The Sun. — London, England, 1827-03-24 00:00:00

Irae PATERA A. L PARLIAMENT. 'HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 9S. Earl Cmvper took the Oaths and his Seat. Sir A. Grant, Sir WilliaM Ingilby, and others from the House of Conimons, brought up the Duke and Duchess of Clarence-An nuity Bill, and three private Bills.. Read a first time. CATHOLIC - CLAIMS. Petitions against any further Concessions to the Roman Ca tholics were presented by the Bishop of Chichester from the Archdeacon and Clergy of Chichester ; from the Protestants of a certain parish in the County of Monaghan, by the Bishop of Clogher ; from the parishes of St. Andrew's and St. Mary's, Canterbury, by the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and from St. Paul's Cray, Kent, by the Earl of Shaftesbury.—Laid on the table. Lord KING had, some petitions to present from persons who describe themselves as belonging to the most wretch ed the moat oppressed, and the most ill-used country in the world —he meant the Catholics of Ireland. He did not see that any hope was now left to them fur the removal of their grievances, after what had recently occurred. The Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack stated on, a former night, that this House had repeatedly rejected every proposition that was brought forward in their favour, ald the other House, by one sweeping vote, had come to the determination of not even listening to . their claims. He was told, however, that under these circumstances, harmony and stood-will still existed in Ireland. Yea, there was in Ireland as much harmony end good-will as there was between oil and vi negar, for the landlord was set against the tenant, the population against the property, and the Parson against the Priest. In the present state of things in that un'ortunate country, no one could say what was to be done. If he might use a Cromwellian phrase he should like to see what was the " instrument of Government" in that country. Louis XIV. would have made an excellent Grand Master of Orange Lodges in France, for, with him, cannon was the ultima ratio regum—so in Ireland cannon was the ulti ma ratio of Protestant Ascendancy- The first petition which he should present was from the Catholics of Wexford, against the Select Vestries Act. He would ask their Lordships only to con sider in what a happy state that country must be where the Ca tho►ics said that the Protestants professed a jobbing religion, while the Protestants retorted and said that the religion of the Catholics was idolatrous. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM, though he gave the Noble Lord the, fullest credit for sincerity as a friend to the Catholic cause, yet could not approve of the manner in which he presented those petitions. Nothing was so much calculat. , l to defeat the object he had in view as to draw invidious distinctions between the people in Ireland. He could never sit there and hear it stated that no hope remained to the Catholics. On the con • trary, he was convinced that every hope remained for them, and that ti—ir claims must, at no distant day, he conceded. Lord KING said he had not stated any thing with regard to the hopes of the Catholics ; all he had said was, that he entertained no hope whatever of their cause. If he looked to the late decision of the other House, he should find it far less conciliat ing than any thing that had fallen from hint on this subject. The Noble Lord then presented petitions from the Catholics of different parts of the county of Wexford, praying for Emancipation.—Laid on the table. CORN LAWS. Lord TEYNHAM presented a petition from the agriculturists of Dartford, in Kent, against the proposed altera tion in the Corn Laws. The Earl of ROSSLYN, in the absence of a Noble Friend, presented a similar petition from the Right Hon. Sir John Sinclair, and the Duke of NEWCASTLE from the Agri culturists of Worksop, in the County of Nott. , .—Laid on the Table. The Earl of LIMERICK presented a petition from three Millers in Ireland, praying for protection in the event of any alteration being made in the Corn Laws. The petitioners were apprehensive that the proportions between wheat and flour had not been accurately taken under the proposed regulations, and they feared that the Americans might be enabled to undersell them. —Laid on the table. Earl BATHURST laid on the table a copy of the late Convention between Great Britain and Portugal. LORD CONIBERINIEFtE. The Duke of NEWCASTLE, seeing a Noble Earl in his place, was anxious to :roe this opportunity of putting a question which was due to the merits of a distinguished indivi dual. He xished to know why the thanks of Parliament had not been voted to Lord Combermere, and the gallant army in --- Earl BATHURST said that the service was not deein&l of sufficient magnitude to call for the thanks of Parlia nent.' 'At the same time he wished to be understood as enter taining, the highest respect for Lord Combermere. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said his reason for adverting to the subject was because he had seen it noticed else where. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MAa,u V 3. On the motion of Air. Alderman WOOD, the London Bridge Bill" was read a second time, and the " Thames Water mete. Bill" was 'withdrawn, iu consequence of Rome Ontissions. ST. MARYLEBONE PARISH. Mr. - HUME presented two petitions from some of the parishioners of St. Mars lebone, a g ainst parts of the St. Mary.. Itbone Improvement Bill. A petition against further concessions to the Catho lics was .presented by Mr. C. BURRELL, fri:ni the Archdea conry of Chichester. TREGONY ELECTION. LOrirPALMERSTON brought up the Report of the Committee confirming- the ele,-:tion of Mr. Junes Brong - ham and Dr. Lushington, and stating that neither the petition nor op position was vexatious. • BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. HARi - 11. 