The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-22 00:00:00

that he had been disappointed in such a hope, for he was now
obliged to abandon all intention of originating any mea-
sure in the present Session.—( Hear.) Whether he would be
induced to bring in a Bill to extend the powers and relieve the
restrictions which now pressed upon the heirs of entail in
possession in Scotland, depended upon the wishes of those
who were interested in the question, and whether he thought
he could surmount the difficulties which surrounded the ques-

tion.
Lord PLUNKETT brought in a Bill for amending the
Laws of Bankruptcy in Ireland. He would oniy say that the
objects of the Bill were to consolidate the Laws in
Ireland which extended over a great number of
Acts—to assimilate the practice of the two countries,
to extend to Ireland the improvements which had been intro-
duced in this country by the 3d of George IV., and the Ist
and 2d of William IV. There were at present 2.5 Commis-
sioners in Ireland—the Bill proposed to abolish the whole of
them, and entrust the working of the Bankruptcy Laws to one
Commissioner. He would on the 2d reading of the Bill, state
the details of the Bill at length.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented a petition
from the owners and occupiers of ecclesiastical property in
Somersetshire, praying that the Bill for amending the law
with regard to the renewal of leases of such property, might
not pass into a law.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER could not help expressing
his surprise that such a petition should have been pre-
sented in the absence of the most Reverend Prelate who
had charge of the Bill.—(Hear.) It was was well known
that the Bill emanated from the Church Commissioners, and
he denied that it, would do more than modify some great
abuses which bad arisen from the present state of the law.
—( Hvar, bear.) He did not think that the petition was
either modest or reasonable, for it would not interfere in any
way with the fair rights of any one connected with such pro-

perty.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS said if he bad not
presented the petition now he would not have been able to do
ii, for he mas obliged to leave town on very important busi-
ness, lie thought the prayer of the petition was both fair and
and reasonable ; for if the Bill passed, the occupier of any Ec-
clesiastical leasehold property could not get his son's life in-
serted, which would be a great detriment to the public.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER defended the Bill. Was
it fair that the incumbent of any living should, just when
when leaving it, grant a renewal of a lease for young lives in
place of old ones, by which the property was rendered value-
less to three or four of his successors.
On the motion of Lord G LENELG the Report on the
Administration of Justice in the West Indies Bill was brought
up. and agreed to.—To be read a third time on Thursday.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from the prisoners confined for debt in Whitecross street
prison, praying for the abolition of imprisonment for debt.
As some measure on the subject was to be introduced this
Session, and as the petition was short, he moved that the
petition be read by the clerk.
On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY the House
then adjourned to Thursday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes to four o'clock
Mr. G. F. YOUNG presented a petition against the Sear
borough harbour Bill ; and one from an individual against the
North Midland Railway Bill.
Mr. CRAWFORD presented a petition from Edward Roy-
croft against Stevenson's Brighton Railway Line.
EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY HALL.
On the motion of Lord HENNIKER, the East Suffolk
County Hall Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from Worcester
against the British Alkali Company. • '
HUNGERFORD MARKET.
Ilia Hos.- MEMBER then brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Hungerford Market Bill, and obtained leave to
bring in a Bill to altcr.and enlarge the powers of that Company.
• MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Mr. GLADSTONE presented petitions from Market-
Harborough, and other places in North Leicestershire, against
certain clauses in the Midland Counties Railway Bill.
Sir G. CREWE presented a petition from Robert Ark-
wright, Esq., against the Midland Counties Railway.
• TRALEE HARBOUR.
M. O'CONNELL brought in a Bill for making a liar.
bour and navigable canal at Tralec, in the county of Kerry.
Mr. DUGDALE presented a petition against the Grand
Junction Railway Bill.
LANARKSHIR.E ROADS.
Oa the motion of Mr. JOHN MAXWELL, the Lanark-
shire Roads Bill was read a second time.
• Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from Brixton, against
Rennie's Brighton Railway Line. .
FAMILY ENDOWMENT SOCIETY.
On the motion of Mr. TOOKE the Family Endowment
Society Bill was read a second time.
Mr. HA L FORD presented a petition against the Midland
Counties Railway Bill.
On'the motion of Mr. lIINDLEY the Hyde Small Debts
Bill was read a second time.
Sir E. KNATC lIBUL L presented a petition from the
trustees of a road in Kent, against the DJvcr Railway BM. •
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Drogheda
in favour of the Drogheda Railway B;11.
On the motion of Mr. ANGERSTEIN the Greenwich
Pier Bill was read a second time.
Mr. :11ALLIBU_RTON brought up the Report of the
Committee on the Dnndce and Arbroath Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. PE NDA RYE S the Cornwall Assize
Hail Bill was real a third time and passed.
Mr. P. STEW ART presented a petition signed by 107 of
the most eminent commercial men in London in favour of the
Commercial Railway to Blackwall.
General PALMER presented a petition from Bath against
the Cheltenham and Great Western Railwa,y Bill.
Mr. WASLEV presented a petition from an individual
sytrued Henry Cook, comi)laining of the conduct of the °al-
-1 cers of the South Western Railway, and praying to be heard
before the Committee by counsel. _ _. _

