The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH t 9, 1840.

ings in the Courts of Law of Scotland, others
prayed for an abrogation of the rights usurped
by patrons, but at the same time expressed
a wish that the patrons might be compensated
for the loss of any pecuniary or other advantage which
they derived from their presentations. He felt himself
honoured by being entrusted with conveying to their
Lordships the prayers of those petitions ; but i.e was
not able to say a word as to the merits of the subject
to which those petitions referred.

IThe Earl of 2 ABERDEEN said the Noble Lord
had used a very wide word when he described the
greater part of the petitions as being in favour of the
principle of non-intrusion. If any Noble Lord would
take the trouble of looking in►o the petitions, he
would find that scarcely two of them were alike
in their prayer.--(Cries of " Hear.") So ne of them
simply prayed for the abolition of the present patronage,
others somewhat inconsistently recognised the rights of
the patrons, and prayed for compensation ; and others,
again, prayed for an arbitrary veto in the General
Assembly.

Lord -HOLLAND said a few words in explana-
ion which were inaudible
IRISH MUNICIPAL REFORM.

Lord FITZGERARD said he had a petition to
present to their Lordships of no slight importance.
When he had on a former evening given notice of his
intention to present it, he by no mans wished to pro-
pose any controversy on the subject—but re-
collecting what had passed i a former year
when he had presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Galway praying that they might be exempted from the
operation of ceitain provisions of the Municipal Re-
form Act. He now took the opportunity afforded by
the intervals between the stages of the Bill, in order

that if any Noble Lcrd were instructed to express any
dissent to the prayer of the petition he might have an op-
portunity of doing so, and he had the honour of presenting
last year a petition from the same place. Its prayer was
in some respects different from the present ; but the
main object was to have the town of Galway removed
frem the first schedule of the Bill, which gave to the
towns contained in it the option of having a Corporation
or not. The Bill of last year differed from that
s►nce sent up with respect to the fiscal powers of Grand
Juries, which it was proposed to transfer to the Town
Council, but which provision was not included in the
present Bill. The town of Galway did not object to
the public funds being strictly audited—whatever was
• his op ion of the Bill, and however much he de-
sired the abolition of all exclusive Corporations—
after the discussions which had taken place, he
-vas so impressed with the importance of settling the
luestion, that he should offer no opposition to it.
The Noble Lord said he doubted not that he would be
,übjected, as others had been, to animadversion and
reprobation for what was called an abandonment of
tormer principles. But those principles remained un-
changed, and he was convinced that he was, never-
,beless, taking the right course in not adhering
with stubborn obstinacy to one course. The in-
habitants of the town of Galway had instructed
their Representatives in the House of Commons
to move that it be omitted from Schedule A.
Ind those representatives had, in accordance with this
;nstruction, strenuously supported its object. Yet those
Members were among the steadiest and most stedfast
supporters of the present Government. This showed
,hat it was no party effort. The petition which he had
aow to prcs-mt stated that under the 5 and 6 Will. IV.
he fords of the town had been provided for, and that
'he administration of justice, and the appointment of
Sheriffs, had also been arranged by previous enactments.
They thereore payed that the town might not be bur-
leacd with a corporation—bringing along with it officers
r.o be paid by the burgesses—and that the town might
be placed in Schedule B.
The Marqu's of NORNIANBY could bear a willing
testimony to the highest respectability of the peCtioners,
at the same time be had a petition not exactly in oppo-
sition to—but not in accordance with, theirs—for
:t prayed that there might be certain alterations
.n the provisions of the Bill, but did not oppose the in-
sertion of Galway in schedule A.
Lord FITZGERALD said the petition he presented
comprised the names of individuals who paid nineteen-
twentieths of the whole town rating.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord GLENGALL presented a petition from Clon-
well, signed, as he would testify, by three-fourths of the
rate-payers, and a large majority of the most respectable
inhabitants of the town, against its inclusion in the Bill.
MUNICIPA.L REFORM (IRELAND).

