The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-26 00:00:00

LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from Mr. Mills,
praying for the appointment of a Select Committee on this
railway. The Hon. Member intimated his intention to call
the attention of the House to the subject on Tuesday next.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said the subject had already
been disposed of.
Mr. HUMPHREY brought up the report of the South
London (Southwark) Market Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET brought up the Report of the
Fictitious Votes Committee.

Sir J. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from Esst
India proprietors against the Maritime Officers' Compensa-
tion Bill.

Sir E. WILMOTT presented a petition from Leeds, in
favour of the Summary Conviction Bill.

Mr. WILKS presented petitions from places in Ox-
fordshire and Leicestershire, for the abolition of ChurcL-
rates.

Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from Bir-
mingham, in favour, of the Public Walks Bill. _ _

Mr. LUCAS preSented a petition from a place in Mo-
naghan, in favour of the Agricultural Bank of Ireland Bill.
Mr. F. FRENCH presented a similar petition.
Mr. HUMPHERY presented a petition from South-
wark, in favour of the Ministerial measure for the abolition
of Church-rates.

Mr. CUR'FEIS presented a similar petition from a place
in Sussex.

Mr. S. LEFEVRE presented a similar petition from
Oakham, in Northamptonshire.
Mr PEASE presented a similar petition from a place in
Durham.

Sir R. MUSGRAVE presented a petition, expressive of
confidence in his Majesty's Government, from Tramoro, in
the county of Waterford.
The O'CONOR DON presented similar petitions from
places in Roscommon ; also from Iveragh, in the county
Kerry.
Sir R. MUSGRAVE presented petitions, praying for
the abolition of Irish tithes, from places in the county of
Waterford ; also.one from Stradbally, in favour of the vote
by ballot.
Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from a place in
Sussex, praying for an alteration in the Turnpike Acts.
Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from Lanark, pray-
ing that the municipal franchise in Scotland be 51. instead
of 101. _ _ , _

Mr. W. ROCHE presented a petition from Limerick,
complaining that the Corporation of Liverpool imposed cer-
tain dues at that port ; also a petition from the apotheca-
ries of Limerick, complaining of unauthorized persons being
allowed to compound medicines.
Mr. BAINES gave notice that on Tuesday next he
would move for certain returns showing the amount received
and expended by churchwardens and overseers of parishes
in England on account of the repairing of Churches.
Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from the Spital-
fields weavers on the subject of the existing law between
employer and servant.
Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition from 500
INt74.Cib Ut A.ll ,Jl.l.l&Sii -r, • •

surances.
On the .motion of Lord W. BENTINCK the West-
minster Market Bill was read a second time.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from the merchants
of Liverpool, praying for the opening of a communication
with India through the Red Sea.
Sir G. SINCLAIR presented several petitions in favour
of a better observance of the Sabbath, and against any fur-
ther grant to the College of Maynooth.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN presented fifteen petitions from
Ireland expressive of confidence in his Majesty's Ministers.
The Hon. Member also presented petitions from Ireland
for the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. H. HINDE inquired when the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would introduce a Bill founded on the Church-
rates resolutions ? The lessees throughout the country were
most anxious on the subject, and to know what would be
the nature of the measure.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
had he been aware of the Hon. Member's intention to put
the question he would have been prepared to answer it.
He hoped, however, he would not press it now, and he
would be able to give him an answer to-morrow.
Mr. HINDE said that, under those circumstances, he
would not press the question,
IRISH COERCION ACT.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved, pursuant to notice, for
leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the sth and
6th Will. IV., c. 48, commonly called the Irish Coercion
Act, the object of which was the "prevention and more
speedy punishment of offences endangering the public peace
in Ireland." The Hon. Member in support of his motion
said, that the Act in question was a most arbitrary one,
and its provisions of such a nature that it ought no longer
to disgrace the Statute-book. The existence of such an
Act could only be justified by the necessity of the case at
the time it was passed. That necessity existed no longer,
.and it was high time. a measure containing such oppressive
penalties should be repealed. He was ready to admit that
it had never been acted on—(Hear)—but the Irish people.
ought not to be left in a situation of dependence upon the
forbearance of a Government. He regretted that the
Honourable and Reamed Member for Kilkenny was not
then in his pace to express his opinion upon the subject ;
but his notice had been for three months on the paper ;
and if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was not there
to answer his own challenge upon this question it was no
fault of his (Mr. S. Crawford). He by no means wished
to find fault with the opinion of any Hon. Member, espe-
cially in his absence ; but, under the circumstances, and,
considering the length of time his notice had been on the
paper, he could not think of postponing it any longer.
The Honourable Member then moved for leave to bring in
the Bill.
An Hon. MEMBER seconded the motion.
Lord MORPETH said that the Government was not
prepared to agree to the motion of his lion. Friend the
Member for Dundalk.—(Bear, hear.) The Noble Lord
then stated that he could not on the present occasion go
into a discussion of the original measure, or of the sufficiency
of the grounds on which it was brought in. He hoped it
would be sufficient for him to say that Lord Melbourne's
Government had in 1935 brought forward a measure of a
milder" character, and one intended to last for a longer
period, than the original Act ; and, seeing that that tnea-
sure had led to no public inconvenience or grievance, be
could not consent to cancel the existing law, as, in so do-
ing, he would be violating the understanding which the
Government had on a former occasion come to with the
House upon this subject.—( Hear.)
The house then divided, when the outnhers were—
For the motion 5 .
Against it B7
Majority
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
Mr. HUTT moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend
certain parts of the Municipal Corporation Act.
Mr. BAINES seconded the motion.
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL,
The motion was agreed to.
FRENCH COMPENSATION FUND.
Mr. MACKINNON then rose to move for a " Select
Committee for the purpose of taking into consideration the
claims of D'Arcy Talbot, Esq., and other claimants on the
French Compensation Fund." The House would not by
the result of the decision of such a Committee dip into
the public purse, but merely apply certain funds now in
the hands of the Government. Those
.funds had been
granted by the Government of France in 1815, and had
been vested in Commissioners fir distribution to the claim-
ants, among whom was D'Arey Talbot, Esq., a Roman
Catholic gentleman of the highest respectability. His claim
we; for 31,000 francs ; it was one not to be contradicted,
and lie had informed the First Commissioner that he should
require more time than would elapse before they made their
award to produce the documents necessary to satisfy them
of his ritht. The first award had been made in 1820. In