The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1835.

motion should be carried, as it now appeared it would, unani-
mously. In the Committee he hoped that the questiln of the
ballot would be fairly met, and that the report of the Com-
mittee to that House would fully determine whether the ballot
was necessary or not
The motion was I.
mittee named :
Grey, Sir G.
Russell, Lord John

ten agreed to, and the following Com-

Hae, Sir W.
Perrin, L.
Gisborne, T.
Dalmeny, Lord
Clery, Sir G.
Jackson, J. D.
Afa•l,enzie, J. A. S.
Morpeth, Viscount
Lefroy, A.
Shell, It. L.
Buller, C.
Forster, C.

Estcourt. T. G. B
Carer, J. R.
Fremantle, Sir T.
Tooke, W.
Becket, Sir John
Murray, J A.
Stuart, Lord James
Lefevre, C. S.
Warburton, 11.
Wortley, J. S.
O'}errall It. M.
J Parker, J.

Peel, Sir R.
Wynn, itt. Hon. C,

G H,
Hardy, J.

Poulter, J. S.
Graham, Sir J.

Ord, W.
FoUett, Sir W. W.
Campbell, Sir John
Clements, Lord

Grote, G: I -
Mr. RUTHVEN moved by way of amendment to the ques-
tion, that the Hon. Gentleman named be appointed on the
Committee, that the names of Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Fitzsimon,
and another Irish Member be added.—( Oh, oh, no, no.)
Mr. O'CONNELL—I beg to decline. I have not leisure
to attend.
Sir C. GREY begged to assure the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin that the reason his name had not been in-
cluded arose from a desire to afford him an opportunity of vin-
dicating himself from certain charges of intimidation made
against him in consequence of the last Dublin election.
Otherwise he could assure the House the Committee was
fairly and impartially formed.
Mr. O'CONNELL knew that three petitions were lodged
against his return, but he heard now, for the first time, that
any charge of intimidation or bribery was contained in either
of them. He begged to disclaim any such charge.
Mr. RUT HVEN must be perfectly candid with the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Devonport, and say that the Com-
mittee was by no means fairly constituted as regarded Ireland.
. <

Sir G. GREY—There ware six Irish Members on it.—
( Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to ask the Hon. Baronet, tho
Member for Devonport, from what source he had obtained tho
information with respect to the charges to which he had al-
luded?

Sir G. GREY—From no private individual, ncr in any per-
sonal communication. I obtained it from those channels
through which such statements usually come.
Mr. O'CONNELL—What public channels? All I can
say is, that I never saw any such allegation in any public print,
nor do I believe any such to have been made against me in
the newspapers.
Mr. HUGHES HUG HES—We have heard, Sir, a great
deal of death's-heads and cross-bones.

Mr. O'CONNELL—We have heard a great dial of calves'
head.---(A roir of laughter.)
Sir G. CLERK hoped that the Hon. Member for Dublin
(Mr. Ruthven) would withdraw his motion, and that the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Devonport would be agreed to.
After a few words from Mr. O'DWYER, Mr. RUTIIVEN
withdrew his amendment, and the Committee, as originally
named, was appointed.
After some observations from the Speaher, the other orders
of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned at one
o'clock.

SECOND ItAAJITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

THE PARLIAMENT.

(THIS. EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack a few minutes after five o'clock.
SCOTCH CHURCH.

The Duke of GORDON presented petitions from Loch-
winnock, Buchan, Renfrew, and other parishes in Scotland,
in support of the Established Church.
EAST INDIA COMPANY.

On the motion of L'ord ELLENBOROUGH, the House
went into Committee upon the Bill for compensating certain
maritime officers in the East India Company's service, which
was read a second and third time, and passed.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER tock the Chair at three o'clock.
CITY OF DUBLIN ELECTION.

The SPEAKER intimated that the sureties in the petition of
Mr. Walker against the returns of the present Members of
the City of Dulin having failed to enter into the required re-
cognizances, the order for detaining the petition must therefore
be discharged.
Sir R.,BATESON presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Londonderry, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to
erect a now bridge in that town.
NORTH AMERICAN COLONIAL ASSOCIATION.

