The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-14 00:00:00

petition from the same County against the present Tithe Sys-
sem.

;

The House then adjourned.

NO USE OF COMMONS, MARCH 12.

rae SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock.
On the motion of Mr. EMMERSON TENNENT, the Belfast
and Crumlin Road Bill was read a second time.

Mr. RUTH VEN brought in a Bill to enlarge and extend
the powers of the Dublin Oil Gas Company. .
This being the last day for receiving petitions for private
Bills, a great number were presented to the House.
Mr. HODGES presented petitions from various places in
the couty of Kent, in favour of the Dover Railway.
NORTHFLEET PIER.

Mr. HODGES moved the second reading of the Northfleet
Pier Bill.
Sir W. GEARY, as we understood, opposed it, but from
the noise in the House, we were unable to catch any of his
observations.
•

Mr. WARBURTON thought the Hon. Baronet opposite
had furnished no just argument why they should not proceed
with the second reading of this Bill. It was customary to
send such Bills into Committee, and indeed Committees were
established for the very purpose of enquiring into all the cir-
cumstances connected with private bills. The Hon. Member
said it was the enterprise of an individual, and why should it
sot be so ? In proportion as he was successful in the enter-
prise the public would be benefited. Let any man doubting the
advantage of such a bill look to the improvements on the Clyde,
and observe the, towns and villages rising up there, and then
let him say whether he would do any public service by oppos-
ing this bill.
Mr. WILKS said the arguments urged by the Hon.
Member for Kent tended rather to recommend this bill to the
adoption of the House, than to induce it to refuse the second
Teading. It was said that the erection of this pier at North-
fleet would interfere with Gravesend, but the question was
not • one of partiality, but one of public convenience.
Mr. HODGES hoped the House would agree to the
second reading for the purpose of sending the bill into Com-
mittee.
Sir W. GEARY withdrew his opposition, and the sill was
read a second time.
MANCHESTER AND BURY RAILWAY.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from the Manches-
ter, Bolton, and Bury Railway Company, praying for a grant
to enable them to extend the railway (as we understood it)
31 miles further, at right angles from the railway they were
originally appointed to construct. He moved for leave to
bring in a bill for that purpose.
Mr. LITTLETON begged to apologize to the House for
being obliged to trespass on its attention on the introduction
of a private bill, but he had to discharge a public duty. The
petition was from the Manchester, Bolton, and Bury Railway
Company, and prayed for power to make an additional railway.
The Company had not complied with the standing orders of
the House, a compliance with which was the only security the
public had against any imposition on the part of the
Bury Canal Company. In the year 1831, several par-
ties obtained a majority to petition for a Bill enabling them to
convert the Canal into a Railway. He '( Mr. L.) did not
mean to say that they were guilty of any impropriety in ob-
taining that power. They have, however, been so rash in their
speculations, that he did not think it safe to intrust them with
the additional grant they sought for, especially as the Com-
pany had offered no security ; and the best proof that they
cannot undertake this project with any hopes of success
is -this---that they are unable to finish the thirteen miles
of the railway they first engaged to complete.---( Hear, hear.)
He was sure that in making this application he was not asking
anything unreasonable. This perhaps was not a moment when
the standing orders should be enquired into, but the present
was a case of such a nature that he thought he was not tres-
passing on the House in calling their attention to it. The
measure was so unusual, so extraordinary, and so prejudicial
to the public interest, that he felt it his duty to resist it.
Mr. W. PATTEN said he had applied for information on
the subject, and when the proper time came he hoped to be
able to answer the objections that had been made.
The SPEAKER was understood to say, that the proper
way would be to refer the petition to the Committee, to in-
quire whether the standing orders of the House had been com-
plied with, and then the question would come in a more regu-
lar shape before the House.
Lord MORPETH said that the question was, whether a
Company incorporated for one purpose could apply for leave to
bring ins Bill for a purpose entirely distinct from the original
one? The Company was incorporated for the construction of a
rail-way thirteen miles long, and the present petition was for leave
to add to the railway another thirty-one miles, being to ano-
ther place twice the distance, and involving an expenditure of
three times the amount. If a corporate body applied for a
purpose in which they could not legally act, they ought not to
be allowed to usurp a right that (lid not belong to them.
Mr. WILKS thought it better that the petition should be
referred in the usual way to the Local Committee. Unless
there-was something requiring the interposition of the Com-
mittee upon standing orders, they should not interfere.
After some observations from Mr. WILSON PATTEN and Sir
Jour; WROTTESLEY, the petition was ordered to lie on the
table.
Mr. HALL presented several petitions from different parts
of Monmouth, in favour of the Newport Harbour Bill.
Mr. HUME brought up the report on the Chelsea Water
Works BM
Mr. D. JACKSON presented a petition from Bandon,
praying the House would take into consideration some mea-
sure for the protection of the Church of Ireland and its
clergy, and complaining of the course that had been pursued
with respect to the Irish Church.
POOR LAW COMMISSION.

