The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-17 00:00:00

CHINA.

On the suzgestion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
Mr. G. PALMER postponed the question of which
he had given notice, relating to the reprisals on Chini, to
Tuesday next.

ST. SULPICE.
Mr. PAKINGTON asked if any ordinance of the
Governor-General had been received from Canada re-
specting the incorporation of the Monastery of St.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 16. Sulpice ?
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the ordinance
o'Clock. had been received that day.
BISHOP OF CARLISLE'S ESTATE BILL. Mr. PAKINGTON gave notice that on Monday
On the motion of Mr. KEMBLE, this Bill was next he should ask a question respecting it. '
read a second time, and on the question that it be corn- PRIVILEGE.
mitted, Mr. W. 0. STANLEY, before the Order of the
Mr. DUNCOMBE rose to oppose the motion. The Day was read, wished to call the attention of the House
Bill materially affected the interest of his constituency, to a breach of privilege contained in the petition of Mr.
and it was impossible, therefore, that the House could J. R. Ormsby Gore, M.P., presented on the 7th of July.
allow it to pass without understanding the merits Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that although the
and details of the measure. He could not understand petition might contain improper allegations, yet he was
why it had been kept back so long, and why it was doubtful whether it contained a breach of privilege.
to be forced on at the present period of the Session, Perhaps it would be as well if the Hon. Member would
when it was impossible there would be time sufficient to at once proceed to state in what the breach of privilege
discuss its provisions in Committee. Now what was consisted.
the object of the present measure? It was to permit Mr. W. 0. STANLEY would do so.—(The Hon.
the sale of the estate belonging to the Prebend's Stall Gentleman then proceeded to read that part of the pe-
in St. Paul's Cathedral, the property of the Bi- tition complained of, which tended to impute partiality
shop of Carlisle. The value of that Stall. was to himself and various other persons appointed to report
1,4801. a-year, for which the only duty to be on the Holyhead Rail-road, and to state that their Re-
performed by that Bishop, was preaching two sermons port could not be considered unprejudiced or impartial.
annually. The present Bishop had granted a lease of That was part of the petition presented in the House,
that property, of which 274 years were unexpired, to and it purported to be an extract from another petition,
the city of London, and the Bill was to enable the sale which, however, had not been presented in that House,
of the whole property to the city for a sum of 240,0001. but in the House of Lords. The petition was signed
40,000/. of which was to go to the present Bishop of with the names of the Hon. Member for Shrop-
Carlisle, and the remainder was to be paid to the shire, the Hon. Member for Caernarvonshire,
Governors of Queen Anne's bounty, but that amount and the Hon. Member for the Carnarvon burghs. He
was afterwards to be taken out of their hands and held it to be a breach of privilege to allude, as the peti-
given to the present Bishop of London, to be tion did allude, to a petition presented in the other House,
by him appropriated as he should think proper. Now and he complained, in addition, that no notice had been
he (Mr. Duneombe) could not see why such a distrust given him on the subject.
should be shown of the Governors of Queen Anne's Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Member
Bounty. The real secret of the Bill was that it was. complained of the petition as reflecting on him per-
intended to defeat the provision of the Ecclesiastical smelly, and another statement of the Hon. Member was,
Duties and Revenues Bill. Such being the case he that the petition alluded to a petition presented in the
could see no reason why the Bill should be passed other House. He would admit all that the Hon. Gen-
through the House during the present Session, and he tleman had stated, but still he did not see bow the
should therefore move that the Bill should be committed question involved a breach of privilege. He would
that day three months. therefore appeal to the Speaker for his opinion on the
Mr. KEMBLE could see no way in which the in- subject.
terests of the constituents of the Hon. Member would The SPEAKER said that he certainly could not
be affected by the Bill. He certainly appeared to be understand how the matter in any way involved a breach
acquainted with the secrets of the Bill, which he of privilege. In the first, the extract taken from a
(Mr. Kernble) was not, as the first word petition presented in the House of Lords might be con-
he heard with respect to the measure was sidered a part of the petition to which the Hon.
yesterday, when he was asked to move the second read. Member referred ; and in the second place, if there were
ing of the Bill. He thought that which had been stated a breach of privilege at all, it was a breach of the privi-
by the Hon. Member shosied the necessity for its being leges of the House of Lords.
referred to a Committee. The object of the Bill was Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said that as the petition
to enable the Bishop of London and the Archbishop reflected on him personally he had a right to be ap-