.
Mr. BARRON presented a petition from certain Members
of the North American Colonial Association, the purport of
which we could not catch.

RAIL ROADS.

Sir CHARLES D'ALBIAC presented a petition from
the inhabitants of Monkwearmouth for the extension of certain
rail roads in the county of Durham.
Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from the Mayor, Corpo-
ration, and Burgesses of Truro, praying for leave to Lring in a
Bill for paving and lighting that town.
SMITHFIELD MARKET.

Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from the inhabitants of
St. Andrews, Holborn, signed by between four and five hun-
dred most respectable inhabitants, for the abolition of Smith-
field Market, and complaining of the inconveniences to which
they were subject from its present site.
Mr. MURRAY presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Edinburgh, praying for leave to bring in a bill to improve
the harbour of Leith.

On the motion of Mr. WILSON PATTEN the Grand Junction
Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.

ISLINGTON MARKET.

Colonel DAMEN presented a petition from .a hundred and
twenty-four butchers, praying' for the removal of the market
at Smithfield to Islington.
Lord A. CONYNG HA M presented a petition from the
Caithness Railway Company, praying for leave to bring in a bill.
Mr. HOWARD presented a petition from the Newcastle
Railway Company to the same effect.
Mr. J. Y. BUL LE R presented a petition from the Trustees
of the Ashburnham Road, praying for a bill to extend their
powers ; also, a petition from the Mayor of Exeter, praying
for leave to bring in a bill to empower the inhabitants to build
a bridge.
Mr. LYNCH presented a petition from the Vice-Chancellor
and the Members of the Inns of Court in favour of the esta-
blishment of a Market at Islington (as we understood the Clerk.)
Mr. ROLFE presented a petition from the inhabitants of
the Liberty of the Rolls, praying for an abolition of Smithfield
Market, and for the establishment of a Market in Islington.
The petition entered into a detailed statement of the inconve-
nience and danger that persons are exposed to from cattle
passing through the streets.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition, signed by the
Churchwardens and parishioners of Clerkenwell, praying the
removal of Smithfield Market.

Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition for the same pur-
pose, from the parish of Clerkenwell, and from another place
the name of which was not heard in the gallery.
An Hos. MEMBER presented a petition from the parish of
St. Dunstan, with the same prayer.
Mr. HURST presented a petition from the farmers and
other inhabitants of Norfolk for the'establishment of a market
at Islington.
They were all ordered to lie on the table.
Lord CASTLEREAGH presented a petition relative to
the Port of Bristol, the prayer of which was not distinctly
heard.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Sir J. CAMPBELL presented a petition in favour of the
Local Courts Bill.
Ordered to lie on the table.

&r F. BURDETT, presented a petition in favour of re-
moving the market now held in Smithfield, and establishing it
in Islington.
Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from the trustees
of the Bedford Charity, praying for the improvement of
Smithfield market.

Mr. HANDLE Y presented a petition, signed by many of
the most respectable graziers of the county of Lincoln, pray-
ing for the removal of Smithfield market. Also a similar
petition from the town and neighbourhood of Grantham ; and
a similar petition entrusted to him, in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Middlesex, (Mr. Hume) signed by 1060 of the
merchants, bankers, and tradesmen, of the city of London, to
the same effect. _ _

Sir J. A STLE Y presented similar petitions from the Tower
Hamlets, from High Holborn, Stepney, Hackney, and Mile-
End.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from several
butchers in Finsbury, praying► for the improvement of Smith-
market.