• Mr. HUME thought the House would not do its duty if it
referred this petition to the Committee. Their powers were
ciready large enough. If the Committee did their duty, they
would aszertain whether the shares were bowl fide subscribed
for. Whatever stock-jobbing had taken place between icdi-
vidaTh, thought that the House -Of Commons would net
entertain it.
Mr. GISBORN E said that the petitioner did not pretend
to be affected by the line of Railway against which he was pe-
titioning, and that was one of the principal grounds why the
House ought not to interfere.
EDINBURGH POOR LAW BILL.
On the-motion of Mr. CHALMERS, this Bill was read a
second time and ordered to be committed.
LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY.—DE-
FALCATION OF SUB-CONTRACTORS.

Colonel SIBTIIORPE presented a petition from between
80 and 90 persons employed on the London and Birmingham
Railway, paying the House to make some provisions by which
the proprietors of railways would be made answerable for the
conduct of their servants. The petitioners had been employed
on the London and Birmingham Railway, and in consequence
of two of the sub-contractors having absconded they had been
mulcted of their wages. The Hon. and Gallant Member moved
that the petition-should be referred to the Committee on the
London and Birmingham Railway.
Mr. HUME said that there was an Act in existence for the
very purpose which the petition had in view, which provided
in the case of masters and workmen making contracts, a speedy
mode to make them fulfil them. If the petitioners were ag-
grieved, they might have the parties before a Magistrate, in a
summary way. As to the petition being referred to the Corn-
mittee, he would venture to say, that if it was, "they would be
able to do nothing with it.
Mr. ROBINSON thought the case was one for the Court
below.
Colonel SIBTIIORP said such a course might do for some
parties; but if the petitioners knew as much of law as he did,
he was sure they would never go to a Court of Law upon the
subject.—( Laughter.)
Mr. C. BRUCE presented a petition from an individual
against the Forfar Railway Bill.
MANCHESTER AND STOCKPORT RAILWAY.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition from certain in-
dividuals in Manchester against the Manchester and Stockport
Railway Bill.
Mr. BERNARD presented petitions from Woolwich and
Dartford against the South Eastern Railway Bill.
LONDON AND CROYDON RAILROAD.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from a company of proprie-
tors of the London and Croydon Railroad, stating that there
was a Bill in progress through that House which would inter-
fere with the track of their railway, and praying to be heard by
counsel against such Bill.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM presented a petition from the
master, mates, and:seamen of the ship Dundee, praying'kthe sea-
men might not be prohibited from insuring their wages.
STAMP DUTIES. _ _

The same Hon. Member presented a petition from Cole (as
we heard it) signed by 2,834 persons, praying for the total
abolition of the stamp duty on newspapers.
ABOLITION OF TITHES.
Mr. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from the city of
Cork, praying for the total abolition of Tithes. . Also a pe-
tition from the same place, praying that the general Turnpike
Trust Bill might not be renewed.
IRISH CORPORATIONS.
The same Honourable Meniber bad another petition to
to present from a parish in the city of Cork, which was signed
by 700 inhabitant householders of that city, convened by pub-
lic advertisement, and praying for corporate reform. The
petitioners stated that if a qualification of 1,000/. were re-
quiredfor Town Councillors, it would greatly prevent the good
effects of the Bill. He would take that opportunity of stating,
although the Honourable Member for Bandon was absent,
yet as he had given him notice that he had to make
a remark on a statement made to the House by that
Hon. and Learned Member, and as no opportunity had before
offered itself to him to make that statement, he felt himself
bound to address a few words to the House before the Bill
should have gone into Committee. The Hon. and Learned
Member (Mr. Jackson) might know a great deal about Ban-
don, but he could not know the city of Cork as well as those
Members who represented it. The Hon. and - Learned
Member had stated that there were not less that six hun-
dred inhabitant voters who could not write their own
names. He was authorised to state that the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bandon was greatly mistaken. The statement
was altogether erroneous, and the House would form a very
erroneous notion of the constituency of the City of Cork from
the statement of the Member for Bandon. If the qualification
were 51. instead of 101., there would be a very respectable and
intelligent constituencCHy.
URCH RATES.
Mr. J. FIELDEN presented a petition from Rsochdale