The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 12.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
Mr. LINDESAY took the oaths and his seat for
Sandwich. The Hon. Member was introduced by Lord
Granville Somerset and Captain Gorden. He was re-
ceived with loud cheers from the Conservative benches.
The Report on the Sougiampton Trust (St. Pancris)
Paving Bill was brought up.
LEVRINGTON INCLOSURE BILL.
On the motion that the Levrington Inclosure Bill be
brought up,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from cer-
tain poor cottagers who had brought a portion of the
common into cultivation, and who had held their pro-
perty for sixteen years. In the preamble to this Bill, it
was stated that these persons had no right to this pro-
' Perty. At the last Summer Asssizes the promoters of
the Bill had tried to eject these poor persons, but had
been foiled, and had had to pay the expellees of
both parties ; and now they tried to do that by
this Act which they could not do by law. He
contended that if this Bill passed, these poor persons
were entitled to compensation, and he should propose
to introduce words for the purpose of exempting these
holdings from the operation of the Bill.
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member could
not move the amendment without notice.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE would then move, that the
third reading of the Bill be postponed till to-morrow, and
he would give notice that on that occasion he should move
the addition which he was now precluded from moving
by the forms of the House.
Mr. HOME DRUMMOND said that the usual course
had been pursued with regard to this Bill, and he was
satisfied that these parties had not the shadow of a
claim, as 20 years possession was required to give a legal
right, and tkese parties had only had sixteen years pos-
session of these cottages.
Mr. PRYME thought that as the owners of this com-
mon had rested quietly for sixteen years, and as they
had been unable to prove their rights in a Court of
Law, this case was one well worthy of the con-
sideration of the House. He should support the
motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury.
It was ultimately arranged (as we understood) that the
amendment was withdrawn on the understanding that
on Monday the Hon. Member should have an opportu-
nity of proposing the addition to the second clause.
The Kidderminster Small Tenants Bill was read a
third time and passed, after a clause had been added to
it byway of rider.
The Lords amendment to the_ Slough and Colnbrook-
road Bill were agreed to.
-Mr. T. PARKER presented a petition from Preston,
signed by 4,000 persons, against any alteration of the
import duties.
Sir H. FLEETWOOD preiented a petition from
Preston in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from
Worsley, in Lancashire, containing 2,436 signatures,
praying that the Corn-laws may be entirely abolished ;
also fourteen petitions from operatives of various trades
in Lancashire to the same effect. ..
Mr. L.A.NGDALE presented a petition from Lancaster,
in the county of York, to the same effect.
Mr. W. EVANS presented petitions from Nottingham
and Derbyshire, to the same effect.
Mr. LISTER presented a petition from the labourers
of Bradford to the same effect.
Mr. JAMES presented fourteen petitions from various
places in Cumberland in favour of a repeal of the Corn-
laws.

Mr. BAINES presented five petitions from Leeds and
other places, in favour of the measure announced by her
Majesty's Ministers for altering the duty on timber
and sugar, and for an alteration in the Corn-laws.

The Rijn. Member said he had also five petitions for the
repeal of the Corn-laws, principally from working men ;
and if the House would allow him he would state shortly
what it was the petitioners alleged. They said that
they had nothing but their labour in the way
of property ; that they had laboured under
great distress for many years ; that they had
made application to that House for the redress of their
grievances, and that they had always been told, and
properly told, that Parliament could not legislate for the
purpose of increasing the rate of wages. They further
stated, that they had found that Parliament could legis-
late for the purpose of increasing the rates upon land ; and
finding that Parliament could legislate for the purpose of
increasing the rates of landlords, they thought they ought
either to legislate for the increase of wages of
labour, or to , repeal the Corn-laws. And as
they found it was impossible they could legis-
late for the increase of the rate of labour, they prayed
that Parliament would forthwith make such alterations
in the Corn-laws as would make thee efficient for the
purposes -of raising the revenue, and not the necessary
supply.
Mr. CORRY presented a petition from Tyrone against
patronage in the Church of Scotland.
Sir C. STYLE presented a petition from Scarborough,
signed by upwards of 1,700 of the working classes, in
favour of the plan proposed by her Majesty's Govern-
ment, with reference to the duties on sugar and corn.
Mr. BUSFIELD presented fourteen petitions from
Bradford, and other places in the neighbourhood, to the
same effect.

Mr. B. SMITH presented a petition from Norwich,
praying for an alteration of the duties on corn, sugar,
and timber.

Mr. BROCKELHURST presented a petition against
Church Extension.

Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Ebenezer
Chapel, Birmingham, against Church-rates.
Mr. CLAY presented a petition from the Tower Ham-
lets, praying for the abolition of Church-rates.