The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-22 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. CAMPBELL appeared at the bar and presented co-
pies of the regulations passed in India.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition
from the merchants and traders of Dundalk against the Mer-
sey Conservancy Bill.
Sir R. BATESON presented a petition from certain
shareholders of the Commercial and Agricultural Bank of
Ireland, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to invest the pro-
perty in trustees, and to distribute the surplus among the share-
holders

Mr. MARSL AND brought up the Report of the Corn.
tnittee on the Stockport Improvement Bill. The Hon. Mem-
ber also presented a petition from Stockport against the Mer-
sey Conservancy Bill.
SHROPSHIRE AND NORTH WALES ASSUR-
ANCE COMPANY.

Lord CLIVE moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. P. THOMSON opposed the third reading, and did so
on grounds wholly unconnected with the merits of the Bill itself.
The House had upon a former evening, when aßill was before it,
relative to the Birmingham Plate Glass Company, unanimously
decided that they would not consent to any Bill introduced
merely for the purpose of enabling parties to sue and be sued ;
bat that the parties must do that for which an Act
of Parliament had been passed a few years ago—namely,
to have the circumstances of the case inquired into, and
then a Charter or Letters Patent would be granted to
any Company who might make out a proper case. If
the House supported him in the view he now took, well and
good; if not he should not consider it his duty to look after
Bills of this kind. All he wanted was that Parliament should
declare some definite rule on this subject. He had under-
stood that the House had done so in the case of the Birmingham
Plate Glass Company, on which occasion the Right Hon.
Bart. the Member for Tamworth entirely approved of the
course he (Mr. P. Thomson) suggested, and that Bill was
thrown out. Under these circumstances, he felt it to be his
duty to call upon the House to reject the Bill theca before it.
Lord CLIVE complained of the unfairness of opposing the
Bill at the present advanced stage. He denied that there seas
anything out of the ordinary course in the measure before the
House, as in the year 1835 Parliament had passed the Uni-
versal Life Insurance and the Argus Insurance Company Lals,
embodying simillr principles ; and in the following year it
passed the Westminster Fire and Life Insurance Company
and the National Endowment Society Bills. In the present
Session the Licensed Victuallers' Fire and Life Insurance
Company Bill—a Bill the objects of which were similar
in every respect to the present measure—had been introduced,
and had proceeded pari passu with the Bill now before the
House. All he asked was a measure of equal justice for the
Society which he represented, and he trusted that the House
would not deny that to him.
Mr. 0. GORE said the present Bill had been introduced to
Parliament at the same time as the Licensed Victuallers' Bills ;
and, as he had been informed, previous to the third reading, a
deputation had waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
to know if he still meant to oppose the Bill, and his reply was
that he did not wish to oppose it farther, after all the ex-
pense the parties had been put to. That answer had been
very justly given, and he hoped that the same considera-
tion would induce the Right Honourable Gentleman oppo-
site to allow the present Bill to be read a third time.
The Plate Glass Company's Bill was not at all analogous to
the one under consideration. It was a Bill for the purpose of
opposing individual speculations in trade, for any one might
embark their capital in the making of plate glass, but it was
impossible that any private individual could embark capital
enough for granting insurances on lives and against fire.
Then, again, it was of no use to make application for Letters
Patent, for, in a very short period of years, upwards of one
hundred applications had been made unsuccessfully. Ile thought
it would be ungenerous in the Right Hon. Gentleman to press
his opposition to the Bill, now that it had arrived at its last stage.
Mr. P. THOMSON, in adhering to his opposition to the
Bill, did not think it necessary to re-state the grounds
upon which he had taken that course.—( Hear.) The
reason why do few applications were made to the Crown for
Letters Patent was, that parties found it easier to come before
the House than to go before the King in Council, where the
matters were fully sifted, and the reason why so few applica-
tions had been acceded to, was that the parties would not
abide by the first grounds upon which they applied for the
Letters Patent. For instance, in one case the parties applied
for Letters on the ground that it was absolutely necessary they
should raise more money. The Letters were then offered them
on condition that a certain sum of subscribed capital must be
paid up, but upon those conditions they refused to take
out the Letters. They were never refused to any body of
men who presented to the Council a fair and proper case.
—( Hear.) With respect to the late period at which he had ,
offered his opposition, he begged to inform Hon. Gentlemen
that he received no official information of these Bills, and
therefore he could not be blamed because some Bills had
passed with the objectionable clause, and that he had hot
been made aware of this one before.

