The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-15 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition from
Micclesfield for an inquiry into Corporations.—Referred
to the Committee en Corporations.
Mr. HUME presented a petition against the Irish Co-
ercive Bill iron the city of Edinburgh, winch bad been
agr, ed to at a large meeting publicly called. The petition
was particularly deser:ing of attention. because it w is de-
cide lly a:4-ainst the Bill, expressing astonishment at the
conduct of Ministers, and because it came from those who
had been among the most strenuous and zealous supporters
of those I\l nesters. The petitioners hail so strong an opi
nion also of tie conduct of their own representatives in
respect to this Bill, that they would not intrust the peti•
two to them ; and requested him, if he could not I resent
it, to place it in the h ,nds of any other Aletnlier rather
than the Representatives of Elinhurgli. He had to add
that the petition was signed only by the Chairman of the
meeting, though the number of persons assembled did not
amount to less than 1,600. The Hon. Member presented
similar petitions from the Politic:l Union of Maidstone,
and from Spitalft Ids and its neighbourhood. He had to
observe that the persons who had signed the last petition
also had sent it to him because they would not trust their
oavn representatives, who had forfeited their confidence by
supporting this measure. The lion. Member presented a
fouith petition, praying for vote toy ballot, triennial Parlia-
ments, anti financial room. He hoped to see all those
things accomplished.—Petitions laid on the table.
Mr. CLAY United that in his short Parliamentary
career he had not :orfeited the confidence of is cons i-
tuents. He thought it would have been more kind it the
Hon. Member for Middlesex had given him same warning.
He had acted from conscientious motives ; lie had expressed
a strong opinion against some parts of the Bill, which lie
should take an opportunity of opposing in their proper
place ; and he had received assurances Irom almost all
o her quarters of the borough that his conduct had given
them satisfaction.--(Hear.)
Lord MILTON presented petitions from two parishes
in the county of Northampton, for the better observance
of the Sa.,:bath.

Mr. FRYER presented a petition from Bilston, Staf-
ftirdsbire, against the Irish Coercive Bill; and another
from Sedgy-y, Staffordshire, to the same effect.
Alajor BEAUCLERK presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Camberwell, against the Camberwell En-
closure Bill.

Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from Clapham, Bat-
tersea, Runcorn, and several other parishes, fur the better
observance of the Sabbath; and two petitions against the
Irish Church Reform Btlt.
Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE presented a petition from the
Northern Division of Southampton, for an inquiry into
the distress of the country ; also, from Oldham, to the
same t ff. ct ; and one for the better observance of the
Sabbath.
Lord ARTHUR CHICHESTER presented a petition
from Belfast. in favour ot the Irish C ,ereive Bill.
%Ir. ROBERT STE:WART presented a petition from
the inhabitants of Huddington ; and another horn the Alo-
d,rator and Elders of the parish of Haddington, for the
better observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. THICKNESSE presented a petition from Wigan,
aga nst the Irish Disturb .nees
Mr. R. POTTER said, that he had been requested to
support tie petition, which he regretted he could not do,
having, in the discharge of his duty, voted for the first and
second reading of the Irish Disturbances Bill, from a con-
viction that a strong ease had then made out of the dread-
firt state of some parts of Ireland. But though be had
so voted, he should be ready to co.operate with those