The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-27 00:00:00

sit
ng
a-

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 26.
-Lae LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
iftek at Five o'clock.
,Several petitions were presented for and against the
4nssenters' Chapels Bill.
The Dissenters' Chapels Bill was read a second time
Pr°forma; and ordered to be committed on this day
Week.

- - - SLAVERY._
the Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition signed by
venerable Thomas Clarkson, on .the part
of ilia Anti-Slavery' Society. The petition prayed
Illat their Lordships would sanction such fiscal
regulations as would admit foreign sugar into
the markets in this country, provided it came from
!ettlements such as those in the East and Manilla, where
tree labour only was employed. The petition also prayed
that tht-ir Lordships would not allow, either directly or
indirectly,. the admission into the markets of this coun
117 sugar grown in Brazil and Porto Rico.:
After a few wordy from Lord KINNAIRD and Lord
bROUGRAX, the p tition was laid on the table.
The. Earl of POWIS presented a number of petitions
gnat the union of the sees of S. Asaph and Bangor,
praying for the establishment of a bishopric in
Jaahchester. The Noble Earl gave notice that on
tat early day he should call the attention of their Lord
sips to that subject. - - •
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions againSt
the`union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions to the
Utile effect.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented similar petitions.
a The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a peti-
u__Licnt from Dublin,
praying their Lordships to legalise
4're4l3'terian marriages in Ireland. The .Noble Mar-
ts also presented several petitions, one from the Rev.
pi; Turner, the oldest Dissenting minister in the
2t111,13't against the Dissenters' Chapels 13111. Also
in favour of the Bill.

THE CA§i'OF SAItITEL GRAY.
The LORD CIiANCELLOR presented a petition
Foul Samuel Gray, who was confined in one of the goals
Dublin under sentence of transportation for life. The
rotitioner stated that he had sent a writ of error to their
'der thebdshiPe Rouse,- and he- prayed their Lordships to
th inquiry to, be conducted without expense to
to the The petition was ordered to_be referred
Conimittee.

The m„, MR. 0 BRIEN.
on Tue,-"Zrq111-1,of CLANRICARDE gave notice that
sp Y he should submit a motion,especting the
pointment of Mr O'Brien to the magistracy in
Ireland.

GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had a motion
on the paper fur Monday next, with respect to certain
tee, ent transactions at Owalior. It was his intention in
making that motion to make some remarks respecting
the'treaty of Bhurtpdre, but he had just heard that the
enternor-General of India had been recalled, and if this
was so; Of courselat pres!nt he :should refrain from
~tking such remarks. He wished to know whether the
tePint of the recal of Lord-EllenborOugh from India was
true ? .

The Earl of RIPON said it was true- that the East
India Company had recalled Lord Ellenborough.
_ The Earl of COLCHESTER. wished to know if this
iteP had received the sanction of hir Majesty's Govern-
n3ent ? - -

. - -
The Eail of RIPON said it had not.
Lord BROUGHAM said it was a most extraordinary
tiling that the Board of Control should have -the power ,
controlling every act of the Court of Directors of the
fast India Company except that most important one the
recall Of the Governor-General of India. This was a
matter which might affect the surety of our Indian em-
pire, and,yet the East India Company were subject to no
control with respect to it. He thought this was-a great
oversight.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that so far from
having been an oversight, it had been the subject of
e gravest discussion.
`after a, short conversation the subject dropped.
WRITS OF ERROR.
tjaord CAMPBELL postponed the second reading of
Vs Dill from Monday to Thursday next.
OILILORD. AND: TENANTS COMPENSATION

' BILL.
"'PORTMAN-moved the second reading, of this
Theo et 'of th 6 Bill was to give' to the,tenant
prorerVor capital
,which he expended on his landlord's
thiVrci BE AUMONq opposed the,Bill. . He. believed
4,„' if this Bill weve allowed to pass, it-would dead. to
th*si litigation between landlords and tenants, and he
-t na
ef°",.4ved that' the-Bill beteada second time that
%Y.-sixteenths.
the -the Duke of RICHMOND was prepared to vote for
4ftond reading/of this Bill, providedbis Noble Friend
matTi.s ki. consent to 'send it to a Select Committee .up ,
l'he Iran:pi§ tif SALISBURY would be glad if means
oo ld devised'fOr giving compensation to tenants..for
thil
oue!r improvements, and be therefore thought this Bill
pit to be referred to a Select Committee. •
ajhe Itarquis of LONDONDERRY said .this was a
be- Ject,pf very great danger and difficulty, and ought to
t4Pproached with .great caution. =He did not 'think
at this Bill would be so beneficial to the tenants of the
country as had been anticipated by the Noble Lord op-
posite. (Lord Portman.)
he Earl.of HARDWICKE opposed the Bill, on the
Found it
ti d that•would,lf- passed, open the door to litiga-
HeHe -thought the Bill was unnecessary, and he
usted'their Lordships wc.uld ref Use a second reading
4> it. - • -
,1,1119 Duke pc -CLEVELAND said he should support
the Bill;for he did-not believe it. would have the effect
"'high bad. been stated by .the Noble Earl who had just
sat down. He believed the-Bill-to be admirable in prin-
ciple, and one which would be very beneficial to
the
"`tlantrY of the country, and he shourdtherefore give it
hia entire support.
Lord REDESDALE believed the Bill ta be useless,
said therefoie should support the amendment. - •
ee".
rF: to
for Lords
rs
ee°l:nscifrom Lord PORTMAN,
divided.. The numbers were—..:
reading.; ......... 27
IQ* the amendment .
The till
w Majority
Lord ,„ as then read asecond time.
f wiIARN.CLIFFE presented several petitions
0. and against the Dis' adjournedapels Bill.
l'illeir'Lordshipi then
4.- •