Mr. HARVEY said that perhaps many Hon. Members were
not aware that the Right Hon. Gentleman was appealing to
them to reject a Bill which it had been moved should be read
a third time, and that appeal was made upon special grounds.
Now, what was the nature of the Bill ? Why, its object was to
enable the Shropshire Assurance Company to sue and be sued,
a Bill of a common nature, of which others, with similar provi-
sions, bad received the sanction of the House. In his (Mr.
Harvey's) opinion, it was hard and unjust to seek to establish
a principle by making a particular measure a victim, especially
as there was no ground whatever for impeaching the conduct
of the parties connected with this measure, the entire capital
of which, he understood, had been paid up. He thought the
course proposed by the Right lion. Gentleman ought not to
be tolerated by that House, inasmuch as if it was, parties would
have to go to the Privy Council to get Letters Patent.
It was somewhat unfortunate that this important principle had
not been put forward earlier. The course of proceeding
pointed out by the Right Hon. Gentleman opened considera-
tions of a very grave kind. What was the ground of objectio
of the Right Hon. Gentleman ? Why one with which he entirely
concurred, namely, that the course of the House when inquiring
into private business was so lax, that it was, in fact, no inquiry
at all. There was something extremely objectionable on con-
stitutional grounds in the course proposed to be pursued by the
Right Hon. Gentleman, as it was, in fact, giving to the Treasury
a most formidable and irresponsible power. Independent of that,
in his (Mr. H.'s) opinion, it was fraught with great mischief.
This Bill had gone through all but one stage, and it was
most unfair, in his opinion, to say that the party should now go
to the Board of Trade. On the broad principle of justice,
which the House never disregarded, he thought they would
not on that occasion listen to the suggestion of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. VI LL IE RS was the person who moved the third read-
ing of the Birmingham Plate Glass Company, and he felt called
upon to say that not a single argument had been urged on the
present occasion that was not urged when that Bill was
before the House. Finding the Right Hon. the Member
for Tamworth agreeing with the Right Honourable the
President of the Board of Trade, he thought it was useless
to divide ; ;:nd he, therofoxe, witl.drin-: the ^^eti,:P.

Sir R. PEEL said that he had argued against the third
reading of that Bill upon general principle. He conceived the

general principle as muck applicable to the present Bill as it
was to the other ; and he should, therefore, extend his opposi-
tion to it.--( Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For the third reading
Against it ..
Majority 2l
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
Sir E. WILMOT brought up the Report of the Commit-
tee on the Birmigham Equitable Gas Company.
Mr. FITZ SIMON presented four petitions in favour of the
London and Blackwall Commercial Railway.
SUNDAY TRAVELLING.

Lord J. STUART presented a petition from Ayr, against
the clause in the Glasgow and Ayr Railway Bill for prohibit-
ing travelling on Sundays.
Sir ANDREW AGNEW gave notice that to-morrow he
should present a petition from the General Assembly of Scot-
land, prayi,ig for the introduction of a clause to prohibit tra-
velling on Sundays in all Scotch Railway Bills.
Mr. TOWNLEY brought up the Report of the Committee
on the Over Inclosure Bill.
LONDON AND GREENWICH RAILWAY.

