The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-31 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 1856.

would be prepared to justify the course pursued. He hardly
thought it fair towards his Majesty's Ministers to complain of
their absence at an hour wh it must be known that they
were engaged on official busAgs--especially as the Noble
Lord opposite had not thought proper to give them any
intimation of his intention to present this petition.—(Hear.)
Lord CA STLE RE AG H said, in answer to the complaint of
no notice having been given, he would merely refer the Hon.
Gentleman to the notices, where for some days it was stated to
be his (Lord Castlereagh's) intention to present it. He was
glad that the discussion went forward, as the petitioner by it
obtained the support of the Member for Southwark ; and when
he brought the matter again under consideration he hoped for
his assistance and support. He hoped the Government would
look into the petitioner's complaint, and be prepared to re-

dress it.
Mr. SHIEL asked whether the prosecution was instituted
by the present or late Attorney- General for Ireland?
Lord CASTLERE AGH could not answer the question.

Sir S. WHALLEY said the date of the first notice was
in 1834. _
-

Mr. SHEIL—Then the prosecution must have been com-
menced by Mr. Blackburne, a gentleman equally in favour with
the former Whig Administration, and with the Tory Govern-

ment which succeeded it.
TITHES.—REGIUM DONUM.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the pa-
rish of Drumboe, in the county of Down. The petitioners,
in the first place, prayed for the extinction of Tithes
and the abolition of the Regium Donum. They remarked that
the interests of religion had been injured by the exactions of
forced provisions for the clergy of a church from whose tenets
they dissented; and upon this part of the petition he (Mr.
Crawford) would merely remark, that it was signed by persons
who desired the taking away of the Regium Donum from their
own Ministers, as well as the abolition of Tithes. The second
prayer was in favour of a Bill for the amendment of the
law of landlord and tenant, and that the landholder should
be allowed compensation for substantial improvements under
certain circumstances.
Lord CASTLEREAGH read a letter from the Perpetual
Curate of Drumboe, stating that the meeting at which the pe-
tition was agreed to was not a respectable one, and that none
of the resident gentry of the parish were present.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD had the honour of presenting the
petition. He could not be answerable for the truth of the al-
legations contained in it ; but all he could say was—there was
the petition, and there were the signatures.
The petition was laid on the table.
CORPORATION OF MARLBOROUGH.

Mr. WARBURTON had two petitions to present; one
signed by 100 householders of Marlborough, and the other by
three individuals of the same place. The complaint of the i
first was, that previous to the late election of the Corporation 1
of that town, the Marquis of Aylesbury canvassed the house- 1
holders for votes for members of the town council favourable
to the Tory interest—that subsequent to the election, several
of the householders who had not voted as the Noble Marquis
desired, had received notice to quit ; and this not only
from the
_Marquis of Aylesbury ; but other tenants, who
held under the Corporation, received notice to quit. Similar
allegations were contained in a petition which had been pre-
sented to that House, and which had been referred to the
Committee which was sitting upon Intimidation and Bribery;
but as these allegations did not refer tointimidation, which was
the subject of Parliamentary election, it was held by the Com-
mittee that they had not the power to inquire into allegations
relating to elections for corporate offices. He had only re-
ceived the petitions that morning, and therefore he had
not had time to give notice to the Members for Marl-
borough that he ha petitions to present on the subject—
(Hear)—he would only state, therefore, that it was his
intention to put on the notice-book a motion for an instruction
to the Committee on Intimidation and Bribery concerning
Parliamentary Elections, to inquire into these altogether. As
he would make it the subject of a distinct motion, the gehtle-
men connected with the Corporation would in this way have a
full opportunity to object to it if they should think proper. He
had in his hand the actual notices that had been given. The
first petition was signed by one hundred householders, and the
other by three persons, who were tenants of the Corporation,
and who had received similar notices to quit.
Lord G. SOMERSET had hoped that the Hon. Member
would have taken some other opportunity of making this state-
ment. What was the case? These petitions were presented
on the last day of the sitting before the recess—the statements
would go forth to the public as perfectly valid, and it was im-
possible for any party, either connected with the Marquis of
Aylesbury, or with the Corporation, to make any defence. He
knew nothing about the circumstances connected with this
petition ; but he did not think in very fair that a party should be
accused before the public in this mariner, when it was impos-
sible for him to make any defence.
Mr. WARBURTON had already stated that a petition
containing similar allegations had been presented to that
House, and referred to the Intimidation Committee. If the
subject bad been entirely new, he might have thought it better
to have deferred presenting these petitions until he had given
notice ; but as the petitions were of the same kind, he did not
think it necessary to do so. He would not make any motion
on the subject until after the recess. He wished now to
give notice, that upon bringing up the Report upon
the Commutation of Tithes for England and Wales,
he would move that the House resolve itself into a
Committee to consider the expediency of abolishing the
payment of all tithcs.—( Hear.) 2dly, For compensating
the receivers of tithes for the loss they should sustain by a
charge upon the revenues of the country ; and, 3dly, for re-
pealing the Corn Laws, and establishing a free trade
in corn—thus compensating the tithe payers for the
additional charge that would be thrown upon them
by removing the charges upon the importation, and re-
t lieving the landed interest for the loss they should sustain by
the alteration in the Corn Laws by the abolition of tithes.
TITHE COMMUTATION BILL.
..

