The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-04 00:00:00

r E SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING'', JUNE 4, 1844.

Mr. SCH 0 LEFIELD presented petitions from various:con-
gregations of Dissenters against the Bill.
Mr. MUN T Z presented several petitions from congregations
in Birmingham against the and one from the congregation
meeting in Cw li-street Chapel, Birmingham, in favour cf the
Bill.

Mr. MAUNSELL presented several petitions from places
in Northamptonshire also against the Bili.
Mr. W. EVANS presented several petitions in favour of the
Bill, but we could not hear the designations of the petitions.
A great number of petitions both for and against the Bill
were also preser:t( d, but in the confusion of the House it was
impossible to catch the names of the Members or the petitions.
hir. BOYD presented five petitions from Coleraine and
Antrim against the Bill.

Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY presented several peti-
tions from places in Glouce!terthre against the Bill, and two
in favour of it.

Air. BERKELEY presented several petitions from Ber-
keley and other places in favour of the Bill.
ENTWISLE presented several petitions from places
in Lancashire against the Bill.

Mr. DUGDA LE presented petitions from Birmingham in
favour of the Bill.

Mr. B. Smith presented petitions from Norfolk ; Mr.
Brotherton from Camberwell, and other places ; and Major
Beresford from Armagh, agait:st the Bill.
Similar petitions were. presented from Dissenters in Stafford-
shire, and oth: r parts of ;.he kinklom, by Sir R. H. Inglis ;
from North Lancashire, by Mr. W. Patten; and from Northamp-
ton, by Mr. Vernon Smith.
Mr. FOX MA ULE presented thirty-six petitions against
the Bill, the first of which was from the General Assembly of
the Free Church.

The HON. MEMBER preserved also a petition from a body
of journeyman sawyers, praying for the imposition of a tax
upon saw mills.—(A laugh.)
Lord A. LENNOX presented a petition from Chichester,
which was, he said, signed by " some magistrates, spine alder-
men, and some lawyers"—( A laugh)—in favour of the Dis-
senters' Chapels Bill.
Colonel P.OLLESTON presented 110 petitions from places
in the county of Nottingham, praying for agricultural pro-
tection.

Lord A. LENNOX presented a petition from certain
lawyt rs and aldermen of Chichester, against the Dissenters'
Chapel Bill.
Sir J. EA S I HOPE presented three petitions from Leices-
ter against the Dissenters' Chapel Bill.
Mr. DENNISTOUN presented a petition against the same
Bill, from Glasgow. _ .

. Mr. ROSS presented a petition in favour of the Dissenters'
Chapel Bill.

Mr. WATSON presented a petition from Newcastle-on-
Tyne, praying for the establishment of one court of jurisdiction
in testamentary matters.
Mr. HUME presented a petition, numerously signed, from
the borough of Porter, against the exclusive privileges of the
trade guilds in the Royal boroughs of Scotland, and complain-
ing of the conduct of the Guild of Tailors in Forfar, who had
fined a poor tailor 10s. for having worked at his business for
private employers to save himsel from destitution. The Hon.
Member also presented a petition from a private individual in
Dublin, complaining that p..rsons holding Government situa-
tions were a.lowed to be also directors of public boards, &c.,
by which they were prevented from giving all their time to the
public, as they were bound to do.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Yeovil,
pray ng for the repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act; also
a petition from the borough of Southwark against the heavy
sentence pronounced upon Mr. O'Connell and the traversers
in Dublin.

Colonel WOOD presented several petitions against the In-
closure Act and the Di,senters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. STUA NT WORTLEY pieseaed petitions from se-
veral places in Yorkshire, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill;
also three petitions in favour of the same Bill.
Mr. MILDMAY presented a petition from Southampton
against the Bill.
_ _

Mr. M. I'HILIPS presented several petitions from Mao.
chester and its neighbourhood, against the Bill ; also several
petitions in favour of the Bill.

Mr. COBDEN preaented petitions in favour of the Bill.
Sir G. CLERK presented petitions from Stafford against
the Bill.

Mr. ALDAM presented a pe!ition from Yorkshire, against
the Bill.

Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from Bath, in favour
of the Bill.

Sir A. BROOKE presented petitions from Fermanagh;
against t►he Bill.

—Mr. PAT I P 5 ON presented petitions against the Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON prcseLted six petitions in kvour 0:
the Bill.

Mr. PLU3IPTRE presented petitions from Kent, against
the Rill.

111 r. GLADSTONE presented nine petitions from Newark,
against the I3ia.