On the motion of Mr. BARNARD the London and
Greenwich Railway Bill (No. 2) was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed. The Hon. Member then presented
a petition against the Collier Dock Bill.
AGRICULTURAL BANK (IRELAND.) _

Mr. WEST presented petitions from 810 shareholders of
the Agricultural Bank of Ireland, holding a large amount of
the Company's stock, praying for legislative protection, and
to be heard by Counsel against the Bill for dissolving the
Company, and investing. the funds in Trustees.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN presented a petition from the house
of Buchanan, Kinnear, and Co., of Limerick, and another
petition from Mr. Walker, lace factor, parties employing
several thousand hands weekly at their factories, against the
same Bill.

Mr. FA ZAKERLEY brought up the Report of the Poor
Law Committee.

Mea.engers from the Lords brought up several ails.
CHURCH-RATES.

Sir ROBERT PEEL presented fifty petitions from dif-
ferent parts of Staffordshire, against the abolition of Church-
rates.

Lard NIORPETH presented a great number of petitions
from the West Riding of York, in favour of the abolition of
Church-rates.

Petitions were presented in favour of the abolition of Chureh-
rates, by Mr. Tancred, from Banbury ; by Dr. Lushington, from
the Tower Hamlets ; by Mr. E. J. Stanley, from Chester ;
by Mr. Guest, from Merthyr Tidville ; by Mr. Ellice, from
Coventry ; by Mr. Wilks, from Worcester, Wareham, Bos-
ton, and Curton ; by Mr. Pryme, from Elly, and several other
places; by Mr. P. Stewart, from Lancaster; by Lord Ebring.
ton, from North Devon ; by Mr. F. Buxton, from Weymouth and
ten other places ; by Mr. Hindley, from Ashton-under-Lyne ;
by Sir R. Ferguson from Nottingham ; by Mr. Lennard from
Suffolk ; and by Mr. E. L. Bulwer from Lincoln.
Petitions were also presented against the abolition of Church-
rates, by Sir William Follett, from Exeter; by Major
Cumming Bruce, from Inverness ; by Mr. Pusey, from Berk-
shire ; and by Sir John Tyrrel from Essex, signed by 14,000
persons.
Mr. L A MBTON presented petitions from certain lessees in
the county of Durham, praying for just and equitable terms.
The petition was a long one, and therefore he would not
trouble the House by reading it at length, but recommended it
to the particular attention of the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.—( Laughter.)
Petitions in favor of the Ministerial plan were presented by
Mr. C. Lushington; by Mr. Gisborn, from Derbyshire; by
Mr. Angerstein ; by Mr. Wilbraham ; by Mr. Divett, from
Exeter; by Mr. Ewart ; by Mr. Gillon ; by Lord John Rus-
sell; by Sir H. Williamson, from the County of Durham,
signed by 19,722; by Mr. Baines; and by Mr. Potter, from
Oswestry.

Petitions against the Ministerial plan were presented by Mr.
S. Wortley, from Halifax • by Mr. Mackinnon, from Pad-
dington ; by Mr. Villiers, irom Wolverhampton ; by Captain
Alsager, from Surrey ; Sir John Y. Buller, from Devonport,
and 40 other places in Devon; by Sir R. Bateson, from Sligo;
by Mr. Richards and Mr. R. Trevor.
( Here Sir Francis Burdett entered the House, supported by
Sir George Sinclair, and took his seat on the front Opposition
Bench.)

Mr. HUME presented a petition from St. Mary Islington,
praying for the abolition of Church-rates. The Hon. Mem-
ber stated that a Clergyman of the Church of England, in
order to turn the petition into ridicule, had signed his name
" Jim Crow."—(Great laughter.) That signature had been
erased from the petition, the parishioners having considered
such an act an insult to the parish, and he ( Mr. Hume) thought
it was a disgrace to the Clergyman.
Colonel WOOD presented a petition against the abolition
of Church-rates, from 3,000 inhabitants of Brecon.

Captain WEMYSS presented a petition from Fifeshire, in
favour of the abolition of Church-rates.

Mr. HARVEY presented a petition from the Welsh Inde-
pendent Congregation of Southwark, to the same effect.
Lord WO RSLE Y presented two petitions to the same effect.
Mr. Sergeant TA LFO URD presented petitions from Read-
ing and other places to the same effect.