The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-16 00:00:00

BENEFIT SOCIETY.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD presented a petition from a
Benefit Society in Southampton, praying that they might be
allowed to do what they liked with their own—(Laughter,
and " Hear, hear")—in the management of their funds.
FACTORIES.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD also presented numerous peti-
tions from factory labourers in favour of the Ten Hours Bill.
Mr. GOULBOURN presented petitions to the same
effect.

MORAY ESTATE BILL.
This Bill was read a third time, and passed.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. DENISON presented a petition from the County
of Surrey, praying for the abolition of the punishment of
death, except in cases of murder ; also a petition praying
for the abolition of -Church rates.

AN HON. MEMBER (for Sudbury) presented a petition
from Sudbury, on the same subject.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT. _ _

Major BEAUCLERK presented a petition complaining
of the operation of the Poor-Law Amendment Act. The
Hon. Membcr thought that Guardians should be empow-
ered to grant temporary relief to labourers out of employ-
ment. Many of them were obliged to sell their furniture
in order to support their families during periods when they
were nut of employment, and they were in consequence re-
duced to the condition of paupers.
Mr. KEMP presented a petition on the same subject.
EDINBURGH ANNUITY TAX.

The ATTORNEY-GENERA 14 presented a petition
from Edinburgh, against the Edinburgh annuity tax.
Mr. R. D. BROWNE presented petitions from Kil-
more, County of Mayo, praying for the total abolition of
tithe, and one from Newport Pratt, praying for a provision
for the poor. The petition stated that 35' persons had
died in 1831 of starvation, and that the Marquis of Sligo
and Sir R. O'Donell, who received 3,7001. out of the parish,
had not contributed one farthing to the relief of the poor.

Sir C. KNIGHTLEY presented two petitions, the
subject of which did not reach us,
STAMP DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the present would be a fitting opportunity, as the Hon.
Barone who had just presented the petition had a notice
pending upon a motion of his (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's), to state that he proposed on Monday night to
go into the question of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers,
when, according to the arrangement that had been made,
the Hon. Member might propose his proposition as an
amendment.

Mr. R. SMITH presented a petition from Wycombe,
praying for the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition for the re-
gulation of the duties on spirit licenses ; and one from an
individual in the Preventive Service, complaining of an un-
fair distribution of prize-money arising from the seizure of
a vessel.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER felt it
his duty to say a few words upon the last petition presented
by the lion. Member. It was from a gentlemen lately in
the Preventive Service. The occurrence took place in
the year 1822, and had been before successive Boards of
Treasury, and it had been decided against the petitioner
before he (Mr. S. Rice) came into office. It was due, how-
ever, to his predecessors to say, that he had been solicited
to take the case into his tonsideration ; he had done so,
and he found that it involved two particulars of complaint
—the first was a complaint against his professional capacity,
and the other complaining of the value of the cargo.
After full consideration had been given to the subject, the
Government had felt themselves compelled to negative
the request—(Hear, hear).- but Lord Spencer agreed
that a reference should be made to the gallant Admiral
the Member for Devonport, the result of which was
to acquit him of any want of spirit. It was never expected
by the Government that the Gallant Admiral would decide
the question of law. Upon applying to this individual to
know why he had not applied earlier for the reward, he
stated to him (Mr. S. Rice), and he had a letter from him
to that effect, that he had been induced to forgo his claim
to the reward, because two of his opponents were of such
different characters, and he could not claim his
reward without including them. If the Gentleman who
had presented tie petition would take the trouble to read
all the documents on the subject, he was sure he would see
there was no foundation for the allegations of the pe-
titioner.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he had read the
whole of the documents, and was of the same opinion
as the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Other
people had captured the vessel, and in consequence the
petitioner had not claimed the reward. Years had passed
since then, and he now came forward to claim it. The pe-
tition was then ordered to lie on the table.