The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-08 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Mr. C. LITSHINGTON presented a petition from
Pimlico generally against the Interment Bill, and
another petition from Brighton specifioally against the
compensation clause.
Mr. PIGOTT presented two petitions, one from the
parish of Enville, in the county of Stafford, and another
from the vicar, churchwardens, and other inhabitants of
the parish of Worfield, in the county of Salop, against
labour on Sundays in the Post-office.
Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from the clergy
of Ireland, complaining of certain defects in the national
system of education in Ireland; also a monster petition
from the laity of Ireland to the same effect, signed by
17,000 persons.
Mr. SEYMER presented a petition against the
Savings Bank Bill.
GENERAL POST-OFFICE.

Mr. ANSTEY presented a petition from a number of
individuals holding clerkships in the Money Order-office
of the General Post-office, complaining of the re-
cent appointment of a gentleman to the office of chief
clerk of that department. The petitioners stated that
their claims to the appointment had been passed over,
because they had refused to sign a written contradiction
of the statements they had promulgated in a memorial
which.was last year presented to the Treasury on the sub-
ject of their duties and salaries, and they therefore prayed
the House to institute an inquiry into the matter. The
Hon. and Learned Member moved that the petition be
printed with the votes.
Mr. THORNELY said it was very important for the
House to consider whether they would put the country
to the expense of printing for parties who might con-
sider themselves aggrieved by the conduct of their supe-
riors in any of the Government departments, no matter
whether it were the Customs, the Excise, or the
Post-office. It was for the House to consider
whether or no it was right to make Parlia-
ment a court of appeal in matters like this.
For his part he did not think it was, and he there-
fore put it to the House if it would not be better to
leave the petition to be printed in the ordinary course of
business. when it had come before the Committee on
Public Petitions.

Mr. DISRAELI hoped the House would hesitate be-
fore they accepted the views of the Hon. Geutleman
who had just sat down.—(Hear, hear.) He had always
understood that any party who felt himself aggrieved by
the conduct of a public Department could appeal to that
House for redress, if there was no other channel open to
him, and he thought it would be exceedingly dangerous
to interfere with that principle. That right of appeal
indeed was part of the liberty of the subject.—(Hear.)
Mr. FORSTER agreed with tbo Hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire, that the House ought to hesitate in
this matter. The House held the head of each public
department responsible for all its proceedings, but if the
House interfered between them and their employes, how
could they insist on maintaining that rule?—(Hear,)
Mr. STUART said that was not quite the correct
view of the matter. The question was not whether
the House would interfere, but whether it would
listen to a complaint.—(Hear, bear.) He understood
that one ground of complaint was that the claims of these
parties had been rejected because they had refused to
work on a Sunday.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. PATTEN thought it would be better to defer
this motion till the petition had been before the Com-
mittee on Public Petitions.
Mr. HAYTER said the great inconvenience which
resulted from stating the contents of petitions like
this was, that they went forth to the world
as if they were founded is truth. Now, so far
from that being the case in this instance, he could assure
the House that many statements in the petition were
founded upon error.—(Hear, hear.) He should not pro-
perly discharge his duty if he did not say that most of
those statements were founded in error.
Colonel THOMPSON observed that the usage was
that the House was bound to receive petitions but not to
print them.

- Sir G. GREY said the Hon. Member seemed to imply
that there had been an objection to the reception of the
petition; that was not so, the petition having been re-
ceived, and the
it should be printed with
question now was, whether
th the votes. The Chairman of
the Committee on
petitions
shortly come before them,
be
had stated that it would
and they would have to de-
cide whether it should printed or not, before it was
Member competent for the Hon. to bring a motion on
the subject before the House.
it
was a practice which
he (Sir G. Grey) thought very desirable the
hoped the Hon
House should follow,
and
dprielsenlsivt
would abide by it on the . Member
.
After a few words from Mr. Brit"
Lord DUDLEY STUART thoughtAißt D'
wary the
sirable and important that they should it
very de-
rule of the House was with regard to the"
printing of
petitions. He understood that if an Hon. Memberwished
to found a motion on any petition, it wasprtitebneparactice
to allow him to move that it be
with
the votes.—(liear.) The petition under discussionap-
peared to refer to a subject of some importance; and, as
he thought it very proper that clerks in the Post-office
should be enabled to state their grievances to the House,
it seemed to him that the best way of allowing them. to
do so was to print their petition.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that before the Hon.
Gentleman could bring his motion before the House, the
petition would have been before the Committee, and if
by that time he found it had not been printed, it would
be quite competent for him to make a motion on the
subject.
Mr. THORNELY said it was a question for the House
to consider whether the complaints of the clerks in
the Post-office, in the shape of a petition, should be
printed or not.
Sir R.
PEEL said if a Member presented a petition,
and
thought the statements which it contained so well-
founded as to bring forward a motion with respect to it,
he thought h
t e-practice of the House was to permit that

