The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-27 00:00:00

Til SUN,LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 1840.

CORN-LAWS.

The Earl of Rosebery, the Duke of Sutherland,
Lord Clarendon, and Lord Redesdale, presented peti-
tions from various places in Scotland and England,
praying for an alteration of the Corn-laws.
Lord FITZGERALD presented a petition from a
barony in the county of Galway, against any alteration
of those laws. .

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND).
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition
from a place in Ayrshire, against the existing system of
Church Patronage in Scotland.
The Earl of ABERDEEN presented several pe-
titions to the same effect.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW IN
IRELAND.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH, in terms of strong
indignation, complained of a wilful and malicious mis-
representation of what be said on a former evening in a
Morning Paper in the Whig interest. He thought
that if any of the Whigs of the old time would rise from
their graves, they would be ashamed of the conduct which
was pursued by those who professed to follow them. He
was willing to give every latitude to the facetiousness
in which newspaper writers were indulged—and, perhaps,
in this free country rightly indulged—and he could
make every allowance for their not recording the words
which fell from so humble an individual as himself,
but there could be no possible excuse for as-
serting that he had used expressions which were
not only inconsistent with what he did say, but
in some respect opposite to them. He had said
that the interference of the Roman Catholic Priests in
the election of the Guardians of the Poor in Ireland
had become a nuisance. The paper, of which he com-
plained, reported him to say that " the Priests were
making themselves a nuisance." He never used any
words which could be misunderstood so far—
he never said that any class of her Ma-
jesty's subjects were a nuisance. He thought that
the intriguing spirit of the Romish clergy was dangerous
to civil liberty, and he thought that his opinion was
borne out in every page evon of the History of Eng-
land. He would not, from any consideration of personal
vanity, occupy their Lordship::' with a matter which
affected hin3self alone, but when he compared the false
report with the observations in another part of the
paper respecting himself and Lord Rodeo, he was
satisfied that the report was intentionally wrong,
malicious, and mischievous in the extreme.

Lord REDESDALE presented petitions from
Sudbury against the rating of workhouses, and several
petitions from Hereford and Gloucester against any
alteration in the existing Corn-laws.
Lord BANDON presented a petition from the
town of Bandon against the Irish Municipal Corpora-
tion Reform Bill.
Lord ASHBURTON presented a petition from
Aylesbury against an alteration of the Corn-laws.
Lord LOVELACE presented several petitions from
Surrey, in favour of an alteration of the Corn-laws.
The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON presented a
petition from merchants connected with Nova Scotia,
respecting the Established Church there.
The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition from a
Union in the North of England, against the rating of
workhouses.
EXCHEQUER DOCUMENTS.

Lord REDESD ALE gave notice that he would
to-morrow move for an inquiry respecting the Exche-
quer Records which had been sold by the Exchequer,
and were now in the market.
On the motion of Lord DUNC AN NON, the Mutiny
and Marine Mutiny Bills passed the Select Committee,
and were ordered to be read a third time tomorrow.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a pe-
tition from the county of Durham in favour of the existing
Corn•laws ; also a petition from the county of Down,
in favour of non-intrusion. The Noble Lord said that
since he had come down to the House he had beard
that the last petition he had presented from
the city and county of London derry was not ge-
nerally signed, and that no meeting had been
called 'ur the purpose ; certainly, when he received it be
was informed that it was numerously signed. He thought,
under the circumstances, and as the Bill must, as he be-
lieved, be further postponed, his best course would be
to withdraw the notice for that evening, and bring
it forward at a future period, previous to the
discussion of the Bill. He also wished to say
he did not think the Noble Earl was justified in
having said, on a former occasion, that his Noble
Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) was a supporter of the Bill,
since this one differed essentially from the former. The
Guardians of the Poor-law were actually nominated by the
priests who denounced from the altar all who were
unfavourable to their views, and it was their anxious de-
sire that the Bill should go into Committee. He (Lord
Londonderry) was originally an anxious friend to the Ca-
tholics, and bad never been in any shape what was called
a high Churchman, but diametrically the reverse ; but
he had come to the conviction that great mischief would
ensue if that Bill were passed.
Lord HOLLAND really did not know the reason
of the petition being withdrawn. He understood from
the Noble Marquis that it was because it was not signed
or not numerously signed ; they bad been summoned
there to hear a petition, and he thought it ought to
have been prepared before they were called together.--
(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY explained.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE complained of the
Noble Marquis having made the presentation of the
petition an Order of the Day, when it now appeared
that the petition could not be presented.
Lord STRATFORD bad had a communication
with persons in Londonderry, who had seen the an-
nouncement in the papers that the Noble Marquis
meant to present such a petition. They were really
at a loss to know from whence it originated, there
having been no public meeting, and the petition not
having been left at the usual place for signature. It
certainly was not a petition from the Mayor and Cor-
poration generally ; but he should write to-morrow, and
endeavour to obtain further information upon the subject.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said the Noble
Baron appeared to forget the difference that existed
between England and Ireland ; they were not yet entirely
assimilated. In Ireland, it was not always safe to have a
public meeting, because the people who attended some-
times got their heads broke. It was the custom very
often to prepare a petition in private and send it round
to those who were known to be favourable so it, and he
thought it would be in that way of as much weight as
if it emanated from a public meeting attended by the
mob.

