The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-19 00:00:00

TI-IE POOR RATES BILL.

The Duke of RICHMOND moved that the House resolve
itself into a Committee upon this Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON wished to propose the
postponement of the Bill till to-morrow. With regard to the
payment of rates by clergymen, it was important, before they
adopted the measure, that they should ascertain clearly how
the law at present stood in that respect, because he understood
that they were not now liable to pay rates by a rack-rent, as
proposed by the present Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND expressed his perfect readiness
to postpone the measure to any day which might be most con-
venient to the Noble Duke.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY concurred in the
suggestion of the Noble Duke.
After some observations from Lord FALMOUTH, the Bill
was postponed till to-morrow.
The Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Bill was read a first time.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at a quarter past eight
o'clock.

HOUSE OF -COMMONS, JULY 18.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at 4 o'clock.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from Marylebone, com-
plaining of the state of the law relative to licensing ale-houses.

METROPOLITAN CEMETERY BILL.

Captain AL SAGER brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the South Metropolitan Cemetery Bill.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON stated that in consequence of
some of the clauses of the Bill having been modified, he
should withdraw his opposition to it, at the same time stating
that he entertained for its obnoxious provisions his original
disgust.

Mr. BA INE S thought there' would be no difficulty in
interring Dissenters in this ground. He hoped, therefore,
that all objections would be done away with.
Dr, BO WRING said that a great part of his opposition
had been removed by the modification of the clause. He
must, however, be allowed again to repeat, that he entertained
great objections to the distinctions that existed with reference
to the interment of Dissenters and Churchmen.

After some observations from Mr. WILKs, Sir R. INGLIs,
and Mr. BARNARD, the Report was received.
Mr. HAWES brought up the Report of the Committee on
the Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension Bridge.

TRINITY (LEITH) HARBOUR.
Sir A. L. HAY moved the second reading of the Trinity
(Leith) Harbour Bill.
Sir G. CLERK was sorry to be obliged again to trouble
the House, but as the promoters of the Bill had chosen to put
forward as a ground for its support, that the clause which led to
its rejection or withdrawal from the House of Lords was
inserted by him ( Sir George Clerk), he felt it necessary
to explain. The Honourable Baronet here read a copy of
a circular requesting the attendance of Hon. Members to sup-
port the second reading of the Bill that evening, in conse-
quence of the avowed determination of Sir G. Clerk to oppose
the Bill in all its stages, although the clause which led to its
withdrawal from the House of Lords had been inserted by Sir
George himself. He (Sir G. Clerk) would shew that the
whole of the statements in that note were false.—( Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Baronet here entered into a statement re-
lative to a clause which had been introduced for the regu-
lation of the duties which were to be levied upon vessels,
and contended that the promoters of the Bill alone were an-
swerable for the clause which they now found objectionable.
In fact, when the present Bill went before the House of
Lords, the absurdity was so evident that they found it neces-
sary, in order to render it intelligible, to withdraw the clause
for the present. He would conclude by asking the House
whether, in this instance, where the parties had made a blun-
der of their own Bill, they were to grant an unusual inclul-

Nl._ %

gence ?--and whether it was right, for that purpose, to establish
a precedent? He hoped the House would do no such thing.
After a few words from the SPEAKER, the purport of which
could only be gathered from what followed,
Sir A. L, HAY then said, Sir, am Ito understand that
this Bill cannot with propriety be read a second time ? The
House was aware this was a Bill which had been discussed,
and examined into, by a great majority of the House. It was
aware also of the pecitliar circumstances under which the
Bill had been brought back to the House.—( Hear, hear.)
The Bill was nor a Bill which had been re-intro-
duced, after having been rejected by the other House on
its merits, was introduced in conformity to the amend-
ments of the other House, and therefore he did not con-
ceive that the Honourable Baronet could with propriety
call upon the House to oppose the second reading. The Bill
would be a great improvement to Scotland, and was of great
importance to the United Kingdom. He must say that he
considered the opposition to it most unjustifiable.
Mr. WILK S had enquired of the agents of the Bill, and
found that it was precisely the same as it had passed from the
Committee of the Lords.
Mr. .HUME hoped that, as the Bill had undergone such
an ordeal, it would now be allowed to pass.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the Bill an un-
exampled outrage on private property.
The SPEAKER enquired whether there was r. printed Bill
in the hands of Hon. Members ?
Sir A. L. HAY said there was not.
The SPEAKER said, if that was the case, the Hon. Mem-
ber could not move the second reading of the Bill.
Sir A. L. HAY then said he would withdraw his motion
for the second reading for that day, and give notice for to-
morrow.

