The Sun. — London, England, 1847-07-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 2. The House sat to-day at Five o'clock. ROYAL ASSENT. The Royal Assent was given to-day by Commission to the following seventy-three public and private Bills: — Naval Mutiny Bill—Naval Prisons Bill—Royal Marine Service Bill—Quakers and Jews Mar riages Bill Masters in Chancery Bill Baths and Washhouses Bill Cornwall Railway Bill London and South-Western Railway (purchase of Earl Ellesmere's Interest) Bill Vale of Neath Railway Bill—General Terminus and Glasgow Harbour Rail way Branch Bill—Gloucester and Dean Forest Railway (Construction of Duck) Bill—East Lincolnshire Railway (Deviation at Boston, and Branch to Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway at Grimsby)—Ambers gate, Nottingham, and Boston, and Dist , rn Junction Railway (Al:erasion of Line and Branches into Or near the Town of Nottingham) Lly nv i Val ley Railway Extension—Shrewsbury and Birming ham Railway Act Amendment and Branches — Bristol and South Wales Junction Railway and Aust Ferry—Caledonian Railway, and Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway (branch to Glasgow Station) — Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Junction Railway (De viation between Duntocher Line 'Works and Bowling)— Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland—Newry and Enniskillen Railway Act Amendment—Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway (Deviations)— Herneßay and CanterberyJunction—London and South- Western Railway (Widening, &c.)—Dundee and Perth Railway (Alterations and Extension) —Glasgow, Barr. head, and Neilston Direct Railway—Great Western Railway (Branch to join the West London Railwa) ) Eastern Counties Railway (Maldon, Witham, and Brain tree Railway Purchase)—Great Southern and Western Railway Extension (Portarlington and Tullamore)— Norfolk Railway (Branch from Wymondham to the Norwich Extension of the Ipswich and Bury St. Ed mund's Railway, and the proposed Thetford and Reed ham Railway, near Diss)—Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct, and Glasgow Southern Terminal Railways Amalgamation—Southampton and D rchester Railways, (New Forest Deviation and Branches) — Lowestoft Railway and Harbour (Alteration near Reedham) Norfolk Railway (Yarmouth Extentions)—Dablin and Drogheda Railway Branch from Cavan to Kells—Southampton and Dorchester Railway (Weymouth Branch)—Swansea Valley Rail way—Manchestcr and Lincoln Union Railway De viation—Manchester and Leeds Railway (Branch from the Huddersfield Railway)—South Eastern Railway (North Kent and Bricklayers' Arms Junction — Liverpool, Crosby, and Stourport Railway and Branch — Dundee and Newtyle Railway—London and North- Western Railway (Newport Pagnell, Olney, and Welling borough Branch)—North Staffordshire Railway ( Altera tions and Branches)—South Wales Railway—Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Worcestershire Junction Railway — Dublin and Belfast Junction and Navan Branch Railway —Boston, Stamford and Birmingham Railway (Peter borough and Thorney Line)—East Lincolnshire Railway (Louth Navigation Purchase) —London and Nor t h - Western Railway (Coventry and Nuneaton Branch) — London and South-Western Railway (Andover to the Bishopstoke and Salisbury Branch)—Manchester, Shef field and Lincolnshire Railway (Branch to Bugsworth) —York and Newcastle Railway, and Wearmouth Dock Enlargement—Midland Railway (Leicester and Swannington)—London and North-Western Railway (Atherstone and Whitacre Branch) — Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan Railway (Amend ment and Deviations and Branches)—Birmingham and Wolverhampton, and Stour Valley Railway (No. 1) — Shropshire Union Railways and Canal (Lease to the London and North Western Railway Company)—Swan sea Docks—Croydon Commercial Gas anti Coke Corn pang—Dunfermline Waterworks—Falmouth Water works Macduff Harbour Improvement Wark• worth Harbour—London, (City) Small Debts — Westminster and part of Middlesex Sewers—Bristol Building and Improvement Act Amendment—Bristol Commercial Insurance Company—Wyndham's Estate Bill—Long's Estate Bill—Peyi zfield's Estate Bill— Horne's (Ferguson's) Estate Bill—Hodgson Blade's Estate Bill—Leigh's Estate Bill. The Lords Commissieners were the Lord Chancellor, Earl Spencer, and Lord Denman. PUNISHING A SOLDIEit IN THE SEVENTH HUSSARS. Lord BROUGHAM wished to ask his Noble Friend a question with respect to the punishment of a soldier of the 7th Hussars, named Radcliffe, who had been charged with a very grave offence, namely shooting at his sergeant with a pistol loaded with ball. If the charge was true it was a very grave one. He wished to ask his Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) whether he had received any in formation that the colonel had ordered him to be marched to his trial on the following Wed nesday "to receive the ereatest punishment that could be inflicted upon him." This was an extra ordinary letter, but he (Lord Broughatu) supposed that it referred to the punishment he should, receive if he was found guilty. The Duke of WELLINGTON said he had received information of the transaction. The fact of the matter was this. A soldier of the 7th Hussars, of the name of Smith (not Radcliffe) shot a sergeant-major of the same regiment by the aid of his fire-arms. This was an infa mous and atrocious Act, and was particularly deserving of notice in Ireland, where it was too much the practice of the country at large to connive at the escape of mur derers.