The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-07 00:00:00

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from Lower Ca-
nada, signed by 11,000 inhabitants of that province, of British
and Irish extraction, stating their attachment to the existing
Constitution and their loyalty to their Sovereign, and corn-
plaining of the conduct of the House of Assembly ; and ex-
pressing a hope that, whilst certain grievances of which they
complained were redressed, the British Legislature would not
consent to anything that should alter the Constitution under
which the province had so long flourished.
The petition was laid on the table.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Viscount MELBOURNE presented a petitiat from Glas-
gow, adopted at a public meeting, and very numerously
signed, praying the House not to grant any public money for
the purpose of increasing the accommodation in the Church of
Scotland ; also petitions to the same effect from a Seceding
Congregation at Paisley, from Achtermuchty, Kirkwall, and
St. Andrew's.

The Earl of C ARNARVON presented a petition from a
Curate in the diocese of Bath and Wells, complaining that he
never could receive his stipend ; he did not complain of the
Bishop, but of the state of the law, and prayed that it might
be altered.

The Bishop of BATH and WELLS was obliged to the
Noble Earl for the compliment paid to him. It was most true
that he was not to blame, for he had done all in his power
in order that the petitioner might get his money.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) Of the person whose conduct was complained
of, he would say little, because he could say nothing
good of him—all he would say was that he was a disgrace to
the profession to which he belonged. He made many appli-
cations to Dr. Wade, but they had been fruitless—he heard
on two occasions that Dr. Wade was in the diocese, and he
had immediately put the law in force, but he had eluded the
process. On many occasions he had made inquiries for him
in London, for the purpose of putting the law in force, but
also without success. He had done all that the law allowed a
Bishop to do, further he could not go ; he trusted the law
would be altered.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the parish
of Eastwood, in Scotland, against any further Church accom-
modation being made out of the, public funds. He said the peti-
tion was signed by a large majority of the heads of families in
the parish, Churchmen as well as Dissenters, and he wished to
call their Lordships' attention particularly to that fact, because
it happened that Eastwood was one of the parishes particularly
pointed out by the Church party in Scotland, as being se
very much in wait of additional accommodation.—( Hear.)
Lord KENYON way afraid that those who objected to
further accommodation were those who objected to the Church
altogether.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the Noble Baron misunder-
stood him ; he had distinctly stated that the petition was signed
by a majority of the Churchmen resident in the parish. la
Scotland, the question assumed a very different aspect from
what it did in this country. There, the intelligent people,
Churchmen and Dissenters, objected to additional churches
being built for one party alone from a fund to which all parties
contributed.

Lord KENYON—If the petitioners were Churchmen,
their conduct did not show it. He was afraid that they were
called Churchmen merely because they did not belong to any
•ect of Dissenters.

Lord BROUGHAM said that remark was said in the same
spirit of bigotry for which he (Lord Brougham) had checked
him the other evening. The Noble Baron seemed to think
that whenever any person differed from himself, it was impos-
sible that he could belong to a Church.—( A laugh.) He
could assure him, that a person could conscientiously object
to the opinions of the Noble Baron, and yet be as good a
Churchman as he was.