of Canterbury to enter into the sale of the property to prised of its presentation, which had not been the
the Corporation of London, and to apply the money case. The Honourable Member cited the cases of
to the endowment of churches five miles west Mr. Richard Mansard Philips and Mr. Wyndham in
of St. Paul's and five miles east of Westminster, and support of his assertion. As he might have no other
according to the provieions of the Bill, the whole amount opportunity of repelling the charges which the peti-
of any endowment was not to exceed 3001. He trusted, tion contained, he hoped the Hon. Member opposite
therefore, that the House would allow a Bill, having (Mr. 0. Gore) might be allowed to bring forward his
such laudable objects in view, to proceed.—(Hear.) motion early in the evening.
Mr. WAKLEY seconded the amendment. Where, The SPEAKER esaid that the question was no
he would ask, was the necessity for hurry in the matter? longer one of privilege, but a question of indulgence.
There were twenty-seven and a half years unexpired of Mr. J. R. 0. GORE said that the charges which
a lease affecting this property, yet the Bill was brought the petition contained bad been first put forward
in at the very end of the Session, when it could not pos- in the House of
_Lords where no notice
sibly receive that full consideration which one effecting had been taken of the matter. The charges had also
such an amount of property ought to do. He was been repeated in several of the public prints and conti-
as firm a friend of the Church as the Right Hon. nued to be equally unnoticed. He (Mr. O. Gore) had
Baronet opposite. He thought it was an institution merely given expression to the opinions of many
that was a real blessing to the country. He had of his constituents on the subject. He had not
never grudged it the tithes it possessed. He was glad before been able to name a precise day when
it did possess such an amount, but here, by the Bill he might bring the matter before the House.
then under discussion, be was called upon to alienate It turned out that every day was equally inconve-
from it a property which, when the lease expired, would nient to the Hon. Gentleman. The Ilon. Gentleman
produce 47,500/. per annum ; and he was called upon concluded by moving that the petition respecting the
to legislate upon the Bill in total ignorance of all the Chester and Holyhead Railway be referred to a Select
facts of the case. It was net fair, either to the House Committee.
or to the public, and there was no reason for Mr. W. O. STANLEY had never heard of the
such haste. At all events delay it till next Ses. petition being presented in • another place until the
sion, and during the recess Members might have Bth of July, when he had read in the Votes of the
an opportunity of making themselves acquainted House extracts from the petition, contained in the peti-
with all the facts relating to the property. It ap- tion which the Hon. Gentleman presented on the 7th.
peered to him to be an unjust proposal, and even He had written to the Hon. Gentleman for a copy of
if the Bill went into Committee it was impossible that the petition, but the reply sent by the Honourable
it could pass during the present session. He would not say Gentleman was that six months had elapsed since
it was a job, but it bore so great an aspect of a job that lie he signed the petition, and that he had forgotten
would not toeo moment agree to it as then advised. Ii all about it. To a second application he made for
it was an open and fair measure why was the sale to be a copy he received an answer that he must get it
concluded in the dark—why was all to be done by pri- where he could. So much for the Honourable Gen-
vate contract ? Why should not the property be put tleman's courtesy. As to the accusation against his
up to public auction ? He was aware that 200,000/. father (Lord Stanley), he could state that he
was to be paid as the purchase money, but they were ss- had never attended a single meeting or taken
crificing an income of 47,000/. for one of only 7,0001. part in any of the proceedings. His brother, the Mem-
He trusted the House would not agree to proceed ber for North Cheshire, had never had any communica-
with the Bill during the present session. tion with any of the parties. With regard to himself,
Mr. FRESHFIELD believed that in a few sen- he did not deny that he was interested in the line,
tences he could obviate all the objections the Hon. and he thought he should have been wanting in
Gentleman had to the Bill. It was true that the pro- his duty to his constituents if he had neglected
perty would produce an income of 47„5001. at the end to secure to them the advantages they had so long
of twenty-seven-and-a-half years, but that would be only wanted in a communication with Ireland. He
provided that some party had such an interest in the utterly denied that the Government had appointed
property as to keep it in good repair. He could assure officers whom they knew to be favourable to
the House that there was no improvidence in the bar- their views. With respect to the motion
gain, nor would the Church suffer any damage for the for a Select Committee the House might deal with it as
full present money value of the whole property was to they thought fit.
be paid down. Members voting for the amendment , The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did