71 / 2 .VIS, holding in his hand a newspaper, said, in a low tone, that he read in The Times of this morning the following words, attributed to the Gallant Officer opposite (Colonel Davies), respecting himself (Mr. IL Davis— .‘ Perhaps, if he (the Gallant Officer) had been so disposed, he could have placed before the House some transactions in which that Hon. Member (Mr. H. Davis) had been concerned, and which might bring a blush on his cheek." The Hon. Member then added, that he did not recollect the words exactly, but he should certainly say something like that was said, and he wished the Gallant Officer would now repeat what circumstance in his life he meant, or to say that what was said was uttered in the irritation of the moment. He did not mean to conclude with any motion. Mr. CALCR AFT said, that - unless the Hon. Member could quote some authority for these words, the House would not listen to them. Mr. H. DAVIS—" Then I move that the printer paper he called to the bar." Colonel DAVIES said that he did not well recol lect the words he made use of last night, but what he did say in respect to the Hon. Member, he said in the warmth of debate, caused by seeing that the Hon. Member himself had travelled out of the question then before the House. He was sorry he said any thing to hurt the feelings of the Hon. Member—(Hear, hear)—and he hoped that explanation seas satisfactory and con clusive. The SPEAKER said he was satisfied that the matter might well rest here. Rut the House was aware of the • liability to misu.iderstand much of what passed in the House, and there was nothing more liable to misapprehension than those very breaches of privilege that happened in the House. SHIPPING INTERESTS. . . . Lord LOWTHER presented a petition from the Shiper•ners of Whitehaven, praying for protection. Mr, CURWEN said a few words in support of the petition. Mr. HEATHCOTE asked a question of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of T-ads, respecting the t-ade with Sweden. Mr. CHARLES GRANT observed, that as the Hon. Member had alluded to the exclusion on the part of Sweden of British vessels conveying salt, he would beg to observe, that one of `..he laws of Sweden precluded all vessels hut their own from conveying salt, hemp, and various other articles; therefore, in the treaty alluded to, what the Hon. Member had termed an exclu sion, was rather a concession. Mr. CALCRAFT was most anxious that this question should he fully discussed, and he therefore put it to his Hon. and Gallant Friend, the Member for Liverpool, whether it would not be more proper to postpone the discussion of this ques tion until after the Easter recess ; at the same time he would ob serve, that on a former occasion, parties had been taken by sur prise by the sudden production of documents of great importance, that never were heard of until the moment of their production, and he therefore hoped that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wynn) would give au opportunity, in case the discussion . ' ' was postponed, for parties to inspect those documents, so that they might not come unprepared upon such discussion. Mr. WYNN said that upon the very account the Hon. Member had alluded to, thatete was anxious the considera tion of the subject should be postponed until after Easter, because lie was certain that there was not sufficient time to get the docu ments printed and circulated, so as to he perused by the time the question was fixed for discussion. Mr. LITTLETON said, that being the Repre sentative of a large manufacturing county, he had waited upon the President of the Board of Trade, who was also one of the Representatives of the town which the Hon. and Gallant Mem ber also represented (Liverpool), and the Right Hon. Gentleman had exp:ess.ed his determination to he present, if possible, not withstanding the state of his health. Mr. N. CALVERT wished the question to be postponed, in order to secure the attendance of the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. General GASCOYNE observed, that it was in consequence of a representation from the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, who had accused him of tardiness, that he had been in duced to press this matter forward, and be had in consequence de tained a number of shipowners and others in town, to await the d e cision of the House—but if it was the wish of the House that the question should be adjourned until after the recess, he would upon this, as upon all other occasions, submit to that wish—(hear, heir) ; for he could assure the Houle, that he should be equally reluctant to bring this question forward in the absence of his Right Hon. Colleague, as he would be to betray the interests of his con stituents, and therefore he would, under the understanding that an early day would be named after the recess, postpone the dis- cusqion. The petition was laid on the table, and the discussion fixed for the 3d of May. A message from the Lords announced their Lordships' assent to several private Bills. Sir G. NOEL presented a petition from a town in Rutland against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. Mr. GORDON presented a petition from land holders and others of the county of Aberdeen against any alteration in the Corn Laws. Mr. MACQUEEN presented a similar petition from the landowners of Bedford. General HART presented a petition from the mil lers and manufactut,rs of Oatmeal in Meath and Lou It in Ireland, praying for further protection against the importation of foreign flour. SMALL RATES RECOVERY 81l L. Sir ROBERT WILSON brought in a Bill for the better regulating and more cheaply recovering small rates.