The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-01 00:00:00

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

Mr. HAL FORD supported the petition on agricultural dis-
tress from Leicestershire. He contended that the distress
was considerably heightened by the pressure of the manufactu-
rinz upon the agricultural popua ioas, the former exceedir g the
litter by 3,000. Of 139,3031. 6s. levied in Leicestershire for
rates, 108,000 L were directly levied upon the land, 29,0001
upon houses, and only 13,0001. upon mills and manufactories.
In one parish alone, where there were 2,780 acres of good land,
there were only 69 agricultural labourers, while there were 301
manufacturing labourers. Between the years 1826 and 1832,
the rates in that parish were never less than 2,445/., but in
1829 they amounted to 3,6361., being 85 per cent. upon the
parish assessment. No country in England suffered more from
the circumstance of this pressure upon the agricultural popu-
lation by the manufacturing population, which was employed by
the capitalists as long as their labour would yield them a profit,
and were then left a burthen upon the parish.
HORSHAM ELECTION.

Sir T. FREMANTLE, the Chairman of the Horsham
Election Committee, brought up the report, which declared
Mr. Hurst to be duly elected.

CHURCH REFORM.

Mr. CARTSVRIGHT presented a petition from a place in
Staffordshire against the appropriation of Church property to
any but ecclesiastical purposes; also .a petition from a place in
Northamptonshire to the same effect.
Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the Clergy of the
diocese of Cork, against the contemplated measure of Church
Reform.

Mr. POTTER presented a petition from the inhabitants of
the town of Wigan, in favour of the Church Reform Bill.
Mr. LUCAS presented a petition from the town and county
of Monaghan, praying that the House would adopt no measure
to divert Church property from the purposes for which it was
designed. The petitioners state that they view with alarel
the progress of measures which, under the specious na,r e
of' Reform, have no other tendency but to create re-
volution and anarchy; and they pray the House to p-eseve
in their full efficiency all the venerable institutions of the
country. The petition was signed by 10,000 most respectable
people, and demonstrated that not only the Protestants,
tut the Preabyterians of the North of Ireland were adverse to
any measure calculated to impair the efficiency of the Esta-
blished Church.—(Hear. from the Opposition benches.)
Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition from (as we
understood him) the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, in favour f
the Established Church of Ireland.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had a petition
of quite an opposite nature to present. It was from the
city of Edinburgh, and signed by 14,000 of its inhabitants,
in favour of the proposed measure of Church Reform.
The House might have some idea of the length of this petition
when he informed it that the postage of it amounted to not
less than 431 15s. 4d. —( Laughter) The petitioners approved
the resolution the House came to on the motion of his Noble
Friend, the Secretary of State for the Ho:ne Department,
Ind they prayfkl the House to adopt speedy and effectual inz..a.-
Eures to remedy the abuses connected with the Established
Church of Ireland.

Lord MILTON expressed himself favourable to .Church
R form but would not Ile !gc bin:BAl to r•dopt such measure::,
to attain that objee::. es the petitioners suggested.•

MEMBERS' PLEDGES.

Mr. ,1. JOHNSTONE begged to call the attention
of ti.• House to a very unprovoked attack that had bee;l
;nail° upon him and published in the Journals of tha day.
lle would now only say, in reference to it, thi.t 1 e was informed
a petition was to be presented respecting the fulfilment of
th.; pledges he gave his constituents, and which was
now in the hands of the Honourable Member for Hastings,
(Mr. Elphinstone.) He (Mr. J.) begged to ask the Hon.
Member when he purposed to present it, in order that he
might be enabled to give an answer to such charges as
should be preferred against him in it. He hoped there would
be :.o di lay in presenting it.
Mr. ELPHIN STONE, in reply, had to say that a petition
had been intrusted to him, referring to the circumstances
ut,..ler which the Honourable Member held his seat in that
House. He had an interview with the petitioner, and he
was authorised to make an offer to which he hoped the Hon.
Member would accede. He desired to refer two docu-
ments to the same distinguished individuals (Lords John
Ru-sell, Mr. Sp:ing Rice, and Dr. Lushington) to whose
arbitrement this subject was before referred.—(, No, no, from
several Members of the Opposition.) He (Mr. E.) was
then I,reparel to present the petition, but as this was
rather an unprece lented proceeding, he thought it better
that the Hon. Member should adopt the course which he hal
suggested. The documents he alluded to were a statement
of the Liberal electors of St. Andrew's, which was drawn cut
in May last, and an affidavit.
Mr. HUME rose to order. If the Honourable Gentle-
man was not about to present a petition his course was
disorderly, although he was aware of the circumstances
under which the Honourable Member for St. Andrew's
held his seat. Yet, as this course was without a precedent,
he submitted td his Hon. Friend not to persevere in it, but
at once to present the petition he now held in his hand.
The SPEAKER made some observation, the purport of
which we could not catch.

Mr. A. JOHNSTONE thought that the courtesy which it
was usual on the part of the House to extend towards all its
Members should be extended to him by allowing the petition to
Le presented.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE again rose, and stated that he had
a petition to present from several of the constituents of Mr.
A. Johnstone, stating that that Hon. Gentleman had pledged
himself to resign his seat when called upon to do so.
Mr. BENNETT rose to order, amid loud cries of " Read
the prayer."
Mr. ELPHINSTONE said the prayer of the petition was,
that the House would be pleased to take into its consideration.
a matter so deeply affecting the character of one of its Mem-
bers.—( Laughter.)
Mr. GO ULBURN doubted whether the House could re-
ceive such a petition. The Hon. Member had been elected
by his constituents to represent their interests ; it was for
him alone to judge what line of duty he ou;ht to pursue, if the
electors were dissatisfied. When he appeared again be-
fore them, it was for them to mark their opinion by not returning
him.
Mr. HUME rose to order. An Hon. Member had risen
in his place, and said that his character had been affected, and
such being the case, would theiHouse, at a Member's own re-
quest, refuse him the only means by which he could put the
House in possession of all the facts of the case ?—( Cheers.)
Mr. W YNN could not conceive how the House could
entertain the petition. If every thing that any petitioner
chose to suggest was to be considered as an attack upon the
character of an Hon. Member deserving inquiry, the House
would have nothing else to do but entertain such inquiry.
The object of the petition was to call upon an Hon. Member
to resign his seat; according to the Constitution of the
country, no Member could do so. It depended wholly
upon the pleasure of the Crown to confer an office upon
him by means of which he might vacate his seat. In his opi-
nion there was no shape in which the House could call upon
a Member to resign his scat, and that being so the whole
point was, whether the petition should be received? The
House, it was true, if it chose, might listen to the discus-
sion ; but he thought if it did, it would never be enabled to
come to any decision upon it.
Mr. HUME was astonished to hear what bad fallen f om
the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House,
because the Right Hon. Gentleman either made a motion
or supported a motion for the expulsion of Mr. Walsh, who it
was alleged had forged certain Exchequer Bills. The House
expelled him. He (Mr. Hume) opposed that motion on the
ground that if the House was once to begin to censure moral
guilt on the part of its Members, there would be no end to its
labours.—( Cries of Hear, hear," and laughter.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman, he believed, supported the motion,
and the House by a 7ery large majority expelled Mr. Walsh. He
merely mentioned this to repel the idea that the House had no
jurisdiction.
Mr. WYNN merely wished to state, in answer tl the
Hon. Member for Middlesex, that he spoke either in total
ignorance or entire forgetfulness, in speaking of the case