The Bishop of LONDON rose for the purpose of calling
to the Noble and Learned Lord's attention the opinions
of a Professor of the Church in Scotland, to which he was
certain the Noble and Learned Baron would pay every re-
spect.—(Hear, hear.) He meant Dr. Chalmers, who
had stated that it was no reason why Churches should
sat be built, that the people objected to it—he thought
that it was an additional reason for so doing, because
Churches were the great means of—to use his own expres-
sion—" Christianizing the country."—( Hear.) It seemed
to him (the Bishop of London) that it was become a question
whether Church accommodation should not be provided,
notwithstanding the remonstrances of the people. He was
sure that the most intelligent people of that country were in
favour of the measure propounded by the Government in the
King's Speech.
Lord BROUGHAM explained, and begged to say
that the Right Reverend Prelate was perfectly correct
in stating that he would listen to the opinion of Dr. Chal-
mers with the utmost deference, but there was one
question upon which not only he (Lord B.) but the great ma-
jority of all that Rev. Gentleman's brethren differed from him,
and that question was the very one then under consideration.
The Bishop of EXETER—With respect to the senti-
ments of Dr. Chalmers, that gentleman expressed his admira-
tion of the endowments of the Church of England, as from
them were derived the great learning and talents that distin-
guished the Church of Scotland. These endowments libe-
rated them from the discharge of parochial duties, and enabled
them to devote their time to theological studies.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition on the
same subject from Dumfrieshire, which set forth the
advantages of the Church of Scotland, and prayed that
no measure would be adopted by their Lordships at all
calculated to impair its efficiency or utility. As to the super-
fluous talents possessed by the Church of England, for which
the Church of Scotland, according to the Right Rev. Prelate,
was indebted for the lights and ornaments that distinguished it,
he (Lord B.) considered it a great error, and never yet had
heard that supererogation was one of the works that theyw ere enti-
tled to credit for. Whatever the opinion of Dr. Chalmers was, and
erroneous it undoubtedly was, the last two centuries would
spew that the Church of Scotland was possessed of as many
and as eminent luminaries as the Church of England.
The Noble Lord also presented a petition from the Dis-
senters of Cornwall, against any grant for new churches ;
one from a parish in the County of Down against tithes ;
three from the operatives, mill-owners, and others in
the West Riding of Yorkshire, for alterations in
the Factory Regulation Bill ; one from the retailers of beer ;
and another from 22,006 persons in the same place, in favour
of an alteration of the New Beer Act.

Lord ROSSLYN presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Aberystwyth, praying that their Lordships would
take measures to teach the Welsh English, or cause the
Acts of Parliament to be written in the Welch language.—
fLaughter. ) The petition was written in the Welch language,
which the petitioners claimed as a right.—(Laughter.)
Lord SHAF rE SB UR Y—That this petition be now read
—( Laughter. )
Lord MULGRAVE moved the second reading of the Wit-
nesses Indemnity Bill.—Agreed to.
Lord WARD wished to ask a question of his Majesty's
Ministers, which was whether the Hon. Member for Dudley had
sent an address from that town expressing confidence in Mi-
nisters ? [ Here there was a pause.] If he was to take the
silence of Ministers as a proof of the fact, he would say
that the constituency of that town had been misrepresented,
and the confidence of his Majesty had been abused._( Hear.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he knew nothing of
the affair.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APAIL &
The SPEAKER took the Chair at half-past three o'clock.
WINDSOR ELECTION COMMITTEE.
Sir J. GRAHAM, the Chairman of this Committee,
brought up the report of the Committee, finding that the
sitting Member, Sir J. Beauvoir had not been duly elected to
serve in the present Parliament, and that the petitioner, Sir
John Elley had been duly elected, and ought to have been re-
turned, but that neither the petition nor the opposition to it
had been frivolous nor vexatious.

NEW MEMBERS.
Sir JOHN ELLEY and Mr. GALLEY KNIGHT, took the oaths
and their seats, the former for Windsor, and the latter for Not-
tingham in the room of Lord Lumley, now Viscount Scar-
borough.
Mr. FE CTOR presented a petition from the Mayor and
Corporation of Dover, against the Dover Improvement Bill.
Sir SAMUEL WHALLE Y presented a petition against
the Islington Market Bill, from the Butchers of Marylebone.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the proprietors of the
West Middlesex Water-works, praying to be heard by counsel
against the Chelsea Water-works Bill.
OMNIBUS NUISANCE.

Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of London and Westminster, against the Omnibus nui-
sance. The petitioners prayed that the Bill then before the
House, and which had been introduced by the Hon. Alder-
man the Member for London, might go through a Committee,
and that certain provisions should be inserted in that Com-
mittee, so as to put those public conveyances under some sort
of regulation, and under which they were not at present.
Colonel EVANS supported the petition.
Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that on Wednesday, the
6th of May, he should move for a Select Committee to inquire
into the state of the Roads and Turnpike• Trusts in England
and Wales.

Mr. E WART presented a petition from Liverpool praying
for a thorough System of Church Reform ; aka a petition from
Liverpool against certain clauses in the Bill for the Abolishing
of Imprisonment for Debt Bill.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from Bath against
the present system of Poor Laws. The Hon. Member also
presented a petition from St. Mary Magdalen, Bristol, for the