Alderman WOOD said that many petitions had been pre-
sented on both sides, signed, he had no doubt, in many in-
stances by persons wholly unacquainted with the subject. He
had himself presented many petitions on this subject, and he
bad now to present one signed by 1,000 persons, inhabitants
9f Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, who had been
many years connected with Smithfield-market, praying that
it might not be removed ; and many of whom had given
evidence in the Committee on this subject, that a more
desirable spot than Smithfield-market could not be found.
In the Committee of last year, there were graziers from all
parts of the country gave evidence in favour of the Smithfield
Bill, while the Hon. Gentleman who bad the Islington Bill
(Mr. Handley) could get no more than three or four to favour
his project. He understood that alawyer who lived at Isling-
ton was the projeCtor of the other Bill, and he was using
every sort of means to carry his project into execution. He
then presented the petition, and rr.oved the second reading
of the

- -...-
SMITHFIELD MARKET IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Major HANDLE Y said that he was truly surprised at the
hardihood of the worthy Alderman—(Laughter)--who could
come forward and move the second reading of such a Bill in
the Reformed Parliament. The Bill shewed how fair an
outside fraud could put on, for the preamlle stated that
it was for the public benefit, &C., &c., wile the Bill
contained a clause imposing a new tax upon the graziers of the
whole country for the purpose of making the coffers of the
city of London run over—it was in fact a Bill to perpetuate a
nuisance which' the market had always been, and which it
would always be. He had a document in his hand, dated
in 1809, which stated that a Committee of the citizens
had been deputed to wait upon the President of the Board of
Trade, and to state to him that the market was a nuisance,
and ought to be removed to same place where there was an
open space of at least twelve acres.—(Cheers.) To that
document he found the very honest and respectable, though
not consistent, name of Matthew Wood. ( Cheers, and
loud laughter.) He took up the Bill of last year, without
knowing any of the projectors of the Islington Market—.
first, because as the representative of a large grazing district,
he thought it would benefit his constituents ; and also because
having for some time been in the habit of attending Smithfield
market for his own pleasure, he there saw the cattle used in
the most brutal manner. He would just state one circum-
stance, which he thought would be sufficient to convince the
House that in what he had stated as to the cruelty practiced,
there was no-exaggeration. A butcher of Sheerness had as-
sured him that he was in the habit of buying bullocks in
Smithfield market on Monday, and of driving them down to
Sheerness on Tuesday, and that those bullocks were found
to be fresher and in better condition for this cruel exertion.
As to the proposed enlargement to four acres and three
roods, it was well known to every body that this was
much less than was necessary, and it was a very
grievous imposition that a tax should be imposed on the
cattle, for the purpose of raising the supposed cost. He
knew they would say, what was the, object of charging a
penny or twopence ? but he cared not whether it was only a
farthing. He objected to the principle ; and it was on these
grounds alone, that he should move that this Bill be read a
second time that day six months.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
WILLIAMSMr. wished to ask the Hon. Gentleman
(Alderman Wood) on what grounds they proposed to raise the
required sum ?
Alderman WOOD, in reply, said that the Corporation were
to grant a sum of 50,0001., and that the remainder was to be
raised by a toll on the cattle.
Fllr. WILLIAMS said that as a member of the Corpora-
tion' of the City of London, he should oppose it on the ground
of the enormous expenses that would be incurred. The Hon.
Gentleman, the Member for Lincolnshire, had stated that not
more than six petitions had been presented during last Parlia-
ment. Now he could recollect eleven having been brought
forward, all of which concurred that the present site could
not be sufficiently enlarged.—(Hear, hear.) The worthy
Alderman had declared that 50,0001. was to come out
of the Corporation. Now he should like to know where he
would find the 50,0001., for it appeared they were deficient not
less than 20,0001. on the receipts of the last year ? lie would
endeavour to make out that the funds of the Corporation were
of great extent. He (Mr. W.) however could assure the
House that its funds were of a very limited character, except
as arising from taxes on. the citizens. He did not exactly
know the extent of them, but he could make out something
like 400,0001., only 48,0001. of which came out of its actual
property, the rest having been derived from the source he had
already described. He had himself seen too much of the
market-jobbing in the City of London, so that the very
idea of the Corporation having anything to do with
it, was a sufficient ground for his determined opposition.
Ile would state one circumstance, that of Farringdon-market.
It was calculated that the estimates for building that market

