The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-26 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COSIMONS, Iffeacm 25.

The SPRAKErt having taken the Chair at the usual time,
The York and North Midland Railway Bill was road a
third fine and passed.
,LEINSTER AND MUNSTER RAILWAY.

Mr. A. YATES presented a petition from the Agent
f,r the Leinster and Munster Railway, praying that they
might have leive to proceed with their Bill, notwithstanding
their noncompliance with the Standing Orders. Although
the Commiqee had decided against them, the error was
merely a clerical one, and affidavit was made tbat all the
parties had been served in time, although their names bad
been omitted in tha notices to the House.
Mr. ESTCOURT opposed the motion, on the ground
that any inncvation of the Standing Orders would lead to
great irregularity.
Mr. V. STUART supported the motion. The spirit
cf the Standing Orders had been fully complied with, at-
though they had been violated in a literal sense. That
error, however, bad been cured by an affidavit made Mere
Judge Johnson, that all the parties concerned had been
served with the notices in due time.
After a few words from Mr. ASIITON YATES
strangers were ordered to withdraw, but the motion was
ntga,tved without a division.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition against
tha Liverpool Docks 13,11.
Mr. JAMES presented a petition from a anion in the
eaunty of Sunderland, praying for certain alterations in
the Poor-laws.

M. T. EGERTON presented four petitions from the
county cf Chest• r. pra)ing for Church Extension.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented several petitions against
e..couragerrent to idolatrous practices in India ; also peti-
twns against any grant to the College of Maynootb, and
fir the R. peal of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

Mr. COLQUHOUN brought in his Maynooth College
(Ireland) Bill, which was read a first time, and orde ed to
be piiuted. The Hon. Gentleman presented petitions is
lemur f the Bill from 2,000 Wesleyans at Newcastle,
from Rodborough, and from Glasgow.
Mr. DALLY KNIGHT presented a petition from the
county of Nottingham praying for ccrtain alterations in the
Poor-law F.
Lord G. STUART presented a petition from Ayr
agdiast Church Pa ronage.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH presented a petition from
some cf. the Guardians of the Union of Launceston, in the
county of Cornwall, praying that the power of the Poor-
-I,w Commissioners might be limited to as short a period
as 1 ouible.

Mr. I'HORNE LY presented a petition from forty work-
ing men and forty working women in the vicinity of Tam-
worth, praying ta a repeal of the Bre id Tax.
Lord HOTH AM presented a petition from Colonel
Ge ,rge Wyndham, against the dissolution of the unions
under the Gilbert Act.

Mr. GO ULBURN presented a reitim from an indi-
vidual in Manchester, complaining of the adteteration of
tobacco, and praying the attention of the House
might be directed to the subject ; also a petition
from the Cle,-gy of Taunton in Sumersetshire, against the
exemption of ►t..ck-in-trade from the payment of rate!.
Sir E. L. BULWER prelieti ed a petition from Lin-
coln in tavJur of the Jewish Deelvation Bill.

Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented a petition from
Manchester to the la ne effect ; and a petition from the
same place, compleinieg of the adulteration of tobacco.
PRINTING OF PETITIONS. -
Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved, in pursuance
of the notice he had give-, that the petition of Simnel
Coussins, of Old Cross, in the parish of Se Andrew, in
the county of Hertford (I resented the 24th of March), Le
prieted with the Votes.
Lord HO WICK thought the House ought not to agree
to this motion. He need not remind Hon. Members that
a few years ago petitions were printed upon the motion of
the presenters as a matter of course. An immense macs
of petitions were printed, which, except in rare cases,
no ore ever looked into, and petitions of an objectionable
character sometimes obtruded in the mass. A Select
Committee was appointed, to which petitions were rc-
fr reed, and which was to determine what petitions should
be printed. In the course of the last session a Committee
was appointed to consider the whole subject of printed ra-
pers, and in the report of that Committee it was strongly
recommended that petitions should not be printed without
tale ence to the Committee on Public Petitions, unless
the House should be of opinion that the mater of such
petition was such as would not admit of delay.—( Hear. )
The Hon Member for Salford said the ether ntlit that
there could not be two systems of priming papers, and
that it would be better to break up the Commit ea, if it was
not to have the regulation cf that part of the business cf
the Hotline In the sear I 536 a petition was printed cur-
taining the grossest calumnies upon the Lord Chief Just:ce
of the Grua of Common Pleas. The lion. Member for
Finsbury, when tho subject was last Lef ire the House, re-
ferred to tic opinion of the late Speaker, Lord Dunferm_
line, who szid that when a Member intended to bring a
subject formally before the House, the petition should be
pi tel as an appendix to tl e votes. But the Speaker did
not men to say that the House was to have no discretion
in rej c ieg a motion for the printing of any pe i ion.
If tl e Committee on Pullic Petitions discharge:l their
theies proper le, and it was certainly to be assume] that
they would do so, they would no doubt order a petition,
reheing to a subject which was to Fe brought before the
House, to be printed. If they did not do so, then the
Member presenting the petition might apply to Vie
House to have it printed, when the Members of the
Committee would have an opportunity of stating to the
Houle the grounds on which they objected to the printing
the petition. Therefore, ;f the case could be postponed
fur a week without any injury to the public interest, no
inconve.tienee could result from perscrcrirg in tl e
preset practice of referring such pe ition to the Corr-
n.i tee. In cases requiring immediate irtelc fs case,
the House preserved to itself thee.. right of' ?rdearicrieg'
the immediate printing of a p etion, but in such
case it was incumbent ou the Member who moved the
printing of it to show that there was some pressing.,l occe-
sion for bringing forward the subject immediately,
did not peree,ve that any such presein.goc occasion
er
ne. xieleide
ov
in fie present instance, and if the ilese
the recommendation of the Comnettee, he would eroeled
eguin object to the printing of any petition with the Vot.Ces.r
They were now called fon to decide whether they would
ageie revert to the old practice of printing petitions
criminately, as a proof of which, he would observe that
there were no less than three similar notices on the paper
of that day.
Mr. G 0 ULB UR N took a different view of the subject.
The only point the House were called on to decide was
whether they would print this particular petition, and he
i
thought they ought to do so if it could be shown th t the
petition was of such a character as to call for the immediate
interposition of the House to obtain an earlier Investigation
than could bo obtained by waiting for a reference to n
tho
Committee. What was the nature of this petition ? An
individual complained to the House that by the supposed
mistake or misconduct of a public officer, he had been
debarred from procuring a register of county vote;
s.
There was no subject which the House was more
bound to entertain than one which concerned ill!
exercise of the elective franchise, and the statement, whe-
ther true or Use, having been made to the House upon
the authority of an Hon. Member who had given notice
that he meant to make it the subject of discussion, he
thought the House should consent to the printing of this
petition for the use of Members only. He thought that
there was a special ground for the printing of this peel ion
which did net apply to re.i,ions of less urgency.
Mr. GREENE differed very much from the opinion
expressed by the Hon. Gentleman below. The question
merely way, whether this petition should be brought under
the consideration of the House at an earlier period than it
would have been, had it been referred to the Com-
mittee. To make this petition an exception to
the rule would be casting a stigma upon those
petitions which were referred to the Committee, and would
be declaring that those alone were worthy of the attention
of the House, which were printed with the votes. If it
could be shown that this petition was of so much import-
ance as to require that it should be brought forward
on an early day, he would then concur in the necessity
ef printing it; but unless that were shown, he thought
the House should adhere to the practice laid down.
M. EMERSON TENNENT supported the motion.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL made some observation?, solve,
in consequence of the Hon. Member's speaking in a very
indistinct tone, and turning his back on the Gallery, v-n
were unable to catch. We understood the Hon. Member
to conclude by declaring he would support the motion.
An HON. MESMER said that the question lay in whether
the House had sufficient confidence in the judgment of the
Corte
itions.--(No, no, from the
see was, he thought, accus-
ing of all petitions which
ieeessare to be so. The
ter the distribution of the
would be sufficiently early
tae. or whether there was some-
retitions which required it to be

Committee for printing peti
If zißofition. The Conimitti
toot& 4.0 t the printir
tight be ne
as %Thoth(
AukrOt
• Members
I,""'",r,' 14'44*,
..! of the ease
als; 6 ad this pet:
s

(