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

ROUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 25.

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

Mr. A. YATES presented a petition from the Agent
fm. the Leinster and Mun'ter Railway, praying that they
might have leave to proceed with their Bil►, notwithstanding
their noncompliance with the Standing Orders. Although
the Committee had decided against them, the error was
merely a clerical ore, and affidavit was made that all the
parties had been served in time, although their names had
been omitted in the notices to the House.
Mr. ESTCOURT opposed the motion, on the ground
that any innovation of the Standing Orders would lead to
great irregularity.
Mr. V. STUART supported the motion. The spirit
of the Standing Orders had been fully complied with, al-
though they had been violated in a literal sense. That
error, however, had been cured by an affidavit made before
Judge Johnson, that all the parties concerned had been
served with the notices in due time.

...
After a few words from Mr. ASHTON YATES
strangers were ordered to withdraw, but the motion was
negatived without a division.

-Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition against
the Liverpool Docks Bill.

Mr. JAMES presented a petition from a union in the
county of Sunderland, praying for certain alterations in
the Poor-laws.
Mr. T. EGERTON presented four petitions from the
county of Chester, praying for Church Extension.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented several petitions against
encouragement to idolatrous practices in India; alsu peti-
tions against any grant to the College of Maynooth, and
for the Repeal of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

Mr. COLQUHOUN brought in his Maynooth College
(Ireland) Bill, which was read a first time, and ordored to
be printed. The Hon. Gentleman presented petitions in
favour cf the Bill from 2,000 Wesleyans at Newcastle,

from Rodborough, and from Glasgow.
Mr. GA LLY KNIGHT presented a petition from the
county of Nottingham praying for certain alterations in tho
Poor-laws.

Lord G. STUART presented a petition from Ayr
against Church Patronage.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH presented a petition from
some of the Guardians of the Union of Launceston, in the
county of Cornwall, praying that the power of the Poor-
law Commissioners might be limited to as short a period
as possible.
Mr. THORNE LT presented a petition from forty work-
ing men and forty working women in the vicinity of Tam-
worth, praying for a repeal of the Bread Tax.
Lord HOTH AM presented a petition from Colonel
George Wyndham, against the dissolution of the unions
under the Gilbert Act.

Mr. G 0 ULBURIsi presented a petition from an indi-
vidual in Manchester, complaining of the adulteration of
tobacco, and praying the attention of the House
might be directed to the subject ; also a petition
from the Clergy of Taunton in Someraetshire, against the
exemption of uteck-in-trade from the payment of rates.
Sir E. L. BULWER preaen!ed a petition from Lin-
coln in favour of the Jewish Declaration Bill.

Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented a petition from
Manchester to the saran effect ; and a petition from the
sallpe place, complaining of the adulteration of tobacco.
PRINTING OF PETITIONS.
Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved, in pursuance
of the notice he had given, that the petition of Samuel
Coussins, of Old Cross, in the parish of St. Andrew, in
the county of Hertford (presented the 24th of March), be
printed with the Votes.
Lord H 0 WICK thought the House ought not to agree

to this motion. He need not remind Hon. Nlembers.that
a few years ago petitions were printed upon the motion of
the presenters as a matter of course. An immense mass
of petitions were printed, which, except in rare cases,
no one ever looked into, and petitions of an objectionable
character sometimes obtruded in the mass. A select
Committee was appointed, to which petitions were re-
ferred, 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 pa.
pus, and in the report of that Committee it was strongly
recommended that petitions should not be printed without
reference to the Committee on Public Petitions, unless
the House should be of opinion that the matter of such
petition was such as would not admit of delay.--(Hear. )
The Hon. Member for Salford said the other night that
there could not be two systems of printing papers, and
that it would be better to break up the Commit•ee, if it was
not to have the regulation of that part of the business of
the House. In the year 1836 a petition was printed con-
taining the grossest calumnies upon the Lord Chief Justice
of the Court of Common Pleas. The Hon. Member for

Finsbury, when the subject was last before the House, re-
ferred to the opinion of the late Speaker, Lord Dueferm-
line, who said that when'a slenoter intended to bring a
subject formally before the House, the petition should he
printed as an appendix to the voter. But the Speaker did
not me in to say that the House was to have no discretion
in rejfctiog a motion for the printing of any pe ition.
If the Committee on Public Petitions discharged their
duties properly, and it was certainly to be assumed that
they would do so, they would no doubt order a petition,
relating to a subject which was to be brought before the
mHoeurnsbee,rtopeicbrepnrtninitged.thlfpeth;Y did not do so, then the
ion
might apply to the
House to have it printed,' when the Members of the
Committee would have an opportunity of stating to the
House the grounds on which they objected to the printing
the petition. Therefore, if the cafe could be postponed
for a week without aey injury to the public interest, no
inconvenience could result from persevering in the
prese..t practice of referring such petition to the Com-
mittee. In cases requiring immediate interference'
the House preserved to itself the right of ordering
the immediate printing of a petition, but in such
case it was incumbent on the Member who moved the
printing ofit to show that there was some pressing OCCP-
ston for bringing forward the subject immediately. He
did not perceive that any such pressing occasion existed
in the present instance, and if the House now overruled
the recommendation of the Committee, he would never
egiin object to the printing of any_petition with the Votes.
They were now called on to decide whether they would
again revert t o the old practice of printing petitions indis-
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. GO ULBURN 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
thought they ought to do so if it could be shown that the
petition was of such a chi racter as to call for the immediate
interposition cf the House to obtain an earlier investigation
than coul I be obtained by waiting for a reference to the
Committee. Whet was the nature of this petition ? An
i 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 voters.
There was no subject wh:ch the House was more
bound to entertain than one which conc:rned the
exercise of the elective franchise, and the statement, whe-
ther true or false, having been made to the House upon
the authority of an Hor. Member who had given notice
that he meant to make it the subject cf 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 orbiting of this petition
which Cid not apply to pe itions of less urgency.
Mr. GREENE diffoed very much from the opinion
expressed by the Hon. Gentleman below. The question
mcr:ly was., whether this petiiim should be brought under
the consideration of the House at an earlier period than it
would have beet), had it been referred to the Cern-
mittee. To make this petition an exception to
the rule would be casting a stigma upon those
petitions which wet e referred to the Committee, and would
be declaring that those alone wore 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
of printing it; but unless that were shown, he thought 1
the House should adhere to the practice 1 ,id down.
S:r E. K N AT C HBUL L made some observtions, w 'ewe
M. EMERSON TENNENT supported the motion..
in consequence of the Hon. Member's speaking i n a very
indistinct tone, and turning his back on the Gallery, see
were unable to catch. We understood the Hon. Member
to conclude by declaring be would support the motion.
oeht, accuse
At; Hots. MEMISF,R said that the question lay in whether
the House had sufficient confidence in the judgment of the
Committee for printing petitions.—( No, no, from the
waled to direct the printing of all petitions which
Opposition.) The Committee was, he thu
they thought might be neeessar)t be so. The
simple question was whether the distribution of the
petition among the Members would be sufficiently early
for the emergency of the case, or whether
there was some-
thing
in the matter of this petition, which required it to be