The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-08 00:00:00

Opposition benches.) The Hon. Member concluded by
expressing his cordial approbation of the motion.
The SPEAKER then :aid that before he put the clues-
tier, there seemed to him to be an objection to the House
en•ering on its discussion. A similar motion bad been
already introduced on the I 2th of February lent, and had
been rejected by the House. The same question could
no, however, be twice brought forward in the same session.
Mr. HUME acknowledged the justice of the objection,
and he therefore wished that his Hon. Friend might be
allowed to change the terms of his rnetion. He might
certainly move that the House should resolve itself into
a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of con-
sidering the question of Church-rates.
Mr. E A STHOPE allowed that he hal been led into
a technical error, and he wished to be allowed to change
the terms of his motion, according to the suggestion of
his Honourable Friend.
Sir R. PEEL thought that the Hon. Member should
not be allowed to change the terms of his motion. The
Hon. Member had given notice of a motion on the subject
of Church-rates, but he was prevented from proceeding
with it on a technical objection. He remembered that a
' similar case had occurred, when his Hon. Friend the
Member for the University of Oxford, had brought for-
ward a motion for she purpose of Church Exten-
sion. There was a rule of the House regulating
such twitters, and he thought that while that order
remained unrepealed it should be strictly enforced.
It would he as convenient for him to discuss the question
then, but he could not consent to a violation of the estab-
liehed rules of the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet in every thing that had fallen from him. The
rule of the Howie bad been laid down by the Speaker, and
he thought they should act in accordance with it.-4 Hear.)
Mr. HUME, on ferther consideration, also adopted the
opinions of the Right Hon. Baronet. He admitted that
it was more conveni:nt that the rules of the House should
be impartially enforced in all cases.
The motion was then discharged.
DANISH CLAIMS.

The S?EAKER having; called on I‘,lr. Creswell,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
ha believed it would be better that he should inform the
House and the Learned Member that his motion was also
contrary to the Standing :Orders of the House.—( Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) The question was one which involved
trade and commerce, and should therefore originate in a
Committee of the whole House.—( Hear.)
Mr. CRESWELL admitted that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had the advantage of him on this occasion.—
( Hear, hear.) The fact was he had not recollected the
Standing Order on the subject. He had hoped, however,
after all that had already passed, the Right Honourable
Gentleman would no longer oppose the claims of the
parties in question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he considered the question a most important one,
but he could not adn.it that the claim of the parties was
a fur one, and however much he might regret their losses,
he did not think they could have any right to compensa-
tion from their fellow-subjects_ lie would therefore feel
it to be his duty, on every future occasion, to give the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman his most strenuous oppo.

Sir R. PEEL wished to apply the rules of the House
indiscriminately.—( Hear, hear.) He was sure that that
was the only means by which justice could be effectually
extended to all parties. He submitted, therefore, that the
House could not entertain the question.
The mction was withdrawn.
EMBANKMENT OF THE THAMES.

Sir F. TRENCH rose to move "That an instruction
be given to the Select Committee of this House appointed
to consider the petition of the Corporation of:London re-
lative to the embankment of the river Thames, and to re-
port their observations and opinion thereupon to the House,
together with the best means of carrying the same into
effect,' to the following import: that they shall consider
and report their opinion, whether the formation of a terrace
or quay along the banks of the river from Southwark-
bridge to Hungerford Market, would facilitate the conve-
nience of public communication, and contribute greatly as
well to the embellishment of the metropolises to the health,
comfort, and recreation of its inhabitants, especially those
who are engeged in sedentary employments, and too often
reside in close and crowded and unwholesome apartments."
Mr. HAWES opposed the motion, as there was a
Select Committee already sitting for the purpose of en-
quiring into the subject, who were fully empowered to con-
sider any suggestion that might come before them.
Mr. WARBURTON alto opposed the motion.
Sir J. GRA HAM said that the motion of his Hon.
Friend was an unnecessary one, and he therefore hoped
he would withdraw it.

Sir M. WOOD supported the motion.
Sir G. STRICKLAND said that it was erroneously
supposed that the lion. Member had prejudged the ques-
tion. All he wished was that the Committee should take
the matter into their consideration.
Aft..er a few words from Lord R. GROSVENOR and Mr.
GEORGE HOPE,

