The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-02 00:00:00

CANADA.

Lord J. RUSSELL' and other Members of the House
of Commons appeared at the Bar, with a Message desiring
a Conference with their Lordships' House, on matters of
high importance, relating to the Government of the Pro-
vince of Lower Canada.—Agreed to.
The messengers were then called in and
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that their Lord-
ships had agreed to the desire of the House of Commons,
and would appoint managers to meet the Commons pre-
sently in Committee-room No. 5. ,
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions in
favour of Church-rates from Barnet and other places.
Lord ROLLE presented several petitions to the same
effect.

Lord POLTIMORE presented petitions against
Church-rates from several places in Lancashire.
The following managers of the Conference were then ap-
pointed :—the Duke of Wellington, Lord Shaftesbury, the
Earl of Albemarle, Lord Ilchester, the Bishop of Ely, Lord
Glenelg, and Lord Strafford. Their Lordships then left
the House to proceed to the Committee room.
The managers having returned,

The Duke of RICHMOND stated that their Lord-
ships' managers had met Lord J. Russell and the managers
on behalf of the Commons, who stated that the
House of Commons had agreed to certain resolu-
tions in reference to the province of Lower Canada, in
which they prayed their Lordships' concurrence.
Lord TEYN HAM then moved for certain returns rela-
tive to the Poor Law Act.
CHURCH-RATES.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented peti-
tions in favour of Church-rates from the Archdeaconry
of Shropshire and other places.
The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions to the
same effect from Romford, in Essex, and from several other
places.

The Bishop of WINCHESTER presented similar pe-
titions from West Bromwich, and other places.
Lord SKELMERSDALE presented similar petitions
from West Bromwich, and other places.
On the motion of Lord STRAFFORD, the second
reading of the Church Notice Bill was postponed till Friday.
The Earl of FINGAL presented petitions in favour of
the Irish Municipal Bill, from places in Cork and the
county Dublin. _ _

Lord SONDES presented petitions in favour of Climb-
rates, from several parishes in the County of Norfolk.
A NOBLE LORD presented several petitions to the same
effect from places in Yorkshire.
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions against Church-
rates, from places in Carmarthenshire, Fife, Suffolk, Pem-
brokeshire, Derbyshire, Durham, Denbighshire, from the
Directori of the Glasgow Association for promoting reli-
gibus liberty, from Bradford, in West Yorkshire. The
Noble Lord concluded by stating that the petitions were
not from Dissenters, but principally from Members of the
Church of England, and all in favour of the Ministerial plan
for the regulation of Church-rates. Many of those who
entrusted him with their petitions had become alarmed at
the delay Which occurred in bringing on the measure. He
had stated what he believed to be the ease, that Ministers
had postponed it in order to render it as perfect as possible.
He found, however, that it had been postponed by his Noble
Friend in the other House to the 2:2d of May, in which
case it would not be before their Lordships until late in
June ; he trusted it was the intention of Government to
proceed with the measure.
Viscount MELBOURNE said that the Noble Lord
was right as to. one of the causes of the postponement of
the measure, which was intended to be brought forward
with all the speed which the pressure of public business
would permit.
The Earl of ABERDEEN then presented petitions
from the Synods of Glasgow and Ayr, in favour of Church-
rates.

Viscount MELBOURNE presented a number of peti-
tions in favour of Church-rates, from parishes in Suffolk
from Woburn, and other places.

The various Private Bills were advanced a stage, on the
motion of Lord SHAFTESBURY.

The Consolidated Fund Bill then went through Committee.
ENGLISH MUNICIPAL ACT AMENDMENT
BILL.

Their Lordships then went into Committee on this Bill.
On the first clause providing that no election shall be
questioned hereafter by reason of any defect of, or want of
title,

Lord ABINGER said that he did not object to the
principle of the clause, but he certainly thought that this was
not the proper opportunity for bringing in such a provision.
The "LORD CHANCELLOR thought otherwise.
And if there were no objection to the principle, why not
introduce tha clause which provided against those evils
which had created such frequent feuds ?
After a few words from Lord WY NFORD,

Lord DENMAN said that he could not see what objec-
tion there could be to the clause ; it was high time that the
people should understand the basis and nature of their Mu-
nicipal institutions.

The clause was then agreed to, on the understanding
that, if some alteration could not be made to meet Lord
Abinger's objection, the matter should be further considered.
Clauses 2,3, and 4 were agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 11, inclusive, were agreed to, with a few
verbal amendments.
Clause 12 was postponed.

On cldus© 13,

Lord W YNFORD said that he wished to propose an
amendment in this clause, with a view to obviate the diffi-
culty that arose as to the election of aldermen when the
councillors were equally divided. The effect of his propo-
sition was, that in all such cases the councillor who had
been elected by the greatest number of votes should have
the casting vote.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the proposi-
tion. Every person in the town would know which coun-
cillor had been elected by the greatest number of votes ;
and the practical effect would be to vest the appointment
of the aldermen in one stated individual.