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord Brougham.) It was an Act deserving of the notice of the commanding officer of the regiment ; and it was incumbent on him to walk his sense of its atrocity, not only on account of the regi ment, but of the country where it occurred. The sol dier committed one of two military offences, and the commanding officer was right in ordering him to be con• fined, and in the other step he took to mark his sense of the atrocity of the crime which had been committed. The fault, however, which he (the Puke of Wellington) found with him was, that he did not say, when he ordered the soldier's hair to he cue what was the reason for which he had give n that order, fur this might lead to the supposition that he was prejudging the case. He was of opinion, however, that in the main the commanding officer had acted rightly in the course he had taken. - Lord BROUGHAM said that his Noble Friend was quite right in describing the oflence as a grave one, but his objection was against what had t tken place before trial, and also to the terms of the order. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the man was not tried far being concerned in the murder, but for im properly using his own ammunition, or for purloining that of another. The subject dropped. QUALIFICATION OF PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL. On the motion of the Earl of ROSEBERY, this Bill was read a third time. The NOBLE EARL then moved an amendment, giving power to a foreign consul to administer the oath of alle giance in those cases that came under the provisions of the Bill. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH opposed that clause, as he thought no such power ought to be concerted. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw; no division, however, took place. The amendments were then agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL. On the order of the day for going into the Poor-law Administration (Ireland) Bill, Lord BROUGHAM said that he should not give his support to this measure. for in his opinion it was nut im portant, in the administration of a law of this nature, to have an officer connected with it in Parliament, to whom any questions concerning it could be addressed. But there was one very serious objection to the method in which it was proposed to connect that officer with the general administration of the country. In all ministerial questions which were proposed, there must be one of two terminations to the question—either the defeat of those who opposed the Government, or of the Government itself ; and as this poor-law officer would be connected with the Ministry, every question which was proposed by the Ministry and disputed in Parliament, must affect him and his office, as one of that Ministry ; so that, in stead of having a calm and unbiassed administration of these laws by that officer, the poor-law and its adminis tration would be shaken or affected by nearly every ques tion which was discussed in Parliament. Let them once agree to any such connexion with the Ministry, and every sort of cry that could be raised against the Ministry would bo raised, and every act of the Poor-law Commis sioners, though done with the very best intention, would be urged against them in every possible way. Acts which might be really humane in themselves, and have for their ultimate object the alleviation of the sufferings of the poor, would fur their apparent severity be cavilled at in Parliament, and furnish a constant matter of com plaint against the Government of the day. The exist ence of such an officer in connexion with the Ministry would furnish an additional and fruitful source of political intrigue and combinations, and while the question of the peer law was nominally raised it might be in reality a question of a very different sort that would be in agitation, but whatever the question might be, the poor-laws must necessarily be affected by it. He had known a Government to go ou fur one or two years with a small majority, and such a Gov ernment he would defy to pursue a steady course with respect to the poor law. It might be said that there could be no hindrance to the commissioners doing their duty. The motto might be " fiat justicia runt ceelum"—meaning by ccelum the heaven of