Mr. AR'T'HUR TREVOR gave notice that he would
move a clause in the Tithe Commutation Bill, requiring that
the Commissioners to be appointed under that Bill should be
members of the Established Church.
GENERAL REGISTRATION.
Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition from the Dis-
senters of some chapel in Londonderry, praying for a general
system of registration of births and marriages.
Sir SAMUEL WHAL LEY presented a petition from the
Parish-Clerk of Marylebone, praying for compensation, in
the event of the Bill before the House on this subject being
passed into a law. The Hon. Member expressed his concur-
rence in the prayer of the petition.
SPIRIT LICENSES.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from certain Li-
censed Victuallers, against the alteration in the spirit licenses.
The petitioners stated that the value of a house was no crite-
rion of the quantity of spirits sold.
The HON. MEMBER then presented a petition from
Greenwich praying for an investigation into Colonel Brad-
ley's case.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the Master of a
Proprietary School praying, in the event of a charter being
granted to the London University that his might be placed
upon an equal footing: also, three petitions from Licenced Vic-
tuallers against the encreased duty op licences.
Mr. MA RSLA ND presented a petition from Newcastle in
favour of the claims of Dissenters ; also, one from the same
place against the endowment of Churches in Scotland, and
another from the same place in favour of Mr. Buckingham's
claims.
Mr. WAKL EY presented a petition front 4,000 inhabitants
of Northampton, praying for a repeal of the Poor Laws
Amendment Act ; one from Chichester, praying .for the
abolition of corporpal punishment in the army • one
from Robert Gaythorne Bute, who had been fined and
imprisoned in the year 1814, in conjunction with Lord
Cochrane ; one from Stanton, Sussex, praying for a
repeal of Sturges Bourne's Vestry Act ; one from Mr.
Goldspinke and others, of Marylebone, praying that the
Duke of Cumberland should be impeached, or that the
Dorchester labourers should be immediately liberated ; one
from Finsbury, praying that the evidence might be recorded in
cases of summary conviction before magistrates; one from 1,500
inhabitants of Brighton praying for the repeal of the Septen-
nial Act ; and one from Mr. John Baxter of Featherstone
Buildings, Holborn, praying that notice should be given be-
fore the service of ejectmcnts, and that a new mode should be
adopted in taking the verdicts of Juries.
PENSION LIST. _ _

Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from Chi-
chester and one from Hereford, praying for an inquiry into the
Pension List. He would take that opportunity of giving no-
tice that he would bring forward his motion on the subject on
the 19th of April, when he should move a call of the House. The
Hon. Member also presented a petition from Nottingham in favor
of Mr. Buckingham's claims ; one from Colchester, praying
for the extension of the right of voting for Members of Parlia.
ment to all who voted for the town council ; and one from
Southwark, praying for the total abolition f the tax upon
Newspapers.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from the parish
clerks of Exeter (we understood), praying that the registration
of marriages might not pass until they were compensated.
The LORD ADVOCATE presented a petition from Edin-
burgh praying for a reduction of the duty upon paper ; one for
the repeal of the duty on soap ; one from the Solicitors of Leith
against the Attornies Bill ; and one praying that the same
measure of Municipal Relief might be granted to Ireland as had
been granted to England.
Mr. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from the parish
of Ballyohagan, praying for the abolition of tithes.
Mr. FOX MAUL E presented a petition from the hand-
loom weavers of Perth, praying for the institution of Boards
of Trade ; and one from Blackford, complaining of the man-
ner in which the Statute Labour was levied.
Mr. HUTT presented petitions from Hull, praying for the
total repeal of the tax on Newspapers, and the duty on
Cape Wine.
Mr. BROCKLE HUR ST presented a petition from the
merchants and tradesmen, and others of the town of Maccles-
field, praying for the repeal of the duties on Newspapers ;
also a petition from the same place in favour of Mr. Buck-
ing
presented a petition from the Dock Company of
HUTT
Mr.ha m's
uCTlaTim s.
Hull, in favour of the Hull and Selby Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. TURNBULL, the Marlborough and
Salisbury Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.
BIRMINGHAM AND GLOUCESTER RAILWAY
BILL.