Air. HUAI E presented a petition from Ipswich, in favour °I
the Bill; alsu petitions from Bethnal-green, and other places,
against the Bill.

Mr. BARNABY presented 29' petions in favour of the
Corn-laws.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

Mr. WALLACE gave notice that he would, on the 2d of
July, move for a copy of the pretest of the jury who tried
Alexander Walker at the Glasgow Assizes.
Mr. ESCOTT gave notice that he would, on this day week,
move for a return of the fres paid to clerks of petty sessions
and assizes.

Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that he would postpone
his motion on prison discipline till the 2d of July.
Mr. 'l'. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the Isle of
Guernsey, complaining of the disturbances that had taken place
in the island, and praying for interference.
Sir J. GRAHAM understood that considerable excitement
had prevailed, but that the loyalty of the island was undisturbed.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved for a copy of the judgment
and the committal of Mr. O'Connell and his co-traversers.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he could assure the Hon. Gentleman
that he was as anxious as he himself could be, that this return
should be presented as soon as possible ; but he trusted the
Hon. Gentleman would not press the Government on the sub-
ject inconveniently.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he was informed by persons
fully acquainted with short-hand writing, that the notes must
have been furnished within three weeks after the trial.
Sir J. GR A HAM raid the short-hand writer was in the
employment of Mr. Gurney, and being detached from the esta-
blishment here, of course he could not receive the same assist-
ance as he would have in town. He possessed the entire con-
fidence of Mr. Gurney, and he believed there would be as little
delay as possible.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved for a copy of a dispatch from the
Earl of Aberdeen to the Earl of Westmorland, with respect to
commercial relations between this country and Prussia, with
any answer to such dispatch from the Court of Prussia.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that in the present state of the
correspondence, he thought it would be highly inexpedient
that the correspondence should be produced. It was still
going on, and its character was somewhat changed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if the correspondence was
still proceeding he woo's' not press for its production.
Mr. GLADSTONE said perhaps he might as well state to
the Noble Lord what wnuld oth.,rwise be stated in debate.
With regard to what had appeared in the newspapers, he had
no reason to believe that it was not substantially accurate ;
although the dispatch of Lord Aberdeen had probably passed
through a double translation—first into the German language,
and afterwards into the English. There were subsequent com-
munications, however, which would he necessary to make in-
telligible what had found its way into the newspapers. But
the ground upon which the Government did not think it ex-
pedient to lay those papers on the table at the
present moment was, that subsequent to the dispatch
dated the 19th of March, received from Baron
Bulaw communications had been received, which were con-
ceived in a different spirit, and tending to different results.
With respect to the iron duty and other matters, it was thought
best that the carrespondenee should be suspended until the
final issue of the communication was known. The Govern-
ment did not wish to be parties to the publication of a corre-
spondence which partook, he wield not say of a hostile, but
of an argumentative characta.—(Hear, hear.) He would
hare no objection whatever to the production of the corre-
spondecce when it was brought to a close.
lord J. RUSSELL then postponed his motion until that
day fortnight.
Dr. BOWIIING said, that not being aware of the Noble
Lord's intention IN ith reference to this question, he had given
notice of similar motion; but he would now withdraw hie mo-
tion, and leave the matter in the hands of the Noble Lord.

Sir C. NAPIER said. seeing the Gallant Admiral (Admi-
ral Bowles) in hi, p!ace, he wished to know if it had come to
the knowledge of the Admiralty, that the Commander-in-Chief
in the Mediterranean, Lad taken the mess place from the
officers of the ward-room, and sent them down into the gun-
room, and had removed the gun-room officers into the cockpit,
and taken the ward- room for his own accommodation ?

Admiral I3OWLES said he hoped his Honourable and
Gallant Friend would give notice of this questi. n.—(Hear.)
Being a jour* 31.mber of the Admiralty, and having only sat
for one week in the House, he hoped his Hon. and Gallant
Friend wouli give notice of any question he intended to put
to him.

it C. NAPIER had only put a question on that which was
matter of pubic notoriety.
PARISHES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
Mr. EDWARD ELLIGE wished to ask the Lord Advo-
cate if it was intended to I.roeed with the Bill for the division
of pat ishes in Scotland during the present session ; and if so,
when he intended to bring it forward.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the time when the
measure was to be brought forward must depend upon the
progress of the public business. He hoped to be able to pro-
ceed with the 13:1l on Friday, but it should be recollected that
it had been originally put off at the request of Hon. Gentle-
men opposite.