The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-03 00:00:00

HOLDERS.

Sir SAMUEL WHAL LEY begged to call the atten-
tion of the House to petitions which had been presented a
short time since, and which had been referred for investi-
gation to the Deptford and Dover Subscription List, im-
pugning the subscription contract of one of the Brighton
Railway Companies. The petitions alleged that the
Companies had hired parties to sign the deed. It
could not be a matter of surprise, that in times
like the present persons connected with the Stock
Exchange should be unwilling to be known as the holders
of railway shares to a large amount, and that those
persons had hired others to purchase their shares for
them. That, he believed, was the matter which it was in-
tended. the Committee should investigate, and referring it
to the Deptford and Dover List implied a suspicion that
the Committee on the Bill was not competent to investigate
it: He believedthat an impression had been created in the

House, and, in his opinion., most unjustly, prejudicial to
the interests of the Company. Since that time petitions
had been presented from the parties who had signed the
deed,
.entirely and unequivocally exonerating the Company
from any participation ►n the affair. He was glad to see
the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade in
his place, who had taken a great interest in the matter—
tha►t Right Hon. Gentleman would hear him out, he_ be-
lieved, in his assertion, that unless a case of real
fraud was made out, there was no necessity for the
present interference. Under these circumstances he
hoped the House would repeal the resolution to which
it had come, and refer the petitions to the Committee
on the Bill, with an instruction to strike out the nominal
shareholders. If the plan proposed by the House were
adopted, it would open a wide door for similar complaints,
and materially interfere with the business of the House.
The decision appeared to him extremely unjust to the Com-
pany, and he hoped the resolution would be rescinded. The,
Directors had, however, requested him not to submit his
present motion to the House, as they were anxious for the
fullest investigation ; but he (Sir Samuel Whalley), never-
theless, felt it his duty to do so. He begged to move that
the orders of the 26th and 28th of April, referring these pe-
titions to the Deptford and Dover Subscription list, be dis-
charged. _ _

Captain PEC HELL seconded the motion.
Mr. C. BARCLAY opposed the motion.
Mr. G; F. YOUNG thought that a Select Committee
was the proper tribunal to inquire into the allegations of the
petition. He did not see why the two petitions referred to
by the Hon. Member for Marylebone should be exempted.
He should therefore oppose the motion.
Sir SAMUEL WH ALLEY, seeing that the feeling of
the House was against him, withdrew his motion.
Lord G. SOMERSET, seeing the Chairman (Mr.
Warburton) of the Deptford and Dover Committee in his
place, wished to inquire when it was likely they would take
the Brighton petitions into consideration ?

Mr.CVARBURTON said they would take the Brighton
petitions into consideration the next case hut one.
On the motion of Sir S. WHALLEY, all the petitions
were referred to the Deptford and Dover Committee.

On the motion of Sir G. STRICKLAND, the Wake-
field Water Works Bill was read a third time and passed.
Major BEAUCLERK presented a petition in favour of
Sir John Rennie's Line of Brighton Railway.
On the motion of Mr. WORTLEY, the Ellan and
Dewsbury Road Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. FORBES, the Glasgow Police
Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, Solari's Na-
turalization Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. HODGES, the Sun Life Assu-
rance Company's Bill was read a second time, and ordered
h enmmittarl

On the motion of Mr. E W A RT, tile Order of the Dab'
fur the secon 1 nading of the Mersey Navlation Bill was
di. charged.
OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.

Petitions in favour of the better observance of the Sab—
bath were presented by Colonel Gore Adams, Mr. Wilks,
Captain &relay, and Mr. Hurst.
C HU RC H-RA TES.