After a desultory conversation, in which Lord Denman,
Lord Abinger, the Earl of Falmouth, and Lord Ellenbo-
rough took part, their Lordships divided, when the num-
bers were,

For the amendment...
Against it
Majority -13
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to
Upon clause 14,

Lord ABINGER said that he thought the principle of
self-election ought to be entirely excluded from this Bill ;
and in order to effect that object he would propose an
amendment in the clause which was then under considera-
tion. That clause regarded the election of aldermen, and
provided that whenever any vacancy occurred in the list of
Aldermen it should be filled up by the Aldermen them-
selves. Now his proposition was to this effect, that when-
ever such vacancy should occur the Councillors should
elect other persons to supply it, and that no Alderman
should have any voice in the election of Aldermen.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amend-
ment, on the ground that the Aldermen, by the constitu-
tion of the Bill, were entitled to vote as part of the Council.
Lord ABINGER had no desire to press his amendment.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH preferred the clause as it
stood to the amendment of his Noble Friend.

The amendment was then withdrawn, and the original
clause agreed to.

Clause 15, at the suggestion of Lord WYNFORD, was
struck out.

The remaining clauses were then agreed to, with some
verbal amendments. •

The House resumed, the report was presented, and the
Bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed.
The other Orders of the Day were than disposed of, and
their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 1.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.

Mr. MACKENZIE, of Applecross, the new Member for
Ross-shire was introduced by Sir Wm. RAE and Sir GEO.
CLERK, and took the oaths and his seat. .
Lord W. BENTINCK presented a petition from alas-
gow against a clause in the Sheriffs' Courts Small Debts Bill.
Sir C. B. VERE presented a petition from South-
wold, against the passing-tolls clause in the Scarborough
Harbour Bill.

Mr. R. FLEETWOOD brought up the Report of the
Committee on the Preston and Wire Docks Bill.
On the motion of Sir G. STRICKLAND, the Report
of the Committee on the Wakefield Waterworks Bill was
taken into consideration, and the Bill ordered to be en-
grossed.

BATH AND WEYMOUTH RAILWAY.
Mr. MILES moved the second reading of the Bath and
Weymouth Railway Bill.
Sir R, INGLIS would move as an amendment, that the

Bill be read a second time that day six months. After
the discussion it had undergone on the former occasion,
he would not trouble the House at any very great length.
Hon. Members would recollect the circumstances under
which the Bill had come before Parliament on a former
occasion. His Hon. Friend, the Member for Bristol, had
presented a petition from a large number of the share-
holders, praying to be released from the liabilities they
had incurred. It was stated upon that occasion that
the concern was not likely to be a successful
one so far as the conveyance of passengers went—what the
profit or good might be they had yet to learn.—He (Sir
R. Inglis) was not acquainted with any great commercial es-
tablishmenti, at either terminus of the line, and he believed
it would interfere with the comforts of several respectable
proprietors. With regard to the subscriptions, he un-
derstood that the list had been got up in such a
way as was likely to deceive those who were not
acquainted with the manner in which such speculations
were set on foot. Ninety-two parts out of the whole of the
shares were signed for by bribery, the parties having been
paid a small donation for signing their names. The parties
originally belonging to the concern had withdrawn them-
selves from their liability. Under all the circumstances, he
felt justified in moving that the Bill be read a second time
that day six months.
Mr. MILES did not think he would require to detain
the House for many minutes. He wished that every rail-
road could come as clear out of the fire as the Bill then
before the House had come out of the Committee : only
four out of 180 shareholders had been proved to be not
bona fide shareholders. It was very true that there was
only one coach between the two towns, but there were
more than twenty connected with other towns in the
neighbourhood. In fact, the passenger traffic would be a great
convenience to the whole surrounding country. It would also
save 56,000/. per annum to the public in tolls alone, and
would prove a great benefit to the county of Wilts, and a
great part of Shropshire, as he considered the Bill would
prove a benefit to the public in the neighbourhood, and
therefore he would press his motion.
Mr. HOPE had never seen a stronger case of opposition
to any Bill made out. He would, therefore, with much
pleasure vote for the amendment of the Hon. Baronet, the
Member for the University of Oxford.

Mr. BENETT said the Bill had already been before a
Committee upon allegations made in that House, and it had
come out of it an honourable manner. He had looked at
the subscription list, and from his local knowledge he could
assure the House the names were those of the most re-
spectable persons residing in the district. It would prove
most advantageous to Wilts, to Shropshire, and to a great
part of Gloucestershire, and therefore he hoped the House
would give it a second reading.