/. an acre upon the average. He
believed that 1,000/. an acre would be more near the truth.
He knew that from Wandsworth Common to Horsham the
proprietors were all against the railroad ; but had been in-
duced to give their assent by the promise of large grants of
money for their land. In many cases 1,000/. an acre had
been promised, and, in one case within his own knowledge,
the great sum of 2,000/. an acre had been promised.
Mr. GORING supported Stephenson's line, and depre-
cated the conduct of the Committee with respect to their
Report in favour of Rennie's line.
Captain PECHEL defended the Committee—a more
fair one had never sat, and it had been much more
fully attended this year than what it was the last.
He wished Members to understand that the instruction to
the Committee to make a special report was given after
the Committee had conic to the conclusion in favour of the
direct line. He thought. that the House would stultify its
own proceedings if it acceded to the amendment of the
Noble Lord.
Mr. TOOKE, amid loud cries of divide, supported the
amendment, as he felt perfectly sat;efled that justice
could not be done without.
Lord EASTNOR. would support the on;einal motion.
He had no doubt that there were a great many difficulties
with respect to all the lines of railway ; but upon looking
over the different lines be should say that the direct one
had its advantages.
Mr. P. T HOMSON said it appeared to him the
question they were called upon to decide was, whether or
no there appeared upon the engineering report that had been
made, according to the instructions given by the House tothe
Committee, shilicient to enable the House to determine
that that line was the one they would send hack to the Com-
mittee. He did not say he had sufficient information
to enable him to conic to that decision, and for
that reason lie should certainly be very glad himself
to support, with very little alteration, the amendment
suggested by the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) In the
present stage of the proceedings, looking at the instructions
of the Committee, all they had to do was to consider
the case in an engineering point of view. It was
the duty of the house, as the deinier resort, without any
disrespect to the Committee, on their recommendation
to have all the information before it which would
enable the House to determine on the case generally.
There was not enough in the report to enable the House
to come to that decision, and therefore he would recom-
mend the House to seek for that information which was not
to be found in the report, and call for another report.
He would propose that the Committee should be
directed to apply for an engineer who would make a report
on the three different lines and that the Committee should
also give their opinion to the House. The case of no one line
would be prejudiced by that ; and looking at the difficulties
of the case it was his humble opinion that what he had ven-
tured to suggest would be the better course to adopt.—
(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Lord A. LENNOX said that six Members had voted
in the Committee on the last occasion who had not
attended it before, and they talked of whipping in. The
Noble Lord, the Member for Hytlie, who had not been a
Member forty eight hours, was brought down to vote upon
an engineering question.—(Laughter.)
Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY made a few observations,
amidst loud cries of " Question, question," aria " Divide,
divide."
Mr. HUME complained of the manner in which the
Government had interfered in the present instance, to pre-
vent the House exercising its deliberate judgment upon the
report of the Committee. lie was bound to place confi-
dence in the report of the Committee, and therefore
should support the motion.
Mr. P. THOMPSON rose amid loud cries of " Spoke,
spoke."
Mr. CURTEIS contended the Right Hon. Gentleman
had no right to address the House again, unless by way of
explanation.
The SPEAKER said, unquestionably that was the rule,
but if the Right Hon. Gentleman supposed that motives
had been attributed to him, he bad a right to explain.
Mr. HUME—I attributed no motives to him.
Mr. P. THOMSON denied that he had used the influ-'
ence of the Government in any way on the present occasion.
He bad merely given his opinion as an individual Member
of that House.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET maintained that
the Committee had not fairly laid the case before the
House, and he should therefore feel it his duty to vote in
favour of the amendment.
Mr. WAK LEY observed that on ordinary occasions
the Members of the Government might be seen trotting up
the stairs as fast as they could into the library to avoid
voting, but upon the present occasion they had most un-
fairly used their influence to interfere with the legitimate
expression of the opinion of the House.
After a few words from Sir C. Burrell, Mr. Goulburn,
Colonel Wood, Mr. Freshfield, and Captain Alsager, in
reply, the gallery was cleared for a division.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
For the amendment

Majority in favour of the amendment 7
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. HUME on his legs. lie said he rose to ask a ques-
tion of his Majesty's Government, namely, whether, after
this most extraordinary course of proceeding—( Loud
cheers)—in which, for the first time during two or three
years, the whole of the Treasury Benches had voted on a
private Bill, it was their intention on to-morrow, or some
early day, to introduce some general rule by which the peo-
ple of this country might be aware of what was their in-
tention