Sir G. CLERK said he had procured copies of the Bill, in
which there were several differences.
Sir A. LEITH HAY would not press the Bill, if, after
having it printed and put into the hands of Hon. Members,
such a measure was now deemed informal. On the contrary,
if that objection was obviated, he should certainly take the
sense of the House upon it.
Mr. WALLACE contended that the House was perfectly
in a condition to go on with the second reading of the Bill.
Sir A. L. HAY would now move that the Bill be read a
second time.'- •

The SPEAKER doubted whether, consistently with the
standing orders of the House, such a course could be taken.
Sir A. L. HAY observed that in many cases the standing
orders had been dispensed with ; but, in his opinion, it would
be better to avoid such a proceeding. If, however, the oppo-
sition was persevered in, he should move that the standing
orders be suspended.
After a pause, the Hon. Baronet again rose, and said he
should withdraw the motion till to-morrow.—(Laughter from
the Opposition Benches.)
A short discussion then took place, between Mr. STEWART
M‘KENZIE, Sir G. CLERK, and Sir A. L. HAY.
After a few words from the SPEAKER, which were not audi-
ble in the Gallery, the Bill was read a second time, and ordered
to be committed on Friday next.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MR. CUNDY.

Captain PECHEL L wished to know what course the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) intended to adopt in this
case.

Mr. W YNN could not answer the question until he heard
what Mr. Cundy had to say for himself.—( Hear hear.) This
was a charge of a most serious nature against a member of that
House.

Mr. HUME said that if they brought to the bar of the
House any.person in England, Scotland, and Ireland, that made
statements against individual Members of that House, they
would have enough to do.
Sir C. BURRELL would, with the permission of the
House, state the circumstances that had induced him to
make a complaint to that House. On being first informed
by Mr. Bennett of the statement that had been made by Mr.
Cundy, he told Mr. Bennett that it was absolutely untrue, and
that he would make a point of going to Mr. Cundy and de-
manding an explanation. He saw Mr. Cundy in the House
of Lords, and said to him, " How dared you to say to
Mr. Bennett that I was influenced by a bribe of
15,0001. to give my support to Mr. Stephenson's line ?"
Mr. Cundy at first denied having said so, but he (Sir C. B.)
then said, " Mr. Bennett is a man of two much honour to mis-
represent any thing you said, and therefore it is impossible but
that you must have said something of the sort." Here-
upon Mr. Cundy said, " Sir, I did not say so, but I said
that I had heard other persons say so." He (Sir Charles
Burrell) then said, " Mr. Cundy, you have no right to
disparage the character of another man, by making charges
against him, without first ascertaining whether or not
they are founded in fact ; and I should be serving you rightly
if I have you brought to the Bar of the House of Commons ;
and if he repeated anything to his (Sir Charles Burrell's)
prejudice, the consequences would be on his own head."
Those were the words, as near as he recollected. He had
only done his duty to the House and his own character in
bringing forward this subject.—( Hear.) He did not care
who impugned his conduct, whether simple or gentle; he was
ready to meet him, whether in the House or out of the House,
and he called for the fullest inquiry into the matter.--( Hear. )
Mr. lIUME considered that, after the declaration of the
Hon. Baronet, it would be impossible to do otherwise than to
wit in Mr. Goody.
The Sergeant at Arms, by order of the Speaker, brought Mr
Cundy to th Bar, who, on being examined by the Speaker, said
his name was Nicholas Wilcox Cundy, and was a civil engi-
neer. Had been employed in making a survey for a level road
between London and Brighton. Had never solicited any
Member of the House for his attendance. Had had some
conversation with Mr. I3ennett on the subject of a Rail-road
called the South Western Railway. About 14 or 15 days ago
he called upon Mr. Bennett, upon the subject of the South
Western Railway, when a conversation was commenced by
Mr. Bennett as to the resistance of the landowners generally
upon the line. There was some reference made to the
large remuneration which several landowners were to receive.
He had a conversation with Mr. Bennett relative to the remu-
neration which Sir C. Burrell was to receive. The substance
of that conversation was contained in a paper which he held
in his hand, and which he would submit to be read by the
Clerk.—( Cries of " Read," and " No.")
In answer to questions from Mr. HUME, the witness said
he had drawn up the statement contained in the paper that
day. The conversation he had had with Mr. Bennett was
elicited from him, and he had been asked if he had heard of
the large remuneration the landed proprietors were to receive.
He (witness) replied that he had. lie commenced with the
Brighton end, and stated it was reported Sir C. Burrell was to
receive 15,0001. as compensation. That he had stated from re-
port, not from any certain information of his own. The report
was published in the Brighton papers, and conveyed to the public
generally through the press. He had mentioned the names
of other landed proprietors, not Members of that House. He
had said that Sir C. Burrell appeared to take great interest
in the matter, in favour of Stephenson's line. He had a note
from Sir C. Burrell, which he would read to the House.—
(Cries of " Read, read.")
Sir. C. BURRELL had not the least objection to the note
being read, but it had no reference to the matter. Witness
The report first appeared in the Brighton Gazette, five or six
weeks ago.
In answer to questions from Mr. GORING and Mr.
ROBINSON, witness said that he had never stated
that the majority in favour of Stephenson's line were influ-
enced by improper motives. Sir C. Burrell had spoken to
him rather warmly in the lobby of the House of Lords about the
remuneration which he had stated him to have received. He
cannot say whether Sir C. Burrell denied having received it or not.
Witness subsequently went toMr. Bennett, and reminded him
that he had only mentioned the matter, without vouching for its
truth. If the House would appoint a Committee to enquire into
this subject, he would treat the Order of the House with all re-
spect and attention, and would appear and give all the evi-
dence he could respecting this question.
Mr. HUME—Mr. Cundy had already said that he knew
nothing of the subject, and that he merely repeated reports
he had seen elsewhere.
Sir C. BURRELL hoped Mr. Benett's letter would be
read and contrasted with the answers of the prisoner. The
agentsof the Railroad Company were ready to prove the un-
truth of the statement.
Captain PECHE LL said there was nothing for the House
to animadvert upon. Mr. Cundy fully de&ad having made
the accusation. Mr. Cundy was an iti-used man ; his line of
road was adopted under the name of 'Mr. Stephenson's line,
under certain modifications and slight changes, and it was na-
tural for him to feel a little irritability. The House should
consider this. The Hon. Baronet ought to make a little al-
lowance. He himself was frequently maligned for his support
of measures, yet he did not consider it necessary to drag his
accusers before that House.

