The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-22 00:00:00

SWANSEA WATER-WORKS.

Mr. E. DENISON brought up the report of the Corn-
inittee on this Bill, stating that the Standing Orders had been
complied with.
_ _

LEICESTER SMALL DEBTS.

The Report of the Committee on this Bill was brought up,
and leave given to bring in the 13ill.
BRItiLITON, LEWES, AND NEWHAVEN
RAILWAY.
Mr. A LSTON moved the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. BAGSIIAW moved that it be read a second time this
day six months.
The SPEAKER said that he thought the better course
to adopt would be to postpone the second reading of the Bill
for the present, there being no less than three different lines,
for the purpose of affording an opportunity fur the presenta-
tion of petitions on the subject, by which the House might be
guided as to the line it would adopt.
Captain PE CHE LL presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Brighton, signed by no less than 7,000 persons, in
favour of the Bill, of which the Hon. Member for Hartford had
moved the second reading. He could assure the House that this
question had excited more interest in the town of Brighton
than the Reform Bill itself.—( Cheers and laughter.) lion.
Members might laugh, but such was the fact. The inhabi-
tants of Brighton had been unanimous in their feelings on this
subject ; for when the Bill was in danger last Session, a peti-
tion, signed by no less than 4,000 persons, was presented in
its favour, and that was followed up when the Bill got into the
House of Lords by petitions, signed by 5,000 persons.
The SPEAKER suggested, that as the Hon. Member
would hare another opportunity of stating his opinions with
respect to the petition, the better course would be to reserve
any observations he had to make until that Feriod.
Captain PE CHE LL would only trouble the House with the
prayer of the petition, which was in favour of the direct line of
railway from London to Brighton.
Mr. WIGNE Y supported the prayer of the petition.
An 110 K. MEMBER presented a petition from Lewes against
the South Eastern Line; also petitions from Tunbridge and
its neighbourhood, East Peckham, and other places, in favour
of the South Eastern Line.

Mr. C URTE IS presented petitions praying for a terming.
tion at Newhaven.

The SPEAKER, as we understood, stiggested to the
House, whether it would not be better for lion. Members to
present the petitions that might be entrusted to them upon the
different lines of Railway without any observations, and allude
to them when the discussion took place upon the second read-
ing of the different Railway Bills.
Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition, signed by
1,400 respectable inhabitants of Brighton, praying the House
to take into its consideration the various lines of railway be-
tween London and Brighton, without reference to any other
consideration than a desire to promote the general good, and
to adopt that project only which had that object in view.

NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY.
Mr. HARDY presented a petition from an individual against
tho North Midland Railway Bill.

MANCHESTER AND CHESHIRE RAILWAY.

An floN. Mumma presented petitions in favour of the
Manchester and Cheshire Junction Railway, and against the
South Union Railway Bill.
Mr. 11 AWES presented a petition against the Deptford
and Greenwich Railway Bill.
Mr. PR AED brought in the Charlton Road Bill, which
way read a first time.

Mr. Alderman WOOD brought up the Clarence Railway
Bill, which was read a first time.

RAILWAY PETITIONS.

Mr. WA RBURTON said he had been entrusted with two
petitions, which very seriously involved the privileges of the
House, inasmuch as they proved, if correct, a gross breach of
the Standing Orders ; they also affected the conduct of certain
Members of the House, who had either more or less connected

themselves with the Joint Stock Company to which they re-
lated. He proposed then merely to move that the petitions be
read—that they be printed along with the votes of the House,
and he would then, either to-morrow or the day after, call the
further attention of the House to the charges which they con-
tained. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the peti-
tion, from the agent of the Kent and Dover Railway, when
The SPEAKER inquired whether the Hon. Member had
given notice of his intention to those whose character or con-
duct it called in question ?