On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET the Birmingham
and Gloucester Railway Bill was read a third time and
passed. Bill was read a third
The Birmingham and Derby Railway
time and passed.
Lord CASTLEREAGH brought up the Report of the
Committee on the Ulster Railway Bill.
Mr. A. TREVOR presented a petition against the Durham
Grand Junction Bill.

Mr. 0. GORE brought up the Report of the Committee on
the London Grand Junction Railway Bill.
ARBROATH AND FORFAR RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. CHALMERS this Bill was read a

third time and passed.
Sir R. FE RGUSSON presented apetition from the Mayor
and other inhabitants of Nottingham, against the Nottingham

Railway Bill.
NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY.
Mr. PARKER moved that a petition, presented last night,
against certain parts-of the North Midland Railway Bill should
he referred to the Committee.
TEIGNMOUTH AND DAWLISH ROAD.
Sir JOHN Y. BULLER moved the second reading of
the Teignmouth and Dawlish Road Bill.
ROTHERHAM AND SHEFFIELD RAILWAY.
Mr. BETHEL brought up the Report of the Rotherham

and Sheffield Railway bill. -
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL presented a Bill to alter
and amend certain clauses in the act incorporating the Great
Western Railway Company, and to enable them to make cer-
tain alterations in their line of road ; also a petition against
the South Western Railway Bill.
EDINBURGH, LEITH, AND NEWHAVEN
RAILWAY.
The LORD ADVOCATE brought up the Report of the
Committee on this bill.
DUBLIN STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from Cork
against this Bill.
TRALEE CANAL AND HARBOUR BILL.
On the motion of Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL, this

Bill was read a third time.
HULL AND SELBY RAILWAY.