petition to be printed.—(Hear, hear.) Though he
did not think that the House should constitute

itself a court of appeal to hear the complaints of Go-
vernment officers, yet it would be a very unwise practice
to refuse a petitio❑ to be printed on. that ground. The
simple question was whether they should depart from
that which had been the general usage, of having pe-

titions printed in respect of which an Hon. Member in-
tended to bring forward a motion.—(Hear.)
Colonel RAWDON said it had always been in the
power of the House to prevent the printing of petitions,
although it was in the power of any Member, at any
time, to move that they be printed.
Mr. BROTHERTON complained that many Mem-
bers gave notice of founding a motion upon a petition
merely for the purpose of getting their petition printed,
but who never seriously meant to bring that motion
before the House.—(flear, bear.)
Mr. ANSTEY disclaimed being actuated by any such
motive as that mentioned by the Hon. Member for Sal-
ford (Mr. Brotherton). In this case he (Mr. Anstey)
seriously meant to found a motion on his petition.
Mr. GOULBURN did not think it was possible tha
there could have been any partiality 'shown by the

Chairman.
After a short conversation, in which Mr. T. D'Eyn-
court, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Hume took
part,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not understand what
the Hou. Member's object was, whether it was to have
this petition printed in order to found a motion upon it
or not.
Mr. ANSTEY said he would repeat what he had said,
and that was that he understood that petitions were
printed for the purpose of calling the attention of Hon.
Members more closely to them, and his object in moving
that this petition be printed was that he might lay the
ground for a future motion which he intended to found
upon it.
The SPEAKER then put the question, and the mo-
tion was agreed to without a division.
RETURNS.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved an address for a
return of the annual receipt and expenditure of the
colony of Hong Kong, made up to the latest period
for which accounts have been received, showing
the gross receipts from the various branches of
revenue, under their different heads, distinguish-
ing the amounts levied in the colony from Parlia-
mentary grants, and stating the expenditure under
its various branches (in continuation of Parliamentary
Paper. No. 264, of session 1846). Similar return for
New Zealand (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper,
No. 328, of session 1844). And similar return for La-
buan. Also an address for return, in a tabular form,
for the last year in which they can be made up, of
the gross revenues, under their different heads, of
each of her Majesty's colonies, exhibiting the costs of
collection, and any deductions made in their progress to
the public treasury. And similar return of the dis-
bursements of each colony, under their separate heads;
showing the authority on which such disbursements are
made (in continuation of part of Parliamentary Paper,
No. 740, of session 1847).—Agreed to.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Sir BENJAMIN HALL moved for a retura of all
instructions or inquires issued by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners to the archbishops and bishops, the
answers to such instructions, and all data upon which
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, before the
Ist day of January, 1844, estimated and fixed
the annual sums to be paid to the Com-
missioners out of the revenues of the larger
sees, and to be paid by the Commissioners for augmen-
tation of the smaller bishoprics. Also, all returns of re-
venues or data upon which the Commissioners, after
the Ist day of January, 1844, revised episcopal re•
venues, and fixed an altered scale of payment,
to take effect upon the avoidance of any see after the
period of such revision, as well as any inquiries or in-
struction for supplying such last mentioned returns or
data, addressed to the archbishops or bishops by the Ec-
cleAastical Commissioners; in all cases where the grossand
net income have been both given, the grounds of difference
between the gross and net income as shown by the arch-
bishops or bishops to be returned; such return to show the
dates of all such inquiries, instructions, answers, and re-
turns, and to set forth, in a tabular form, the gross and
nett incomes of each archbishop and bishop, as well as
the charges and deductions which constituted the diff, r-
once between the gross and nett income; also a return of
the sums paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Eng.
laud, in each year, since the Act to carry into effect the
4th Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Duties
aad Revenues (3 and 4 Vic. c. 113), in respect of any
prebend or other dignity in any cathedral or collegiate
church in Wales, and of the amount of such sums as
may have been appropriated by the Commissioners, and
how appropriated.—Agreed to.
ASSISTANT BARRISTERS BILL.
Mr. SADLEIR asked the Secretary for Ireland when
he intended to introduce the Assistant Barristers Bill?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—On an early day.
THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

