The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON , SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1838.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 9.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four. o'clock.
Mr. P. HOWARD brought in the Newcastle-on-Tyne,
and Carlisle Railway Bill, which was read a first time.
Mr. PRINGLE presented a petition in favour of the Edin-
burgh and Glasgow Railway Bill.

THE' BALLOT.
Captain PE C HELL had a petition to present upon the
subject which was mentioned last night, and in justice to the
Post-office, he was bound to state, that he had not made the
complaint which was attributed to him in some of the reports.
He had not said, that the petition sent to him by post had
been detained by the postman, because he had not the pos-
tage, and he hoped this contradiction would be made public.
The petition was signed by 2,000 inhabitants of Brighton,
amongst whom were several Magistrates, Clergymen, and Na-
val and Military Officers, and other most respectableinha-
bitants of that town. The petition. was in favour of the
Ballot, and it originated with the Committee which
sat for two months to devise means by which voters
might be protected ; and if he were not prevented
by the new forms of the House he would move
that it be read by the clerk at the table, as it came from
a class of persons who had not before interested themselves
in favour of that measure.
Mr. BRODIE presented a petition also in favour of the
Ballot from Salisbury.

petition of that sort. As there seemed to be considerable
doubt upon the question he trusted that the House would be
favoured with the opinion of the Speaker upon it.
The SPEAKER had no difficulty in stating the opi-
nion he entertained upon the question. When there was
any doubt he was always disposed to give it in favour of the
reception of the petition. If no notice had been taken of the
petition, lie would not have considered it his duty to have
called the attention of the House to any thing it contained.
By a certain train of reasoning, the petition certainly im-
plied that a certain class of Members in that House had
violated an oath ; but then the House ought to remember that
it was a mere matter of opinion, and rested entirely upon the
view or interpretation which the different parties put upon
the oath. As his opinion had been called for, he would state
that there was one objection to the petition which had not
been mentioned. It was the rule that no petition was received
which complained or took notice of any statements or
proceeding which had taken place within that House.
The petition before the House alluded to proceedings
which had taken place within that House, and complained of
the conduct of certain Members. It then became a question
whether by receiving it they would not tend to open the door
for complaints being made of the manner in which Members
performed their duty.
Mr. BARRON hoped the Hon. Member for Finsbury
would withdraw his opposition to the reception of this
petition. He was one of the parties against whom
the vile slanders had been made, and he despised them.
They etstild afford to be slandered; and he for his part was
always anxious that discussion should be had on these subjects.
He stood there in defence of his honesty, his opinion, and the
construction of the oaths he had taken ; and he thought he was
as capable of putting a construction on them as any man
in or out of that House. He courted investigation, and
defied the calumnies, the slanders, and falsehoods put forth
on this occasion. He could say that he had acted conscien-
tiously, and as an honest man, in the votes he had given, and
which were alluded to in the petition. He also believed that
every man on his side of the House could say, with similar
feelings of indignation and of honesty, that he had acted
from pure principles, and that he looked with the utmost
scorn and contempt on the calumnies of individuals who
dared to impute to them base falsehoods, treachery to
their constituents and their country, and forgetfulness of the
oaths they had taken at the table of the House.—( Hear.)
He flung back with indignation, in the :teeth of the
petitioners the base calumnies—they were totally ground-
less and totally unfounded—but at the same time he
hoped the House would not reject the petition, because he was
at all times anxious that the petitions of all classes of her
Majesty's subjects, from the highest to the lowest—from the
most instructed to the most ignorant—from the most pre-
judiced and violent bigots to the most enlightened in
the kingdom, should at all times be laid before that House.
It was only by hearing opinions on all sides that the truth
could be arrived at. If it came to a division, he should vote
for the reception of the petition. He interpreted the oath he
had taken as it had been acted on by the members of the
Protestant Church—aye, and by the Dignitaries of the Church
who had voted on questions relating to the Church with him,
and who had adopted the same opinion of Protestant interest
that he had adopted. He conscientiously believed, and was
morally convinced, that in voting as he had voted on these
questions, he had voted with the real friends of the Church of
England, and had consulted its true interests.—( Hear.)
In his (Mr. Barron's) opinion, the gentlemen on the opposite
side of the House, who prided themselves on being the only
friends of the Church, showed themselves by their actual con-
duct to be its greatest enemies. Every thing they did for the
je
hatreduprt i 000unf s
theotfo pt herthe
eo realple
purpose
interest,He repeated,a°nfdse calculatedserving
gt
theh e shouldtCohbnc bring
uowiainf for et
ru
theathl eyrei
pe-
tition, and he was desirous to have the fullest inquiry into
every part of his conduct to which the slanders and calumnies
of the petitioners applied.
Mr. M.LE AN said that, on looking at the petition, ho
could not help calling the attention of the House to the facts
stated in it.--( Hear. ) The Hon. Member was interrupted by
Mr. O'CONNELL, who said—Will the Hon. Member
allow me to say that my Hon. Friend the Member for Fins-
bury has consented to withdraw his motion.
The petition was then laid on the table.
THE BALLOT.