Mr. BETHEL moved the third reading of this Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP rose, according to the notice he had
given, to oppose the third reading of this Bill. He had no
interest whatever in this railroad—he was no party concerned—
and he came forward to oppose this Bill solely on public
grounds. The first ground for his opposing this Bill was that
there was already a competent navigation, of which no com-
plaint had been made with regard to the conveyance of goods,
with which nevertheless this Bill would most unjustly interfere.
All that had been required was, that his property should be
protected—that there should be that consideration shown to
which he was entitled. It was said that the Dock Company
were favourable to this railway, that they had taken shares to
the amount of 10,000/., but they expected to be well repaid for
this outlay of money.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
The Hoe. and GALLANT MEMBER was here interrupted by
the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, who appeared at the
table, and summoned the House to the House of Lords, to
hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to several Bills.
The SPEAKER, accompanied by several Members, imme-
diately left the House.
Some time previous to the entrance of the Messenger from
the House of Lords, Sir Robert Peel entered the House.
As soon as he had taken his seat, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer crossed the floor, and was for some time in earnest
conversation with him. The Speaker having left the House,
Sir Robert Peel beckoned to Mr. Thomas Duncombe, and
some conversation apparently of an interesting nature took
place between them. The Hon. Member for Finsbury then
crossed over to where Sir James Graham was sitting, and a
conversation of some length ensued. Subsequently to this
Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell remained for several
minutes seated under the Strangers' gallery in close conference,
immediately after which Sir R. Peel quitted the House, and
Lord John Russell returned to his seat. It was conjectured
that these various communications between the leaders of the
opposing parties had reference to the unpleasant altercation
which took place in the House last night.
On the SPEAKER'S return he announced to the House
the different Bills to which his Majesty had given his Royal
Assent, for which see our Lords' Report.
Colonel SIBTHORP then resumed, and concluded by
moving that the Hull and Selby Railway Bill be read a third
time that day six months.
Mr. A. TREVOR supported the motion. He thought
that when an inquiry was contemplated against private pro-
perty, it was the duty of that House to interpose its
its protection. The complaining party only required that the
line of railway should be put a little further off, which would
not make a difference of more than a minute and
a half, and this reasonable request was refused. Whatever
might be the fate of the present motion, he would stand by
11.3 Gallant Friend ; he bad often done so before, and he con-
ceived it a high honour to be found in the same ranks with him.
Mr. HUTT strongly supported the third reading of the
Bill. There was no projected line of railroad of similar ex-
tent which offered equal facilities. There were no hills and
no inclined plane which required extra assistance. Another
reason for supporting this railroad was, that whilst railroads
generally were effected at a cost of from 18,0001. to 20,0001.
a mile, this might be effected at a cost of 10,000/. a mile.
Colonel THOMPSON said that it appeared to him that
this was really a question, whether there should be railroads in
the country or not, or whether it should be in the power of
any individual proprietor to stop a party, in spite of all
precautions? If the applicant felt that his interests were in-
jured, the law was open to him. This case had been before
the, Committee, and they had given their opinion that there
was nothing extra in it.
Mr. BETHE LL was not surprised that the Gallant Co-
lonel should have expressed his disapprobation of this Bill,
he having so often thundered out his disapprobation of
Bills for railroads ; but he was surprised that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Durham should have opposed it, unless he wished to
nionopolize all railroads for the county of Durham.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP and Mr. A.
Tem/ore amid loud cries of " Spoke" and " Question,"
Mr. POULETT THOMPSON said, according to the
order of the House, a day had been set apart before
public business was proceeded with, for bringing up the reports
of Committees on Railway Bills, and then every gentleman
who took an interest in the subject was prepared to discus its
merits. He thought it would be convenient if Hon. Mem-
bers would at that stage give the Bill opposition if they
thought fit to do so, instead of reserving it for the third
reading.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared—.
For the second reading
Against it
Majority for the second reading
19
On our return to the Gallery we found Mr. NIVSON
on his legs, presenting a petition from several shareholders
and inhabitants of Hull in favour of a motion of which he
had given notice, for the re-introduction of a clause into the
Ilull and Selby Railway Bill, for the purpose of prevent-
ing travelling on the Hull and Selby Railway on Sundays.
He would call upon all Hon. Members opposed to Sabbath-
day trading, as interfering with the relaxations of the poor,
to support his proposition. A petition had been only a short
time since presented from the labourers working a canal
to extend to them that protection, and he (Mr. Lawson) now
asked the same protection for the labourers employed on
Railroads. He now moved that this clause be brought up.
Mr. WARBURTON did not understand that the Hon.
Member had brought forward objections to locomotion on Sun-
days generally. If it was to he carried on at all, some spe-
cies of human labour would be required, and he would ask
what species of locomotion was attended with so small an
amount of labour to animals or men as that of steam. It was of
all modes that could be devised that which entailed the
least sacrifice of men or animals, and that locomotion was
more especially beneficial to the middle and lower classes. It
saved them a vast deal of pedestrian exertion, without which
they could scarcely get beyond the smoke of their own towns
—( Hear)—and obtain that relaxation and fresh air they so
much required. On these simple grounds lie should resist the
bringing up of the clause.
Mr. HUME also opposed the clause. The fact of the
petition being signed by a great portion of the proprietors,
would induce him to do so, as it was well known that the
majority of the shareholders could make any regulations they
thought proper without the interference of the legislature.
Mr. ROBINSON said the practice of travelling on Sun-
days had become so general, that he must protest against it,
a great public question being discussed on the bringing up of a
clause in a private Bill. He would oppose the motion.
Mr. BETHEL would also oppose the motion. He thought
the clause would prove a great curse to the poorer classes.
Sir H. INGLIS said when the question was brought for-
ward, they were told that they had allowed it in many Bills,
and ought to do it again. That was unfair ; they must have
a beginning somewhere. He would vote for the clause.
Mr. O'CONNELL said this was a peddling way of dealing
with the question, which was of much importance to the pub-
lic. The Right Hon. Baronet had forgot that the establish-
ment of these Railways, and the opening of them
on Sundays, would afford to a man the means of goings o
a greater number of churches.—(Laughter.)
Mr. A. TREVOR would vote for the clause, and wished
to see it inserted in every Railway Bill.
Mr. POTTER said great advantage had arisen from the
opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway on Sun-
days.—(Hear, hear.) If the country was to be intersected
with Railways, they would put a stop to all other kind of
travelling, and if they were shut up the people would be
obliged to stay at home on the only day they possibly could
see the country.
Colonel SIBTHORP would not support the clause.
The Proprietors did not want to travel on the Railway on
ASun-
days, as they had their horses and carriages.--( Hear.) way
with such liberality—it was only cant.
Colonel THOMPSON stood in a singular position with re-
gard to this Bill. He did not know that there was any clause
in it which compelled his worthy friends, the Methodists, to
travel on Sundays against their consent ; therefore, he could
not support the clause ; when he saw any such attempt made he
would strenuously oppose it.—( Great laughter.) He
sup_
posed that if any party were to come to them and ask them to
shut their mouths in the dog-days, in order to keep the flies
out, they would be very apt to tell them to shut their mouths
themselves. That applied to the case now before the House.
The petitioners were proprietors, and might shut it up if they
pleased. He would vote against the clause.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the clause.. ...........
Against it ...................
Majority against the clause
ADJOURNMENT OF THE_HOUSE.

On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL it was agreed
that the House at its rising should adjourn to Monday the 11th
of April.
Mr. HARVEY moved that the House should be called
over on Tuesday the 19th of April.—Agreed to.
LORD BRLTDENELL.
Sir W. MOLE SWORTH seeing the Noble Lord the Se-
cretary at War in his place, wished to ask him a question as
to the projected appointment of Lord Brudenell to the