— A Bill which was expected to have embraced object had Leen brought in and passed, some time hick, by the Hon Member for Oxford (Mr. Lockhart) but the enactments of that Bill had been evaded, and the brokers and others had continued to exact the most exorbitant fees for levying di:Aresses; he (Sir R. Wilson) had communicated the substance of his Bill to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, who had no objection ti it ; the ob ject of the Bill was the protection of the poor, and he would merely move that it be read a first time. The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday next. Admiral SOTHERON presented a petition from ' the inhabitants of Worksop, against any alteration in the Corn Laws. Mr. CURTEIS presented a similar petition from Dartford. Lord CASTLEREAGH wished to ask a ques tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goalburn) as to his intentions regarding the constabulary force in Ireland ; the question was one of considerable importance to the inhabitants of the North of Ireland, and particularly to the county which lie (Lord C.) had the honour to represent; that county, a'though in a state of perfect quietude, was called upon to pay for a large constabulary force, in the same way as if it was in a state of in surrection, and he understood that these officers were merely em ployed in executing and assisting others in executing civil pro cesses. He, therefore, wished to know if the Right Hon. Secre tary contemplated any alteration in this respect ? Mr. GOULBURN replied, that he was not aware that such was the case. He knew that, in corns few instances, constables had been employed in assisting civil officers in en forcing processes, but only when necessity required ; and at present ha had not any intention of proposing an alteration in the law. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON gave notice of his intention to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of the price of bread in the metropolis. COURT OF CHANCERY. The MASTER of the ROLLS rose for the pur pose of moving that the order fur the further consideration of the Chancery Improvement Bill be postponed from Monday until Fri day next. Mr. ABERCROMBY could not see the necessity of pressing this Bill forward at a moment like the present, when all those most competent to speak of it were absent on the circuit. He considered that it was not a fair way of dealing with the Bill. The MASTER of the ROLLS had no objection to the postponement to any time that the House might suggest ; but he was anxious that the Bill should pass in sufficient time to be sent up to undergo due deliberation in the other House ; and, if it went over until after the recess, he was afraid there would not be sufficient time fur that purpose. Mr. ABERCROMBY said that the Bill might be discussed at an early day after the recess, which would give ample time (looking at the present state of the business of the Session) for it to undergo full consideration, in the Lords. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR strongly urged that the consideration of the Bill should be postponed until after the recess. The MASTER of the ROLLS said that his only object was to have the Bill made as perfect as possible ; and he was anxious to acquit himself in the eves of the public of all blame. The measure was one that had been long in contempla tion ; for he had, during the last Session, the honour of intro ducing a Bill on the Chancery Report, which, for want of time, did not get throw4h the House. It was well known to all that the "present Bill was founded on the same Report. He wished it to he most distinctly understood that he had no disposition to force this Bill upon the attention of the House. Therefore he would yield to the suggestion of the Hen. and Learned Centlernan opposite (Mr. Abercromby), and consent to the further discussion of this Bill being postponed unti► after the recess. The Order of the Day for discussing the Bill on 3louday next was then discharged. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, whenever the ques tion should come on, an opportunity would be afforded, to know whether or not the public would be satisfied with the Bill. For his own part, he was inclined to believe, that the public would be both dissatisfied with the Bill and the discussion. He viewed the Bill in the light of placing a tub to catch a whale. LARCENY LAWS REPEAL BILL, &c. Mr. Secretary PEEL said that there were so many Gentlemen now on the circuit, of whose services he should he glad to avail himself, with respect to the three Bills which he had introduced to the House, that he should propose to postpone the further consideration of the Report on those Bills, which stood for to-night, until Monday, the 7th May.—(Hear, hear.) The Order of the Day was then read, and the Report ordered to be taken into consideration on that day. Mr. Secretary PEEL, in reference to the leave of absence which was granted to Members, said that he hoped appli cation for leave would not be made on light occasions, so many Members being now absent; and he likewise hoped that it would not be necessary to oblige those who had already served on Cora mittees to serve again. Sir T. ACLAND presented a petition, not very numerously but very respectably signed, from some inhabitants of Plymouth, praying that the Roman Catholics of Ireland might be freed from the Penal Laws which existed. In the sentiments ex oressed by the petitioners, and their prayer, he most cordially con• curred.—(Hear.).