The Marquisof LONDONDERRY said that under
the circumstances he should for the present withdraw
his petition.
The petition was withdrawn.
The Earl of ZETL AND presented petitions from
places in Scotland against the principle of intrusion;
also a petition from York on the subject of the opium
trade, praying that the House would not encourage
a war with China.
Lord MOUNTCASHEL moved that the printed in-
structions issued by order of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners to the Poor-law Guardians in Ireland, with re-
gard to the proceedings of Poor-law valuators, should
be furnished to the House.
The motion was agreed to.
Their Lordships then adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 26.

The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.

Several petitions were presented in favour of the
Clyde Navigation Bill, of which Mr. Lockhart moved
the second reading.
Mr. LABOUCHERE would not oppose the mo-
tion for the second reading of the Bill, but unless there
were many alterations made in the Committee it would
be his duty to do so in a future stage.
The Bill was then read a second time.
Sir J. HOB HOUSE moved the second reading of
the Nottingham Lighting Bill.
Mr. G. KNIGHT opposed the Bill, and the second
reading was postponed till this day fortnight.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG moved the second reading
of the Edinburgh Silk Yarn Company Bill.
After a few words from Mr. LABOUCHERE, the
motion was agreed to, with the understanding that cer-
tain improvements should be introduced in it.
Captain ALSAGER presented a petition from the
Southwark Improvement Commissioners against the
London and Greenwich Railway Bill.
Mr. KEMBLE presented three petitions from the
Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital, and other parties,
to the same effect.
On the motion of Lord SANDON, the Chester and
Crewe and Grand Junction Railway Consolidation Bill,
was read a third time and passed.
Mr. DUNDAS presented petitions from Maryle-
bone and other places in favour of a repeal of the
Corn-laws.

Mr. WALLACE presented eight petitions from
places in London or its immediate vicinity in favour of
a total repeal of the Corn-laws. He begged to say with
regard to one of those petitions, that though it was
written in a beautiful character, it was not printed ;
and he was induced .o make that remark because a for-
mer petition presented by him had been rejected by the
General Committee on Petitions, who had erroneously
supposed that it was not in writing.
Major AGLIONBY presented petitions from
two places in Northumberland praying for a total re-
peal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. E. BULLER presented a petition from Stone,
praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Also a
petition from Chatbury, praying the House not to grant
any money for the extension of Church accommodation.

Mr. BRAMPTON presented peg itions from dif-
ferent places in Essex, against any alteration in the
Corn-laws ; also a petition in favour of Church Ex-
tension.

Mr. DUNBAR presented a peti Lion born Perth in

favour of Non-intrusion.
Mr. .1. FIELDEN presented a la( !tition from Old-
ham, in favour of the repeal of the (mac ern-laws.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petitioi 1 from the beer-
sellers of Birmingham, praying that ey might be put
on the same tooting as licensed victual] lers.
Mr. GREG presented ten petitio as from different
places in Manchester, in favour of ti Repeal of the
Corn-laws. The Hon. Member also presented a peti-
tion signed by 300 agriculturists in tli e county of Ches-
ter, to a similar effect.

