The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-21 00:00:00

carried into law, it will merely have the effect of
alienating from the Ministry the confidence of the
people, and giving to the Tories an opportunity, when
a more equitable system is proposed, of exclaiming,
" You are never satisfied. We consider the question
to be finally settled. There is no limit to the de-
mands of Reformers," and, like Hamlet stopping
short in apprehension of the ghost, protesting, "we
shall go no farther." For these reasons we should
strongly recommend the measure to be postponed. The
people will not, ought not to be satisfied with it ; and
in plain truth, the Ministers incur suspicion and odium
in making themselves instruments to carry into effect
propositions avowedly emanating from their opponents.
We beg to direct our readers to an excellent com-
mentary on this subject, published in our paper of this
day, from our uncompromising contemporary The Sun.
Morning Advertiser.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

(THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual time.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the Lords'
Amendments to this Bill were agreed to.
DUDLEY VICARAGE BILL.
Mr. HALSE brought up the report of the Committee
on this Bill.

SEE OF DURHAM.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Billington, in the county palatine of Durham,
praying that the revenues of the See of Durham might not,
be alienated, but that they might be applied to the aug-
mentation of small livings within the Diocese. The Hon.
Member said he had another petition to present of a rather
unusual character, to which he prayed the particular atten-
tion of the House. It was the petition of an individual of
the name of John Bellamy, of Wells-street, Gray's Inn-
road, and the petitioner stated that having witnessed the
effect of certain Deistical writings, and having given his
attention for years to the study of the Hebrew language, he,
with the approbation oflearned bishops anddivines, undertook
to translate the Scriptures from the Hebrew—the present
authorised version not having been translated from the
Hebrew but from other translations. The petitioner stated
that he had been constantly occupied for a period of forty-
eight years in this work—that he has translated the whole
of the Bible, from Genesis and Malachi, and that a consi-
derable portion of the work had been printed and published.
He stated that the objections of the Deists had no founda-
tions as regarded the original text—that they were founded
on mistranslation and misrepresentation, and the petitioner
here cited a great number of passages, and contrasted his
translation with the authorised version, but with these he
would not trouble the House. The petitioner stated that
the original work was in strict accordance with the laws
of nature—that no one part of the Scriptures in the original
contradicted another—that God was not inconsistent with
himself in sanctioning at one time what he prohibited at
another, and that in no way did the Scriptures sanction
polygamy, adultery, incest, robbery, or crime of any other
description ; and he vindicated the characters of Noah,
Abraham, and Lot, and the other worthies of Scripture,
and these he conceived were most important truths at the
present day. The petitioner went on to state that lie did
not hope that his translation would be allowed to take place
of the authorised version, but as it had been made directly
from the Hebrew text, he hoped that in any version of the
Scriptuaes his translation would be taken into consideration.
Ile hoped that Parliament would receive his statements as
not unworthy of attention in a national point of view. He
(Mr. Brotherton) had felt it his duty to present this petition
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Sir A. L. HAY presented a petition from Banff regret-
ing that justice had not been done to Ireland with regard
to her Municipal Corporations, and praying the House to
introduce, as speedily as possible, a measure based upon
the same principles as that which they had passed this ses-
sion.

OMNIBUSSES.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from George
Shillibeer, stating that in consequence of the defective state
of the law regarding vehicles, he had sacrificed upwards of
10,000/., and praying the interference of the House, in
order that such laws might be made as would protect the
property of individuals, and secure the public. The petition
stated that in order to do this it was necessary that the
police ;should have more extensive power. He (Dr.
Bowrin.,) was of opinion that the more the Legislature in-
terfered in matters of this description the less would be the
public convenience.

The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member could not enter
into any details on the presentation of the petition.
Dr. BO WRI NG had also a petition to present from the
Town Council of Dunbarton, approving of the plan of
Scotch Municipal Reform. The Hon. Member gave no-
tice that to-morrow he should present a petition from Hugh
Craig, of Kilmarnock, complaining of the conduct of the
Scotch Church, in dismissing him from the office of Elder,
for presiding at a public meeting, praying for a separation
of Church and State.