The Marquis of C II ANDO S, in presenting a petition from
the inhabitants of the town of Stoke Poges, said it was a pe-
tition of great importance, affecting the late Act of Parlia-
ment in its operation on the poor of the parish. In this parish
the inhabitants had alway s been able to maintain their own
poor, and they therefore objected most loudly to the provisions
of an Act which compelled them to unite themselves with 18
other parishes, where such was not the case. They had drawn
up a memorial complaining of such a course to the Commis-
sioners of the Poor Law Bill, but the memorial had been
neglected, and they were thus obliged to abide by the
decision of the Commissioners that the arrangement was
to be carried into effect, and that this parish was to be
united with eighteen others, whereby those other parishes
would take the advantage of this parish, which, as he had be-
fore observed; was enabled to maintain its own poor. It would
appear that this particular district was not like many others in
the neighbourhood ;—there were many landed proprietors and
gentlemen residing there who employed the poor, and conse-
quently reduced the demand on the inhabitants, as well as in-
creased the comfort of their labourers. They, therefore,
loudly objected to having the poor of other parishes forced on
them, which would have the effect of reducing them to the
greatest distiess. There was, however, one part of the Bill
of which they loudly complained, inasmuch as by its provisions
wives might be sent to one workhouse and husbands to another.
If this were to be generally acted upon, he (the Noble Marquis)
was convinced it would create the greatest discontent through-
out England, and he begged most loudly to protest against
such an act of injustice. He had communicated this fact to
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, and he earnestly called his attention to it,
for it appeared that the Poor Law Commissioners had apower
superior to the Secretary of State himself.
Major BE AU CL ERK said he did not object at the time of
the discussion on the Poor Law Bill to this power being granted
to the Commissioners, but he considered that it was a
most unjust proceeding to force the poor of one parish on
the industrious of another. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers
would take the subject into consideration, as many districts with
which be was acquainted had complained to him of this pro-
ceeding—many of them declaring that they would rather
die than go to a workhouse.
Mr. WILK S considered that every parish in the country
was under great obligations to the Noble Marquis for having
brought forward the petition. They were told that this parish
supported its own poor.—( Hear, hear.) Why, then, should
there be any interference with an arrangement which
was satisfactory to all parties ? It was too bad that such an
arbitrary power should be placed in the hands of people, by
whom it was so much abused. He hoped the House would
take the subject under consideration.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. POULT Elt presented a petition for the better ob-
servance of the Lord's Day.
Sir MICHAEL S. STEW ART presented two petitions
from Greenock and Lochwinnoch, for the protection of the
Church Bstablishment in. Scotland.
Mr. J. MAXWELL presented a petition from 1,700 hand-
loom weavers of Glasgow, complaining of want of employment,
and.praying relief.
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from the inn.
keepers and licensed victuallers of Brighton, complaining of
the additional tax imposed upon them by the License Bill of
last Session. They also prayed to be relieved from the respon-
sibility of making good the property of visitors which might
be lost in their houses. •
LICHFIELD ELECTION.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from an individual whose
name we could not learn, which stated that he had entrusted it
to the Hon. and Learned Member for Chester ( Mr. Jervis)
complaining of an undue return for the city of Lich-
field, with the understanding that it should be presented
on the last day allowed for that purpose—that the Ho-
nourable Member had presented it upon the 6th instant,
and the petitioner having been out of town was unable to per-
fect the securities within the limited time. The question then
was, whether the petitioner had been deprived of his right by
his own negligence, or by that of an Hon. and Learned Member
of that House ? If the latter had been the case, he ( Mr.
Hume) was satisfied that the House would not deny the peti-
tioner an opportunity of perfecting his securities.
Mr. C. W. WY NN hoped the House would not listen to such
an excuse as that urged by the petitioner in the present instance.
The parties complain that they had not time to enter into the
recognizances, but he did not think that under the circum-
stances, the House, without notice, should go into the matter.
Would not the better plan be to bring the matter again under
the notice of the House ?
Mr. HUME agreed, and would do so on Monday.
Mr. Secretary GO ULB URN trusted that as the petitioners
bad most clearly violated the Act of Parliament, the House
would not allow them now to ceme and succeed in such an ap-
plication, because it was alleged that a Member of that House
had not acted according to the instructions he received. If so,
they would open too wide a door, , and set their own rules at de-
fiance. It appeared that the petitionin question was entrusted
to an Hon. Member, with instructions not to present it till the
10th, which was the last day for receiving such petitions—but
that the Honourable Member had presented it on the 6th,
and they complained that they were not aware that the
time for entering into the recognizances had come—but
the Totes of the House were published and it ought to

be known to every one. He considered it would be very im-
politic to open the question afresh.
Mr. HUME said the parties in question never saw the votes,
and did not know any thing of what had passed relative to
their petition. He trusted that the House would not punish
any one, because of the forgetfulness of any Hon. Gentleman.
Sir J. CAMPBELL said he believed there were many pre-
cedents for extending the time to parties in such circumstances.
As to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Secretary relative
to the votes—it was well known that the votes were printed for
the convenience of the House, but they were not supposed to
get into the' hands of the public. It was clear the parties in
this case had not the means of knowing their time, and there-
fore would it not be better to allow further time for the consi.
deration of the matter ? _ .