Mr. GIBSON CRAIG presented similar petitions
rom Stoke.

Petitions in favour of Non-intrus'ion were presented
by Mr. Pringle, from Down, in Ire :laud ; and by Mr.
Lascelles.

Petitions in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws
were presented by Mr. James, from Wigton, signed by
1,060, and another parish in East Cumberland ; and by
Mr. Benjamin Wood, from Southwark, signed by 2,000
persons.
Mr. BLENNERHASSETT presented a petition
from a large majority of the Gran d Jury of the county
of Kerry against any alteration i a the Corn-laws.
Petitions in favour of the Col n-laws were presented
by Colonel RUSHBROOKE ; Mr. _BAILEY, from Brecon ;
and Mr. CHUTE.

Mr. B. WOOD presented a pi tition from the ped-
lers, hawkers, and petty chaptwen of England and
Wales, signed by 2,180, complain ing of the heavy tax
of 41. for each licence, and 41. for e. ach horse.

Mr. ORD presented a petitio n from the Isle of
Wight, praying for Church Extension.
Sir WILLIAM YOUNG presented a petition from
a Board of Guardians, in the county of Buckingham,
against any alteration in the Coro-laws. Also a
petition from Newport Pagnell, lara,ying the House
to adopt measures to prevent the gr avail of opium.
Mr. WARD presented a petiziou from Sheffield,
signed by 12,310 persons above twenty one years of
age,whose places of residence were subs cribed, praying for
the repeal of the Corn-laws ; also a IN itition from New-
port, in Essex, praying for the release of John Thoro-
good, and the abolition of the E3clesiiastical Courts.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS presented ten petitions
from the county of Lancaster, praying for the repeal of
the Corn-laws.

Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from

the inhabitants of Broughton, signed by 501 persons,
also a petition from the inhabitants of Atherton and
Tildesley, in the county of Lancaster, signed by 800
persons, for the repeal of the Corn-law-s. Also a pe-
tition from the Edinburgh Society for t.hc Suppression
of Intemperance, praying for the abolition of the opium
trade with China.

Lord CHARLES MANNERS presented a peti-
tion from a Board of Guardians in, the county of
Leicester, against any alteration in, the Poor-laws
which would affect the fundamental. principle ; also a
petition against alteration of the Corn-laws.
. Mr. WYNN ELLIS presented a petition, signed
by 1,800 inhabitants of Edinburgh, praying for a
repeal of the Corn-laws ; &so similar petitions from
twenty-three places in the county of Lancaster.
Sir T. D. ACLAND presented petitions from se-
veral parishes in North Devon, against any alteration of
the Corn-laws.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition, signed by
600 electors of Dublin, against the Irish Registration
Bill.

CANADA.

Mr. PAKINGTON gave notice, that on the 30th
instant he would move for a return of those religious
bodies which, in the event of the Clergy Reserves Bill
receiving the Royal Assent, would receive a portion of
the proceeds of those revenues.
CORN-LAWS.

Mr. PRY ME gave notice, that on Mr. Villiers's mo-
tion in regard to the Corn-laws he should move the ad-
dition of these words—" with a view to the reduction of
the average prices specified in annexed tables, and accord-
ing to the respective duties imposed therein ;" and that i
this amendment should be agreed to, he would in Com-
mittee move the resolution of which he had previously
given notice.
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

Mr. HAWES obtained some returns, but, owing
to the noise which prevailed in the House at the time,
we could only collect that they related to the building
of places of worship ; in what districts, or whether over
the whole country, we could not catch.
TRADE WITH JAVA.

Mr. COLQUHOUN gate notice of a question with
regard to the state of the British Trade with Java.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

The HoN. MEMBER then asked if the Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Colonies could state what mea-
sures, if any, he was prepared to propose in regard to
the disputes connected with the Church of Scot-
land.—(Hear, hear.) He was the more anxious
to know this, as the period had already elapsed when the
Noble Lord gave a hope that he would be able to make
this statement.

Lord J. RUSSELL.—I am not prepared to give
any notice on the subject.

Mr. COLQUHC;UN—WiII the Noble Lord say
when he thinks he will be able to give thi3 information ?
—(Cries of " No, no," from the Ministerial benches.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—AII I can say is that I am not
now prepared to give any notice on the subject.