Downing-street, but it would be utterly impossible to hinder the most serious obstacles from • being thrown in the way of this officer. This would be the consequence, and the inevitable consequence of the introduction of this officer into Government. Supposing that at the present time—when the country was upon the - eve of a general election—that such an officer were in existence, and had laid down with the consent of the Government, a particular mode of administering the poar-laws, could it be expected that if the existing Government had a small majority, they would attempt in conjunction with this commissioner to carry into effect so obnoxious an order as the one upon which they were beaten the other night—namely, the separation of the sexes? The Government had been defeated the ether evening in attempting to enforce this principle—a prin ciple which was a most proper one—and he for one tendered them his hearty and sincere thanks for resist ing the opposition which was brought against it. He thought that this Bill, if carried, would give a very unfair means of annoying the existing Government, without any corresponding benefit to the poor. He did not indeed think that such an officer was necessary, and it would be very difficult to get one with the knowledge of the class over whose interests he would have to preside, and with the firmness which would be required to carry into effect that which it would be his duty to do. Supposing that this officer were in office, and just as he had acquired all these requisites suffi ciently for the discharge of his manifold duties, that he should be compelled to go out of office by a change of Ministry, would that not involve the necessity of placing another officer in office, who, just as he had learned all that his predecessor had acquired, might leave his office it the same critical period: Theae were his reason§ for not giving his assent to this Bill, and upon these I grounds he felt it his duty to give his vote against it. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he felt ne cessary to trouble their Lordships for some few moments in answer to the Noble Lord who had last spoken. He was very happy to say that, although there were few of the acts of the Poor-law Comrnis=ioners which were open to objection, yet their justification was of necessity given by a tedious and circui'ous route, and lost with the public very much of the effect which the immediate and prompt vindication of their conduc t would have,and whch could be given, by one of their body publicly in Parlia ment. A great deal of the objection which had been raised to the Poor-law Commissioners had been raised in con sequence of their proceeding , as it were, secretly and in the dark; and this provision would at once remove that unfailing cause of disturbance a nd clamour. His Noble Friend had stated many difficulties as likely to arise from the connexion of this officer with the Government. There were other officers connected with zhe Govern ment whose situations were quite as open to the attacks and strategems of the opposition for party purposes as even this one could be, and he (the Marquis of Lane downe) saw no reason wh y the gentleman who filled this office should be particularly selected as the object of this sort of interference any more than those gentlemen who now held official situa tions in connexion with the Government. He would also say, to the honour of the country, that none of those gentlemen hal, except in rare instances, been made the object of any annoyance to the Government by unfounded charges; but, on the contrary, any interference which had taken place, was only with the view of obtaining answers to lair and legitimate questions. The Secre tary of State for the Home Department was an officer who was quite as likely to be mada the subject of these unfounded charges, for in his hands was the power of life and death; he had the power of deciding whether the criminal should suffer the last extremity of the law, and to him the relations and friends frequently came to intercede, and he issued his fiat unchecked or uncon trolled, for execution or otherwise; arid yet he had never heard any instance in which any attempt at getting up charges for party purposes had been made. What had fallen from his Noble and Learned Friend did not re quire any further answer from him, and he hoped that their Lordships would go into Committee without feel ing that this Bill was likely to create those evils which his Noble and Learned Friend had described. After a few words in explanation from Lord BROUGHAM. Lord STANLEY said that he entirely concurred in the statement which had been made by his Noble and Learned Friend near him. That the appointment of this officer in connexion with the Government should create some risk of undue interference with these law for party purposes, but he did think that it would also be a check upon any undue