Petitions in favour of the Ministerial plan for the aboli-
tion of Churel:-rates were presented by Mr. Lambton,
from several paces in Durham ; by Mr. Brotherton, from
places in Lincolnshiro, and by Mr. Ham es from Cole-street
Chapel, St. Mary's, Newington, and from the Dissenters of
Camberwell.
Petitions against the abolition of Church-rates were pre-
sented by Mr. O. Gore, Mr. Eastcourt, and Mr.G. Palmer-
Petitions in favour of the Government measure were
presented by Mr. Pease, Mr. \Vilks, and Mr. Fielden.
The latter Gentleman also presented twenty-five pe-
titions from parishes in Lancashire, the West Riding
of Yorkshire, praying for the total repeal of the Poor-law
Amendment Act, a prayer in which he most cordially
joined. The great excitement which prevailed in the coun-
try would never subside, until the prayer of the petition
was granted. The petitioners expressed their determina-
tion to resist the orders of the Poor-law Commissioners.
The SPEAKER requested the Hon. Member to read
that part of the petition.
Mr. FIELDEN then commenced the reading of the pe-
tition at length.
Sir R. INGLIS rose to order. Ile contended that
the Hon. Member bad ❑o right to read the petition from
beginning to end.
Mr. WAKLEY submitted that tie Hon. Member was
perfectly in order. He was merely reading an extract of -
one petition out of a large number. It would. be better
not to petition the House at all if that were not allowed.
It appeared to him to be an outrage upon common sense.—
(Cries of " Order" and " Chair.")
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member was strictly in
order if he was merely reading a portion of the petition,
but it seemed to him that the Hon. Member was reilding
the petition from beginning to end. It was represented
that the petitioners were determined to resist the law, and
he (the Speaker) had asked him to reed that portion of
the petition in which that allegation was contained.
Major BEA UCLERK understood the Hon. Member to
say that the petitioners would resist the law by all legal and
fair means.—(Cries of " No, no.")
The SPEAKER understood the matter differently; and
the best way to settle the question would be to read that
part of the petition.
Mr. FIELDEN said the petitioners did not mean to
resist the law of that House, but the rules and regulations
of the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. C. BRUCE—The Hon. Member had made an
allegation which he now seemed to withdraw, and if that
statement were distinctly made, it would perhaps save the
time •f the House.
Mr. FIELDEN then read the petition, which denied
the right of the Poor-law Commissioners to introduce the
regulations they had adopted into the manufacturing dis-
tricts, and stated the determination of the petitioners- to
resist them. The Hon. Member trusted they would do so
with success ; and concluded by moving that the petition
be referred to the Poor-law Committee.
Mr. WYNN considered that it was contrary to the rules
of the House to receive a petition which declared the in-
tention of the petitioners to resist the regulations of Com-
missioners empowered by Act of Parliament.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought that the petition ought to
be brought up and read at the table, which having been
done,

Mr. WYNN said that any reason the petitioners
might have to lay before the House for the repeal of this
law the House would listen to ; but when the petitioners
made a declaration of their determination to resist the law,
in his opinion the House ought not to pay any attention
to their statements. He thought the best course to adopt
would be to withdraw 'the petition.—(Cries of" No, no.")
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND thought that the
House ought to be exceedingly cautious in rejecting the
petition,. on account of a few unguarded expressions. The
petition concluded by praying the House to repeal a law
which they stated had given dissatisfaction. The petitioners
stated that the Commissioners pretending to do one thing
were doing another ; and, considering that, by doing so,
the Commissioners were acting illegally, the petitioners
stated their determination to resist the regulations that
were imposed. Candidly considered, he did not think the
petitioners had deviated from their duty in making the
statements they had done.

Major BEAU CLERK thought the petition ought to be
received.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he believed the objectionable
passage in the petition was that which contained an in-
ference that the power exercised by the Commissioners
was an illegal power. Although, in point of fact that as-
sumption was most erroneous, yet he thought if the Hon.
Member for Oldham would not consent to withdraw it, he
could not say he thought the House ought to reject it.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG was against receiving the petition.
Mr. WAKLEY said it ought to be distinctly understood
that the petitioners, in the words they employed, said they
'would urge a passive resistance—that they would pay no
regard to the orders and regulations of Commissioners, who
in their opinion were acting illegally.—( Hear, hear.) It
was well known that the Commissioners- had in some in-
stances overstretched their power ; it had been acknow-
ledged in the Court of King's Bench that they had-done so,
and that Court had quashed an election of Guardians which
had taken place in St. Pancras. He thought that ought
to be distinctly understood by the House and the country.

