Star.
London, England, 1821-05-15 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SIMANZIL took the Chair before four o'clock.
Mr. CREEVEY gave notice that he would, on Thursday,
the 24th inst. submit a motion respecting a Fund called the
Four and a Half per Cent. Barbadoes Fund.

Mr. DENISON rose to present a Petition from the
Inhabitants of Christ Church Parish, Surrey, praying
the House not to pass into a law the Newington Se-
lect Vestry Bill. The Petition was said to be most
respectably and numerously signed, and deprecated
the injustice of the Bill in the warmest terms.

The Honourable Member also presented a Petition
from an individual, named James Comer, of Frances-
street, Newington, on the same subject. This Peti-
tioner was rather singularly situated toward the
House. It was known that the Bill in question was
founded upon a Petition to the House, signed by one
hundred and six inhabitants of Newington, who were
said to be amongst the most respectable of the parish.
A Petition was afterwards presented against the Bill,
signed by no less than 1,965 persons. Comer was
one of those who signed the former Petition, but be
came forward now to say, that he had been induced
to do so from a misconception of tha objects of the
intended Bill, having understood that the Bill *as
for repealing the Statute Duty, and protecting the
inhabitants against the Highway Act, and not for
creating a Select Vestry in Newington. He pro-
tested against the principle of a Select Vestry in the
parish. The Petitioner, in conclusion, prayed letve
to withdraw his name front the former Petition, its
order that he should not be liable to the charges
arising out of the operation or the Bill.

Sir ROBERT WILSON presented a similar Peti-
tion froth W. Copely, of Walworth, Newington, who
had also signed the Petition, and prayed the same re-
lief as the former.

Mr. WHITBREAD one from John Millet.
Sir W. DE CRESPIGNX one from G. Ives, and
Mr. LAMBTON one from Thomas Clark, all
si-
tuated like the former Petitioners. This last Peti-
tioner stated that he was told the Bill for which he
petitioned was an enactment for removing the dust
from the parish.
These Petitions were all ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. H. SUMNER presente4 a Petition from Jan
Chinon, agent and solicitor, in favour of the New.
ington Select Vestry Bill. The Petitioner stated that
some measure of this sort was wanted to preserve
order in the parish. The greatest inconveniences had
arisen from the disorderly and crowded Vestries
which were usually held. On one occasion, no fewer
than one thousand persons were present, and it was
found necessary to send for the Ur:ion-hall Police to
disperse the assembly. He then went on to make
some complaints against the Committee on the Bill,
asserting that they had recei”ed some improper evi-
dence at a time that strangers were esc:ulcd from
the Committee-room.

Mr. CC RWEN here interrupted the further read-
ing of this Petition, and protested against its being re-
ceived, on the ground that its language was highly
offensive to the house. It was most improper in the
Petitioner to arraign the conduct of the Committee,
at a time too, when strangers were excluded (hear).
-The SPEAKER was of opinion that there was no
inegularity in the Petition. The Petitioner did not
arraign the conduct oft he Committee, 6nt sought re-
lief from thelioue against the re,ult of their decision.
. Mr. 1-117AIE had never heard such a Petition teal
in that house before—(iear). lle asked if it did
nut contain a charge against the Ctimmittee to this
effect—" That the Committee ha ti decided contrary
to the usual forms and practice`of the House on such
O:CkUi‘WY If those words were to in bound. ih the