The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-07 00:00:00

THE CANADAS.

The Earl of RIPON presented a petition signpd by between
5,000 and 6,000 persons, inhabitants of Quebec and its neigh-
bourhood ; most of the petitioners were of English descent,
but 600 of them were descendants of French settlers ; they
stated their gratitude to the Imperial Legislature for
having, in 1791, given them the benefit of a Constitution
something similar to that enjoyed by England. They com-
pained that the working of the measure had not afforded
them all the benefits they expected from it. They com-
plained that the House of Assembly had arrogated to itself
much more than its legitimate power, by which the British
descendants had been completely shut out from being
represented in the House of Assembly, and their property and
interests were much deteriorated in consequence ; and thereforo
they prayed the Imperial Parliament to afford them redress.
He would not then say how far he agreed or disagreed with the
petitioners, but he trusted his Noble Friend near him ( Lord Gos-
ford) and the Commissioners going out to that country, would
perfectly succeed in their objects, so that an end might be put
to all the heart-burning and dissensions which had so long and
unhappily torn that country, and then the people would be
able to enjoy all those blessings which the situation of the
country was calculated to afford, both from its position and
internal resources.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Montreal to the same effect ; also a petition
from a gentleman named Rhodes, residing in Essex, against
the Islington Market Bill, and praying to be heard by Counsel
against it.
The Marquis of SALISBURY referred to the evi-
dence of the last-naii‘ed petitioner before the Commit-
tee upon the Bill, from which it appeared that
he was the proprietor of certain grounds-which the projector
of the new market proposed to purchase, but it appeared that
some dispute had arisen upon the terms of sale. The Noble
Marquis, therefore, objected to the petition, as the object or
the petitioner being heard by counsel seemed to be to try the
validity of a contract.
The Duke of RICHMOND said the petitioner was very
unwilling to part with his land ; but rather than the Bill
should not pass, he consented to take a certain price for it,
which was now refused to be paid. He hoped the petition
would be referred to the Committee.

After a few words in explanation from the Marquis o:
SAT,lssuaY and the Bishop of HEREFORD,

Lord BROUGHAM complained of the manner in which
Private Bills were too frequently disposed of before Com.
mittees. In one instance he remembered that after 14 Members
of Committee had canvassed all the facts, and heard the argu-
ments of Counsel, 16 who never before attended or heard evi-
dence or argument, came in and gave an adverse decision.
They were not Judges of Oyer and Terminer, but Judges of
Terminer sans Oyer.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped to see this
and other irregularities early corrected.
Lord NV H A RNC L I FFE observed that the Noble and
Learned Lord should bear in mind there was this difference
in the proceedings of the two Houses—that is their Lordships'
House the evidence was printed, while in the other House it
was not.

Lord BROUGHAM remarked that it was printed in the
House of Commons.

Lord WH A RNCL IFFE could assure the Noble and
Learned Lord that it was not generally.
Lord BROUGHAM had seen instances of it.
Lord WHARNCLIFTE said that the practice was very
unusual.

Lord BROUGHAM referred to the case of the Zemindar
of Nozeed Bill, in which it had been resorted to.

Lord WHARNC L I FF E repeated that it was very unusual.
However, the principle which the Noble Lord seemed to advo-
cate would equally preclude Noble Lords who had not heard
the evidence from voting on the third reading, and against
such a doctrine as that he entered his protest.
Lord BROUG II ANI said the Noble Lord was confound-
ing a vote on the third reading with a vote in the Committee
on a private Bill. For his part he was desirous to see private
Bills placed under a more wholesome superintendence than
now existed.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE thought that the Noble and
Learned Lord went too far when he contended that no Noble
ard should vote on a Bill, unless he had heard all the evi-
dence upon it.
After a few inaudible observations from Earl STRADBROKE
and Lord COLCHESTER.

The Duke of RICHMOND disclaimed having alluded to
the Right Rev. Prelate (Hereford). He did not agree with
his Noble Friend ( Wharncliffe) on the subject of Noble Lords
voting upon a Bill upon which they had heard no evidence ;
he, for one, would never vote on a private Bill, unless he had
listened to and seen all the witnesses.

Lord WHARNCL IFF E said, that it was to the extreme
principle laid down by the Noble and Learned Lord that he
had objected.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Lord DUNCANNON presented several petitions against
any grant for the building of churches in Scotland.
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Mr.
Lawless, praying for the introduction of a system of poor-laws
into Ireland.