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented
petitions from the city and county of Londonderry
lgainst the Irish Reform Bid, which he gave
notice he would bring under the consideration of the
House on the 26th instant, when he would put que-
tions to the Noble Marquis opposite (Lord Mormanby)
for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was the
intention of the Government to adhere to the declara-

:ion made by the Noble Marquis i❑ May last.
Lord LURGAN presented a petition from Belfast
n favour of non-intrusion in the Church of Scotland.

The Marquis of BUTS presented a petition from
Abercorn, and several other places in Scotland, against
the intrusion of Ministers.
VACCINATION BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY,
the Report on the Vaccination Bill was received.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY and Lord ELLEN•
BOROUGH intimated they had made some slight
alteration in it.
METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICTS.

The Marquis of NORMAN BY presented a Bill
for the better defining the pcwer of the Justices
in the Metropolitan police districts was read a
first time, and ordered to be printed ; and read a second
time on Monday.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved for the dis•
charge of the Order for the second reading of the 8.11
for the Administration of Justice until next week.

The House then adjourned at Six o'Clock.
SCOTCH CHURCH PATRONAGE.

The following are the places from whence petitions
were presented by Lord Holland, (in the absence
of his Noble Friend the Marquis of B e.tdalbane),
in favour of Non-intrusion from Dryfesdale, Melrose,
Forglen, Campbelitown, Killearnan, Kinfauns, Kinrws,
Kirtle, Abergaldy, Lochee, Collace, Kinclauen, Gir-
then, Anstruther Wester, Stirling, Moffat, Thurso,
Marnoch, mirth, Morridie, Glenisla, Linbrabin, Pr( s-
tonpans. Cupar. Angus, Cleish, Lunan, Leuchars, Bre-
chin, Dron, Greenlaw, Wich, Eastwood, Blairgowrie,
Cargill, Rhynd, Plochton, Stornaway, Torryburn,
Kilmuir Wester and Suady, Glenlyon, Ardnamurchan,
Glassery, Trinity Gash, Forteviot, Fearo, Newspeynie,
Banton, Ravyne, Meigle, Glcndovan, Maghera, Perth,
Lochgilphead, Duthil, Tinwald, Echford, Duntocher,
Kilbrandon, Castledtwson, Brechin. Ruthwell, Balqu-
bidder, Annan, Kilmalie, 'Farhat, Bridehich, Kiri, hill,
Newton Stewart and Penninghamc, Heriot, Glenorchy
and Inishiel, Dartmore, Falkirk, Pettinweem, Milton of
Balgowie, Lorne, Lethendy and Kinloch, Turriff, Kirk-
aldy, Halfmorton, Dunfermline, Ardenoig, Lawcrs
Breadalbane, Troqueer, Larbert, Dunipace, Monitnali,
Logic Easter, Elrig, Saint Peter's of Dundee, Logic-
almond, East Kilbride, Aberdeen, Lybstcr, Dumbaing,
Birnie, Caithness, Barry, Fintry, Catnpsie, Inbermory,
Strath Kinness, Dumfries, Kilmuir Easter, Rattray,
Reay, North Knapdale, Elgin, Portree, Invertiel, Gar-
vald Caputh, Tenandry, Mordington, Bernera, Dun-
keld, Craig, Rothiemay, Balnahine, Glenelg, Logic,
Chapelshade, Inverkeillor, Dalton, Speymouth, Forgan-
denny, Durinish, Killchrenan and Dallavich, Urray,
Strathfillan, Fearn, Kilehoman, Darsie, Kirkpatrick
Fleming, Dingwall, Kilmuir, Stanley, Strontian, Perth,

Kembach, Roscobie, Cockenzie, Coekburnspath, Cul-
ross, Milnathort, Prestonkirk, St. Mungo, Irongray,
'cundergarth, Renton, Innerwick,, Gash, Kilspendie,