—To he printed. On the motion of Mr. C. W. WYNN, the names of the defaulters of yesterday's ballots were called over ; some Hon. Members were excused, and the rest ordered to attend on Thurs day next. CASE OF JOHN STANBITRY. The SPEAKER---I have to acqu..int the Hctise that the S er jeant has apprehended John Stanbury, who had re fused to attend the Committee on the Penryn election. Is it the pleasure of the House that he be called in ? Mr. C. W. WY NN moved that the usual procla mation should be read, which was accordingly done ; also the Order for taking John Stanbury into custody. The Right Hon. Gentleman then moved " that fur the Raid offence committed by the said John Stanbury, Mr. Speaker should issue his warrant to commit the said John Stanbury to Newgate." After a few words from Mr. HUME, The motion for the Speaker to issue Lis warrant to commit John Stanbury to Newgate, was then put, and carried. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. On the motion of C• W. WY NN, the Order of the Day for the attendance of the Hon. Martin Ffrench and Mr. Lambert, at the bar of the House, to be examined on the subject of a breach of privilege, was now read. The SPEAK ER—Serjeant, inquire whether the Hon. Martin Ffrench and Mr. Lambert are iu attendance. Serjeant—They are in attendance, Sir. Mr. C. W. NVYNN then moved that the Hon. Martin Ffrench should be called to the bar, which was carried em. con. The SPEAKER—CaII in Mr. Ffrench to the bar of the House. After a short pause that gentleman entered the House, and stood at the bar.—(Cries of order.) The SPEAKER—Mr. French I have to acquair.6 you, that yesterday a petition was presented to the House, by Mr. Lambert, complaining of conduct on your part towards him, when in the Lobby of the House. The House is now a: - ::ions to know whether you have any observations to offer in reference to that subject? Mr. Ffrench addressed the House in a subdued tone of voice, and was but very imperfectly heard in the Gallery. He said that he was exceedingly sorry fur what had happened in the Lobby.— His friends had informed him that he had acted improperly, and Ise should not have done as he had done, if his feelings had not influenced him. Mr. Secretary PEEL—I do not think that the ob ject of the observatiots which you, Sir (the Speaker), made, was properly understood by the gentleman at the bar.---(Hear, hear.)--Those observations were intended rather to enable him to state facts, than to call upon him for su bmission.—(Hear). Mr. Ffrench then, in a still lower and more agitated tone of voice than before, addressed the House for a few seconds ; but it was ins - posible to collect any finished sentence. Having stopped, cries of "withdraw, withdraw," were ut tered from all parts of the House. Mr. French having quitted the House, Mr. C. W. WYNN—The Gentleman who has just left the bar having expressed regret for what had caused the House's interference, with feelings which displayed his state of mind, I do not think that this matter requires to be carried fur ther.—(Hear, hear.)—Enough, I think, has been done to show that the House will extend its protection to all witnesses (in the same mariner as a Court of Justice affords protection to witnesses), not only that they shall be protected during the period of their ac tual attendance, but in their going to and returning from Com mittees; as I before remarked, it is not necessary, in my opinion, to proceed further in this case, ar.d I move " that the order re quiring the attendance of the Hon. Martin Ffrench and Mr. Lam bert in this matter be discharged."—(Cheers.)—The motion was then put, and carried. CORN TRADE. Mr. C. GRANT moved the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report oi the Committee'', Resolutions re specting the Cairn Trade Acts, when Lord ALTHORP was anxious to address a few observations to the House, as a misrepresentation of what he had previously said on the subject had gone abroad. The House would probably recollect, that on the second discussion of the measure, he stated that he was happy to say he hail been informed by one of his constituents that the Resolutions proposed by his Majesty's Ministers had been generally approved of at a market at Northampton. This was what he had said. Now the statement of which he had to complain of was, that he had been represented as having said that a meeting of his constituents had taken laace since the Resolutions proposed by Government, and that those propositions were approved of. Having then said (the second day of the discussion) that the propositions were generally ap proved at a market at Northampton, it was hut fair to state, that since that period the opinions of the farmers had changed on the subject. He attributed this change of opinion partly to the cause, that in the discussions which had since taken place, the principles of the T4lll had not been strictly adhered to. Mr. DENISON wished to know whether the averages were to be taken by the Winchester or Imperial bushel ? Mr. C. GRANT said that the law, as it now stood, required them to be taken by the Winchester bushel, and so they would be continued to he taken. Mr. DENISON—And persons buy and sell by the Imperial. Mr. C. THOMPSON thought that only one bushel ought to be used. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged to remind Hon. Gentlemen that it was impossible, from the prescribed forms of the House, that any alteration could be made in the measure at its present stage. Mr. BARING objected to the inconvenience which would result from the arrangement of taking the averages accord ing to one scale, and having the general dealings of the country transacted according to a different standard. He suggested that this disadvantage might be averted by adopting the imperial Inca ewes in both cases, and accompanying that alteration with the sub stitution of 625. for the proposed price of 60s. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not see that any practical inconvenience was likely to arise from the arrangement pre e,used by his Majesty's Ministers. Mr. CALCRAFT was ready to take for granted from what had been said by the Right I{ouourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no practical inconvenience arose in the Foreign Trade, but he knew that it was felt in the Home Trade. In his opinion it would be wiser to revert to the Winchester • measure, for if the rate of 625. were adopted, the people would imagine that the landed interest had gained an advantage. Sir GEORGE CLERK said that as the new bushel was calculated to he about three per cent. more capacious than the old, he did not see that there would be much difficulty in increasing the rate proportionably to 62e. Mr. DAVIES GILBERT observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that no inconvenience would arise in fixing the import duties according to one standard, and regulating transactions of buying and selling by another. He (Mr. D. Gilbert) was ready to suppose that mercantile persons would be free from any inconvenience on this score, but the public at large, would be exposed to inconvenience and confusion. If it was distinctly laid down that the price of ties. was adopted in concurrence with the Imperial measure, which was three per cent. larger than the Winchester measure, he coneeived that it would obviate the inconveniences complained of. He hoped his -Majesty's Government would re-consider this point, and establish a principle of uniformity. It would be a dis grace to the country if, after incurring an expenee of 150,00 U. for th e regulation of the weights and measures, and having carried on communications with Austria, Russia, and the Netherlands on the subject, the system should be left incomplete. Mr. WARBUR TON urged the necessity of hav ing some one settled and single measure. Mr. CURWEN said a few words which were in audible in the gallery, Mr. C. GRANT considered that greater practical inconvenience would result from an attempt none to alter the ar rangement, than from the operation of the proposed system. Lord ALTHORP conceived that uniformity in the system was indispeasible. After a few words from Mr. Monck, Mr. Bariusr, Sir John Sebright, and an Hon. Member under th e gallery, Mr. C. GRANT then brought up the Report. On the question that the Report be then read, Mr. C. GRANT made some observations on the Weights and Measures. Sir J. WROTTESLEY complained of the ine quality of the !standard of the Winchester bushel. If corn was bought at 32 quarts the Winchester bushel in one place, at an other place it might he sold at SS, aed some places at 40 quar ts. A MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, said, that the proposed duty of 20s. on the Winchester quarter was less than 20s. if the imperial quarter were the standard. He wished to take the average according to the Winchester bushel, and would propose that measure should the House divide upon it. Mr. 'WARBURTON made some observations relative to the difference of the Imperial and Winchester bushel. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if this alteration was made, it would be necessary to make a corresponding alteration in the whole graduated scale of duties. The intention was this, that supposing the average price to be 60s. the duty should be 20s. ; then, if an alteration should be made in this, alterations must he made in the other. The Honourable Gentleman, seeing that would be an incon veni ence , recommends the duty' to be 215., and the average 6.25. per quarter. He would wish to know wh a t was to be done in the next series, in order to maintain the proportion. There would be la. and 1-32 d part of a shilling. Much time would be lost before these calculations could be made. For instance, s hould barley be raised to 335., and thedutybe 125., then there would be a fracti on of 1 -32 d part of a s hilling. He only wished that some one would show the House a scale of this sort which could stand. A MEMBER observed, that a duty of 20s. a quarter, taking the imperial bushel as a standard, would be equal to an a :average of 62, according to the difference of the two me asures.—(No, no.) Lord J. RUSSELL did not see what great value there was if this sum be 615., so as to give occasion to a frac tional difference. The House ought to compute according to the new measures, which would give much less trouble throughout the country in the calculation. It would be of much convenience to the House, if Ministers would agree to reconsider the subject. Mr. C. SMITH made some observations which did not reach us in the gallery. Sir G. CLERK said there would be no difficulty in getting over the fractions, for they would be favourable to the importer when the price was high, and against him when it was low. This would be favourable to the home-grower. Mr. C. GRANT said that the better way would be to sanction the resolutions now, and next week to make the alte rations ; not much time would be lost by this mode, since it was the feeling of the House that the alterations should be made. Sir W. W. WYNN recommended the adoption of the imperial measure as the standard. Mr. C. GRANT moved that the Report be read. Mr. D. GILBERT recommended that they should report progress, and that the resolutions should he re•comnaitted. The SPEAKER observed, that if the resolutions were now passed, it would be too late to re-commit them. On the question being put, that the resolutions should be re committed, Mr. HUME wished to have an opportunity of say. ing something on the principle of these laws. The Report was then ordered to he re-committed on Monday next. ANNUAL DUTIES. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Annual Males Bill. Mr. W. WHITMORE wished to know whether Ministers meant to adhere to the old system of bounties on sugar, or to introduce the new system of free trade. He could not understand why a higher duty should be laid on sugars the pro duct of free labour, than on that sugar manufactured by slaves. He did not believe the slaves benetitted by a continuance of the duties ; on the contrary, the mortality was the greatest where sugar was produced in the greatest qumitity. Mr. HUME objected to the Hon. Member mix ing up the question of slavery with this, which was a mere ques tion of duties. If the duties were taken off to-morrow, it would have very little effect on the market. Mr. HERRIES, in reference to the bounties, ob served that the bounties only arose from the refuse treacle. Mr. IRVING considered that the matter had better have been deferred until the Hon. Member (Mr. Whitmore) brought forward his motion on the subject. Mr. THOMPSON expressed himself favourable to the entire abolition of the Slave Trade. Mr. SYKES objected to a heavier duty being laid upon sugar imported from the East, than upon that imported from the West Indies. Mr. ROBINSON said, that sugar was the onl; staple article which yielded any produce to the cultivator in the East Indies. Ile thought the arguments on the other s.de com pletely failed in their object. Mr. W. SMITH objected to a protection being given to the West Indian cultivator, when sugar might be raised cheaper every where else. He thought that if a Committee was appointed upon thin subject, it would be advantageous to the country, and settle some very important psinte. Mr. C. PALLM E It contended that the colonies were entitled to such indulgence as the mother country permitted them, because these indulgences were given in consideration of disadvan tages which had bean imposed upon them. This was the state of things which was guaranteed by what was called the Colonial System—a system which was strictly upheld by the country, and which, in a recent instance—he meant the discussions between Mr. Canning and the Minister of the United States—formed the gist of the arguments propounded on the part of this country. The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to be brought up on Monday next. On the motion that the Annual Indemnity 13111 be committed, Mr. W. SMITH rose, and stated that he did not intend to oppose the motion ; but he wished to take the opportu nity of saying that this was a Bill, the annual repetition of which was the means of continuing a system of the greatest injustice. He himself was a Protestant dissenter. He had had the honour of a seat in that House for a great number of years; but, in conse quence of the state of the law which imposed certain duties with which he could. not conscientiously comply, he was prevented from holding the meanest office under Government. He was ex cluded from a seat iu the Magistracy. What consolation was it to him to he told that he was (relieved from the burden of such a grievance as this by the Annual Indemnity Bill ! The Annual Indemnity Bill was in fact only a stalking horse, by means of which the oppressions of the Corporation and Test Acts were per petuated. Mr. D. W. HARVEY saw great season to com plain of the inconsistency of those Hon. Members who professed themselves to he the advocates of the Catholic question, and yet who, in supporting what was called Catholic Emancipation, for got the general principle of civil and religions liberty, and the im portant claims of the Protestant Dissenters. Lord J. RUSSELL rose for the purpose of de fending both himself and a number of his friends from the impu tation thrown out against them by the Hon. Member for Colches ter, that they supported the question of Catholic Emancipation for some purposes of party, while they neglected to advocate the great cause of civil and religious liberty, and in that cause, the case of the Protestant Disseuters. Now he begged for himself, and on behalf of his friends also, to declare, that it was not for Catholics alone that they embraced the advocacy of their claims, but they had uniformly preseed them on the principle of gene ral religious liberty, without any compromise, or without any partiality in the application of that principle. It was always upon these grounds that he, and all the friends with whose sentiments he was acquainted, had supported the Catholic claims.—(Hear.) Sir It. WILSON said that the Protestant Dis senters had in a great measure, to blame themselves if their claims were not urged with that perseverance which marked the Catholic cause. Instead of joining the appeal of the Catholics for equal rights and freedom of conscience, the Dissenters themselves, labouring under restrictions, most ungenerously attempted to throw obstacles in the way of the Catholics. They, in fact, were amongst the foremost and most active opponents of the Ca tholic Emancipation.—(Cries of no.) Mr. VAN HOMRIGII declared it to he his re solution to persevere in supporting the claims of the Catholics of i re i,„h_(c e i e s of Question.)—He begged pardon—but this was the first time (No, no) ; undoubtedly he had before made a few observations to the House, but this was the first time, he affirmed, that he had ever addressed them,—(A laugh.)