The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 18.

The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before 4 o'clock.
The Midland County Railway Bill was brought in,
read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on
Monday.
Mr. BARNARD brought in the London and Green-
wich Railway Bill which was read a first, and ordered to
be read a second time on Monday.
Colonel ROLLESTONE brought in the Nottingham
Gas Bill (No. 1), which was read a first, and ordered to
be read a second time.

Sir G. LARPENT brought in the Nottingham (No. 2)
Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a
second time.

Mr. M. PHILLIPS brought in the Manchester In-
firmary Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be
read a second time.

Sir J. EASTHOPE presented a petition, signed by
the Mayor and Corporation of Leicester, against the
Government plan for the alteration of the Corn-laws,
and praying for their total repeal. The Hon. Baronet
also presented a similar petition, most numerously-signed,
agreed to at a public meeting in the open air at Leices-
ter, the Mayor in the chair. The Hon. Member alsd
presented eight similar petitions from different parts of
the country.
Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition complaining
of undue assessment in consequence of the New Prison
Bill.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19, 1842,

Sir R. PEEL said, that the Gallant Officer had stated
correctly that a treaty was concluded in 1839 between
this country and France, to regulate the oyster and
other fisheries off the coasts of the two countries. The
treaty provided that Commissioners should be ap-
pointed to specify the limits within which the rights
of each should be restricted, and to make regulations for
carrying the regulations prescribed by the treaty into
effect. The Commissioners had been appointed. They
had met and had agreed upon the regulations ; but there
had been discussions as to the mode in which the regu-
lations should be carried into effect. But he believed
that the difference was confined to one point,
and that was not one of any difficulty ; so
that he hoped that before the fishing opened in April the
whole matter would be settled. The right to the fishing
on the part of this country was confined to three miles
from low water-mark. But there was a discussion as to

the French boats being allowed to come within the three
miles, not to fish, but to rest for the night. He repeated
that he certainly did hope the matter would be speedily
adjusted.
Captain PECHELL said an Act was passed last year
to enable the Privy Council to carry out such regula-
tions as might be agreed upon by treaty between the two
countries. Now, he wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet, was it his intention to apply for a renewal of
that Act, which had expired?:
Sir R. PEEL would consider it.
MANCHESTER PETITION.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask whether it
was convenient for him to present a petition or rather
an address to that House, which he had just received
from his constituents in Manchester ? Of course it was
not for him (Mr. Gibson) to refuse an address from
his constituents, and he wished the refusal, if there
was to be one, should proceed from that House. He felt
it his duty to take the earliest opportunity, as it related to
the subject under debate, to communicate the fact to the
House. The address was signed by 20,000 persons, in-
habitants of the borough of Manchester, and it was to
the effect :—We, the undersigned merchants, tradesmen,
and working men of Manchester, declare that in loyalty
to our Sovereign—(Cries of " Order, order")—
The Hon. Member was about to proceed with the read-
ing of the address, when he was again interrupted with
cries of " Order."
The SPEAKER said, that if the address was in the
nature of a petition, the proper time for presenting it
would be after the Order of the Day was read, for going
into Committee on the Corn-laws.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the address was not in the
nature of a petition, but rather a declaration from the
people of Manchester, statine, what their feelings were
respecting the present Cornbßill of her Majesty's Go-
vernment.

The SPEAKER said the House could not receive any
declaration that was not in the shape of a petition.
LIGHTING THE METROPOLITAN ROADS.

Mr. P. BORTHWICK wished to put a question, in-
volving a matter of much importance to the metropolis,
to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home
Department. It related to the lighting of the ap-,
proaches to London. Up to a very recent period these
approaches had been lighted by means of money col-
lected as tolls. But the present winter, in consequence
of the increase of communication by railway, the tolls
had so much diminished that the parishes could no
longer light those roads, and had in fact refused to light
them. The consequence was, that persons passing to and
from the metropolis by night were exposed to much
danger. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, had he any measure now in contemplation for
the purpose of securing the safety of persons travelling
by these roads, by compelling the parishes, or some other
authorities, to light them?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM-said that the various parishes
had power by law to make rates for the lighting of the
roads, if they should think fit to do so, but the Execntive
had no power to compel them to do so. Ile had been applied
to by some of the inhabitants of the parish of Kensing-
ton on the subject, and he had recommended that a ves-
try meeting of the rate-payers should be called, and that
the propriety of levying a rate for the purpose of light-
ing the roads should be submitted to them. The vestry
meeting was called, and he regretted to say that a
large majority decided against levying any rate for that
purpose. It was a question entirely for the decision of
the ratepayers of the different parishes, and the Exe-
cutive had no power whatever to interfere.
PRIVILEGE.—BELFAST ELECTION PETITION.
On the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned
debate on the question that the petition of Lord kali-
showen, complaining of an undue return for Belfast, be
not refered to the General Election Committee,