Rosallisc Oban, Sprouston, Coutin, Kilsyth, Dunbar,

Tain, Keis Portnahasen, Tillicoultry, Stow, B:in-
nockburn, Denny, Bernedale, Crieff, Torphichen, Uist-
Soutlinapdale, Bowes, Burntisland, Abeniyte, Rotbes,
Anwoth, St, Andrews, Banff, Watten, Knoch, Ben-
dochy, Kelso, Fortwilliam, Eassay and Nevay, Kin-
goldrum, Newtyle, Kilcalmonell, Borth Kennar, Kirk,
ally, Ncwthornc, Kirkmichael, Abernethy, Scoonie,
Cambernauti, Allot, Killin, Chinnie, Beath. Fodderty,
Bruen, Legerwood, Duriblane, Dundee, Kennon ay,
Marnoch, Loehbrootn. Dingwall.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.

Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from the
Parliamentary Trustees for the improvement of the na-
vigation of the river Clyde, praying for an enlargement
of the harbour at Glasgow. Also a petition from the
Merchants' House of Glasgow in favour of the Glasgow
Poo'-rate Bill.

Colonel LYGON presented a petition from Worces-
ter against the Birmingham Cacal Bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a similar petition from
Coventry.
BOLTON SMALL DEBTS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the Bolton
Small Debts Bill was read a third time and passed.
Sir C. DOUGLAS presented a petition from the
Birmingham Canal Navigation Company-, against the
Birmingham Canal Junction Bill.
THAMES PLATE GLASS COMPANY.
On the Motion of Mr. BENJAMIN WOOD the
Thames Plate Glass Company Bill was read a third
time and passed.
PORTSMOUTH FLOATING BRIDGE.
On the motion of Sir GEORGE STAUNTON
the Portsmouth Floating Bridge Bill was read a sc-
cond time and ordered to be committed.

Mr. MILNES presented petitions from two parishes
in the West Riding of Yorkshire in favour of Church
Extension.

BRITISH LEGION.

Sir DE LACY EVANS rose to present a peti-
tion from 200 officers of the late British legion. T
Hon. and Gallant Member observed that he would not
trouble the House with entering into a detail of
the statements in the petition, but if the House would
allow him, he wished to make two or three observa-
tions.—(Cries of " Chair, chair.") He threw him-
self entirely on the indolgence of the House.—(Cries
of " Go on, go on.") He wished to correct an erro-

neous impression that had gone abroad, that h
had entered into a contract with the Spanish Govern-
ment for the pay of the petitioners and the men of the
Legion. That was entirely a mistake. Neither he
nor any other person entered into any contract with
the Spanish Government, but merely agreed to certain
conditions, as any other Government would do. He had
catered that service, as any other soldier would have done,
entirely upon his own judgment ; yet having had the.
command of the force, and being the only Member of
that force in the House, he was placed in a peculiar
position, and he therefore wished to make an observation
or two.