Sir R. PEEL thought the House were travelling out of
the question. The prisoner utterly denied having made the
charges against his Right Hon. Friend ; there he thought the
matter should end.

Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet,
and would therefore move thut, as the Hon. Member was fully
acquitted. the Orders of the Day be now read.
Mr. W YNN thought, as there was a flat contradiction in
the letter of Mr. Benett to the explanation of the prisoner,
the proceedings should be suspended till the Hon. Member
appeared in his place, and either corroborated or retracted his

accusation against the prisoner.
Mr. HARDY said that Mr. Benett, by the denial of the
prisoner, was evidently charged with untruth ; he should,
therefore, be called on to vindicate himself.

Sir T. TROUB RIDGE said that all the members of the
Committee, himself among the rest, were involved in the ac-
cusation; be would, therefore, move that the letter of Mr.
Benett be read in the hearing of Mr. Cumly, and- that Ir. be
again recalled to reply to its statements.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would move as an amendment
that the Orders of the Day be read.

After some further conversation, in which Lord Castlereagh,
Sir George Strickland, Sir John Campbell, and Lord George
Lonnox joined, the House divided, when there appeared--
For the motion
For the amendment .
Majority 58
On the motion that the House resolve itself into Com-
mittee upon the Stamp Duties Bill,
Sir CHARLES KNIGHTLEY was understood to aQ;
whether it was the intention of Government to reduce the
duty on soap

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
it was not the intention at present.

NEWSPAPER COPYRIGHT.
Sir R. INGLIS said, that as the House was about to go
into Committee c n the Stamp Duties Bill, he wished to ask
the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the E,(rtiequer whether he
was prepared with a clause in order to secure the copyright of
articles of intelligence, leading articles, and parliamentary
debates to the proprietors of the newspapers ? He thought it