The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Mica 4.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, the Earl Of SHAFTESBURY, and
the Earl of ALBEMARLE sat at Four o'clock, as Commis-
sioners for giving the Royal Assent to the several Bills
brought up for that purpose.
The House of Commons having been summoned by the
Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, the SPEAKER, and seve-
ral Members, immediately afterwards appeared at the bar,
when the Royal Assent was given in the usual form to the
following Bills :—The Fifteen Millions Exchequer Bills
Bill ; the Transfer in Aids Bill ; and the Dean Forest Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned during pleasure.

. --=—.--_
The LORD CHANCELLOR resumed his seat on the Wool.

nest at five o'clock.
Lord KENYON presented a petition from Bushe,
complaining of the conduct of a late Lord Chancellor
(Brougham), with respect to an appeal, Bushe v. Lock
which had been disposed of in the House, praying that it
might be reheard, and the Judges summoned, as it was
a question involving many points of common law.—
(Hear, hear.) He was well aware, that by a standing
order, such a petition could not be taken into considera-
tion on the day on which it was presented ; he therefore
proposed to have it read now, and he would call their Lord-
ships' attention to it on Tuesday next. There was one point
which he felt bound to notice ; the petition alluded to
some proceedings which had taken place in the House,
and therefore their Lordships might think it was irregular ;
but as it referred only to judicial proceedings, and not to
legislative proceedings, the petition was regular, and ought
to be received ; for he did not think the protection of the
House extended to its judicial proceedings, for the
very forms of the House allowed the public to be present.
Lord LYNDHURST had made inquiries of the Clerk
et the table, and he was informed that one allegation in the
petition was untrue, for there was actually an order of the
House dispensing with the attendance of the Judges. The
petition alleged that they had been discharged by the then
Lord Chancellor. The petitioner prayed that the appeal
might be heard on its merits. It was impossible that such
a course of proceeding could be taken. The whole of the
decisions in the books were against it : of the other facts he
knew nothing.
Lord WYNFORD would be the last person in the
world to ask their Lordships to do anything which would
be against the orders of the House. The petition referred
to his opinion on the case. He certainly had a very strong
opinion upon it, and adverse to the decision which had been
come to. Though be had been present at the bearing of the
case, the judgment was given without any intimation to him.
Lord LYNDHURST said a full year and a half had
expired between the hearing and the delivery of the judg-
ment by his Noble Friend (Lord Brougham.) If his No-
ble Friend (Wynford) was confined in the country by ill-
ness, that was no fault of any one's.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was aware that there
had a very considerable time elapsed between the hearing
and the decision. It had been so clearly laid down by the
Noble-and Learned Lord, that the cause could not be re-
heard, that it was unnecessary for him to say one word upon
the subject. But even if such a course were allowed to be
taken by the rules of the House, he would say that this was
a case in which it was necessary for them to look and pro-
ceed with great caution—in fact, the petition ought not to
be received, for it asked that the appeal be re-heard, because
it had not taken the precise course which the petitioner, who
was the disappointed party, thought was right. He had
had the cause decided against him ; he naturally felt sore
upon the subject, and now he came forward to say it was a
case which ought to have been heard before the Judges. If the
petition were riot received, he knew it. would be very
adverse to the feelings of his Noble Friend (Lord B.),
but he felt it his duty to state his feelings on the.matter.
It would be opening a door to litigation, which would-be
productive of very great inconvenience, if it was once inti-
mated that the judgment of that House was not final awl
conclusive.
Lord LvNnituasT and Lord Wysrean severally
posed the presentation of the petition. •
Lord HOLLAND said the petition was obiectionah:e
in point of form, if it came in the nature of an appeal fro n
tt:eir Lordr;hips'docision. What would be the consequeutT
of receiving such pap.srs? Why, that it would shake tLe
foundations of all property if they even.intitnated that th!y
could rehear a question of this sort.—( thought
the petition should be dismissed.
Lard KENYON agreed in the wisdom of not rehear-
ing a cause unless there were strong grounds for so doiug.
He did not think there 'could be any objection to the ri.7
ception of the petition, and he believed no reason could he
assigned for refusing to allow it to lie on the table. If
the question was now to be decided as to whether the peli-
-tion should be rejected or not, he was quite indifferent. lie
left the matter in their Lordships' hands.
The standing order relative to petitions ia cases of ap-
peal having been read by the Clerk,
Lord LYNDHURST contended that it would appear
from the order just read that the petition contained allega-
tions which were false, and therefore ought to be rejected.
Lord PLUNKETT said if there was any ground on the
merits of the question for rehearing it, the petition might
be entertained, but such was not the case in the present

instance.
Lord HOLLAND again suggested the propriety of
withdrawing, it.
Lord KENYON would yield to what appeared to he
the opinion of their Lordships, and consented to with-
draw it.

Mr. BERNAL and others from the Commons brought up
the Slave Compensation Amendment Act, and the Capital
Punishment Abolition Bill, which were severally read a
first time.

THE FACTORIES.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a peti-
tion, signed by 4,000 inhabitants of Oldham, in Lancashire,
complaining of the system adopted in the factories, and
praying some regulation relative to the hours of labour for
children employed therein. He believed the system adopted
was most pernicious to the health of the children, and lie
trusted that some measures would be adopted to put an end
to it.
The MOST REV. PRELATE then gave notice that on
Monday next he should move the second reading of Eccle-
siastical Leases Bill.
REDUCTION OF EMOLUMENT IN THE SEE

OF DURHAM.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY expressed his
hope that it was not contemplated by his Majesty's Go-
vernment to reduce the emoluments of this See, as the
Bishop was put to great expense in exercising the rites of
hospitality, having to entertain the Judges twice a year,
and to keep up two palaces in the county.
Viscount MELBOURNE begged to inform the Noble
Lord that the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
was that day signed and agreed to, and he trusted it would
prove satisfactory to the House.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSI ICE IN INDIA.
Lord GLENELG brought in a Bill to improve the Ad-
ministration of Justice in India.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, ilLißcu 4.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual time.
ALSTONFIELD ENCLOSURE BILL.
On the motion of Sir 0. MOSELEY this Bill was read
a second time.
LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE RAILWAY BILL.
On the motion of Mr. CAMPBELL this Bill was read
a second time.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY BILLS.
Lord G. LENNOX moved that the London and
Brighton Railway Bill (Stevenson's) be referred to the
Sussex list.
Captain ALSAGER perfectly agreed with the propo-
sal, and had no objection to refer to the same list also a
similar Railway Bill (Sir J. Rennie's) of which he had
charge.
The two Bills were accordingly referred to the Sussex
List.
Lord G. LENNOX presented a petition against Sir
J. Rennie's line of Railway. The Noble Lord did not men•
tipn the name of the place from whence the petition came