• LOUSE OF COMMONS, April 26.
The Se.iiEit took the Chair at the usual hour.
- • - NEW WRIT.
.n11.1193'1: MEMBE4 -(Mr. *Estcourt we helieve) moved
that a new writ be issued for the election of a, burgess to
Etrhap:tent for the borough of Horsham, in the
—4,„. of the on. Mr. Searlett, now Lord Abinger..
ELL,e,t who was very 'indistinctly heard in
the;;;Tetjeyl:ll ros o.call the 'attention of the Speaker to
oe this writ.
had occurred with respect to the issuing
,Ls writ. .11'e:wished to. know whether• it. would not
-von consittent with the forms of Parliament to issue at
'thee 4, writ for the election of a MeMber of that House,
ther-oorn of -11. Member who had been called by the
lee", of his father to the House of Peers—to issue that
AP4lnediately,..that this fact became known. The
etit'at son of a, peer was admitted into that House with-
bein.ll4Y preperty .qualifieation, without any inquiry
(Ag,„ll,„arle as to his claim to such a privilege ; and he
6 "melt) could not see why. a new writ could not
ILlaeued Without each delay taking place as that which
he in:thia.case. •
" SPEAIIER was understood to . say .that this
bad .bein. settled by Lord Dunfermline when
tii.-7,ler of that House. It was perfectly true that on
v death ofr pier, the eldest, son of that peer holding
tete al, that:ll'oo2e :'ininiediately vacated his seat, but
~"°l4e Wad no Means. of ascertaining whether such
d he'r's claim to the peerage was bona..fide or not ;
ike„, therefore- the only safe course for the House to
-tMaas to_ wait for. the issuing of a writ of summons.
4(67 Perfectly true that the eldest son of a peer was
14,i'Lcttfd intothat 'Tense without a property qualification;
ini
.was equally true that a' claim to that privilege
eferte founded on error. This had been shown in a
kecaWltieh. had recently occurred, in which an Hon.
aft'ei-qnalified as the eldest Sou of a Peer, and it
trazds turned out that lie was not so.
tub e. ESTCOUAT perfectly cencurred in the view
taken was .by the Speaker.
erp.iT.: a, few words from Mr. TUFNELL the new
-"*" Was ordered. --
le.' LEEDS GAS BILL.
f 1..-0-rECKE'rT moved that the evidence taken be-
"'Lne CoMinittee on 'the Leeds. Gas Bill, in the year
-"th'eaild also the evidence taken before the Committee
ob. I Year 1843, be referred to the Select Committee
the Leeds New Gas Bill.—Ordered.
et:: ES- AND BRADFORD RAILWAY BILL.
kitt 34.0rder of the Day that the report of the Com-
feetLe upon the Leeds and Bradford Railway Bill be
irr considered,
Ulu ARDY said that he thought it was'neccessary
the" ee shOuld be re-committed. He thought that
Itaing Order which precluded Committees on
ptti:l3l from-receiiing maps or-plans relating to coin-
rai4l,inea shnuld be suspended. When this question was
‘) to the Committee, he voted against the evidence
'", oy thaopposing parties being recalled; but he now
4gat that he had construed the order too stringently,
tun", the parties themselves to the Bill had
pro-- evidence that there was a shorter line than that
to
,sed by them, it was. in justice to the public, and
eltd-,-adrPeates of the' other line, only right that the
tao'-t-•of both should be fully examined. He would
hsve, according. to that view, that the Bill be referred
-.Or to the. ommittee
Si. ,
g sizremot seconded the'motion.
the E. COLEBROOK defended the decision to which
by o,`-oramittee had come, and to which he said they were
Prtre- the
Order bound to come. It had, besides, been
his
to the Committee that the shorter line was in
fhilil'esPeets objectionable, if not impracticable. [At
tooment Mr. C. W. W. Wynn was carried into the
el:%sei upon a.'litter, borne by two of the messengers,
" L'ilteed-librn• upon the Ministerial bench, on the seat .
th!,t.,to that nsually, occupied by Lord Stanley. During
$,; silenest 'OceisiOned by this unusual occurrence, Mr.
eir4d.came into the House, and took his usual seat,
moat attracting obseriable notice.]
that-r&S.- WORTLEy wished the House to recollect
t‘e H-oa. Member for Bradford, only asked the
I:use to re-commit this Bill. Had he asked anything
birlie this" most assuredly he '(Alr. Wortley) would
xdiete9PPosed him to the utmost. The question was
by the the' Committee were-justified by any rule or
wh.,,,e practice of that House in refusing the evidence
ke,rltr had been tendered. Had the matter been fully
fair/y so—if they had reused to enter-
hqrugt whiFb they ought to have received, then
ref AWOrtley)-thoiight it would be c4eult, fog them
shou,use to re-commit the -POr-this reason he
support the motion, of the Hon. Member for
111c1ford,
atr
• MILNES said the question of the reception