The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-08 00:00:00

NEGRO SLAVERY.

Mr. SANFORD presented a petition from the town of
Wellington, praying for the total emancipation of the Ne-
groes.

Sergeant TALFOURD presented a petition from the
Protestant Dissenters of Birmingham to the same effect.
TITHE COMPOSITION.

Mr. ORMSBY GORE presented a petition from Mr.
Blount, a gentleman who is concerned in the management
of extensive properties, complaining of the operation
of the 37th section of the Tithe Composition Act.
If the average were to be taken for the preceding seven
years, it would be a great hardship on such parishes in
which the proceeds had been high for some time previous.
The prayer of the petition was for an amendment of the
clause in this respect.
SHERIFFS COURTS BILL.

Lord J. STUART presented a petition against the She-
riffs Courts (Scotland) Bill.
RATES OF POSTAGE.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE presented a petition from
Drogheda for a reduction of the rates of postage.
Mr. II'KINNON presented a petition from Messrs.
Howel and James, and other tradesmen at the West. end,
in favour of the Law of Patents Bill.

Mr. HODGES presented a petition from 1,100 inhabi-
tants of a parish in Kent, in favour of the Ballot.
Sergeant JACKSON presented petitions from the clergy
of the Diocese of Armagh and other places, praying for
protection to the Established Church.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from the
woollen cloth manufacturers of Lancaster, praying for the
repeal of the duty on sheeps' wool and olive oil.
Col. CONOLLY presented a petition from Donegal in
favour of the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland.
Mr. DUFF presented a petition against the Sheriffs
Courts (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. O'CO NNE L L presented petitions from
the Protestant Dissenters of East-street, South
Shields, against Negro Apprenticeship; from
against the mode of local Taxation ; from St. Ca-
therine's, Dublin, against Tithes ; also a petition from
the same parish against the ministerial Poor Law measure ;
also a petition from St. Ann's, Dublin, praying for Corpo-
rate Reform in Ireland ; from St. James's, Dublin, for the
total Abolition of Tithes and Ministers' Money, and for
the payment of the Clergy out of the Consolidated fund ;
also, petitions from the same parish, in favour of the Vote
by Ballot, against the Ministerial Poor Law measure for
Ireland, and in favour of Municipal Reform for that country.
Lord EBRINGTON brought up the report of the
Committee on the Standing Orders.
Mr. PENDARVES presented a petition from the
Licensed Victuallers of Cornwall, praying for a repeal of
the Duty on Servants, on Licences, and on Windows.
Mr. WAKL EY presented petitions from Working
Men's Associations in Hull, Edinburgh, Bristol, and West-
minster, praying the House to interfere in order to obtain
a mitigation of the punishment which had been inflicted on
the Glasgow Cotton-spinners, and praying for a full inquiry
into all the practices of Trades' Associations, which had
been much maligned. ; -
Mr. HUME presented a petition from South Shields,
praying for an extension of the Suffrage, Vote by Ballot,
and the shortening the duration of Parliaments.

UPPER CANADA.
Mr. HUME presented a petition agreed to at a meeting
In York, Upper Canada, stating that certain measures
adopted by Sir Francis Head was in violation of the Con-
stitution of that province ; that by the 31st of Geo. 111.,
chap. 31, it was required that all Acts of the Legisla-
ture of that province interfering with the established in-
stitutions should not receive the sanction of the Crown,
or pass into a law, until a copy of the Act had been laid on
the table of that House. The petition further stated, that
a Court of Chancery had been established there, and that
Sir Francis Head, instead of laying the Act establishing it
on the table of that House, in order that it might receive
her Majesty's sanction, had of his own accord sanctioned
the Act, and therefore had, as the petitioners contended,
infringed on the Constitution. The petition was signed by
the Chairman on behalf of the meeting, but he believed
the Chairman and those who attended the meeting had,
since they signed the petition, become rebels.—(So we un-
derstood the Honourable Member to say.) He should,
to-morrow, call the attention of the House to this petition,
and move for returns connected with it, in order to shew
the extent of the abuse, and the cause of discontent.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL submitted that the petition
could not be received, as it came from individuals
whom the Hon. Member for Kilkenny himself designated
as rebels.
Mr. HUME-0h ! what nonsense. I never heard
of such an absurd proposition in my life.—(Hear,
hear; and
laughter.) The petition was agreed to at a meeting in
August last, and represented the sentiments and opinions
of the country at that time. Was it therefore fit or proper
that the petition should be rejected because the person who
signed it had since become a rebel? If the petition had been
agreed to since those individuals joined in the revolt, the
case would have been altogether different.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Kilkenny was not always the most correct Member
in observing the rules of the House ; but if the Hon. Mem-
ber knew any thing of the practice of Parliament, ho
must know that a petition could only be received as the
petition of the person by whom it was signed. He
(Sir E. Knatchbull) submitted to the Speaker whether
the petition could be received, as the Hon. Member who
presented it avowed that it was the petition of a rebel.—
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL did not think that the petitioner
should be adjudged a rebel upon the mere opinion of
his Hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny ; hut even if a
man were accused or attainted of rebellion, he should not
be excluded from the right of petitioning that House.
Mr. GOULBURN said that the Hon. Member who
presented the petition stated that it came from rebels, and
the Hon. Member for Dublin said he did not believe it, and
contended that it should be received on the!ground that the
gentleman presenting it was not correct in his description
of the petitioners.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Hon. Member for the

University of Cambridge had entirely mistaken him. He
had not said that he disbelieved the lion. Member for Kil-
kenny, hut that his Hon. Friend's opinion ought not to de-
prive the petitioner of his right.
The SPEAKER put the question that the petition be
received.

Sir E. KNATC HBULL said he would ❑ot. press the
question to a division, and the petition was accordingly
received.

14UME then moved that the petition be printed
with the Votes.

AGLIONBY said the petition having been re•
ceived) tho House Was " funetus officio" in regard to the
propriety of receiving it.
Mr. HUME thought that an individual, even about to
be tried, had a right to present a petition to that Howe ;
and that: of this right he could not be deprived,
except by his conviction.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume)
had himself presented petitions from persons in confine-
ment, and even (as we understood) under sentence.
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUME gave notice that to-morrow he would move
for a return of the titles of Acts passed by the Legislature
of Upper Canada since Governor Sir F. Head had arrived
in that province, and which, by the Act of 31 Gco.
ought to have been laid before Parliament previous to their
receiving the Royal Assent, specifying the dates of their
receiving such assent without having been so laid before
Parliament.