—He would, then, repeat that he would ever feel it his duty to uphold the just claims of the Catholics, than whom a more loyal people did not exist on earth. " If I were a Catholic," concluded the Hon. Gentleman, " I declare I would never be satisfied---(a pause, and great laughing), until 1 had completely succeeded in vindicating my claims to equal rights with the rest of my fellow subjects." Mr. WARBURTON made a few observations tending to show the unfairness of the argument, as be said, o f the Hon. Member for Colchester. i "NW. Member SAl f I Toiri Southwarktrlised that would the ot re presentation Peel) N r t a f t ! U in i‘ t i h k e . di r s e cu n s i s i i n on d s ed of the f Home e evenings he said he was prepared to conc e d e ever y thi ng t o the Ro man Catholics, e x . cept politi c al p o w er . H e now w ou ld be glad to know of the Right m istaken for the sentiments of the great body of Dissenters. of he Hon. Hon. Gentl e m an , wh e th e r h e was prepared to apply that princi ple to the Corporation and Test Acts ? They had been rep ea l e d in Ireland. W o uld he support the like re p eal in En g lan d? Mr. Secretary PEEL sai d, t hat what he might have Sca n 'tar stated on a former evening, bad not been ver y correc tly represented agee,y (Mr. by the Hon. Member. He had expressed his readiness to concede to the Roman Catholics pr ivileges' that did not give political power, but he had not said one word about the Protestants. If the question were agitated, he would not say what his sentiments might be ; but most certainly he had not, on the occasion to which allusion was made, referred to the situation of the Protestant Dis senters. With respect to the question of a General Indemnity Bill , t h ose who were favourable to such a measure could bring forward the question ; and till that period arrived he should for beat to e xpress his sentiments on the subject. When euch`a motion was made, he tiles could answer the question which the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had administered to him. Mr. D. W. HARVEY had been pleased to hear that the Noble Lord (Russell) was willing to endeavour to pro cure for the Protestant Dissenters the repeal of the Test Act. Sir R. WILSON had been somewhat m:stmder stood by his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Peel), as he might now call him. He had not intended to say that he should throw any obstacle in the way of this Bill ; he never had any intention of obstructing it. The minority of 270 on the Catholic Claims he considered to have been a strong instance of integrity ; be cause it was known that by supporting such claims, they iu some degree excluded themselves from favour. The vote was one of principle. Lord RANCLIFFE wished to observe, that on all occasions, in the town which he now represent 4 for the third time (Nottingham), he had the strongest suppcirt from the Pro testant Dissenters, because they knew be waa favourible to religi- °um liberty. Lord J. RUSSELL repeated, that whenever the Protestant Dissenters should think it right to agitate the question of the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, he was ready to move such repeal. Report of Bill on Monday. THE BUDGET. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the Committee of Supply be postponed till Monday. In doing so, he would avail himself of this opportunity to state. that he did not intend till after the Easter holidays, to bring for ward his general statement respecting the finances of the country. All he should previously ask, would be a vote on account of Civil Contingencies, regnisite for • the progress of the public service. He should not call on the House to grant him any further votes, till he had made such statement, because he thought it was right that the House should previously be in possession of such details. Lord J. RUSSELL asked when such statement would be made ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that he would aot now fix auy day, but it certainly would not be before the holiday 9. Mr. HUME remarked that by such postponement the Right Hon. Gentleman would be continuing so much longer the fraud and delusion of a Sinking Fund.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)—lt was in papers laid before the House, that purchases to the amount of 1,300,0001. were to be made for the Sinking Fund, without borrowing, it would be impossible to make such pur chases, for the income of the country was required by its actual expenditure. Then was it not a fraud and delusion to talk about a Sinking Fund, and could the purchases on its account be made without borrowing ? In such case the Chancellor of the Exch.- quer must again go to the Bank to borrow ; and from what tran spired at the Court of Proprietors on Thursday, it was to be feared that he had already been dabbling there.—(A laugh. )—He trusted that the debt with the Bank would not be increased for the pur pose of maintaining the delusion of a Sinking Fund. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied—with respect to what had passed at the Court of Proprie tors, to which allusion had been made, that not one word bad escaped him to authorise it. The Bank Directors had no autho- Tit) from him to make any communication on the subject. Mr. HUAIE said, that if the Sinking Fund were to be maintained, they must go on borrowing on account of it; and that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that he did not want to practise any delusion, that he wished to deal honestly towards the House, why continue a delusion that was to be sup ported by such expensive means? Committee postponed till Monday. SPRING GUNS. Mr. TENNISON moved that the House do re solve itself into a Committee on the Bill to prohibit the tue of Spring Guns. - - Sir J. SHELLEY observed that gardens and or chard. were not included in this Bill ; so that an unfortunate schoolboy who went in pursuit of au apple, might be shot, while the poacher might roam over pleasure-grounds with impunity, in pursuit of game. He certainly did not set spring guns in his grounds, but he bad boards put up saying that he did.—(Much laughter.)