would have been about 150,0001., whereas the removal alone
amounted to that sum, and it cost altogether upwards of
250,000/. This was proposed to be defrayed by a tax on
coals, not on the City only, but on the whole of the metro-
polis ; and now, after all, the net rental had not amounted
to more than 1,4141. and this year he was convinced there
would be an actual loss to the Corporation—( Hear, hear. )
Was it fair that the public should be called upon for so enor-
mous a sum for such a trifling advantage? Several years ago
the incapacity of Smithfield market was admitted, and it was
then suggested that two acres should be added to the area,
while: it was publicly acknowledged that the addition of ten
acres would not give ample space enough. The Hon. Gen-
tleman made some other remarks which were quite inaudible in
consequence of the cries of " Question," and " Divide."
Alderman WOOD in reply, said the Hon. Gentleman had
amused the House with a long story about the Common Council,
charging the Corporation With extravagance, but which he
could have a full opportunity of repeating before the Court of
Common Council if he chose. The present market of Smith-
field could be made more eligible by the suggested im-
provements than by removing it two miles off to a swamp,
which could scarcely be drained. He had received letters from
graziers in Northampton, Leicester, and Mr. Coke (of Norfolk)
stating that no market in the country was equal to Smithfield.
It had been said that the Corporation of London would be be-
nefited ; he denied that proposition ; all that he wanted was
that the public should be accommodated according to the
wish they had expressed, and that the Bill should be read a
second time, in order that in Committee the whole subject
might be properly investigated.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said that the worthy Alderman had
stated that the site of the new market was a. swamp; in
answer to that, all he had to say was that its site was up-
wards of 13 feet higher than Smithfield.
After some observations from Sir E. KN ATCHB U L L,
strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
Noes 142
Ayes 27
_ _ _

Majority against the 8i11,.. -115
PETITIONS ON RETURNS.

The SPEAKER then called the attention of the House to a
letter from a Mr. Wallace, complaining that the Clerk of the
Crown Office in Dublin, had not duly forwarded to that
House a petition against one of the returns at last election. We
understood the Speaker to say, that the reason why the peti-
tion alluded to had not been laid before that House as usual,
wa3 that no copy of it had been transmitted at the same time.

Mr. GRATTAN observed that he had never understood it
was necessary to forward a copy of 4 petition in such a case ;
and that the only way, therefore, would be to inquire into
the practice of the House on similar occasions.
Mr. S. RICE said that no omission on the part of any pub-
lic functionary ought to,-be.suffered to act as a virtual preven-
tion of the right of petitioning. He had been an Irish petitioner
himself, and in his case no copy was required with the peti-
tion. He would propose to defer the discussion until they could
ascertain what, had been done on former occasions, and they
could then deal with this case as might seem just and expedient.
He hoped that view would meet the assent of his Hon. Friend
the Paymaster of the Forces, and that it would be adopted, as
there would be great inconvenience in adopting such a course.
The SPEAKER said, that in all probability the better
way would be for some Hon. Member to move that the letter
be read, and the question could be raised.
Mr. O'CONNELL suggested that it would be as well to
have the letter printed.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said that he concurred in what
the Hon.. Member for Cambridge had stated, and thought it
would be better to postpone the discussion. The Hon. Mem-
ber then moved that the letter be printed, which was agreed to.
NATIONAL EDUCATION, (IRELAND.)

Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON rose to move, pursuant to
notice, for certain returns respecting National Education in
Ireland, in pursuance of an order of the 13th of May,
1834 ; and, in addition, a list of all such books as
are distributed or used under the direction of the
Board with the full titles thereof; and a list of the schools in
which the whole, or a.iy of such books, are used as class-books;
also the returns of the number of Roman Catholic children,
of children of the Church of England and Ireland, and of
the Protestant children of the other denominations in each
of the schools under the superintendanee of the Board, and
that the Commissioners state the amount and particulars of
any grants made by them to schools connected with, or
under the superintendence of any nunnery, monastery, or other
religious institutions ; and also of any grants to schools
kept in the Roman Catholic chapels, or buildings forming part
thereof, or contiguous thereto, or within the precincts of said
chapels, with the places where such schools are situated. The
lion. Member stated that this motion was similar to one which
had been made in the other House.

