The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-05 00:00:00

rilE SUN, LONDO

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

/1O USE OF LORDS, June 4.

Their Lordships assemUled at Five o'clock.
The York and Scarborough Railway Bill v.as read a thin
time and passed.
In answer to a question from Earl FORT ESCUE,

Lord WHARNtLIFFE stated that the papers relatinc, t,
the appointment of Mr. Gray to the magistracy in Ireran,
would be shortly presented to the House.
The Gold and Silver Wares Bill was read a second time.

Messengers from the Commons brought up several 13i115.
TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY.

Lord CAMPBELL said that, as their Lordships did not seem
to be troubled with much business, he would take that oppor-
tunity of putting a question to his Noble and Learned Friend
On the Woolsack, with respect to a Bill which he had intro-
duced at the commencement of the session, to facilitate the
transfer of freehold property. He wished to know if the Bill
was intended to be proceeded with this session?
_ _

The LORD CHANCELLOR said the Bill was of a very
complicated nature, and he had felt it his duty to submit copies
of it to some of the molt eminent conveyancers in the country,
and several of these conveyancers had not yet sent in their
opinions upon it. As soon as those opinions were received
the Bill would be proceeded with.
PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES.
The Earl of RODEN presented a number of petitions pray-
ing that Presbyterian mixed marriages might be legalised ;
also petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

("OUSE ()F COMMONS. June 4.
The SPICAYEIL took the Chair at Four o'clock.
NEW WRIT.

Mr. YOUNG moved that a new writ be issued for the
election of a burgess to serve for the borough of Enniskillen,
in the room of the Hon. Arthur H. Gde, who since his elec-
tion had accepted the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hun-
dreds. —Ordered.

The Report on the Epsom and Croydon Railway was fur-
ther considered, and the Bill ordered to be engrossed.
The Pulteney Town Harbour Bill was read a third time and
passed. _

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented petitions from various con-
gregations of Dissenters against the Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ presented several petitions from congregations
in Birmingham against the Bill, and one from the congregation
meeting in Cork-street Chapel, Birmingham, in favour of the
Bill.

Mr. MAUNSELL presented several petitions from places
in Northamptonshire also against the Bill.
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 presented, but in the confusion of the House it was
impossible to catch the names of the Members or the petitions.
Mr. BOYD presented five petitions from Coleraine and
Antrim against the Bill.

Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY presented several peti-
tions from places in Gloucestershire against the 8.11, and two
in favour of it.

Mr. BERKELEY presented several petitions from Ber-
keley and other places in favour of the Bill.
Mr. ENTWTSLE presented several petitions from places
in Lancashire against the Bill.
Mr. DUGDALE 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, against the Bill.
Similar petitions were presented from Dissenters in Stafford-
shire, and other parts of the kingdom, 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 Hort. Mintaza presented 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, some alder-
men, and some lawyers"—( A laugh)—in favour of the Dis-
senters' Chapels Bill.
Colonel ROLI.EST ON presented 110 petitions from places
in the county of Nottingham, praying for agricultural pro-
tection.
Sir J. E A STHOPE presented three petitions from Leices-
ter against the Dissenters' Chapel Bill.
Mr. DENNISTOUN presonted 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. H UME presented a petition, numerously signed, from
the borough of Forfar, 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 himself from destitution. The Hon.
11Iember also presented a petition from a private individual in
Dublin, complaining that persons holding Government situa-
tions were allowed to be also directors of public boards, Scc.,
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,
praying 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 Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. STUA RT WORTLEY presented petitions from se-
veral places in Yorkshire, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill ;
also three petitions in favour of the same Bill.
Mr. NIILDAIAY presented a petition from Southampton
against the Bill.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented several petitions from Man-
chester and its neighbourhood, against the Bill ; also several
petitions in favour of the Bill.

Mr. COBDEN presented petitions in favour of the Bill.
Sir G. CLERK presented petitions from Stafford against
the Bill.
Mr. ALDAN' presented a petition 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 the Bill.
Mr. PAT fISON presented petitions against the Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented six petitions in favour of
the Bill.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions from Kent against
the Bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE presented nine petitions from Newark
against the Bill.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Ipswich in favour of
the Bill ' • also petitions from Bethnal-green, and other places,
against the Bill.
Mr. BARNEBY presented 25 petitions 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 fees paid to clerks of petty sessions
and assizes.

111ACKINNON gave notice that he would postpone
his motion on prison discipline till the 2d of July.
Mr. T. 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.
IRISH STATE TRIALS.

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 lion. 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
lion. Gentleman would not press the Govarnment on the sub-
ject inconveniently.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he was informed by person,
fully acquainted with short-hand writing that the notes mus
have been furnished within three weeks after the trial.
Sir J. GR HAM said 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.
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved for a copy of a dispatch from the
Earl of Aberdeen to the Earl of Westmorland, with respect to
the 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 ho would not press for its production.
Mr. GLADSTONE said perhaps he might as well state to
the Noble Lord what would otherwise be stated in debate.
With regard to what had appeared in the newspapers, he had
no reason to believe that it was not substantiaily accurate ;
although the dispatch of Lord Aberdeen had probably pasted
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
Bulow 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 correspondence 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 would not say of a hostile, but
of an argumentative character.--( Hear, hear.) He would
have no objection whatever to the production of the corre-
spondence when it was brought to a close.
Lord J. RUSSELL then postponed his motion until this
day fortnight.
Dr. BO WRING said, that not being aware of the Noble
Lord's intention with reference to this question, he had given
notice of a similar motion; but he would now withdraw his mo-
tion, and leave the matterin the hands of the Noble Lord.
Sir C. NAPIER said, seeing the Gallant Admiral (Admi-
ral Bowles) in his place, he wished to know if it had come to
the knowledge of the Admiralty, that the Commander-in-Chief
in the Mediterranean, bad 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 BOWLES said he hoped his Honourable and
Gallant Friend would give notice of this questi,.n.--(Hear.)
Being a young member of the Admiralty, and having only sat
for one week in the House, he hoped his Hon. and Gallant
Friend would give notice of any question ho intended to put
to him.

'ir C. NAPIER had only put a question on that which was
matter of public notoriety.
PARISHES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
_ _

Mr. EDWARD ELLICE wished to ask the Lord Advo-
cate if it was intended to proceed with the Bill for the division
of parishes 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
pregress of the public business. He hoped to be able to pro-
seed with the Bill on Friday, but it should be recollected that
it had been originally put off at the request of Hon. Gentle-
men opposite.

EXPORT DUTIES ON COALS.
Lord HARRY VANE moved that this House do resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into con-
sideration so much of the Act 5 and 6 Vic., c. 47, as relates to
an export duty on coal, with a view to its immediate repeal.
lie was .sure that the house would believe that there
'wasnothing further from his intention than to take this motion
out of the hands of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland.
who had exhibited the greatest zeal with regard to this subject
in 1842. His Noble Friend had also brought forward the sub-
ject in 1643, but having brought it forward twice, he scarcely