The SPEAKER had considered that he was bound to
interfere, because the Hon, Member for Oldham stated the
petitioners were determined to resist the law.—(Hear,
hear.) If the Hon. Member had read the prayer of the
petition, the House would then have been satisfied that
however paltry the assumption might be, the object of the
petitioners was only to resist that which was illegal.
Mr. FIELDEN was proceeding to make some obser-
vations, but was interrupted by
Mr. TREVOR, who spoke to order.. After the deci-
sion from the Chair, he would submit to the Hon. Member
whether he would proceed to take up the time of the
House.
Mr. MACLEAN—The Hon. Member for Oldham
must see the course he is pursuing is inconsistent with the
regulations you have laid down.
Mr. HUME—I wish to ask the Hon. Member what
regulations he alludes to? I know of none.—(Cheers.)
Mr. MACLEAN said the regulations he alluded to
were those which lie had uniformly endeavoured to act upon,
namely, that upon the presentation of a petition there should
be no discussion ; but that the facts mentioned in the peti-
tion and the 'prayer should merely be stated, and that if an
Hon. Member wished to have any discussion upon a petition
lie must give notice of a day for that purpose:
Mr. O'CONNELL—I don't know whether that was
the course adopted by the Hon. Member in the case of Dr.
Mulholland.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. MACLEAN—In that very case I was put down.
Mr. O'CONNELL—But the Hon. Member did not
go down.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. MACLEAN.—The House will bear with me,
when I _say that when I was repeatedly reminded—(Hear,
hear, from Mr. O'Connell)—repeatedly reminded by the
Chair of the course I ought to pursue, I did endea-
vour to confine myself to that course.—(Hear, hear.),

Major BE AUCLERK said this was a question of such
importance that he thought the House ought to come to
some understanding upon it. It was very seldom that any
Honourable Gentleman on one side of the house or the
other took up much time in presenting a petition.
The Hon. Member for Oldham had a number of peti-
tions containing the prayers of an immense body of the
poorer classes, totally unrepresented in that House. He
thought the House would not be engaged ten minutes or a
quarter of an hour, in listening to these petitions—( Hear,
bear)—and he hoped the Honourable Member for Oldham
would be patiently listened to. If not, the Hon. Member
would be perfectly justified in putting those petitions on the
Orders of the Day.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FIELDEN was again proceeding to make some
observations, when he was lute) rupted by

. -
Mr. WARBURTON, who said he rose to order, be-
cause if one gentleman was allowed to break through a most
convenient rule, which tl ey bra all been following, whether
that rule were imperative or not, all would do it. He would
put it to the common sense of Hon. Members, if they were to
debate at length every petition that was presented, how
would they find time for debating those general questions
which arose on Bills and Motions ?
Mr. Ii ARVEY rose to order.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM rose to order. The Hon.
Member for Southwark had called the Hon. Member for
Bridport to order, who was speaking to order. The Hon.
Member for Southwark then was bound to confine himself
to those points in which he considered the Hon. Member
had departed from the question of order. .
Mr. HARVEY considered he had been strictly acting as
the Hon. Baronet said he ought to have done. The Hon.
Member had been talking of the infraction of the rules of
the House. In his opinion the present was a case wherein
however wholesome the rule might be, it ought to be broken
through. The Hon. Member for Oxford had talked of
wasting time—( Loud cries of " Order" and " Chair.")
The SPEAKER said the question was indeed one of
much importance, and that importance rendered it necessary
that the House should come to some decision upon it. There
were many gentlemen in the House, who, like him, had been
Members for nearly thirty years ; and they would bear him
out in the statement of what was the practice in former
times. When be 'entered the House, and for many years
after, no person, on presenting a petition, was allowed to
m‘irA than to name the place whence it came. a❑d