Mr. O'CONNELL did not mean to oppose this motion,
but wished to make a few observations. He did not think it
quite right to separate the Catholic and Protestant children of
Ireland—( Hear, hear)—and any thing which tended to
make the least distinction, except in their respective places
of worship, ought to be:carefully avoided by the House. Then,
with regard to the particular inquiry as to " schools con-
nected with, or under the superintendence of any nunnery, mo-
nastery, or other religious institutions," be could not allow that to
come before the House, without informing it of the fact that there
was not in the world any thing more :,useful than .schools
under the care of the nunneries in Ireland. In all the
towns in Ireland where there was a population of six
or eight thousand persons, there was a nunnery.--4 Hear,
hear, hear.) They instructed the female children not only
in all the literature necessary for their situation in life, but in
all the species of plain work, and according to their abilities-in
works of a fine nature. They were also most attentive to their
morals and religious education.—( Hear,hear.)

Sir E. KNA-TCHBULL here stated that there was some
irregularity in the form of the motion, but we did not distinctly
hear, owing to the low tone in which the Hon. Baronet spoke,
in what it consisted.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, the Right Hon. Baronet would
perceive it was not his fault that the motion had been brought
forward irregularly. The motion was then withdrawn for the
present.
TITHES IN IRELAND.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition from
the parish of Drumboe, in the county of Down, praying for
the total extinction of tithes, and of the Regium Donum.
The petition emanated from one of the most Protestant
parishes of the most Protestant county in the North of Ireland.
—( Hear, hear.) He should take the liberty, with the per-
mission of the House, of reading a few extracts from the
petition. It contended that every religious community should
supply its own ministers, and that it wal contrary to every
principle of justice that the people shou d be compelled to
give away their property without any equivalent. The petition
was signed by 1,396 individuals, and it further set forth that out
of 7001. paid annually in the shape of tithes by the parish, not
less than 6001. went to a non-resident, sinecured clergyman.
This he (Mr. S. Crawford) maintained was quite inconsistent
with his views of religious liberty, and lie agreed with the pe-
titioners also in their opinion that the ministers of the Pres-.
byterian body should be no longer paid by the Crown. He
could state with confidence that there was a general, if not
unanimous feeling in the county Down against the payment of
tithes, and he wished to draw the attention of the Noble Lord
opposite, the Member for that county, to this fact. In proof
lie would observe there were several petitions from the County
Down praying for the extinction of tithes, while not one had been
presented in support of this obnoxious impost. The prayer of
the petitioners met his most hearty concurrence ; and as a
Member of the Establishment he was most desirous to see this
odious mode of paying the Church abolished, for it had most
materially injured the interests of that Church, and prevented
the extension of the Protestant Religion in Ireland. On the
ground of_ justice, also, he wished to see the tithe system abo-
lished, because he believed with the petitioners, that the
Members of one Church had no right to support the Ministers
of another. He thought it inconsistent with the principles of
Christianity that any Church should be supported by the bul-
lets and bayonets of the soldiery. He hoped the time would
shortly arrive when tithes would be totally extinguished in Ire-
land, not only in name but in reality.
Lord CASTLEREAGH denied that, the people of the
County Down were in favour of the extinction of tythes.
On the contrary, so far as he knew, there was a very general
inclination on the part of the Protest arts and Presbyterians of
that county to pay tithes.
SCOTTISH CHURCH.

