The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-03 00:00:00

THE WINE TRADE.

Mr. MASTERMAN moved that the petition
which he had presented on the 2d of August from
the merchants and traders in the foreign wine trade
be printed with the votes.—Ordered.
The HON. MEMBER gave notice that he should, on
Friday, bring the matter under the consideration 1
the House.

Sir H. DOUGLAS presented a petition from
Liverpool against the Bill for amending the law of
bankruptcy, and praying that the discussion on the
subject might be deferred till next session.
An HON. MEMBER, on the Ministerial benches, pre-
sented a petition from the Grand Jury of King's
county, praying that the medical charities of Ireland
may not be placed in the hands of the Poor-law Com-
missioners.

EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the Exchequer
Bills Bill was read a second time.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL.
This Bill was also read a second time.
UNOPPOSED BILLS.

Sir G. CLERK said that, in order to get through
tha unopposed Bills, the Speaker had consented to
take the Chair at twelve o'clock to-morrow.

SLAVE TRADE TREATIES BILL.
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report on the
Slave Trade Treaties Bill ; also the Report on the
Canada. Loan Bill, which Bill was ordered to be read
a third time to-morrow.

SLAVERY (EAST INDIES) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time, and passed.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.

Mr. HUTT presented a petition from Peter Staf-
ford Carey, John Locke, William Corrie, and Wil-
liam March Sowton, Esquires, Barristers-at-Law, the
four Counsel of the ancient Court of the Marshalsea
of the Queen's Household, and of the Court of her
Majesty's Palace of Westminster, praying that the
County Courts Bill may not pass into a law without
compensation being granted to the petitioners, as they
may be found to be entitled to.
HEALTH OF TOWNS.

Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from Mr.
Alexander Fairbrother, of Clifton, near Bristol, in
favour of the Bill brought in by the Hon. Member
(Mr. Mackinnon) with regard to the health of towns.
REPRESENTATION OF DONCASTER.

Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from some
of the inhabitants of Doncaster, stating that the
petitioners had been informed that a petition
had been presented to the House, praying for
the privilege of returning Members to Parlia-
ment. The petitioncrs deprecated any such
grant, and prayed the House not to constitute the
borough a Parliamentary borough. Also a petition
from the inhabitants of that part of St. Giles's which
was termed the " Rookery, which was a locality
comprised in a circumference of about 700 yards, con-
taining 339 houses, with 1,299 families, and a popula-
tion of 5,000. The petitioners stated that the condi-
tion of the district was injurious to the health and
morals of the people. The petitioners prayed for an ex-
tensive system of drainage as in large towns.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition against
the Sugar duties ; also a petition from 29 Polish re-
fugees, complaining of being removed from the list of
persons entitled to receive pensions granted by that
House.

CORONERS, &c. (WARWICK AND LAN-
CASTER) BILL.
On the motion for the committal of this Bill,
Lord STANLEY took the opportunity of request-
ing his Hon. Friend, the Member for Warwick, to
postpone the Bill, in order to make way for the ad-
journed debate on the Newfoundland Bill.

Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS was understood to
assent to the postponement of the Bill ; his only
anxiety was to have it passed this Session.
Mr. LABOUCHERE had heard with some sur-
prise that a number of Bills had been passed at an
unusual hour, when gentlemen were not present. It
was generally understood that public business did
not commence till half-past four, and a motion he un-
derstood had been already made this evening and car-
ried, for the House to meet to-morrow at twelve
o'clock. He thought the mode of carrying that mo-
tion was highly irregular ; he had no objection to the
House meeting to-morrow at twelve, but he must pro-
test against the mode in which the motion had been
carried.

Mr. O'CONNELL—Was it right, without hav-
ing given notice, to make that motion before the usual
time for public business. They could begin with a
House of twenty-five at twelve o'clock and go on till
four. With regard to the Newfoundland Bill it was
now the 3d of August, and a Bill for changing the
constitution of one of the colonies had not yet got
into Committee without any obstacle having been
thrown in the way of the Committee.
Mr. BROTHERTON said there was no objection
to the Bills which had been passed before the usual
hour of business. As regarded the House meeting
at twelve o'clock, he must say he was very glad of it.
Lord STANLEY was sorry that a motion had
been made for the House meeting at twelve o'clock
to-morrow, as it was the intention of his Right Hon.
Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, to have come
down at half-past four, and have formally made the
motion, and stated his reasons for proposing it.
As related to the Newfoundland Bill, he must say
that he had postponed this Bill more than once at the
request of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman
opposite, who stated that he had received papers the
night before, which he was anxious to lay be-
fore the House, and always added that he had
no intention to interpose any unnecessary delay.
The Bill was postponed for six weeks in compliance
with the notice of which the Right Hon. Gentleman
had given. It was then postponed a fortnight to suit
his convenience, and now at this period of the Session,
he wished to have it further postponed. He (Lord S.)
felt it to be absolutely essential that the Bill should
have the sanction of Parliament as soon as possible.
He was bound to pass the Bill through, and he hoped
the House would not allow any unnecessary delay to
be interposed, as he was ready to go on with the dis-
cussion.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped, also, that the
Hon. Member for Warwick would not add to the delay
by pressing his Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he had been misrepre-
sented b the Noble Lord. He had asked for no
favor. When the Bill was postponed for six 'weeks
he had only given a notice. The Bill was ordered to
be printed in May, but it was not printed till June.
The Business of the Government prevented the Bill
from being proceeded with, and not he (Mr. O'Con-
nell). The Bill had been fixed for Monday, and he
(Mr. O'Connell) requested to have it postponed till
Tuesday, and that was the only favor
,he asked
for. He should not give the Bill any factio us
opposition. He would divide the House just as often
as if the attendance of Members was more full, but
not oftener. It would be his duty, however, to divide
the House pretty frequently.
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped that the Hon. Member
for Warwick would not postpone his Bill. He thought
the subject was one which required a general measure.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said it was necessary they
should know what were the views of the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir J. Graham) on this subject, as he (Mr.
Philips) understood the Right Hon. Baronet intimated
that he would give the Hon. Member for Warwick
an opportunity to proceed with his Bill. He was
quite ready to go on with the Bill himself.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished before he answered
the question of the Hon. Member for Manchester, to
know if the Hon. Member for Warwick would accede
to the request of his Noble Friend, and consent to the
postponement of the discussion on the Bill.

Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS had brought forward
this Bill solely on the understanding that he was to
have the support of the Government. He had only
been induced to bring it forward as a matter of jus-
tice, and if it were postponed for this evening, he
hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would see the neces-
sity of affording him an early opportunity of bring-
ing it forward, as it was of importance that it should
pass this Session.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE understood that it had been
proposed that the House should .meet to-morrow at
twelve o'clock, in order to dispose of unopposed orders
of the day. Now, as to-morrow was the only day on