Mr. HUME gave notice that he should to-morrow pre-
sent a petition, from an individual complaining of very
oppressive conduct pursued towards him by the Scotch
Church.

DUBLIN POST-OFFICE.
Mr. WI LKS presented a petition of which he had
given notice, from C. D. Devitt, for 17 years employed in
the General Post-office, Dublin. The petitioner had in
1829 discovered some frauds which were practised by his
superiors in office to the amount of 5,0001., of which he had
immediately given notice to his superiors, and Lords Ross
and O'Neil, the Post-Nlasters General for Ireland. A pro-
secution was directed—one of the parties absconded to
America, and the other was convicted and sentenced to
seven years' tranportation. Efforts had been maF.e to im-
pute impropriety to the petitioner ; but he had obtained a
certificate from the judges who had tried the case, bearing
testimony to his disinterestedness. Nothwithstanding which
he bad been in the year 1835 dismissed without notice.
His wife was the keeper of a receiving-house in Dublin,
from which she also was discharged. She died of a broken
heart in the course of a year, and the petitioner, after
seventeen years' faithful and honest service, was turned out
on the world with ten children to support. Ile had now
been struggling nearly four years in order to receive jus-
tice, which bad been advocated by all parties, by Lord
Oxmantown, the son of Lord Ross, who was one of the
Postmasters-General at the time ; by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin University ( Mr. Shaw), and by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. O'Connell)—all par-
ties advocated his claims. In Aug., 1835, the Treasury took
the case into their consideration, and stated, that upon in-
vestigation they found that the petitioner had been accom-
modated with sums of money according to the practice of
the Irish Post-office, and that he must either have connived
at the irregularity or was ignorant of his duty ; but that they
would allow him what arrears of pay were due to him at the
time of his dismissal. That was contrary to the testimony
of the superiors in the office of the joint Postmasters-General
of Ireland, and of the Judges who tried the case to which al-
lusion had been made. He had sometimes received advances
of money on account of the current quarter, which was the
universal practice in the office. The judges were of
opinion, and successive postmasters were of opinion, that
the petitioner was entitled to great credit, and that he
had been made a victim for having come forward
and exposed to the country a most nefarious fraud.
Under these circumstances, he was surely entitled
to a pension, and to the receipt of the balance of 561.
But notwithstanding this minute of the Treasury, he had
never received it ; he had applied to the Treasury, they
had referred him to the Post-office, and they had referred
him to the Irish Post-office. Under these circumstances,
it was impossible that things could remain in their present
state. In his opinion, it was not only a matter of individual
justice, but ofjustice to all persons who might be placed in such
a state of circumstances. He would, therefore, now move
that the petition should be brought up and read, and on
Friday next, he should move for the papers necessary to
substantiate the statements in the petition, and for the ap.
pointment of a Select Committee thereon.
The SPEAKER thought the petition was irregular as
money was asked for by it. There was no rule more clear
than that no petition could be received that ap-
plied for money, without the sanction of the House.
It was true, that in the present petition, the word
money was carefully kept out of the paper ; but still the
statements and substance of the petition was to apply for
money. He thought peculiar caution ought to be exer-
cised on receiving the petition. Great laxity had been ex-
ercised on the subject ; but be thought the House ought
to revise the rule which till latterly had strictly been
adhered to.

Mr. WILKS said the prayer of the petition was for a
public investigation into circumstances that were necessary
for the protection of his character, as the petitioner con-
tended he had been dismissed without any cause.
The SPEAKER said, if the petition was received, it
must be upon the understanding that money should be ex-
cluded.—(Hear, hear.) The petition was then brought up
and read.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER con-
ceived that every subject of the realm who felt
that he had been aggrieved by a decision of any
part of his Majesty's Government had a just and legitimate
claim to approach that House, even though the wrong he
had suffered might be of a pecuniary_ nature ; but he had