Mr. C. BRUCE presented a petition from the Synod of
the Mearns, praying that some provision might be made for
the Ministers of Chapels of Ease which had lately been erected
into parish churches. These chapels were generally in debt,
and not able to provide for the minister. Also one from the
Presbytery of Forfar, praying for funds to make an extension
of Church accommodation in the district under their charge.
They stated that in one parish the inhabitants amounted to
7,950, while the church accommodation was for no more than
1,800. Also petitions from tlensheil and another place to
the same effect.
Mr. FOX MA ULE said he would embrace that opportu-
nity of refuting some calumnies which had gone forth relative
to what had fallen from bitn upon the subject of the Church.
It had been stated that he was an enemy to the Church Esta-
blishment—he denied that any one could fairly make such a
deduction. lie was as good a friend to the Establishment as
the Hon. Member for Inverness, but still be did not see the
justice of making Dissenters put their hands in their pockets
in order to provide accomodation for the Churchmen.
Mr. C. BRUCE said it was stated in the petition from
Forfar that they had been trying for years to raise a sufficient
sum for the purpose of making the necessary repairs and altera-
tions by a voluntary subscription, but had failed.
Mr. H. GRATTAN said it was singular that the poorest
people in the empire could build churches without any such
help—he meant the Irish Catholics, who flourished without it.
Lord J. SCOTT (as we were told) presented three petitions
from Roxburghshire in support of the Church of Scotland.
Major BEA UCLE RK said that a more absurd proposition
he had never heard introduced than that a rich people
should come, at a time %I hen they were talking of Church
Reform from one end of the country to the other, and ask to
put their bands into the pockets of the people of this country
to build churches for them.

Mr. FINN said he also must condemn, in the strongest
terms, this call upon the country. It would give rise to dozens
of similar calls. If gentlemen were anxious to increase the
number of Churches in Scotland, let them put their hands into
their own pockets.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. BRUCE said that he would only remark that
Scotland contributed their share, and more than their share,
to the exigencies of the empire, and there was no part of the
empire that cost so little. Ile therefore put it to the House

i .~A

whither they ought not to adopt the recommendation of Ms
Majesty's Ministers.
The petition was then laid on the table.
SUPPLIES—MR. HUME'S MOTION. ,
Mr. HUME said, the Right Hon. Bart. ( Sir R. peel)
I
put a question to me last night respecting the motion of whichhad given notice, lam now able to state to the Right Hon. nail.
that having consulted with my friends on this side of the House,
I regret to state that I find they do not concur with me in consi-
dering the question sufficiently decisive ; and I have therefore
been induced to postpone the determination I bad come re
of opposing the Supplies with the view to a subsequent mo-
tion, tending to show that this House has no confidence in his
Majesty's Ministers.
Sir R. PEEL—Is this, then, the motion of which the
Hon. Gentleman g
lave solemn notice some weeks since
(Loud cheers.) Of which he found it incumbent o him t°
ask°
give notice a week before.—( Repeated cheering.)
the Honourable Gentleman, last night, if he meant to
bring forward his proposition of limiting the supplies; an,
he says he gave me a conditional answer. That conditional
answer was that the motion would be certainly brought on--
( Great cheering from the Ministerial benches)—eithery
by himselt or by some other Honourable Member. I ncl%
ask the Honourable Members this question, whether the other
Honourable Members who was to have taken his plaeophtagf
also abandoned his intention?—(loud cheers)—and whet".,
his motion of want of confidence in his Majesty's :Ministers
to be brought forward to-morrow ?
Mr. HUME, as far as he was concerned, had no hesitation
in saying, that it would not ; and although he considered that,
granting limited supplies would be tantamount to a vote o
no confidence in Ministers, yet as his friends on that Sid
of the House thought that theat would not be a deeisl:o
indication of the opinion of the House he had consented
alter the course he intended to adopt.—(Cheers.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to ask' whether or not the
motion of which the Hon. Member bad given notice wasictit
be brought forward to-morrow or not.—(No, no.)
was not intended to bring it forward, he thought it but rig .0
after what had taken place, that no time should be lost 11,t
naming the day on which the motion would be made.--(ure-
cheerin
Mr. HUME said that if it rested with him he should bring
it forward at the very first moment.
N .
Mr. CUTLAR FEELECTI ROGUSSONFORSPEAKER wished to detain tteo
House a few moments while he explained the course of condute
had pursued in the election of Speaker and the address. "0,
had received that day by the post a letter from the nor 1,
which he represented, stating that rumours bad nor
circulated there that he had, upon the occasion of
to
nomination of the Speaker, although he had prornise‘•A
,_
vote for Charles Manners Sutton, voted for Mr. Abercronr
and that he had received a communication from Sir ellv,
Manners Sutton on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) '°.:
he would unhesitatingly say that he had arrived in l'e!'t
don on the very day of the meeting of Parliament, withoan
thanhaving had any communication whatever with any person nro
the subject. Unfortunately for him there were no less t
five persons bearing his name in the House ; his name ;3,(1
been rightly put down in the vote of Speakr, but he "'
cut,
left the House previous to the vote on the amondlnLt
His Hon. Friend, the Member for East Lothian, had
voted on that occasion, and as he (Mr. C. Ferguson)
been mistaken for his Hon. Friend, it was that which had had
1,
to the error he had alluded to. He would repeat that he 'I
no communication whatever with either of the candidates t
the Chair.
pre-
The SHERIFFS of London were then introduced, and
sented a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen' -Or
Common Council of London, praying for relief, to re
debtors in England. ve
Mr. G. BERKELEY gave notice that he should mei,
on the 12th of May, that a part of the strangers'
that House should be set apart for the accommodation
ladies.--( Great laughter.) cod,
The Sheriffs of the City the ondon were again annotin
and on appearing at the bar presented a petition frmn t f
Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the Cit
11°0
London, in Common Council assembled. The petition,
the
nature of which we could not hear, was ordered to lie en
table. gallery
of