The SPEAKER said the Hon, Member ought to
confine himself to the statements of the petition. If
he confined himself to anything- strictly personal
to himself, the House probably would grant its indul-
gence.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir DE LACY EVANS—The observations he was
about to snake were strictly personal to himself. Of
course he felt the utmost anxiety to further the settle-
ment of the claims of the petitioners ; but so long as
the success of the constitutional cause remained in
doubt, and until the sum due was ascertained, he felt
that he had no right to bring the case before the House ;
but as that cause was now safe, and as the sum was
ascertained to be 280,000/., he considered that—(Cries
of " Order, order.") He was anxious to abstain from
going into details, but he would call the attention of the
House to the petition after Easter—expressing a hope
that before that time—(Cries of " Order, order.") The
petition was laid on the table.
Mr. A. CHAPI,IAN presented a petition from
Whitby, in favour of Church Extension.
Siatilar petitions were presented by Mr. HAL-
FORD, from two parishes in the county of Leicester.
Sir C. LEMON presented seven petitions from
parishes in the county of Cornwall, praying that no
alteration might be made in the Corn-laws.
Similar petitions were presented by Mr. ComrroN
and Lord WoasLEY, from several places in Linconshire.
Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from St.
George's parish in Glasgow, praying that in any legis-
lative enactment respecting the Scottish Church, the
principle of the Veto Act, as it was called, might not be
recognised. Also, similar petitions from a parish in
Lanarkshire and the county of Argyle.
Colonel I'ERCEVA L presented a petition, signed
by the High Sheriff, Grand Jury, and all the respecta-
bility of the county of Sligo, praying for the establish-
ment of an impartial system of railways in Ireland.
Mr. R. CURRIE presented a petition from the in-
habitants of Long-Buckby, Northamptonshire, for the
suppression of Ecclesiastical Courts, relief from Church-
rates, and the discharge of J. Thorogood. Also a pe-
tition for the same object, from the Baptist Congrega-
tion of the same place.
Mr. A'COURT HOLMES presented a petition
from the Isle of Wight in favour of Church Extension.

Mr. JOHN FIELDEN presented petitions from
Oldham and other places in Lancashire, praying for the
total abolition of the Corn-laws : also a petition from
Blackburn, praying for Universal Suffrage, Annual
Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot.
Mr. PUSEY presented petitions from thirty-two
parishes in Berkshire, in favour of the Corn-laws.

Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN presented a petition from
Cornwall for the immediate and total repeal of the
Corn•laws.

Sir G. STAUNTON presented a petition from
Buckinghamshire, praying the House to adopt mea-
sures for the suppression of the opium trade with
China

Mr. M'KINNON presented a petition from Lyming-
too in favour of Church Extension.

Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from Canada
against any alienation of the Church property in that
col ny.
Mr. SAN FORD presented a' petition from a parish
in the county of Suffolk, praying for inquiry into the
operation of the Corn-laws. Also a petition from the
members of the church and congregation of Shepherd's
Market, praying for inquiry into the state of Church Es-
tablishments.

An HC N. MEMBER presented a petition from Suf-
folk, signed by 4,831 persons, for the repeal of the:Corn-
laws.

DIVORCE BILLS.

Sir GEORGE GREY moved to amend the Stand-
ing Order on Divorce Bills, in conformity with the
provisions of the Act 1 Geo. IV. c. 101, relating to
India, and also the following resolution—" That in
all cases in which the petitioner for the Bill
has attended the House of Lords upon the
second reading of the Bill, he be required to attend also
to answer any questions the Select Committee may
think fit to require that he should answer."
Mr. HU ME expressed his regret that the Govern-
ment had not thought it their duty to consider what
means could be adopted to prevent that House being
made a tribunal for such purposes.
Mr. FRESHFIELD presented a petition from the
Clergy and Charch„ardons of Falmouth, praying for
Church Extension.

Colonel RUSHBROOK presented a petition from
Worthington, in the county of Suffolk, praying for the
repeal of the Corn-laws.
An 110 N. MEMBER presented a petition from four
parishes in Norfolk against any alteration in the Corn-
laws.

Sir F. TRENCH presented a Petition in favour of
Medical Reform.

Lord TEIGNMOUTH presented a petition from
certain bakers of London against Sunday Trading in
the Metropolis.

Mr. HUME presented two petitions praying for the
release of John Thorogood, and the abolition of
Church-rates, one from Stoney-Stratford, and the
other from a place in Northamptonshire ; also six
petitions from Glasgow, Ayrbridge, Irons a parish
in Fifeshire, from the Universal Suffrage Associa-
tion of Lanark, s;gned by 5,000 persons, and from
two other places, praying for extension of the suf.-
rage, and no-property qualification ; also eight peti-
tions from Bradford, and various places in Lancashire,
Dumfriesshire and Chester, praying for the abolition of
the Corn-laws.

