The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-15 00:00:00

.r;

EVENING EDITION.

1 struction to the Committee on the Cheshire Coroners'
I Bill, to make provision for compensating the present
Coroners of the county for any loss they may sustain
I by any new appointments of Coroners under such Bill.
I Mr. ESTCQURT opposed the motion, on the
i ground that it had not been introduced under the sanc-
tion of the Standing Orders Committee.
Mr. T. EGERTON believed that giving the Coro-
ner compensation instead of entailing expense on the
people of Chester, would effect a great saving. He
trusted, therefore, that his Hon. Friend would withdraw
his opposition to the motion.
Mr. HIND LEY would join in that request, believing
that the motion, if acquiesced in, would be productive
of great good.
Mr. GREENE would support the proposition of his
Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford.
Mr. STANLEY trusted the House would grant
the permission sought, otherwise it would be useless to
proceed with the Bill.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
39
Against it
23
Majority in favour of the motion --16
On the motion of Lord SANDON tae Liverpool
Dock Bills (Harrington and Herculaneum) were read
a second time, after an observation from Mr. Shiel the
11 purport of which was, we believe, that there existed
some objections to the Bills, which Lord Sandon re.
plied might be considered in Committee.
Mr. GROTE preiented a petition from the mer-
chants of London complaining of the want of protec-
tion for our commerce with Cracow.
Mr. VILLIERS presented several petitions against
the Corn-laws.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition against
further grants to May nooth.
Mr. EWART presented a petition against Church
Extension.
Mr. H UME presented three petitions from Glas-
gow and Springfield, praying for Universal Suffrage and
the Vote by Ballot.
Mr. HA WES presented a petition from the Dissenting
Ministers of the metropolis, complaining of the grievances
under which the Dissenters laboured, and the jurisdic-
tion of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and praying the House
to adopt some legislative measure on the subject.
Mr. C. LUS H I NGTON presented several petitions
from Protestant Dissenters of the Isle-of-Wight, Cam-
bridgeshire, Kent, and Wiltshire, against any further
grant of public money for Church Extension.
Mr. PLUMPTRE gave' notice that, after Easter,
he should move that no further grants should be made
to the College of Maynooth.
Mr. E WART gave notice that, after Easter, he
should move an address to the Crown praying
that subordinate offices in Government appointments
may be awarded on the principle of public competition.
Mr. HUME gave notice that immediately after
Easter he would move an Address to her Majesty,
pray ing that her M jesty would be graciously pleased
to order that there should be laid before the House a
copy
- of the correspondence which had taken place
between Lord Poesonhy, the British Ambassador at
Constantinople, and Lord Viscount Palmerston.
Mr. HA WES gave notice that he would imme-
diately after Easter introduce a Bill for the purpose of
establishing general affirmations instead of oaths in

Courts of Law.
Sir CHARLES GREY begged leave to ask the
Hon. and Learned Member, the Attorney-General,
what was the reason which had induced her Majesty's
Privy Council to advise her Majesty, for the present,
not to grant any Charters to Corporations under the
English Municipal Reform Act, and what period was
likely to elapse till such grants might be made.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that charters
had been prepared, under the Act, for Manchester and
Birmingham. Objections, however, had been taken to
those charters, which it was of course necessary to de-
cide on judicially. These cases would be settled
after Easter, and he hoped the new Charters would be
found capable of forming precedents for other Char-
ters under similar circumstances.
DISCHARGE OF HOWARD AND PEARCE.
S:r R. INtiLIS gave notice that to-morrow he
should move that the several persons who had been
committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms for
contempt of the privileges of that House should be
forthwith discharged.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he would now state
that it was his intention to move to-morrow that Mr.
Howard, jun. and Mr. Pearce be discharged, and that
the order for the attendance of the Sheriffs at the bar,
on the 6th of May, be also discharged.
Mr. W AIIBU RTON moved for a return of the
conviction of certain officers for riot at Wigan ; and
for a statement of the treatment to which they were
subjected in the gaol of Lancaster. His object was to
ascertain whether their treatment differed from that of
other persons confined for misdemeanours.
Mr. FOX MAULE suggested that it would be
better to move for a return of the rules and regula-
tions observed towards prisoners convicted of mis-
demeanou rs.
Mr. WARBURTON said that would answer his
purpose ; and the amended return was ordered.
NORTH AMERICAN BOUNDARY LINE.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL an ad-
dress was moved to the Crown for copies or extracts of
all correspondence between the American Ministers and
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect
to the North American boundary.
TOTNES ELECTION.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said, before they proceeded
to the business of the day, he wished to bring before the
House a matter that seriously affected their privileges,
and which involved a charge against the returning
officer to whom the writ was directed. A petition had
been presented from certain electors of the borough
of Totnes, and it would lie in the recollection of 'the
House that, on Wednesday last, the Committee reported
that the election was void, and the Chairman moved
that a new writ be issued. It appears that the writ
was received on Friday hist, by the Sheriff of Exeter,
who immediately despatched a special messenger to
Totnes, and, in the afternoon of the same day, he en-
deavoured to serve the precept on the returning officer ;
that he then went to the house of the Mayor, and
afterwards to the lic,use of the Town Clerk, but found
that neither of them was in town ; that he then made
inquiries of their respective wives, but they said they
knew nothing about them, and could not say when
they were expected home—(Laughter)—that he was
told by the wife of the Town-Clerk, that her husband
would come by that day's mail, but he did not arrive ;
that on Saturday he left duplicate copies of the precept
at the houses of the Mayor and Town-Clerk, and that be
then returned with the original precept to the Sheriff at
Exeter. He thereby acted very properly, for the Act of
Parliament required that he should not only serve the pre-
cept on the officer entitled to hold the election, but that he
should obtain his endorsement of the due receipt of the paper.
Now the statement of the parties in the petition was, that
the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor appointed to officiate
in his absence, the Town-Clerk, and also another gen-
tleman previously Mayor, were absent with the inten-
tion of avoiding the service. He (Sir T. Fremantle)
was.not prepared to say he could prove that fact, but
he could prove that they were in London at the time
the Election Committee were sitting, and he believed
two of them were in the room when the decision of
the Committee was announced to the parties. There
could be no &Jobe, therefore, that they were
quite aware of the issuing of the new writ. The
importance of the evidence did not turn upon the
misconduct of the Mayor in reference to gaining time,
but it had reference to the validity of any election which
might take place under these circumstances, because
the Sheriff was bound, within three days, to serve his
precept on the Mayor, and if the precept was not
served on the Mayor within three days a grave question
would arise whether the election upon that precept
received by him subsequently to th hr