Mr. HE ATHCOTE presented aPetition from Tiverton in
favour of the Ballot.
POST-HORSE DUTIES.

Mr. PARKERp;e;edapctition from the coachmasters
of the West Riding of Yorkshire against the Post-horse Duties

THE GLASGOW COTTON SPINNERS.

Mr. WAK LEY presexted a petition from Edinburgh, pray-
ing the interference of the House for a commutation of the
sentence upon the Glasgow Cotton-spinners; and also stating
that the indictment upon which those men had been convicted,
was not according to law. The Hon. Member presented a similar
petition from Mr. Geo. Edmonds, of London, attorney-at-law.
The Hon. Member presented three other petitions to the same
effect—one from Dundi'e ; one from another piece in Scot.
land, the name of which see did not hear; and:one from the
operative cutlers of London. The Honourable Member
then presented a similar petition from Manchester, signed,
within a very short time. by upwards of 18,000 per-
sons.—( Hear.) As he would bring forward a motion on
this snbject upon Tuesday next, he would not now dilate
upon it, thinking that it was always better to discuss a
subject- in that House on a regular motion, than upon the
presentation of petitions. He would, however, remind the
House that he had been prevented from presenting a petition,
a short time since, because it contained an expression which
it was thought might be offensive to the other House of Par-
linnictit—that expression being that there was a " rabble
of Lords"—the petitioners not stating that the House of
Lords was that " rabble," nor that the Lords in their
legislative capacity had done any thing to deserve
such an appellation. The Honourable Baronet the Member
for Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) had said that he
(Mr. W.) paid great attention to petitions. Certainly no
man in that House was more attentive to petitions, or the bu-
siness of the House than himself (Mr. W.) But those who
were in the habit of presenting their petitions through him to
that House had never imputed to the Gentlemen opposite the
crime of perjury, though they used the homely language of
truth, lie hoped, therefore, that in future no hypercriticism
would be exercised, on the other side of the House, upon the
language of petitions presented by the Liberal Members.
TRADES' COMBINATIONS.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from near 4,000
of the inhabitants of Dublin, signed by the Mayor, the Sheriffs,
several Aldermen, and numbers of person.; differing from him in
politics and religion, complaining of the illegal combinations of
workmen in the city of Dublin, which had produced a variety
of outrages and several murders. He was sorry neither of
the Members for the University of Dublin ( Mr. Shaw and
Dr. Lefroy) were present. He moved that the petition be
printed, to meet the motion of his Honourable Friend (Mr.
Wakley. ) Ordered to be printed.
Mr. 11 UTTON said he had looked over the signatures of
the petition, and they included the names of persons in every
station—of every religion, profession, and political opinion.
No subji et could be of more importance than that to which the
petition related It had occupied the attention of the llouso
many years ago, but no measures were taken to follow it up.
He hoped that the prayer of the petition would be complied
with by the House, and that an enquiry would be granted on
a basis suited to the importance and magnitude of the subject.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be
printed with the votes. _ _ .

Mr. NV. BUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
Dean and Chapter of York, complaining of certain clauses in
the Act relating to the Registration of Births, Deaths, and
Marriages; also a Petition from the same body relative to the
Tithe Commutation Act. The Hon. Member presented also
a petition from the Stage-coach Proprietors and Post masters
of the city of York, praying for a reduction of the duty on
post-horses.
Mr. LO\VTHER presented a petition from the city of
York, complaining of the clause obliging parties to give notice
in case of the registry of births.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented petitions from the towns of
Reading and Newbury, in the county of Berks against the
abolition of the See of Sodor and Man.

Mr. DENNISON presented a petition from Rye, in favour
of the Vote by Ballot; and a petition from the same place,
praying the House to re-consider the Poor-law Amendment
Act, and make such Amendments therein, as might appear
necessary.
THE DANISH CLAIMS _ .

Mr. CRESSWELL presented a petition from several in-
dividuals, praying for compensation for the losses sustained by
them, by the capture of their vessels by the Danes in 1807.
The Hon. Member moved that the petition be printed with the
rotes, and gave notice, that he intended on Tuesday the 23d
of February, to call th• attention of the House to the subject.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from Liverpool, signed
by Lbw persons, praying the House to reject the Bill for
rating landlords of small tenements. The Hon. Member also
ISD:pmTrDaaagEyilalNiUindngGAestbTßftosT a reduction of the duty on plate and
presented a petition in favour of the summary process for the
presented a petition from the Marquis
the Belfast Water Works Bill.
N presented a petition from the City
Mr. PE ASE presented a petition from the county of Dur-
ham, for the abolition of the negro system of apprenticeship.
Mr. BUL L E R.yreseated twill petitions to the same effect.
recovery:
ff
crown‘MDi r
nlegDublin,o.ga
glass.