The SPEAKER said, that if the mistake had been com-
mitted by an agent, it would not be a ground for a party
to apply to that House ; and the circumstance of the person
making the mistake being a Member of that House, and not
an agent, did not alter the case.
Mr. HUME said, that as the opinion of the Speaker was
against allowing further time, he felt it his duty to with-
draw the petition.
The petition was accordingly withdrawn.
CONFIDENCE IN HIS MAJESTY'S MINISTERS.
Mr. HUME said he had received a petition this morning
from Leicester, stating that the petitioners had received with
much pleasure the decision of the House upon the
choice of Speaker.—( Loud cheering and laughter.)
And next to the announcement of the election of the
Right Hon. Gentleman—(renewed cheers and laughter
from the Ministerial benches)—that they had felt highly grati-
fied by the adoption of the Amendment to the Ad-
dress—(tremendous cheering from the Opposition benches)—
in reply to his Majesty's speech. But while they felt this,
they could not but express their alarm and apprehension at the
tenacity with which his Majesty's Ministers—( Tremendous
cheers and laughter)—Mr. Hume repeated—they could not
but express their alarm and apprehension at the tenacity with
which his Majesty's Ministers clung to the offices of the
Government, which they had so surreptitiously obtained—
(Renewed cheering, which continued for some time)—
that they could not forget that the present Ministers had been
the most determined opponents of Parliamentary Reform, and
of all Municipal Reform—( Great cheers, and counter-cheers
from the Ministerial benches)—that they had publicly avowed
principles which they now for the sake of office deny, and
that their promises were mere hollow pretences to con-
ceal their determination to retain substantially all abuses.
The Petition was signed by upwards of 2,500 persons, and it
humbly entreated the House to keep a vigilant and watchful
eye upon the measures that should be brought forward by his
Majesty's Ministers, in order to secure those reforms in the insti-
tutions of the country which were so essentially necessary,and not
to grant any supplies for a longer period than three months.
—( Cheers and laughter.) He entirely concurred with the
prayer of the petition, and he could assure the House that
in the whole course of his life, there never was anything he
so much regretted as the determination he had made last
night, of his intention not to bring forward the motion he
had given notice of, which would have fulfilled the
prayer of the petition. (Hear, hear, hear.) The
principal means by which that House could control the Mi-
nisters of the Crown was withholding the Supplies, and although
he agreed with the petitioners, he could not but think that the
House ought to have anticipated a petition like the present,
and taken the sense of its members as to whether Ministers had
or had not the confidence of the country ?—( Hear, hear, and
loud cheers.) He trusted the time was not far distant
when the subject would be brought forward. He could only
again regret that circumstances had occurred to render it ne-
cessary for him to withhold his motion, but he begged it to be
understood that, although it might appear that there was dis-
union among the reforming side of the House on many sub-
jects, still, upon all great points, they were united.—( Cheers. )
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
ELECTION PETITIONS.

