The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-07 00:00:00

LANCASTER AND CARLISLE RAILWAY.'

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET moved that the
amendments made by the Lords to the Lancaster mill
Carlisle Railway Bill be referred to the following Mem-
bers, for their consideration and report, viz. :—Mr Est-
court, Mr. Miles, Mr. Strutt, Sir William lleathcote, Mr.
Aglionby, Sir John Yarde Buller, Mr. Wilson Patten,
Mr. Pendarves, Mr. Ord, Sir Robert Ferguson, and Mr.
Cumming Bruce ; with power to send for persons, pa-
pers, and records.— Agreed to.
Mr. DENNISTOUN presented a petition from the
master cotton-spinners and power-loom cloth manufac-
turers of Glasgow, against any further interference with
the hours of labour in factories; and a petition from the
operative coopers of Glasgow, for the repeal of the duty
on foreign staves.
Mr. P. HOWARD presented a petition from the
operatives of Carlisle against any interference with the
hours of labour in factories.

Sir G. STRICKLAND presented petitions from
Yorkshire against the Masters and Servants' Bill.
Mr. lIU.ME presented petitions from Montrose against
the Inclosure Bill.

Colonel RUSIIBROOKE presented ten petitions
against any alteration in the corn-laws.

PRIVILEC4E.

Mr. B. COCHRANE rose to complain of a petition
that had been presented by the Hon. Member for Roch-
dale (Mr. Sharman Crawford) some time since. He had
been told by several persons that one half the signatures
were forgeries, and he had been requested by several of
his principal supporters to inquire by whom that petition
was forwarded for presentation ?
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said the Hon. Member had been
kind enough to intimate to him that he intended to put
the question, and he had searched all his papers to en-
deavour to find anything that would indicate the
source from whence the petition came. That
search had been wholly unsuccessful, and his memory
did not serve him to say from whom the petition came.
If the Honourable Member for Bridport had sooner
mentioned the case, he might have been able to give him
some information on the subject which he was at pre-
sent utterly unable to do. At the same time, if the
Hon Member could point out any mode of discovering
the parties, he should be happy to assist him in doing so.
Mr. B. COCHRANE made some observations in re •
ply, hut was called to order.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said the case presented prima facie
evidence of a breach of privilege.
The SPEAKER reminded the Hon. Gentleman that
there was no question before the House.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said it was for the purpose of rais
ing a question that he addressed the House.
The Honourable Member had been assured by some
of his constituents that there were fbrged signatures
attached to the petition. This was calculated to deprive
petitions presented to that House of all their value. He
did not know whether either of the Hon. Members in-
tended to make a motion, but the case was not unde-
serving the attention of the House.
Mr. CRIPI'S stated that ten petitions, which were
presented on the Ten Hours' Bill, had the appearance of
being all written and signed by the same person.
Mr. HUME said that he believed there was a resolu-
tion that each petition should be examined by the clerk
at the table, to see if it was right.
The SPEAKER said that the resolution required that
a Member of the Mouse should sign his name to the
petition, but that was not done.
Mr. HUME thought the House ought to come to a
resolution that no petition should be received till it was
signed by the Member who presented it, who would
therefore be responsible for it. He thought her Ma-
jesty's Government should take the matter up ; but if
they did not, he should have no objection to move a re-
solution of the kind.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. DARBY thought it would occasion a great loss
of time if the clerk was obliged to examine every pe-
tition.

Dr. BOWRING thought it would be sufficient if the
Member was to give a character to the petition he pre.
sented by signing his name.
After a few words from Mr. CRIPPS, the subjec
dropped.