Sir R. INGLIS said, having no wharf or property of
any description on the river, ho was at least as able to
give a disinterested opinion on this subject as any other
Member. He could not but thank his Hon. Friend for
his proposition, tli;Aigh he thought the instructing a
Committee to do that a hick they had already the power
of doing was supe► floons,—( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said the public were under great obliga-
tions to his Hon. and Gallant Friend for his motion, but
he thought it would not be in accordance with the custom
of the House to give special instructions to a Committee
on this subject—( lear, hear.) If the Committee had
not power sufficient, their power should be enlarged, but
if they had ho decidedly objected to interference is their
exerc►se of it. He would therefore recommend his Hon.
Friend to introduce the subject in a way more in accord-
ance with the rules of the House.
Sir F. TRENCH said that he feared his zeal had be-
trayed him into one of two informalities in this motion, and
he should therefore adopt the suggestion of his Right Hon.
Friend and not persist in it.—( Hear.)
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
SCOTCH REVENUE.
Mr. COL QU OUN moved fir returns specifying the
items of charge included under the head of Miacellaneous
Payments in the Accouuts of the Crown Agents for the
the years 1837 and 1838, as stated ►n the return to the
address of the House of Commons of the 11th day of April,
1839, ordered to be printed 18th March, 1840. Of the
heads of charge stated in the Miscellaneous Services,
Scotland, of 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838, paid to the so-
licitors for the conduct of public Bills; of the amount of
charge during the same years paid to other parties con-
cerned in the preparation of public Bills ; stating in what
public accounte, presented to Parliament, the amount of
these last charges has appeared. Of the gross and net
revenue or income from the Crown lands or hereditary re-
venues of Scotland, for the years 1835, 1836, 1837, and
1838 ; with a statement of all the payments made out of
the same in Scotland, by whose authority such payments
wore made; and the parties to whom, and the amount
received by each. Of all sums paid in Scotland
by the Queen's Remembrancer, or any other
public officer, during the years 1835, 1836, 1837, and
1838, not included in the Finance Accounts of these years,
as paid on behalf of the Civil Establishment of Scotland ;
stating these in columns ; the amount of etch payment ;
the object for which, the party to whom, and the autho-

rity on which the respective payments were made. Of
the amount of Salaries paid to the Queen's Remem-
brancer, Auditor, or other officer of the Exchequer in
Scotland, and of fees or other emoluments received by
them, with the expenses incurred in their respective
officvs during the years 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838. Of
the number of such Bills relating to Scotland as have

been introduced into Plidrnent by any Member of the
Government or by any ore in conjunction with a Meiv.ber
of the Government, during the years 1835, 1836, 1837,
1838, and 1839, not including the Bills of which a return
has been already made to this House, introduced into

Parliament by the Law.officers of the Crown during the
years 1E35, 1836, 1837, and 1838; distinguishing those
vrhipa have passed into law, and also those which passed
tlrough this House ; and stating the expense attending
the preparation and further prosecution of such Bills into
or through Parliament, with the names of the persons to
whom such expenses have Seen paid, with the amounts
paid to each, and the authority by which, and the funds
out of which such payments have been made.
The LORD ADVOCATE agreed to the motion, but
thcught that the returns moved for were not sufficiently

expli'cit, and that sufficient notice had not been given of
the motion.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. W. ROC H E rose, pursuant to motion, to call the
attention of the 110u.,e to a petition which he presented on
the 25th of June, and caused to be printed, from the arti-
sans end other citizens of Limerick, complaining of the
perishable and unfit nature of the stone about to be used in
erecting the new Houses of Parliament, and alleging the
superiority of the Limerick or Balysimon stone for that
purpose ; an assertion which petitioners prayed might be
tested by reference to any disinterested competent Board
or persons ; and which superiority of the Limerick stone,
and inferiority of the Bolsover stone, petitioners
stated to have been already pronounced upon by
several eminent geologists and scientific publications.
The Hon. Member, who spoke so low that it was with
difficulty that we
.could catch even the tenor of his re-
marks, was understood to say, that the edifice about to be
erected being one that was intended to last for ages,
would be one that not only by the correctness and ele.
gance of its design, but also by the permanency of its
materials, would testify to future times our knowledge of
the arts and sciences, or the absence of it. It was said by
Canova that if London were destroyed, the ruins of St.
Paul's would bear witness to the wisdom by which the
materials of its construction had been selected. With
respect to the Limerick atone there had lately been taken
down in the county of Limerick nn edifice which had been
erected of this material in the reign of the first, George
and the stones were found to be in exactly the same state
of preservation. With regard to the colour, the only
complaint that could be made against it, those best com-
petent to judge on this subject had stated that
it was a characteristic of this stone to beautify
by time, while all stones of a porous nature
were more liable to be injured aud defaced by it.
There was another consideration in its favour. The stout
necessary to be employed would be 500,000 cubic feet, at
53. per foot, while that of the Limerick stone was only Is.,
and its use would thus occasion an immense saving to the
country. Under these circumstances he thought he was
justified, as a local representative, in bringing this subject
forward, and also in a more national and general sense.
It was his design originally to have proposed to refer the
subject to a Select Committee, which might examine into
the merits of the rival stones, but he had been dissuaded
from doing so by Irish Members. He understood a con-
tract had been made for other stone, but if this were so
there might be many occasions and purposes on which the
stone so contracted for might be used. He had reason to
state that the Limerick stone had got into unusual favour
of late, and that most probably the Royal Exchange would
be built with it; he therefore begged to move that the
petition be referred to the Commissioners of Woods and
F '2-ests, v.ith the vi_tr of ceueir'g thee) to test OA. quality
u ti,e s:. )
Mr. VIG ORS seconded the motion.