Mr. WA RBU'RTON said the petitions had only been put
in his hands a few minutes ago, but he was informed that one
of the llon. Members whom it affected was informed that
some such petition was in preparation. If there were the
least impropriety, or objection to the petitions being now read,
he would content himself with moving that they be printed.
Sir E. KNATCHI3ULI, said, that although the railway
ran through the County ehich he represented, he did not
know anything whatever of the circumstances of the case
alluded to by the Hon. Member for Bridport. He put it to
the Hon. Member whether he ought not, previous to moving
that the petition be read, to have given notice that he was
about to present it. He would suggest to the Hon. Mem-
her, whether, when he was about to present a petition,
containing, as the Honourable Member himself admitted,
strong charges, and which might produce a strong impression,.
he ought not, previous to the petition being read, to give those
whom it affected an opportunity of rebutting or explaining the
statements which it might contain ? In justice to all parties
he submitted to the Hon. Member for Bridport the propriety
of adopting this course, as nothing was so unfair as reading a
petition which affected the private character of a Member of
that House, without giving him at the same time an opportunity
of setting himself right in the opinion of the House and the
country at large.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK suggested that Members ought to be put
in possession of the circumstances contained in the petition,
as they would be by that means better able to understand the
case which was about to be submitted to them. They might
as well order the petition to he printed, as it could be a matter
of very little difference whether the circumstances were made
public twenty-four hours sooner or later.
Sir R. INGLIS suggested that they ought to adopt the
course pointed out by the Speaker, when the Right Hon.
Gentleman inquired whether the men whose character was
understood to be affected by the petition had received any
notice that the petition was to be presented. It would only
make a difference of eight and forty hours ; and surely when
the character of a Member of that (louse was concerned, such
a consideration as this ought not to stand in the way of their
doing justice.
Mr. WARBU RT 0 N had no desire that the petition should
be read—he only desired that it should be printed, as until it
was printed it was impossible that it could be fairly proceeded
with.

Sir JOI1N•BE C KETT said that it would be irregular to
order a petition to be printed before it was read.—( Hear.)
Mr. FINN said that as there were allegations in the peti-
tion affecting the character of Members of that House, it was
only fair that they should have an opportunity of justifying
themselves. The bane and the antidote ought to go forth to-
gether. - L. 1,1 i
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE 'Acing/it there was only one
course to pursue, which was that the llon. Member should
defer presenting the petition till to-morrow, or the day after,
in order to give an opportunity to those members named in
the petition of vindicating their conduct.
Mr. WA KLE Y thought if Members discharged their
duty independently and honestly, they would pursue the
same course with regard to themselves as they
did to others. If the parties whose conduct was impugned
by the petition were really guilty of the offence, why, he
would ask, should they be spared out of delicacy because they
happened to be Members of that House? If they were not
guilty, they would have an opportunity of refuting the charges
made against them ; but unless the petition was read anti
printed, the House could not be in a condition to discuss the
subject.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL• thought that parties who
were charged by the petition, ought to have notice of those
charges before they were brought forward.
Mr. HAVES considered that the statements of the lion.
Member for 13ridport had been completely lost sight of. In
his opinion, the
,petition ought to be printed at once.
Mr. ROBINSON would suggest to the Hon. Member
whether it would not be better to bring the matter before the
House on Thursday, should there he no House to-morrow.
Ile thought this consideration outweighed all others—namely,
that the Members whose characters were said to be affected by
the petition ought to have due notice of it.
Mr. WARBURTON would take care that copies of the
petition were sent to the Hon. Members whose names appeared
in the list of Directors, and then if there was a House to-mor-
row, he should feel himself at liberty to go fully into the
merits of the case.

CHURCH RATES.
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from places in Devon-
shire and Essex against the abolition of Church-rates.

Petitions were presented by Mr. Curteis, by Mr. Wason,
by Sergeant Talfourd, by Mr. Potter, by Sir J. Y. Buller, by
Mr. Wallace, by Mr. Vernon Smith, by Mr. Pease--and by
Mr. Wigncy, signed by 4,000 of the inhabitants of 13righ:on
—all praying for the total abolition of Church-rates.
Sir E. KNATC ['BULL presented a petition from a pa-
rish in Kent, with a contrary prayer.
. MUNICIPAL, REFORM.—IRELAND.

' Colonel BUTLER presented petitions from the parish cf
Lisdowncy, and another place in the counts of Kilkenny,
praying for a measure of Municipal Reform for Ireland, similar
to that now enjoyed by England and Scotland.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented thirty-six petitions from dif-
ferent places in Ireland, with a si►uilar prayer.
Mr. BODKIN presented petitions, most numerously and
respectably signed, from the town of Tuam ; from the parish of
St. Nicholas, in the county of the town of Galway ; from the
parishes of Bellclare, Moycullen, Kilcummin, Clare Galway,
Annadown, Adieus-, and from the parish of Baboon, in tim
county of the town of Galway ; all praying for a measure of

