The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-02 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-
ring upon the agricultural populations, the former exceeding the
latter by 3,000. Of 139,303/. 6s. levied in Leicestershire for
rates, 108,000/. were directly levied upon the land, 29,0001.
upon-houses, and only 13,000/. 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 but i
1829 they amounted to 3,636/., 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. CARTWRIGHT presented a petition from a place in

MEMBERS' PLEDGES.

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 400 inhabitants of
the borough of Wigan, which place he had the honour to re-
present. The petitioners evpressed their approbation of the
proposed measure of Ministers for the settlement of the Irish
Church, and the appropriation of its surplus revenues, to the
support of a liberal system of education amongst all classes.
They also prayed the House to sanction the Reform of the
municipal Corporations of the United Kingdom, placing it on
such a basis as will give the people a proper coutroul over
eorporate property, and the election of their own civil officers.
He begged to say that he most heartily concurred in the libe-
ral and enlightened views of so great a number of the inha-
bitants of Wigan.
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 alarm
the progress of measures which, under the specious name
of Reform, have no other tendency but to create re-
volution and anarchy ; and they pray the House to preserve
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,
but the Presbyterians 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 of
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
he informed it that the postage of it amounted to not
less than 43/. 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 Home Department,
and they prayed the House to adopt speedy and effectual mea-
sures to remedy the abuses connected with the Established
Church of Ireland.

Lord MILTON expressed himself favourable to Church
Reform, but would not pledge himself to adopt such measures
to attain that object as the petitioners suggested.

Mr. A. JOHNSTONE begged to call the attention
of the House to a very unprovoked attack that had been
made upon him and' published in the Journals of the day.
He would now only say, in reference to it, that he was informed
a petition was to be presented respecting the fulfilment of
the 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 no delay in presenting it.
Mr. ELPH IN STONE, in reply, had to say that a petition
had been intrusted to him, referring to the circumstances
under 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
Russell, Mr. Spring 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 prepared to present the petition, but as this was
rather an unprecedented proceeding, he thought it better
that the Hon. Member should adopt the course which he had
suggested. The documents he alluded to were a statement
of the Liberal electors of St. Andrew's, which was drawn out
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 to his Hon. Friend not to persevere in it, but
at once to present the petition he now held in his hand.
The SPEAK ER made some observation, the purport of
which we could not catch.

Mr. A. J 0 HNST ONE 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
be presented.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE again rose, and stated that he had
a petition to present from several of the constituents of Air.
A. Johnstone, stating that that Hon. Gentleman had pledged
himself to resign his seat when called upon to do so.
Mr. BENNTT 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 U LW/ RN 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 ought 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 the House, 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 descrying 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 had fallen from
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 very 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 to the
Hon. Member for Middlesex, that he spoke either in total
ignorance or entire forgetfulness, in speaking of the case
of Mr. Walsh—(Laughter)—of one little circumstance,
merely, that Mr. Walsh had been convicted by a jury.--
( Hear, hear.) The only doubt then was whether Exchequer
Bills were or were not articles, the embezzlement of which
were felony ; but Mr. Walsh had been found guilty
upon an indictment tried at the Old Bailey.—( Hear.)
Mr. HUME said the decision against Mr. Walsh was re-
versed, and therefore he stood in the situation of having
no charge against him, as far as the law was concerned, of
moral guilt.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE thought the House was competent
to decide upon the question.
Mr. METHUEN rose to order. He thought the House
ought not to have its time taken up with questions of this
kind, it being a contest purely between the Hon. Member and
his constituents.

Mr. ROBINSON thought the petition should be with-
drawn, or that the Honourable Gentleman should have an
opportunity of explaining. As far as his experience
went, he could say that in every instance of this kind an op-
portunity had been afforded to the Member to justify his con-
duct. It was a mere question of feeling, and he considered
the discussion to be altogether irregular.—(Hear.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL understood the Hon. Member to
bring forward this petition in order that there might be some
decision upon the subject. Now he certainly agreed with the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite that this was a kind of question
upon which there could be no decision by the House.—( Hear. )
It was a question between a Representative and his consti-
tuents with regard to certain statements which he was
supposed to have made to those constituents—( Hear, hear)—
he therefore would recommend the Hon. Gentleman not to
bring forward a petition of this kind, especially as he was not
prepared with any specific motion on the subject.—( Hear. )
Mr. ROEBUCK hoped that the Hon. Member would
bring forward the petition.—( Hear, hear.) It would be
unjust to allow this charge to hang over him which
did hang over him, and would hang over him, unless he was
able in the House to wipe off the stain that was then upon
him ; therefore the House was bound to give him a hearing.
The SPEAKER said it was for the House to consider
whether it was that sort of petition which was within the re-
cognition of the House. It was a question for the House to
consider whether they would enter into discussions between
Members and their constituents, and in doing so they would
also consider what the consequences of such a course of pro-
ceeding would be.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. JOHNSTONE said he was ready to adopt any course
the House would suggest ; either to avail himself of the in-
du!gence of the House now or at some other period, but cer-
tainly he was very anxious to give an answer to this moat ex-
traordinary charge.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. PR YME understood that the question before the House
was whether this petition should lie on the table—(No, no)---
he was quite aware that that question would not be put, but he
:;tll,l suggest to the Hon. Member that when the petition was
brought forward, he would give him an opportunity, whatever
might be the ultimate decision of the House, of making his ex-
planation.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHAW apprehended that without any motion before
the House, any Honourable Member might claim the indul-
gence of the House to give any explanation in answer to a
charge affecting his character as a Member of the House.
Mr. JOHNSTONE was proceeding to address the House
upon the extraordinary nature of the charge preferred against
him, which, he said, arose out of a pledge which was given
by him ; when
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose to order, and said he could not

TtlE SUN, LONDON, lIMSDAY, JUNE 2, 1835.