Mr. S. RICE rose tovresume the discussion, which had
been postponed the day before, respecting the letter from Mr.
Wallace relative to a petition against a return at the last elec-
tion, which had been lodged with the clerk of the Crown Of-
fice in Dublin. He considered that there would be no objec-
tion to receiving this petition in the usual manner; and no
error or omission ought to debar any individual from the right
of petitioning. He would move that the discussion of
this subject be further postponed until Monday week, to give
an opportunity both to the Clerk of the Crown Office in Dub-
lin, and to the petitioner, to forward to that House further
particulars in the matter.
Mr. C. W. W YNN, after a few observations which were
inaudible in the gallery, read the regulations respecting elec-
tion petitions, from which it appeared that all such petitions
must be printed within 14 days, and be accompanied with a copy.
He requested that the House would not allow a petition to be
stopped in its progress by any officer.
Mr. L EFROY said he would wish to call the attention
of the House, on behalf of the Members for the city of Cork,
that the subject might be postponed from the 2d of April
until after the Assizes. There had been a question against
the validity of the election of the present Members. Seve-
ral persons had been summoned, most of them public of-
ficers, whose attendance would be required at the time
of the Assizes, which generally occupied about a fort-
night, and would therefore interfere with their attendance in this
House. If they were compelled to be brought over at the
date of the present petition, it would be attended with great
inconvenience to the parties summoned themselves, as they
comprised the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Town Clerks of the
city, as well as a great expense to the petitioners themselves.
The Hon. Member contended that the same principle had been
acted upon in the case of a petition against the sitting Mem-
ber for Clonmel. He would remind the House that the duty
of the Clerk of the Crown was of a very multifarious and im-
portant nature, and that it would be quite impossible to procure
his attendance ; he therefore moved that the petition be taken
into consideration on some day after the Easter recess.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR denied that a case had been made
out by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite for postponing
the consideration of this petition. It was well known that no
Cork City Assizes lasted longer than three or four days.
Under those circumstances, he trusted that the House would
not suffer the rights of the petitioners to be interfered with.
No case had been made out for the postponement ; and with
respect to the attendance of witnesses, only a few of them
would he required at the commencement of the sittings of the
Committee.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Carlow case which had been
alluded to had been postponed for the purpose of accommodat-
ing both parties. There was no business done the day after
the ballot in such election petitions. The following day would
be a Saturday, so that if the case was stated, and one witness
examined, there would be sixteen clear days after the com-
mencement of the Assizes, to enable the other witnesses to
attend. So far as his experience went, be could corroborate
the statement of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, that
no Assizes for that city lasted longer than three or four days.
Mr. JACKSON said that although the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin was perfectly correct with respect to the
Assizes for the City of Cork, he had completely lost sight of
the business of the County of Cork.—( Hear.) He was sure
that the object of the petitioners was justice, but he was much
afraid that it would not be done if the prayer. of the petition
was granted.
Mr. C. W. WYNN would not attempt to give an opinion
as to the duration of the Assizes. The Hon. Member's ob-
servations were almost inaudible in the Gallery, but we under-
stood him to say that he was opposed to the postponement of
the petition until after the recess. No circumstance connected
with any public officer should be permitted to cause such a
delay.
Mr. WARBURTON said it now appeared that the exa-
mination of the witnesses would not take place immediately
after the appointment of the Commission ; and that there were
sixteen clear days from the commencement of the Assizes.
Even admitting that the Assizes would last thirteen days,
still there were three clear days for the witnesses to come
over. Could it not be arranged that the business of the citizens
might be a little expedited? Had not the Learned Ser-
geant opposite admitted that the criminal business seldom
lasted longer than five days ? It was his opinion that nothing
like a ease had been made out, and he thought that a very
clear case should be established before the House would in-
terfere.—( Cries of question.)
Mr. S. RICE thought that no grounds had been laid before
the House for postponing the investigation of this petition to
so late a period. There were a great many other election
petitions to be taken into consideration with which the present,
if postponed, would interfere.
The motion was then agreed to.
IRISH CHURCH.

On the motion " that the House do resolve into a Committee
of Supply,"
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was well known to the
House generally that he had given notice of a motion of great
importance for the 23d of March. He had to give his warm-
est thanks to the Hon. Member for St. Albans, for the hand-
some manner in which he had given up that motion entirely
into his hands.—( Cheers.) At the time he gave that notice,
he was informed that the report of the Commisssioners would
be on the table of that House. He wished to ask the Hon. Bart.,
whether that report was likely to be on the table by that time,
for he had since been informed that such was not likely to be
the fact.—( Cheers.) He did not doubt for a moment,
but that whenever such a report reached the Govern-
ment, it would at once be laid upon the table. He only
wished to say that on whatever day, whether on the
23d, or on some subsequent day, he should fix his motion,
he proposed to move a call of the House for that day.—
{ Hear, and cheers.) He only wished to know when the
information he required would be offered, as he would be pre-
pared to bring forward his motion either on the 23d, or any
other day that would be fixed for convenience of all the parties.
Sir H. H A RDINGE said that if the Noble Lord had in-
timated that he intended to put this question, he should be pre-
pared to give him an answer as to the date at which he
expected the report.—( Hear.) He could now only trust to
memory, and could state that some ago he made inquiries, and
was informed that the report would be made at the end of
March or the beginning of April.--( Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") He would only say on the part of the Government,
that they had not thrown any interruption or impediment in
the way of the Commissioners ; on the contrary, they had
shown every readiness to afford all the facility in their power.
When the report was received, the Noble Lord would be im-
mediately informed of it.
Lord J. RUSSELL—With regard to the answer he had
received, he begged to state that he had been informed by one
of the Commissioners that there would be a report shortly
ready, but that there was also to be a general report.
He was informed also by a Commissioner, that some
of the Commissioners were not supplied by the Trea-
sury with funds to enable them to prosecute their inquiries.
If there was any delay, it was, he was slue, a delay of
form, but not of intention. Under the circumstances,
however, he wished to know the sense of the House on the