Municipal Reform for Ireland, on the same principle as that
already extended to England and- Scotland.
Mr. W. ROCHE Presented a petition from the city of
Limerick, t? the same effect.
LOrd CLRMENT I,;,csented petitions from par site: in
the eotility of (Leitrim, wtth a similar prt:„_"-.r.
Siittilar petitions were presented by Mr. FINN, from eleven
parishes in tht etntrity of Kilkenny) by Mr. FiTzsimorf, from
pitighei itt fire Coirrity of Dublin ; by Mr. MosoAn O'Coft-
NELL, irotti pjaecs in the County of Meath ; by Mr:
from several parishcS In the t'otraty of Cork ;, and sit petitions(
by Mr. OTWAY CAVE, from the altllty•df Tipperary.
CHURCH-RATES.
Mr. WILKS presented petitions from Somertoyttif Fever-
sham, and a place in Cambridgeshire, praying for the tote
abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. GI LLON presented petitions from Stirling, Lanark,
and two other places, to the same effect.
Lord G BENTINCK presented two petitions in support
of the Church-rate system.
Major BE AUCLERK presented petitions from two places
in Surrey, praying for the total abolition of Church-rates.
Sir E. K NATCH BIM L presented a petition from a place
in Kent against the Poor-laws' Amendment Act.
BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

Lord• GEORGE LENNOX moved the second reading
of the London, Brighton, and Shoreham Railway.
Mr. C URTE IS begged to ask whether all of the Bills be-
fore the House were to be read a second time pro tanto. If
so, all opposition on his part would cease.
Mr. WILKS said that, considering the state of the pub-
lic business in that 'House, he trusted that the promoters of
these Bills would agree, and allow them all to be read a se-
cond time without having three divisions, which would only
prove a great waste of time.
Lord G. LENNOX would only say that if the divisions
were pressed, he would vote for the second reading of all the
Bills.

Mr. BAGSH A W thought that these Railways would do
much injury to the country ; however, as the sense of the House
was against him, he would give them no farther opposition there.
Captain PEC HELL said, though he would not divide the
House, it was incumbent upon him to state to the House what
was the opinion—the almost unanimous opinion of the people
of Brighton. It was unanimously against the line, the second
reading of which bad now been moved. Let them only
change the line to. Shoreham or any other place, .and all op-
position on his part would cease. The petition which ho had
presented that evening containing 7,000 signatures in favour of
Rennie's line, proved what the opinion of the people of
Brighton was.
Mr. WIGNEY concurred in all that had fallen from
his Hon. and Gallant Colleague. He trusted that the House
would see that it was of the utmost importance to the people
of Brighton, that their sentiments should be known with re-
spect to each line of railway. Ile hoped that the petition of
the people of Brighton, containing, as it did, seven thousand
signatures, would receive due consideration. The Bill was
then read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
The London and Brighton (Rennie's) Line of Railway was
also read a second time, as was also the Brighton, Lewes, and
Newhaven Railway Bill.
Mr. WIGNEY presented a petition in favour of Rennie's
line of Rail Way, from Hurstperpoint, in the county of Sussex.
Mr. GIL LON presented a petition, praying the House
not to pass any'of the Bills for making a Railway from Lon-
don to Brighton.
MISSING WHALERS.