Mr. CHARLES WOOD said, that in his opinion the
House had no alternative but to refer the petition to the
Committee.—(Hear, hear.) He felt, that in coming
to that conclusion the House would attain that object
which the Right Honourable Baronet had declared
to be one of immense importance, that the House ought
not to be called upon to decide on questions connected
with contested elections. The Right Ron. Gentleman
had stated that ever since the period of the Grenville
Act, it had been the policy of the House to leave
the determination of questions connected with elec-
tion petitions to some tribunal chosen by the House,
rather than to take upon itself to determine them.
He confessed he could see no reason for refusing to refer
this petition to the Committee in the usual manner, and
he considered that by so doing, they would be acting in
Istrict conformity with law and precedent. He could see
no ground for refusing to refer it to the Committee. There
could be no doubt but that it was an election petition.
The 3d section of the Act, 5 Victoria, defined
what constituted an election petition. (The Honourable
Member here read the section referred to.)
This petition complaining of undue election should be
deemed an election petition. He (Mr. C. Wood) appre-
hended that no person would dispute that this was a pe-
tition presented within the required time, complaining of
-an undue return—" No election petition shall be received
by the House, unless at the time it is presented it shall
be subscribed by a person claiming therein to have been
a candidate at the election." He (Mr. C. Wood)
apprehended that no person would deny that the peti-
tion was at the time of presentation signed by a person
alleging himself to have been a candidate. If that were
the case, then it must be apparent that this comes under
the definition of an election petition ; further, that it had
been received by the House, it had been sent to the ex-
aminers, who reported upon it, and he (Mr. C. Wood)
did not know what other act was necessary to
constitute the reception of a petition by that House. He
would now read a part of the 3d section of the sth Vic-
toria----" And be it enacted, that all election petitions
which shall be received by the House shall be referred
to the Committee for trying the petitions." It
seemed to him (Mr. C. Wood) that if these points
were granted, this must be deemed an election
petition, and that the third section imperatively required
that all petitions received by the House should be re-
ferred to the Committee. He apprehended, therefore,
that there was no alternative but to refer this petition to
the Committee. The only ground on which this could
be doubted was, that it was signed by a Peer of Parlia-
ment. He (Mr. C. Wood), however, did not think it was
competent to any one now to argue that the petition had
not been received. He did not wish to inquire what
the decision of the Committee might be. Under the
79th section of the Act they might report, in conse-
quence of Lord Innishowen being a Peer, that they
would not go into it ; but he (Mr. Wood) appre-
hended that it was incumbent on the House to refer
this petition to the Committee. Mr. Wood concluded
by reiterating that the House had no alternative what-
ever but to refer the petition to the Committee.
Mr. C. W. WYNN, who was very indistinctly heard
in the gallery, said that he quite agreed with the Hon.
Member for Halifax. It was certainly a question of
some importance, but if the petition had been referred
a preliminary objection might be taken, and it was quite
competent for the Committee to determine that objection
before the case was gone into. The objection in the pre-
sent case was that the House ought not to receive
the petition of a person, which showed on the face
of it that it was presented by one who, by his own de-
scription of ,himself, had no right to interfere or ad-
dress the House at all on matters connected with eleC-
tions. Then it was said that every petition which came
before the House should be referred to the Committee.
That appeared to him (Mr. Wynn) to be the duty of the
House ; and if the petition in question was received by
the House, they were bound, in his opinion. to refer it.
The only doubt he had was as to the question whether the
petition had been received or not. It had been pre-
sented, but no order had been made upon it. The doubt
was, what was the point upon which it was to be said
that a petition had been received. If the petition had
been received, the House was bound by the
words of the Act ' to refer it to the General
Committee, and that Committee would report upon it ;
but if it had not been received thenl the House was at
liberty to use a discretion upon it. He wished to
know whether if the question had been put
upon -the petition it was to be considered that
the House had in any respect entertained it ;
if they had, then it must be considered as having been
received ; if it had not, then he thought the House could
exercise a discretion upon it.
Mr. C. WOOD said that everything in the Act was
direct enough till they came, to the 30th
_section, which
declared that every petition which was received
should be referred to the General Committee," which
necessarily meant that the petition should be refer-ed to
the Committee
The SPEAKER having read the motion, •
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT said he agreed with the
Hon. Gentleman, that the 30th sectionhaving declared
received should be referred
After a few.words from Sir G. GREY, and
that every petition whichcould
not do otherwise
to the General Committee, they
now than receive it. He certainly came to the same
Gentleman opposite, but he
conclusion with the Hon.
giving his assent to the
should not be understood as
to him not to be right, that
principle, for it appeared
Peers should in the least interfere with election peti-
tions. He trusted, therefore, that his Hon. Friend
would not press his motion.
confessCo Committee.—(Hear ttti
Sir R. PEEL said that h with o agreed the Hon. Gen •
tleman opposite, and that the terms of the law made it
was
postponing the question:
imperative on them to refer the petition to the General
At the same time he must
After a few words from Sir GEORGE GREY,
eu
they.t— ( t etavre'r hear.)e
ony
Sir H. HARDINGE said the error was committed
in the first instance by the Member who took charge
of the petition. Every Member who took charge of a
petition which involved the privileges of the House, was
bound to make a statement of it before he presented it.
It would then come under the cognisance, and would be
sure to be brought under the notice, of the llouse.
Mr. THESIGER said it would be quite impossi-
ble for him
to oppose the reference of this petition
to a General Committee.
They were under con-
siderable difficulty from having advanced so far.
lie was strongly of opinion that the General Committee
could have no power to make a report in this matter.
Having been brought before the House they must refer
it to a Select Committee, but even when brought before
them, he doubted whether the objection could be taken.
He apprehended they had no power to decide it, but