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c.
Mr. R. STUART—Pursuant to a notice of a motion
_a,
had given, now begged leave to bring in a Bill to es:b,
blish a uniform registration of births, marriages, and deaw'ed
in Scotland. The deficiency of registration in Scotland, gb%itei
the necessity of this Bill, and he did not think it requition
to enter into the details of it. There did exist a registration
of births, but it should be more properly called a regis",l:b•
of baptisms than of births ; there was a registration of the Pre,
lication of bans, but not of marriages, nor was there allYeey,
gistration whatever of deaths. To demonstrate this defiejewere
of 1,800 in one parish, only 400, the number baptized, ilea,
registered. Under these circumstances he hoped 11°, fie
Gentleman would oppose the introduction of the s
hoped the registration would be compulsory, and be M'''"
civil registration.
On the question being put that leave be granted,
Sir G. CLERK said he did not mean to object to the Pti at
ciple of the bill, but he certainly was mainly opposed to
of making registration compulsory. He was willing to admit
that the registrations in Scotland were deficient, but there or
one part of this bill, which makes it necessary that the qto
man, when an increase of hisramilAtcok place, was oblige er-
go to register his child, and pay a fee for it, at a time' This
haps, that he could least afford to pay it with his megos.l,o has
would be an extreme inconvenience to a poor man, w",bee
not perhars bread for his family, more especially too
the penalty was to be exacted within forty-eight hours.
Mr. STUART made ari observation of dissent. the
Sir GEORGE CLERK—Such he considered wer.etbat
principles of his Bill. He was perfectly ready to Oren bad
there ought to be some registration for those persons :1 in
property to inherit ; but h did think it would be hi
selsob Yo,a-
jurious that those who had no expectations should b
pelled to pay a fee if they neglected to register them e-0,
Sir J. CAMPBELL, on the contrary, thought it Woo
expedient that it should be compulsory. If its operatiollobjell
intended, it must be general, and it was this part of it to but
he felt in favour. He did not like to burthen the poorly'inte-
considered it was one in which rich and poor were eq wen;
rested, because it frequently happened, if a poor Mete aas
abroad and died without children, disputes arose as to
the heir, and the whole property was then wasted anf-tise,
lawyers. He thought the Bill would be of the greate.t
and hoped that it would be carried. It was a mistake to
had
pose that Dissenters alone were interested in it, as ue
known many members of the Church of England, ° d
property from dissenting families, who had experiencen the
moose difficulty in obtaining the necessary evidence
death f the rties.
Dr. oBOWRpaING cordially concurred in what had f3tilifit
from the late Solicitor-General. He likewise thoughtiorY,
the system of registration should be general and comb
and it was with great pleasure that he gave it his supporr.do,
Dr. BOWRING considered there would not be anYijoced
-culty in applying this principle of registration. He be cho
that in many places on the Continent there would be 110
culty in tracing the history of any individual, from the P. had
of his birth to that of his death ; and he was certain e'heYoof
the same means in this country, of removing a great,,,striv
embarrassments which accompanied all questions of reNere'
tion. He cordially concurred in the object of the 11°9'
