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

CHURCH EXTENSION.

Sir R. PEEL presented petitions in favour of
Church extension from St. Bride's, Fleet-street, London,
from Haddesley, Kmloch, and a great number of other
places.

Sir T. FRE MANTLE presented a similar peti-
tion from a place in Buckinghamshire.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented similar petitions from
Hampshire, Norfolk, and Kent.
The Hon. Captain HOWARD took the oaths and
his seat for Morpeth, for which borough he has been re-
turned in lieu of Lord Levison. The Hon. Gentleman
was introduced by Lord Seymour and Mr. Baring Wall.
Mr. JONES presented a petition against the annual
grant to the College of Maynooth.
THE SALE OF BEER BILL.
Mr. PAKINGTON brought in a Bill to Amend
the Laws for Regulating the Sale of Beer. The Bill
was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second
time on Tuesday, the 17th inst.
THE OPIUM TRADE.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Dar-
lington, numerously and respectably signed, condemning
the contraband trade in opium with China.

THE CORN-LAWS.—
Mr. GREG presented several petitions from Man-
chester and other places, praying for the repeal of the
Corn-laws.

Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions from Hamp-
shire and Norfolk against the Irish Corporations Re-
form Bill, and others from places in Kent, for the re-
peal of the Catholic Relief Bill of 1829. He cordially
concurred in the prayer of the petitions.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. ORD moved the Order of the Day for the
adjourned debate on Controverted Elections.
The SPEAKEtt having put the question that the
attendance of panels No. 1 and 2 on the 12th of March
be discharged,

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he had
looked into the Act of Parliament since the House last
sat, and it appeared to him, after a careful perusal of
that Act, that the proper course to be taken would
be that the motion of the Honourable Member
should be negatived, which would have the
effect of leaving the panels to attend according to
their order, and when the panels attended the General
Committee could pass by the Ludlow and nominate the
others in the order in which they stood. The Hon.
and Learned. Member then proceeded to detail the pro-
visions of the Act, and observed that in the Lud-
low case the notices had not been given
which were required. The notices not having
been given and refused, according to the pro-
visions of the Act the proceedings, in his opinion, were
suspended. The question then was, whether it was
necessary to suspend the nomination of all the four pe-
titions, because the first Committee was not in a situa-
tion to proceed. He had come to the conclusion that
such a course was not necessary, but that the Ludlow
case coining within the 22d section, the proceedings
upon it must be suspended till the proper notices had
been given.

Sir WILLIAM RAE thought, that as the Ludlow
petition had been presented last Session, it came under
the provisions of the 9th section of the Act, and then:-
fore could not be treated as a petition suspended. Every
petition presented last Session ought to be considered
before any presented during the present Session. The
Ludlow petition had been presented last Session, and the
petition presented in the present Session ought to be con-
sidered as part of the first proceeding, and therefore the
provisions of the Act had not been complied with. He
would propose that all orders remitting any petitions to
the Election Committee should be read and discharged,
and a n”w remittance of such petitions made to the Ge-
neral Committee in a proper and legal order.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT agreed with the
Right Honourable Gentleman who had last spoken
as to the construction to be placed upon the
Act, and differed from his Right Hon. Friend the So-
licitor-General. He should not oppose the motion
which he apprehended to be a right one. Election pe-titions had been presented from Ludlow and Totnes
during the course of last Session, and from Cambridge
and Ipswich during the course of the present one. Lust
Session the sitting Member for Ludlow had inti-
mated to the Speaker that it was not his inten-
tion to defend his seat, upon which certain of the
electors had petitioned to be allowed to defend it.
The House this Session had referred the petition against
the return to the General Committee, but had neglected
to refer in the first instance the petition of the electors
to defend the return. When the petitions had been
referred to the General Committee, they had made out
their list in the following order :—Ludlow, Ipswich,
Totnes, Cambridge ; but in consequence of the petition
of the electors not having been referred to the Com-
mittee, they had given no notice to the petitioners, con-
sequently the provisions of the 42d section had not
been complied with, and the proceedings could not
regularly go on until such notice had been given.
There were only two clauses in the Act which applied,
the 52d and the 30th.—(The Hon. Member then read
the clauses.) Suppose a petition referred to the gene-
ral Committee against the sitting Member, and he
gave notice that he did not mean to defend Lie seat, and
notice is inserted in the Gazette, and then the general
Committee suspend it. He thought they would find
no other clause in the Act empowering them to
do so, but the 32d clause, and that they had no power
to take one case before another, except it had baen par-
ticularly provided for. If it occurred that a petition
hail been presented this session, and referred to the
general Committee, and the sitting Member had said he
did not mean to defend his scat, and notice had been
given, then the power of suspending it would
have applied, but it would apply only to a
case of that sort. Then came the 52d sec-

tion ; and it was argued under that, that inasmuch as
they could not proceed with the Ludlow petition, be-
cause they had not given a notice of 30 days, and was
therefore virtually suspended, but he apprehended
the clause applied only to the " cases hereinbe-
fore provided" for, and that inasmuch as they
had not given the right notice to the patty in the
Lu l'o.v election, it was necessary such person
should have such notice before they proceeded ; and as
the genersl Committee had appointed days on which
they could not proceed to the trial of the petition, and
t )ey had the power of appointing other days, they should
do so, and take care that they did not take one petition
before they had disposed of the other.—(Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he unfortu-
nately was not in his place on the former discussion
of
this eubject, and he was sorry to say he did not know,
Clcrl._, to -r...)a):tic,nti t Hors:, „:7 Au- ,("V
VI ti,'
G, Cat: ^7P
c a.ietzwer for