would do so because of the want of information, not think the subject worthy of being considered in a
yet they would take the only means to prevent it very serious light. He thought, however, that the
from being supplied. There was plenty of time for the Hon. Members opposite ought to state the grounds upon
consideration of the case, and he trusted the House which the assertion had been made. Professor Barlow
would refer the Biil to a Committee. was selected for the appointment that had been referred
Sir R. INGLIS—The lion. Member for Finsbury to because he was in the Irish Railway Commission,
stated that he was ignorant of the facts of the case be and it was supposed he would give satisfaction to
fore the Howse. Why then should he refuse inquiry the public. With respect to the other two
before the proper tribunal, viz., a Committee? He also gentlemen, he had written to Sir H. Vivian, begging
said they would rob the Church of 47,000/. a-year, of him to select two officers in no way connected with
Now, that was not so. If the present Bishop of Car- the case, as they would be most likely to give an irri-
lisle should live so long as 27i years he would lose partial opinion. As far as regarded the inquiry of the
47,000/. a-year, but, unless they identified him with House that it was necessary that an inquiry should take
the Church, the Church would -remain unaffected by place as to whether the proceedings had been conducted
the Bill. There were three parties interested in the fairly or not, be could have no objection to it ; but he
property, the Bishop of leondoe, the patron of the stall, thought that which related to the Commissioners ought
the Bishop of Carlisle, the holder of it, and the City of to be separated from the Government.
London, who were the lessees, but all those parties Mr. 0. GORE then rose to address the House, but
consented to, and were promoting the Bill—ho thought was reminded by the Speaker that there was no question'
then it would be an unprecedented thing for the House under consideration.
to stop the progress of a private Bill under such sir Mr. J. R. 0. GORE then moved that the petition
cumstances.
resposting the Chester and Holyhead Railway presented
Captain PECHELL was not surprised at the eon. on the 7th of the present mont, should be referred to
duct of the Right Hon. Baronet on the present occa- a Select Committee.
sion, knowing the course he pursued with regard to the Mr. 0. GORE said, as the Chancellor of the Ex-
' Farnham Rectory Bill. It appeared to him that the ehequer had alluded to his signing the petition, he
Bill was an interference with public
property, and the begged leave to assure the Right Honourable
same arguments might be applied against the present Gentlemane
.that he had looked to the signatures
Bill as against the Farnham Rectory Bill. Now the to t' :e
ativtiont with more than usual care.
latter Bill had gone through a Committee, and He e:asedpportion ofthe petition which was ori-
was to be reported to-morrow night, and he asked the ginall presentedas l there was still one passage,
Right Hon. Baronet to consent to the postponement of not aY matter of faoct,imwh;ich would have been better
the present Bill, until they had ascertained what was the omitted. But with regard to the appointment of Com-
feeling of the House with regard to the Farnham Ree- missioners, there was one circumstance which, he was
tort' Bill. It appeared to him that the Bishop of Car- convinced, had not come to the knowledge of the
lisle, not being a consenting party to the Bill, more time Right Hon. Gentleman. There was a meeting held
should be given for inquiring into its details. at th house o a Noe ord in at ton,
Mr. DARBY said it appeared to him that the Farn- which e
f the Hon. Member forL Angleseath was prewsenatt.
ham Rectory Bill was based upon a totally different At that meeting it
should be asked forwas
principle from the present measure•
The agreedH bn
.0
ioenmtbh
cart
at a
once Commission
agreed,
Sir S. LUSHINGTON was also of opinion that end mentioned the n.ame of Captain Beechy, when amost
' the Bill differed essentially from the Farnham every one present objected, and said, "No ; Captain
Rectory Bill. He confessed that he had some diffi- Beeehy
culty in believing that the present was by any means partial! "
has already reported, and could not act im-
The Gallant General' at the head f the
however, advantageous bargain for the Church. He did not, Ordnanyc'e Department had applied to his Hon. Relative
however, mean to vote for the amendment of his Hon. to know if by the petition. it was intended
itto reflect'
Friend, because he thought the objections which had I upon the officers under his department, when was at
been urged could be just as satisfactorily discussed in once disclaimed ;he (Mr. 0. Gore) begged to add his
Committee. He thought it extremely injudicious to I disclaimer to
hat of his Honourable Relative. give up public property to the amount of 47,000/. per I Without intending any offence to" any one
dthe
annum for the sake of a sum of 200,0001., more es 'of Commissioners, he would say that
daily when he considered that in twenty-seven years ; they had been improperly appointed ; one of them had
that property would be worth 1,200,000/. It was not always 'reported in favour of the Holyhead Harbour,
wise, is his opinion, to make such a sacrifice. • i while Professor Barlow had alWitys been in favour of