ber who proposed bringing in this Bill. d
Mr PRINGLE thought great difficulty would attend
tbJ
application of the principle of compulsory registration. 000
Mr. HUME hoped his Hon. Friend would not let theb
that had been thrown out have any weight Nit vie 10
because the Bill was important in a national point °ld Pc.4
He hoped that when the Bill should be brought in, it vct!e sure;
submitted to a Committee up stairs, where he was (1°1"., oe`
all those doubts and difficulties which had been throretaied
and suggested would be dispelled, and those who entealearj
them become converts to the principle of registration.--- woe
The LORD ADVOCATE thought the measure if tlO
be a most beneficial one • but it would be quite defieien`; fl*
registration was not made compulsory.—( Hear, beuarropPrd
would feel much pleasure in affording the Hon. Meoweeoantri
site every assistance, because he thought that in a reapolo';
where marriage was performed without any religious f
such a measure would be peculiarly necessary. He r
these reasons, give the bill his most cordial support. tails °f
Mr. R. STEWART had not entered into the le vie'
his measure, but this he would say, that unless jaeo',
ciple of compulsion was upheld, it would be totaqf fee;
cient. It had been' urged that the payment b n'e°lo
was objectionable, but he hoped that those whieisrotiot,
arise from furnishing extracts from the central reg supeere
office, would in a very short time be sufficient for the.., ail
entelnyre_
of the whole establishment. He had avoided
details, and if the Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for to;,,
wou". 0
sury, had read it but a little more attentively, bar
discovered that it did not contain those cases of ha I. a birds
which he had alluded. The charge for the registry of
the re;
was only six-pence, and the time allowed for maknlg_,ere f
gistry was fourteen days, and he thought that tiler to .rregistri
who could not, once a-year afford to pay six-pence
the birth of their child—( Hear.) airS'
The Bill was then read a first time. rOLT' le
JURISDICTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL - bring,a
Mr. C. BULLER then rose to move for leave to_rts in
,a bill to abolish the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Con ortanr:
matters relative to tithes. The matter was of great 11?1:_' of ver!,
for it was a very great grievance, and often nroductir% Abe
great tn ths
great injustice. He had communicated with u
torney General, who had given notice of a - goo
same subject, and he had been assured by
.thata LAI r,titis
and Learned Gentleman that his Bill would give ju-detein C.
to the whole of the abuse—therefore he would nc't (gr. 0
House by going into the details of the Bil Vbere
Buller) proposed to bring in.—( Hear, hear.) fo, vibes,
be no harm in giving him leave to bring in bis ststut r
e ,d aft '
would be a very short one—it would repeal thre
and merely enact that the Ecclesiastical Courts cu con 'eluded by ;
u
this time, have no power in such cases.
mo
Theg vin as above.
ATTORNEY-GENRAL asswed the , bona
tleman and the House, that the Bill which
that night would prove a complete remcdy for_a
complained of. The Hon. Gentleman's motir t mot!
better
44,0-
better as a clause in his Bill, than as a "" „ed to
Mr. C. BULLER on that condition Conseil
ail the shuieclo
draw his motion.

SITTING 6)
of 14
London •. Printed and Published by MI RDO ItUuIII
112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand'
of Middlesex.