Colonel RAWDON rose to ask the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government whether the inquiry which was
instituted respecting the state of the pictures in the Na-
tionalGallery,with a view to their better preservation, had
terminated, and, if so, would the information be given to
the House. Whether any proposal had been made by
the Government to the Royal Academy, with a view of
obtaining for the public collection of pictures, the entire
of the National Gallery building; and, if so, what
answer had been given. Whether any supplemental
vote in the present estimates would be called for to
carry out the proposition; and whether it is the intention
of Government, before taking final steps for permanently
locating the pictures on the present site, to institute an
inquiry, by a Committee of this House or otherwise,
in order to ascertain whether or not it is expedient to
allocate the pictures in Trafalgar-square.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, with respect to the first
question as to the inquiry instituted into the state of the
pictures, with the view to their better preservation, he
had received a report from the gentlemen composing that
committe, and they had made some suggestions as to
their better preservation, but they requested to be
allowed to make farther inquiry, particularly with
respect to the mode of preserving the pictures on
the continent. He should be ready, ere long, to lay
that report upon the table of the House, although it
was not a final report. With respect to the second
question, in conformity with the opinion of the Com-
mittee of that House, which sat on the question of the
building in Trafalgar-square, he made a proposal to the
Royal Academy, with the view of having the
entire building of the National Gallery devoted to the
exhibition of the pictures. He had received an answer
expressing their desire to comply with the wishes of the
Government en that subject. With respect to the third
and fourth questions he should say, with that additional
information which he now had before him in regard to
the present state of the pictures, he thought it was de-
sirable that some further inquiry should made before any
vote was proposed to be sanctioned by the House, and
therefore he proposed early next week to reeve fora Select
Committee, consisting as far as possible of the members of
the present Commission, to consider that further infor-
mation, and to state their opinion of the most desirable
manner of preserving the pictures in the National Gal-
lery, and whether the present site was the most desir-
able far the institution.—(Hear, hear,)
C ASTLEI3 AR UNION,

Mr. P. SCROPE wished to ask the Secretary for Ire-,1
land whether any inquiry has been instituted by the
Irish Poor-law Commissioners into the facts stated in the
report of Dr. Ronayne, relative to the condition of the
Castlebar workhouse, in the week ending the 20th April
last ; and whether it appeared on the face of the
report transmitted weekly to the Commisioiaers that so
large a number were contained in the workhouse beyond
that to which it was limited by their sealed order; and
if so, what steps were thereupon taken by the Commis..
sioners?
Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE said that Mr. Far-
rell, the union inspector, was investigating the subject,
but he had not yet received his report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
Mr. STUART, seeing the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government in his place, wished to ask a question
relative to the administration of justice in the
highest court in the kingdom. It would be
remembered the other evening the Noble Lord
announced that the Lord Chancellor had resigned his
office. Now most unexpectedly the public had learned
that the Great Seal had been placed in Commission, the
Commission consisting of two Learned Judges of the
Court of Chancery, and one of the Learned Judges of
the Common Law Courts. The Noble Lord was, per-
haps, aware that there was so much business in all the
Chancery Courts that six days in the week were hardly
sufficient to get through it. The arrangement which he
had just mentioned would have the effect of shutting up
two of the courts three or four days in the week, and he
should therefore be glad to know how long the Seal
was likely to remain in Commission?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was very sensitive of the
inconvenience which resulted from placing the Great
Seal in Commission, and particularly at the present
time. At the same time Government had had to weigh
the inconvenience that would have been caused by the
Great Seal being entrusted to any individual before
they had decided what course they would pursue
with reference to separating the judicial
from the political duties of the office, and until their
course had been determined upon, he felt it to be his
duty to advise her Majesty to put the Seal in Commis-
sion. He could assure the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man that it was his earnest wish that the ISeal
should continue 4in Commission as short a time
plana Fortnight pwens
isei
hbhl eeG,
es
vheaornundl
mdtde positionr
m ti
hn
aet
dto announcen°pnn
n,a on nddt hat May
move for leave to bring in a Bill to carry it out.—(Hear.)
enbhete hinadhaedpee
CUBA.

- -
Mr. DISRAELI wished to ask the Noble Lord at the
head of the Foreign Department if he had received any
official information that Cuba had been invaded by a
buccaneering expedition from the United States?
Lord PALMERSTON said it was well known that
such an expedition had been in preparation for a con-
siderable time. He had been informed that an expedition
had sailed from the southern part of the United States
for the purpose of making an attack on Cuba. It left
on the 6th of last month, and consisted of a force of 3,000
men; and it appeared that a further detachment, supposed
to amount to 4,000 or 5,000, had followed some days
afterwards. The President of the United States dis-
patched a force in search of that expedition for the
purpose of intercepting it, and, in the event of it
having landed, of taking such measures under
the circumstances as might best show the friendly
disposition of the United States to Spain. As
her Majesty's Government had only received
this information a few days ago, they of course had not
yet been enabled to have any communication with the
Government at Madrid, but the Spanish Minister who'
reached this -country from Spain yesterday had been '