The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-04 00:00:00

PETITION'S.

Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presonted a petition from
ninety-one deputy corn meters, in the city of London,
against schedule 1) of the Inci.me-tax Act.
Several pttitions were presented against Papal ag-

gr-
Mr. CURISTOPHER presented petitions from
cattle-dealers, in Lincolnshire, against the continuance
of Smithfield-market ; also a petition from Peter-
borough, against the paper duty.
Captain EGERTON presented petitions from Crewe
and other places to the same effect.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented two petitions from places
in Ireland against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Mr. C. BRUCE presented a petition from a place in
Elgin against the Bill for altering
,the parochial system
of education in Scotland.

Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Liverpoo'
against the excise and customs' duties and in favour of

direct taxation.

Lord MAHON presented a petition from Hertford
in favour of the Bill for the removal of Smithfield-
market.

Mr. ADAIR presented a petition from Cambridge
against the paper duty.
Mr. BATESON presented a petition from London-
derry praying tor Parliamentary aid towards scriptural
schools in Ireland.

Lord R. GROSVENOR presented a petition from
Clerkenwell, against the window duty.
Sir T. D. ACLAND presented petitions from places
in Devonshire, against the paper-duty.
HOLYHEAD HARBOUR _ _

Mr. REYNOLDS gave notice that, on an early day
after the Easter recess, he should move for a Select
Committee to inquire into the policy of continuing an
expenditure of public money in an attempt to ccnstruct
a harbour of refuge at Holyhead.
PUSEYISM IN THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Sir B. HALL said he would take the opportunity of
putting a question to the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government. He (Sir B. Hall) understood that the
Right Rev. Prelate the Bishop of London had stated
in another place, that in consequence of the extreme
pressure of public business, it was not his intention to
bring in any measure for the correction of " clerks"
in certain cases, but that he intended to bring in again
the Bill which was rejected last session. Before
he put the question he would ask the Noble Lord if he
had seen a letter in the Ti*aesnewspaper of this morning.
It appeared from that letter that a Noble Lord, who was
formerly a Member of this House, desired to have his
child baptized.—(Cries of " Oh," and order.) He took
it to be baptised, and the clergyman, the Rev. Mr.
Wagnel, of Brighton, requested it to be immersed—
(Order, order)—he was quite in order, and should insist
on putting the question.—(Hear.) What he stated was
that the Noble Lord desired to lhave the child baptised,
that the clergyman insisted on an immersion, and the
mother of the child said it was in too delicate a state of
health.

Mr. B. COCHRANE rose to order. He wished to
know whether the Hon. Baronet was at liberty to make
a statement.—(Hear.)
The SPEAKER—I understood the Hon. Baronet
began his question by stating a fact.—(Hear.)
Sir BENJAMIN HALL said he was merely stating
a fact on which he founded his question.
The clergyman refused to baptize the child
without immersion, notwithstanding the statement
of the father, mother, and nurse, that it would be dan-
gerous to the existence of the child to do so if it were
so baptized. The clergyman refused to baptise the
child in any other way, and the Noble Lord to whom he
referred said the child was thus refused admission
into the Protestant Church, except at the risk of its
life, that risk having been declared by a competent per-
son. Now he wished to ask whether during the last six
months the Noble Lord had bad any communication
with the archbishops or bishops with reference to the
continuance of certain forms which had been
introduced into the service of the Church by
certain clergymen, and whether ,it was their intention
to take any effectual steps for the purpose of suppressing
such practices which the Bishop of London in his recent
charge had denounced as histrionic performances.—
(Hear, hear.) Could the Noble Lord, in other words,
tell' them whether they intended to take any steps to
suppress Puseyism 7—(Lawghter.)l
Sir R. INGLIS moved that the House at its rising do
adjourn until Monday next, in order, by the motion, to
have the opportunity of protesting against this House
being made the arena of any religious dis-
cussion, because it contained in it men of all
q
denominations,
on any
quite agreed with suject connected with the Church.
who were not therefore fitted for legisla-
tion
Sir B. HALL the Hon. Bart. that
this House was not the fittest place fcr a polemical dis-
cussion, but what other arena had they for making known
their sentiments oa these subjects? There might be
times and circumstances Under which these matters
might be brought under discussion, because there was
no other place for them. In his opinion the prelates of
ttehre, Canhdurtchheyhadmigbheet ndewpanentdinugpionn
tihteitrhduties
henin thisthe mat-
ter, -mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth came on a full
inquiry would take place.
Lord J. RUSSELL was sorry that the Hon. Baronet
had thought it necessary to bring this question forward.
with
regard regretted the statements which had been madeth
regard to what had taken place with respect to
the
sacred rite of baptism, for when they had no other
au-
thority than a statement in a newspaper, no statementon
the other side ought to have been made as to any misun-
derstanding which might have taken place. His Hon.
Friend had given notice to him of a question, which,
considering the circumstances which had taken
place, would perhaps better have been deferred.
Now, with respect to the other matter. He mentioned,
some time ago, that he had spoken to the Archbishop of
Canterbury upon this subject, and since then he had had
no communication of any importance with his Grace.
He had thought it far better to leave the matter in the
hands of the Archbishops and Bishops rather than to
be constantly interfering, and asking them about what
was the nature of their proceedings, or what they had
done or intended to do. A short time ago, however, an
twenty• four of the bishops, was laid
which those bishops declared them-
e h
introduction of usages that
selves against t
adbedforreess, the sigpnuebdlic, by
in
were inconsistent with the former practices of
the Church. Besides that an address bad been
presented to the Crown
by his Right Honourable
Friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, signed by
320,000,Parliam,nt, and ---many Members of both Houses of
Majesty bad commanded his Right
including
communicating the
Hon i
eurable _r her
Friend to write to the archbishops,
substance of the address to thew,
and directing them to discountenance practices that
were inconsistent with the ancient laws and
usages of the Chu,eh; adding, however, at the
some
time
that her Majesty placed full confidence in
their dil•icression and lad
--gre4t He had no doubt that,
the touts of two or three df.ys, he s houid be able e
inat Jetct r bewre the House. He had only to state
further, that he thought it quite undesirable to bring
discussion of this nature before the Rouse of Commons,