The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-31 00:00:00

Dr. BOWRING said he had been requested by his
Hon. Friend, the Member for Greenock, to give notice
that on Monday the 7th of June, he should move for a
copy of all correspondence that had taken place beta eon
the Magistrates and Ministers of .Renfrewsl ire
end the Rome Department, on the subject of
the distress at Paisley ; also for copies of any
representation that had been made of that dis-
tress, and of any orders or instructions that
had been given by the Home Secretary upon them ; also
for an account of the money that had been placed at the
disposal of the local Commissioners, or for any reports
made by medical men, referring to the distress in that
district. He also gave notice, that the Member for
Greenock intended on the 21st of June to call the at-
tention of the House to the distress prevailing among
the lower classes generally.
COASTING TRADE.

Sir C. NAPIER gave notice that he should move for
a return of the number of vessels engaged in the coast-
ing trade.
Mr. HODGSON HINDE gave notice that, on Thurs-
day next, he should move for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the subject of Post-office communication.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND).

Mr. O'CONNELL said thatjte found there had been
a Report in print upon the subject of Grand Juries in
Ireland, suggesting several legislative measures for the
improvement of their proceedings. He wished to a,k
the Noble Lord, the Secretary fbr Ireland, whether it was
the intention of her Majesty's Government to act upon the
Report, by bringing in a Bill, during the present Session,.
Lord ELIOT said that the Government had as yet
come to no determination upon the subject. -
- BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

-: Sir R. PEEL rose and said that he had given 'notice
some time since that he should on that day
move the third reading of the Income-tax Bill ;
and the general impression of Hon. Members was that
on that day the notice of the House would be called to
that important subject. It was of very great importance'
that if the House was prepared to give its assent to the
measure, the Government should • have time for
snaking those preliminary arrangements, which
would be absolutely necessary for carrying the law into
operation. He hoped, therefore, that no question, even
of privilege, would be brought forward that evening- to
prevent the consideration of the Income-tax, and that he
should he allowed, at the usual time of proceeding with
the public business, to move the third roasting of the Bill.
Mr. MACKIN.NON, having. already given notice of his
intention to
,move for the issuing of a new writ for
Southampton, felt himself placed in an awkward sin/n-
-th:in. After the appeal of the Right*Hon. Baronet he
would, however, postpone his motion to Wednesday nem.
Sir ROBERT PEEL trusted that no other 11,,e,
Member would interpose to prevent hisproceeding with
the third reading of the Property-tax Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the Poor-law Act Cotiti-
nuar.ee Bill stood for discussion to-morrow. lie
wished to know whether that Bill would be proceudeu
With, or whether the Right Her.. Baronet would claim.
precedence for the tariff.
Sir R. PEEL said that he promised to-morrow to give
precedence to -Ills Noble Friend (Lord Ashley),
who had been disappointed on a previous occasion.
lie did not suppose that the discussion on the Nob!i2
Lord's Bill would be a very lengthened one. When
that was over he must claim precedence for the tariff.
Immediately after the tariff should be disposed of he
would take the Poonlaw Amendment Act.
Mr. ROEBUCK hoped he might be permitted ;o
have precedence for his Bill, which was among the
Orders of the Day. Ile was suffering from indispOsition,
and he therefore trusted the Right Hon. Baronet would
n4,t refuse him precedence.
Sir ROBERT PEEL would not object to give the
lion. and Learned Alaisber precedence, as he grounded
his appeal on the plea' of personal indisposition, ' if it
were understocd that no discussion was to take place on
the sukect—unless- that were the understanding, he
could not give way.
Mr; ()TON NEEL had a notice on the 'paper relative
to one of, the clauses of. the Bill,

Sir ROBERT I N GLIS was,opposed to the Bill.
Sic J. EAbTlicipq said that he perceived the Hon.
Memher for South Shrepshire had a notice of motion on
the paper respecting this stkeet, and he wished to kbow
when he woul,l bring it forward ?
Mr. FLEMING spoke in so low a tone of voice that
we could not learn the nature of his reply.
BRlBERY.—pgrrrioN OF MR. WRENN.

Mr. T. DUNCONIBE then presented a petition from
John Wrenn, praying that a further inquiry may be in-
stituted into the bribery that took place at Southamp-
ton. The Hon. Member then moved that the petition be
printed ivith the Votes.
The SPEAKER said that the petition could not be
printed with the Votes. unless notice were given, and the
petition referred to the general Committee on Petitions.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said he thought the petition
ought to be in the hands of lion. Members. He had read.
I the petition, and it stated that if indemnity were granted
to witnesses, .he could disclose the most extensive acts
of bribery, not only at the last election, bu: also at
former elections.
.Mr. 'MACKINNON. observed, in answer to what
had fallen from the Hon. Member who had just sat
dim n, that this petition was from the very man who had
so inediehaved himself before the Committee, and he
appeul,,d to the good sense of the House whether the
- a petition from
nN
Standing Orders of the Muse lhould he violated,
for rho purpose of receiving en
I-uial, w • hereby his
n evidence before the Corn-
mittee Was, not to be believed. After a few words from Mr. REDINGTON,
(
great importance to ad-
Sir R. PEEL thought it of
here generally to the established rules of the House. With
respect to the character of the individual referred to,
they should hQ able to judge of it when they saw the
bearing upon the question of bribery
pe-
tition printed. It was stated that the petition contained
elections, and he (Sir R. Peel) did,
aurttheerhsiloaultlheagmatpiituotns,
therefore certainly think that it was a case in %hich
the operation of the rule ought to be suspended,
Mr. O'CONNELL—And that misconduct alleged to
be committed by the petitioner consisted of protecting
himself against answering. He now came forward and
said that if they would indemnify him he would
make disclosures. It was manifest by the peti.
tioner's evidence that he was capable of making
such disclosures, as he had been one of the most
active persons during the elections. There was no doubt
that he had a full knowledge of everything that had oe.

eurred.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE had presented the petition
merely for the purpose of saving the time of the House,