Sir ROBERT PEEL held in his hand a petition which he
had been requested to present, in the prayer of which he en-
tirely concurred. The petition was of a singular nature; and
although the rules of that House prevented discussion on the
presentation of petitions in ordinary cases, he was sure when
he stated the object of this petition, that the House would
be satisfied that in the present instance he could not
altogether comply with the rules of the House. The peti-
tion was from Dundee, and was signed by upwards of a
thousand inhabitants of that town relative to the case of six
vessels that were beset, in the ice in Davis' Straits, and
praying that the House would take the subject into its consi-
deration, and that it would grant a sufficient sum of
money to pay the expense of vessels going out to
their rescue. The petition stated that a communication had
been made to his Majesty's Government, but that the pe-
titioners had not received that encouragement from them which
they thought they were entitled to. Of this the Right Hon.
Baronet was perfectly certain, that no consideration of pecu-
niary expense would prevent the House of Commons from
sanctioning any charge which it might be absolutely
necessary to incur where it was possible effectually to interfere.
He earnestly recommended the consideration of this petition to
his Majesty's Government. He apprehended that the Go-
vernment was more competent to judge of the advantages of
an immediate interference than the House of Commons ; and,
in referring the matter to their consideration, he could only
repeat the assurance that if they thought it possible to inter-
fere with advantage, the House of Commons would sanction
any expense that might be incurred.
The SPEAKER suggested whether the petition was not
irregular in asking for a grant of money. .
Sir R. PE E L thought not.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sure
that any irregularity on a question of this description would be
overlooked by the House. He was ready to admit on the
part of the Government that no question of money could
for a single moment stand in the way—nor had it. There had
been another question under discussion, and if the Right Hon.
Bart. wished for,information relative to that, if be would move
for the papers they should immediately be laid on the table of
the House.—( Hear.) The question under discussion
was not one of money, but whether there was a case in
which the exertions of the Government could be usefully made.
It would be nonsense to call upon the House to be making
continual grants of money for this purpose. If parties went
long and dangerous voyages without taking proper precau-
tionary measures, under the supposition that if they met with
any difficulties, the interposition of the House would be had
in their behalf, he would take the liberty of suggesting
to the Right Hon. Baronet that the presentation of a pe-
tition praying for any money vote was unnecessary,
because the Government would take any pecuniary risk upon
themselves, if a case was made out for their interference. The
r petition, however, involved further questions, because it com-
plained of the Government not interposing with more readi-
ness. If that case was made out, he admitted that it was
a charge of a most serious nature upon the Government.
If the Right Hon. Baronet, or any other Hon. Member,
would call for the papers, he should be ready on their produc-
tion to go into the whole question. He was quite sure that,
under the circumstances, if a Minister of the Crown felt it
necessary to draw upon the public funds for the purposes of
humanity and benevolence, he would not run a very great
risk of being censured by the House.—( Hear, hear.) How-
.ever, he thought the House and the public would see that his
Majesty's Government had acted with:a sound discretion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it of so much importance
that the rules should be adhered to, which prevented the pre-
sentation of petitions for public moneys, without the consent
of a Minister of the Crown, that he would not then press
the petition. He thought that, on the double ground of satis-
fying the sympathies of the House and of establishing a principle,
there was some reason for laying the papers before the House ;
and as he had understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to say,
that no consideration of economy should prevent a fair discus-
sion of the question, he should take an early opportunity of
moving for the production of the papers.
CHURCH RATES.

Mr. GLADSTONE wished to ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, whether he meant to bring forward the measure
relative to Church-rates early on Thursday evening?
Mr. SPRING RICE said there was a notice in the book
of his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, which stood high in the list; but he belie‘ed that
would not be an obstruction to his motion coming on early.
hart also communicated with other Gentlemen whose
notices stood before his, and they had all, in considera-
tion of the extreme importance of the question he was to
introduce on Thursday given way to him ; therefore he felt
every confidence that he should be able to bring the question
forward at an early hour on Thursday next.---( Hear.)
BANK OF IRELAND.

Mr. O'CONNELL said the Charter ofthe Bank of Ire-
land expired next month, and no proceedings had hitherto been
taken with respect to its renewal. He had therefore been in-
structed by his constituents to ask the Right Hon. the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, whether it was ,his intention to bring
forward any measure relating to the Bank of. Ireland?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Hon. and Learned Member was aware that a Committee had
been appointed a few days ago to inquire into the nature and
operation of the Joint Stock Banking Companies, and as that
inquiry was extended to Ireland, he was not disposed to take
any step, until they fairly ascertained upon what principle those
Joint Stock Banks were conducted, especially as the principal
portion of the business in Ireland was divided between the
Bank of Ireland and the Joint Stock Banks. The decision
to which the Government would come respecting the renewal
of the Bank of Ireland Charter would, in a great measure, de-
pend upon the result of the inquiry before the Committee.
Mr. HAVES wished to know from his Right lion. Friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the intention of
his Majesty's Ministers respecting the building of the new
Houses of Parliament.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his
Noble Friend at the head of the Woods and Forests depart-
ment was inclined to follow the recommendation of
the Select Committer of last year.—( Hear.) According
to that recommendation, the plans were put into the hands of
Mr. Barry, for the purpose of making out a detailed estimate
of the expense which, when furnished, was intended to be sub-
mitted to a competent authority, for further investigation.
That investigation was now going forward, and as soon as it
was completed, the result would be communicated to the House