Lord SANDON presented a petition from the Mi-
nisters and Elders of the Scottish Church in Liverpool.
praying that the Legislature might settle the question ( f
Non-intrusion.

Mr. BAINES presented a petition from a place in
the West-riding of Yorkshire signed by 700 persons,
praying for on abolition of the Corn-laws.
Mr. FOX MAULE presented a petition from a
place in Nova-Scotia, complaining of the state of reli-
gious destitution in our North Amcr:can Co!onies, and
praying the attention of the House to the subject
On the motion of Mr. G. CRAIG the Arbroath and
Forfar Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of the same Hon. Member, the Lords'
amendments to the Edinburgh Gas Bill were agreed to.
Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from Glas-
gow against the Glasgow Poor-rate B;11.

Ttic ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a peti
tion from the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh
praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws.
CHINA.

Sir J. GRAHAM gave notice that on the 2d of
April he would make a motion with regard to China.
The precise terms of the motion he would take care to
state early next week.

The CHANCELLOR of. the EXCHEQUER—
They have bepri presented.—(A laugh.)
Sir R. PEEL—But have they been printed?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER be-
lieved not.

PATENTS.
Sir R. PEEL also wished to know whether the
papers for which he had moved respecting the decisions
of the Committee of Privy Council on Patents had been
presented.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the papers
would be laid before the House as soon as possible.
CHINA.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM, seeing the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, wished to
ask him two questions. The first question was with
respect to opium. It appeared that a certain
quantity of opium had been delivered by the
Superintendent at Canton, under certificate.
There was reason to believe that a further quantity of
opium had been purchased by the Superintendent, and
had been delivered up by the Chinese authorities, in
order to make up the quantity mentioned in the certiii-
care : no such transaction appeared from the papers
which had been laid upon the table. He wished to
ask the Noble Lord whether such a transaction had
taken place, and if there would be any objection to
produce the papers relating thereto. The second
question lie wished to ask related to the
supposed destruction of the opium surrendered
to, and destroyed by, the Chinese authorities. From
those papers it did not appear that the destruction of
the opium had taken place; the only mention made of
it seemed to shew that it had been transmitted to Pekin
for the use of the Chinese Government. He asked the
Noble Lord whether he had any other information upon
the subject, showing that it had been destroyed or so
sent to Pekin, and if so, whether there would be any
objection to its production.
Lord PALMERSTON said, with respect to the
first question, what happened was this—the parties in
Canton having agreed to deliver up the opium in their
or their agents' hands, each house made out a statement
of the quantity they had in China, and the aggregate
amount was given to the Chinese Commissioner. One
of the ships containing the opium disobeyed the orders
of the Superintendent, and sailed away ; the conse-
quence was, that there was a deficiency to the amount
that ship contained. Captain Elliot purchased a quantity
which bad subsequently arrived, in order to make up
the aggregate quantity. He was not aware that there
were any other papers in the office, but it there were,
of course they would be produced. With re-
gard to the destruction of the opium, he had
no other accounts than those contained in
the papers which had been presented. Of course
he had seen accounts in the newspapers, but he knew
nothing farther officially than that contained in the
papers.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM saw by the instructions
to the Superintendent in 1833, reference was made to an
Order in Council for regulating the trade with the port
of China. He wished to ask the Noble Lord if he had
any objection to the production of that Order in Council.
His second question was whether the Noble Lord had
received and wss ready to produce the remonstrance
said to have been made by certain American merchants
at Cat)t)n against the b&ockade?

Lord PALMERSTON said, with respect to these
papers, he produced everything that appeared to him
oecetsary to elucidate the matter, and he had not the
east objection to the production of these to which the
Right lion. Baronet alluded. With regard to the
second question, he had not received any report of
the remonstrance said to have been made by the Ameri-
can merchants at Canton.