—That the setting of traps and guns did prevent the commission of crime by the terror they created, he had good reason to believe; and he was confirmed in such an opinion by what others informed him. In a letter that he had lately received from a Noble Lord, it was mentioned that the writer had I,boo acres of laud in Ireland, great part of which was wood; that it was in a thickly inhabited part of the country, and where fuel was scarce ; and that in order to protect such property, there had heretofore been many serious tights, se veral persons shot, &c. The writer added, that spring guns bad been introduced, and now there were no quarrels, murders, or robbing plantations. This showed that the practice excited so much terror as to prevent crime.. He certainly had heard of persons caught in the traps lately—he understood two lawyers were caught in traps—(much laughter), but that was so rare an occurrence, and so unlikely to occur again, that he thought the House would not support the Bill on such grounds. He would not follow the Hon. Mover in his various statements; be should content himself with resisting the Bill. _ _ _ The Marquis of BLANDfORD supported the Bill. - - Mr. Secretary PEEL upon principle, had no doubt of the propriety and correct feeling of this Bill, but was not so confident of its practical results as the lion. Gentleman who brought it forward. He had great doubts whether the effect of such a measure as this would not be to increase a propensity to commit offences upon property, and to lead to that resistance which such encroachments must naturally produce. In a so ciety constituted as this was, the House ought not to legislate upon theory, but to look at the practical effects of measures.— (H ear .) —That the use of spring guns had led to some most disastrous consequences could not be doubted. Le would go fur ther, and ask those gentlemen who advocated these instruments, in how many cases the poacher was punished, and r:hether the inno cent and unconscious did not more often suffer than the guilty ? (Hear.) —In Scotland they were never used. He did not think it unreasonable that those gentlemen who would preserve their game tehould be obliged to keep in pay a sufficient number of keepers to protect it, even object;:•nab'e es that mode was. He found fault with some of the &!tei:s of the Ira, but these might be amended iu the Committee. Mr. P. MILDMAY opposed tho Bill. Mr. CHARLES BARCLAY supported the Bill —He had never suffered a spring-gun to remain loaded over-night on his grounds ; anti upon more occasions than cue he had reason to congratulate himself upon his forbearance. Immediately after setting up his guns, the first person who struck the wire was his own under-keeper; who thinking that he had exposed himself to its deadly aim, absolutely fell down with affright, and remained on the ground some time before he was thoroughly restored to the comfortable conviction of his being alive.—(Laughing.)—On an other occasion lie received the thanks of his woodman for having saved his life, by not ehargir.g the guns. He certainly always di rected that the ceremony of loading the guns should be goue through, but the gamekeepers had orders to draw the charges be fore they let the grounds.—(Hear.) Within all his experience he never knew an instance of a poacher being shot. Mr. MILDMAY explained. Mr. JAMES GRATTAN said spring guns were u nknown in Ireland. Mr. W. SMITH thought the admission that a man who kept spring guns, and was yet afraid to charge them, was c onclusive against these blindly destructive instruments. Colonel TRENCH defended the use of spring guns. Mr. SAUNDERSON o pp ose d the Bill, and moved as an amendment that the Bill be committed to that day six months. Sir ROBERT HERON did not object to the placing spring guns iu houses and gar dens, because even if d ea th ensued, it was a pun i s h ment w hi c h the intruders had merited by I their encroachments. But he protested against the visiting with the last of punishments what was, in fact, but a trespass_.-namely, the walking across open lands. Mr. DUNCOMBE opposed the Bill. An Hon. Member under the gallery expressed his opposition to the introduction of this measure into Ireland. Lord SANDON hoped he should never again hear in that House ate argument in support of this measure, founded on the superior cheapness of human blood. Mr. R. COLBURNE was no friend to spring guns, but he was afr aid if the y were abandoned w e s hould have a worse substitute --namely, an armed force ; and nothing h a d ex cited so great a disgust against sporting as midnight conflicts with poachers. Mr. WYNN said, that if the effect of the spring guns was to punish the guilty only, they would be lees objection able. But their punishment almost always fell upon the inno evne. Not unlike the early system of cducatiou for our Princes formerly, for, when the Royal pupil was inattentive to his studies, a miscreant boy was whipped in the presence of his Royal High ness, for the sake of example. Mr. DENNISON could not believe that the spot of the country Gentlemen of England required protection from spring guns or armed bands. He valued the residence of country Gentlemen on their estates, but if Centlensen could not reside without this protection of armed men, the sooner they quitted the country the better_(Loud cheers), —and placed themselves under the protection of the watchmen of Grosvenor-square.—(Mueh laughing.)—He h a d never use d s pring guns, but if any Gentlemen present would do him the honour of a visit, be would show them lots of sport.---(Loud cheers.) Sir R. FERGUSSON congratulated the House that eve r y d a y' s experience more fully established the policy of a change in the Game Laws. Lord ALTHORP said, this practice was repug- Lunt to law and hunaanity.s--(Cheers,)