The Billi on the table were advanced a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned at Half-past Seven &Clock.

EVENING EDITION.

Menai Bridge, and'. of course reported in favour of that
route. He did ncit think that the gentlemen selected
were impartial, and he pledged himself he was fully Pr°.
pared to prove every allegation contained in the petition.
An HoNotntABLE MEMBER said—The real ques-
tion was, wbether they should refer to a Select
Committee those decisions which had already been
come to by the Commissioners appointed to in'
vestigate the subject, and who h 0 been 5°
appointed in consequenoe of an address by that
House. This he considered exceedingly undesirable,
and a course which tilt' House ought not to accede to,
except upon good grout, ds. He could allow for the
irritation of disappointed narties, but he could not but
wish the Hon. Gentleinan had still further
altered the petition before he had presented it, as it
contained the most sweeping allegations against such
men as Sir F. Smith, Professor Barlow, Admiral
Gordon, and Captain Beechy. This was but a poor
return for their able, and he believed, impartial report.
If the Government were charged with having acted with
partiality in the appointment of those Commissioners,
he should be most anxious that every inquiry should ba,
made into their conduct. But the Committee move",
for would only have the effect of casting an undeservra,
slur on the Commissioners, and therefore he should
oppose it.
Mr. ORMSBY GORE explained that the petit°
which he had signed was one presen'cd to tha other,
House, as he never signed a petition to the House 0'

Commons.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY had never heard of the pets'
tion presented to the other House of Parliament
until that day ; he understood that it contained le'
sinuations that he had used his influence at the Trey
sury for one line of railroad in preference to another,
and the Hon. Gentleman stated that to those alle-
gations he was prepared to adhere. As these charges
were brought against him he should be no°
anxious to second a motion for a Committee of Inquiry.
It was with great suprise that he had listened to what
the Hon. Member had said. In the early part of the
year the Hon. Member for Pembroke had informed bid
that he had a petition placed in his hands containing al-
legations against his character, but that as he could 110"
substantiate those allegations he had declined to pre'
sent it, and he had returned it to those who had ea,
trusted him with it. It was with the greatest astonish
ment that' he had heard what had become of that Petr
tion. The Honourable Member into whose ham's
that petition had been returned had not the Inankesi
to 'present it himself to that House—(Chee.rs)--•°°
he had placed it in the hands of a Noble Lord to bg,,l;
Pi
sented to the other House of Parliament ; that '
Lord had most probably never read its contents'
but presented it with a mass of other petitions, no in'
timation whatever having been given of the presentelii
of this petition to the parties charged in it. He bad
a right to complain of the Hon. Mmber. The m°
rd
course would have been to have preseete
the petition to this House—(Cheers) more es'
pecially as no he said that he believed all is
th
allegations contained in it. He trusted the Cote;
mittee would be granted. For himself, he 111 h
cautiously abstained from interfering in any way weedeither of these lines of railroads. He had never esl'er
for any one to be appointed on the Commission, °of
had he ever had any communication with any
his colleagues or with his Hon. Relative respecting Ba'
such appointment.—(Cheers.)
Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN having been referred !°.'
would state that the Government had called upon IT:
to appoint proper officers to conduct the survey, but up
had had no further communication with any of thew °lf
the subject. The officers had been selected by hirnse'
and himself alone, without any communication with aec
one else. Professor Barlow was a man of all others reo4
proper to refer to on the subject of the Menai-bridgelo
therefore, he had been selected for the purpose by be
Commissioners. He was fully convinced that all "ut
persons appointed would discharge their duty with°
favour to any party, and would do that which was?
and right.
Captain WINNINGTON bore testimony to the
upright character of the individuals appointed 00
Commission.
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL vindicated the air,
pointment of the officers by the Admiralty. He `1
persuaded that the officers who bad made the surf,-1,
had discharged their duty with great impartiality.
Admiral ADAMS said that there was not one of tbb,
charges contained in the petition which could bc.s°
stantiated.
Sir R. PEEL thought it would be a dangerous Pr,e;
cadent for the House of Commons to appoint a Co
mitted to inquire into the proceedings and opiniensae,
the professional men that had been employed. t.
thought the best course would be for all parties to Vs
pone the inquiry.
Mr. J. R. 0. GORE then withdrew the Inotil i
disclaiming any personal intention in the course be
adopted.
CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA) BILL' he
The House went into Committee, pro forma, on 1-,
Clergy Reserves (Canada) Bill, in order to its betij°
further considered in Committee on Monday next.
ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REV't
NUES BILL. dl
Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposed that this f
0
should be recommitted pro forma, for the purl:Kota:leh
inserting several amendmenta, the discussion upon Yo
he proposed should be taken on the third reading.
The House then went into Committee, and the el"
ral amendments were read and agreed to pro forma. t.t
The House then resumed, the Report was brooro
up, and the Bill was, ordered to be read a third time°
Monday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. .iv
A message from the Lords brought up the AcbOr,
tration of Justice Bill, which was read a first, and
dered to be read a second time, on Thursday next.
In answer to a question from Lord G. SOMERS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that Are
gistrates being ex officio Guardians of the Poor, were,
not incapacitated from acting as Magistrates with
spect to any subjects relative to the Poor-laws.
COUNTY CONSTABULARY 81LL.,, the
Mr. F. MAULE moved the third reading °I ".
County Constabulary Bill.
Captain PECHELL opposed the third reediljr,,,i;
The measure gave the greatest dissatisfaction to all Po
ties, whether Whig or Tories. He had several elausestor
propose to add to the Bill, but he thought the beLter,
course would be to get rid of the measure altoget" of
In the hope, however, that the Under-Secretary
so
State for the Home Department would take out tOth
clauses that were most objectionable to his constitucl!„
he would give him another chance, and not divide W
House upon the third reading.
th°
Mr. HODGES supported the third reading °.f
Bill ; and, in doing so, he begged it to be underst°°,6
that the Bill he had introduced was not intenied to 11
hostile to the present measure.
ntle
Sir E. KNATCHBULL hoped the Hon. u'e-tho
man would not persist in dividing the House upon t,
third reading of the Bill, because, except by pass'n'.o.
they could not obtain any amendment of the evils r
flitted upon the country by the Bill of last year. Afted..
the Bill had been read a third time, he had an 0010
ment to propose which would effectually remove those
evils, if he was fortunate enough to carry it.
After a few word 3 in explanation from Clll3°ill
PECHELL and Mr. L. HODGES, the Bill was read $
third time.
Mr. DENISON then moved to reinstate the `241/3
clause. In the county he had represented there weld
mmy Magistrates of the metropolitan district who c°
come come down and out-vote the Magistrates at Cioartot
Sessions. The object of the clause was to prevco,
them from voting at Quarter Sessions out of the Inetr
politan district.
Mr. ALSTON was strongly opposed to the clause'
as it would be considered as a stigma upon the chaile‘
ter of the Magistrates, and, in his opinion, a most all'
deserved one. • -