state pra‘Tr. A few years ago another practic'e had
crept in, and no practice had ever been more loudly com-
plo'ned of. When lie had the honour of being placed
in the Chair, he endeavoured to recall the practice of former
times. That was the third session in which the general
assent, with few exceptions, bad been given to his crulea-
vours.—(llear. hear.) Ho only wanted to ktat)w what
the pleasure of the House was upon thr, matter. Ile
had done his part for the convenieuce of the House, and
he believed he had inflicted no injustice on the peplz—
(Cheering)—on the contrary, he thought that justice had
been done to the people by saving the tirne of the House.
Mr. HUME thought that was precisely one of those
cases in which no eeneral rule could be laid down. When
petitions 4 such importance were presented they ought
to he discussed ; and he should certainly like to see
a discussion upon every Poor-law petition which was
presented, for it was nee of those subjects which would
be much benelit,-(1 by discussion. He knew of no rule
or regulation of the llouse which was to prevent any
Member from speaking on a petition. Neither did he
think it was possible for them to make any such ; all must
be left to the importance of the subject and the discretion
of the Member.
Col. THOMPSON made a few observations, and was
interrupted by
An HON. MEMBER, who said if any one were allow,A to
address the house upon the petitions it was the Hen.
Member for o:dham.
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE thought it was but fair that a
discussion should be taken upon such important petitions.
He therefore moved that the Hon. Member be heard on
the petitions presented by him.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place. On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. FIELDEN saying, had the House allowed him to
have spoken without interruption, he would not have occu-
pied their time ten minutes, and so at least half an hour
would have been saved.
The HON. MEMBER then proceeded to detail the allega-
tions contained in the various petitions, which were subse-
quently brought up and laid on the table.
Mr. BROTH ERTON presented a petition from Dews-
bury, in Yorkshire, praying for a repeal of the Poor-laws
Amendment Bill.
Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from 8,000 inha-
bitants of Ashton-under-Line, to the same effect ; and pe-
titions from 5,000 inhabitants of Ashton-under-Line, from
Warrington and Chester, praying for the abolition of
Church-rates.
Mr. WILKS presented a petition from an individual
tamed William Henry Black, who complained of state-
ments contained in the report of the Poor-law Commissioners,
(as we understood the Hon. Member). The petition was
ordered to be printed, with the votes.
A message from the Lords brought up several private
Bills.
Upon the SPEAKER ceiling upon Mr. Borthwick,
Mr. A. TREVOR rose for the purpose of calling the
attention of the House to the inconvenience attending the
diffictlty in presenting petitions, and to move that on
Wedstesdays, precedence be given to them after the Speaker
shall have taken the chair.
The SPEAKER put it to the Hon. Member whether
be should not defer that motion till the reading of some Or-
der of the Day.
Mr. A. TREVOR said his notice was given upon the
first Order of the Day, or the first motion. He had how-
ever no objection to give way to the Hon. Member for
Evesham.

CONVOCATION OF THE CLERGY.
Mr. BORT H WICK then rose to call the attention of
the House to the subject of Convocations of the Clergy,
with a view to the introduction of such reformations as
should render the meeting of that reverend body practicable
and efficient for the purposes forwhich itwas recognised by the
Constitution. For centuries the Church of England had been
placed in a situation singularly anomalous. The subject
to which he was about to call the attention of the House
was full of difficulty, in consequence of the total inattention
that had been given to the subject not only by Par-
liament, but by the country generally, for so long
a time.—(Hear, hear.) It seemed, in fact, to be al-
most forgotten that there was such a thing recognised
as a Convocation of the Clergy. The Convocations,
as they at present existed, were in his opinion attended with
the worst of consequences, and if allowed to remain in the
state in which they at present stood, would, he had no
hesitation in saying, be hurtful to the Church. itself.
If they asked why clergymen did net sit in that House,
they were told it was because they sat in Convocation. The
Hon. Member for Middlesex taunted the Church with an
unwillingness to act in her own affairs, and that she was
slow to petition for her own reforms ; but now, when
the question was brought under consideration, the
Honourable Member was not in his place.—(Hear.)
lie believed much good would attend the revival of the
Convocations. Would any man say that the Bishops and
the Clergy in Convocation assembled would attempt to pass
any law, or introduce any ecclesiastical canon, which would
interfere with the supremacy of the Crown, as the head of
the Church, or with the free deliberations of Parliament as
the representatives of the people ? If they met in Convoca-
tion they would follow the example which the Church
of Scotland had so wisely adopted, of discussing
the questions that came before them with that tem-
per and moderation which so well became them, and
which rendered their meetings effectual for the purpose
for which he now sought their establishment.—(Hear.)
The Church was most anxious to have those reforms which
they had been taunted with being unwilling to receive. On
what ground could that which h asked be refused to the
Church, when the House was deluged with measures
totally incompatible with her interests ? The great point
upon which he rested his appeal to the House was, that
the altered circumstances under which the country
was placed rendered it necessary that the self-
regulating principle should be restored to the
Church, in order to prevent much evil being done to her,
by the crude and indigested measures which had been in-
troduced by those who either did not care for, or who
had determined at once to put an end to, her best
interests. (Hear, hear.) Members of the Church
of Rome regarded the Church of England as one of the
greatest heresies ; and if they were honest men they must
dissent from that which was calculated to injure their own
Church. Being purely preliminary to a future and more ex-
tended step, he would move for an humble address to the
Crown, praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased
to afford to his Parliament the advice and assistance
in matters Ecclesiastical, of the Bishop and Clergy in Con-
i'ocation assembled. In the Bill which he should have the
honour to propose, ho would provide that the Convocation
should be confined to one assembly, and have full power to
communicate with both Houses. It was his intention on
the 20th of June next to move for leave to bring in a Bill
for the remodelling of the Convocation of the Clergy, after
such a fashion as would render its sitting practicable. The
Bon. Member concluded by moving that an humble
address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would
be graciously pleased to afford Parliament his advice and
assistance, with a view to remodel and revive the Convo-
cation of the Clergy.
Mr. A. TREVOR seconded the motion, and contended
that, as the Clergy were not directly represented in that
• House, they ought in some way to be enabled to take a
part in their consultations as regarded matters connected
with the interests of the Church. This was the more ne-