Mr. KEMBLE would certainly vote against
the
clause. The Magistrates thought the clause was a very
invidious one, and degrading to them.
Mr. F. MAULE could not give his sanction to the
re-introduction of the clause. He was convinced, "PI
the full discussion of the clause, that it was one of A
invidious and improper nature.
Mr. DENISON always bowed to the will of tbd
House, and would withdraw the motion.—(Hear.)
Sir A. DALRYMPLE then rose to move the 101-
lowing clause :—" And be it further enacted, that the,
power to appoint and pay, and to make and levy ratet
for paying constables, under any Act of Parliamen
made for watching any town, parish, or place, which b
the last Parliamentary enumeration of the population
contained more than 30,000 inhabitants and the po''
era and duties of all constables appointed by the Com-
missioners for the execution of any such Act, shall cm!'
tinue and be in force, notwithstanding anything. in
ir,tlls
Act contained or any law or Act to the contrary. 1"."
town of Brighton was already well regulated an
watched, under local Commissioners, the people we 5
satisfied with the conduct of those Commissioners, en_i
were very desirous that they should be left to their loot
government.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY said the Hon. ell
Gallant Gentleman would, by his clause, inflict grea_f
injustice upon towns which happened to fall short 11.
30,000 inhabitants. If he mentioned Brighton sPefd
fically, he would be happy to vote with him, but be
not wish that Cheltenham should be excluded.
Captain PECHELL supported the clause.
Mr. F. MAULE felt it his duty to oppose the clause;
on the ground that it was settled in the House last YeAa
that where the towns exceeded 10,000 inhabitants, an,
possessed a local police, some short time should be al-
lowed before the Act- came into operation; but then
the Act should be enforced. In case of a corporate
town, he could apprehend no objection, but not in the
case of Brighton, and the class of towns referred to by
the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. DARBY did not see any objection to the clause
with the amendment of the Hon. Gentleman.
The House then divided, when the numbers were
For the clause -
Against it .

Majority against the clause

~- .~

r •~

the
sta
Int
col

alt
int

ela
the
111(1

C 4
• ti

S

l
IS Bilni
105 E ji
Willey

vc•
sc•
pia.
Nog
00
1030

eat*
)13 tb°
ing.ig'
,Is la"
Aft':
new':tbos"