cessary at present, when so many motions of great impor-
tance were daily brought under their consideration on the
subject of Church Reform. The destitution of the work-
ing Clergy was often alluded to in that House. What tri-
bunal was mere fit. to submit the consideration of it to than
the Convocation ? In the case also of Clergymen who might
have disgraced their sacred calling, who were more fit to
give judgment than an assembly of the Clergy themselves'
Mr. HUMS congrattarted the Hon. Gentleman on his
motion, and on the full attendance of Members on his side
of the House. He believed that during the greater part
or the speeches of the Hon. Mover and Seconder there had
been one solitary Member on the Opposition benches._
(Laughter.) With respect to the motion, by all means if
the Convocation was still an existing institution, let it be in
the exercise of its full powers. But, certainly, when the
Hon. Member brought in hi Bill, he (Mr. Hume) should
move a clause to relieve the Bishops from their attendance
in the House of Lords, as they would then have an oppor-
tunity of attending to their affairs in their own Convoca-
tion, and a very large portion of the- House had already
voted in favour of such a proposition. Hi: believed the
great mass of the Clergy would be much better pleased if
it were so.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought he should be best serving
the cause of the Hon. Memh,..,r by letting his speech and
that of the Hon. Seconder go forth to the world without
any answer. Should the measure again come before them
in any other shape, his opinion would be decidedly opposed
to that of the Hon. Gentleman opposite, for the opinions of
a Convocation would be of no effect unless supported by the
sanction of that House. Nor did he think the cause of re
ligion would be much benelitted by the removal of those
religious disputes which had occurred in the reign of Queen
Anne. He hoped, however, when next the Hon. Member
brought forward the question, the Hon. Members for the
Universities would be i❑ the House, to give their opinions
on a subject so immediately interesting to them.
Mr. FORBES hoped the Hon. Member would withdraw
his motion.

Mr. HINDLEY—No, no.
Mr. BORTH WICK expressed his readiness to with-
draw the motion, as so many Hon. Members had gone
away in the belief that there would be no division ; but if
Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished he would proceed,
though he should stand alone.

Mr. HINDLEY objected to the .withdrawal of the mo-

lion. He thought it was a most desirtaMe Wit that the
Clorgy shoold manage their coWn aqaitt, in Convocation.
Mr. BOR tUK sikid, then he would divide the
House.
ThZ louse then divided, when the numbers we*'-::;
Ayes
Noes ,•.,•o••••-•• 24
•!,lo•P':1fY against the motion
TOBACCO DUTIES.
Mr. PRIME then rose to more a reFolatie,-) Kf Milo.l
be had given notice for a re,birtiett 01' the folioed) doty. The
Hon. Member was procteaing to 11(1(13t,h.e 1-tome, when
An HON. NirNIBER moved that the Hotise be counted.
Thirty-three Members only Wet [tresenty and the iloue
adjourned; at Half-pact &von..