administration of the law by the commissioners, by the appointment of on officer with a Parliamentary responsibility. He thought that if that officer had been appointed in connexion with the try before the present time, many misrepresentations which had gained credence and gone abroad, would have been contradic.ed and satisfactorily denied. He thought, however, that the Parliamentary responsibility men tioned by the Noble Marquis would rest as much upon the Government generally as upon the officer appointed, and thus a connexion would be formed which would rend, r it the interest of that officer to countenance and support the interference of the Government in these laws whatever it might be. Upon the whole, however re luctantly and doubtfully, he leaned towards the opinion that it was desirable to connect this officer with the Go vernment—for then much of that misrepresentation, and unfounded persecution, lately sustained by the Poor-law Commissioners would either be at once sustained and proved, or publicly and promptly denied. He thought that, under all the circumstances, the connexion of this commissioner with the Government was advisable, and, aeref ,re, wi , hout going into any other principle of the Bill at that time, he should give it his support. Lord COLCHESTER very much feared that this plan would not secure to her Majesty's Ministers that secu rity from unfounded imputations which he (Lord Col chester) thow2ht was one of the objects of this Bill ; for, inasmuch as this commissioner was to be connected with the Government. any charge brought against him must be brought against them all. Though he only would attempt to refute or deny and of these accusations. He did not dissent from the principle of the measure, but he certainly thought it capable of very material improve- meat. Earl ST. GERMANS said that his Noble Friend had taken off the half•and-half responsibility which was at present incurred by her Majesty's Government, par titularly the Secretary of State for the Home Depart. ment —with respect to the administration of the poor• laws—in common with the Poor law Commissioners. That objection would still exist, even though one of these commissioners were to have a seat in Parliament, unless the whole of the Board of Commissioners was re-constructed by the Government, before taking that step. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then rose, and ad - dressed the House briefly, but his observations were quite inaudible in the watery. The House then resolved itself into Committee upon the Bill. On clause 1 being proposed, Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved that the words— First Lord of the Treasury—be inserted in the list of commissioners to be appointed. Earl GREY said that he did not think that the inser tion of these words would do ant harm, neither would they be of the slightest use ; he did not think that any sing'e beneficial object would be answered by the inser tion of these words. Clauses 1 to 9 ware then agreed to. On clause 10 being proposed, Lord REI)ESDALE moved the omission of this clause—it threw a large amount of patronage into the han'is of the Government, at the most dangerous time it could be done, namely, on the eve of a general ' election. After some desultory conversation, the House divided, when lb , re appeared — F the amendment—Contents N n contents Majority for Non•contents The Duke of RICHMOND then moved a clause to the effect—that if the board of guardians, after a period of three months, did not appoint a visiting committee, and that visiting committee did not perform its duty by )visiting the workhouses to take care that the poor were not ill-treated by those placed over them. It should be imperative on the Poor law Commissioners to appoint a visitor, and that visitor to be paid out of the rates of that union. This clause was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary for the protection of the poor who were re ceiving relief in the workhouses, and for the purpose of compelling the board of guardians to perform their duties. After a brief discussion, the clause was withdrawn. The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to. The House then resumed, and the Bill was reported to the House, with amendments. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and their Lordships adjourned until Four o'clock to -1 morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 2. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock. COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH PRUSSIA. On the motion that the order of the day be now read for the second reading of the Navigation Bill, Lord G. BENTINCK said he would take that oppor tunity of putting the question of which he had given notice to the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the commercial relations between this country and Prussia. On the 4th of June la,tthere appeared in th e Gl o b e ne w s paper a paragraph, stating, on th authority of a foreign journal, that the Prussian Government had received dispatches from the s.ughsh Government, announcing that if the Prussian Government and the Zollverein persisted in not renewing the treaty of internati o nal commerce between them and England, the English Government would find itself compelled to use reprisals. The foreign paper to which that referred being the official organ of the Prussian Government, he (Lord G. Bentinck) felt it incumbent upon him to ask the Noble Lord whether that report was correct, and whetherhehad found it necessary to have recourse to a threat of retaliatory measures upon Prussia, if Prussia persisted in her course of protective duties in order to take care of the industry of her own countrymen? Lord PALMERSTON said he did not remember having seen the paragraph to which his Noble Friend alluded, but he had no hesitation in saying that that pare gra-,,h was entirely incorrect. The state of affairs was this :—There was concluded between Great Britain and Prussia in 1841, a treaty by which certain ports between the Elbe and the Meuse were to be regarded according to the navigation laws of the ports of those states. Tnat treaty might be put an end to at the end of the present year by a notice on the part of the Prussian Government. That notice had been given the English Government ; intimating at the same time on the part of Prussia and the Zollverein that Prussia and the Zoll verein were dissatisfied with that treaty, because it originated upon a real principle of reciprocity, which the navigation-laws of England did not accord to the vesselsadvant advantages Prussiaswereon h and t the Zollverein,side England, and and to h that all the e B ve r s i s t els ain engaged persisted b iny her, herer ,and nav w navigation at a i o s n intimated systems r a u t s i s f G a Great the states of the Zollverein would think it their interest to establish differential duties of 20 per cent. upon the manufactures and produce of Great Britain. Such was the state of the case. He could assure his Noble Friend there was So threat of retaliation on the part of Great Britain to compel Prussia to do anything which she thought contrary to her interests, but it was, on the contrary, a statement from Prus sia and the Zollverein, that if Great Britain did not relax her present system they would enforce diffe rential duties, and put an end to the treaty of 1841. To that communication an answer was returned to t h e effect, that the treaty w as of little advantage to Great Britain, and, therefore, it was to her a matter of comparative indifference whether the treaty Was allowed to exist or expire. That communication could hardly be said to be exclusive; and that woe . the only reply that he could make to the question of his Noble Friend. There could, howev er, be no possible objection on the part of the Government to lay before the House the Prussian intimation of the conclusion of the treaty, and the reply of the British Government.—(Hear.) Mr. HUT l' admitted that the reply of the Noble Lord was most satisfactory, but at the sama time he felt bound to put the questions to him of which he had given notice. He wished to know, in the first place, whether her Majesty's Government had received an intimation from any of the states of the North of Germany that they have in contemplation to impose differential duties on British vessels importing into Germany the produc tion of countries other than the possessions of her Ma jesty, unless Great Britain would so far abolish her na vigation-laws as to allow German vessels to import pro ductions from all parts of the world into the United ; and, secondly, whether the Noble Lord was aware of any negotiations going on for tho purpose of inducing the Hans Towns to units with the States of the Zollverein, in an arrangement to impose differential duties on the ships of all nations, which do not accord to German States the sumo privileges of navigation which the German States extend to them. Lord PALMERSTON said that he had already answered the first question of the Hon. Member. With regard to the second question, it was certainly true that the Prussian Government had been in commuication with the Hans Towns, with a view as he (Lord Palmerston) understood —he spoke only from information, having received no official communication on the subject to induce them to unite with the Zollverein in an ar rangement to impose differential duties on the ships of all nations that did not accord to German States the same privileges of navigation which the German States extended to them. As he (Lord Palmerston) had been informed, a person had been sent from Berlin to Hamburgh, Lubeck, and Bremen, to in duce the Hans Towns to become members cf the Zoll verein. He understood that Hamburgh and Lubeck had no desire to adopt the course suggested, and although Bremen appeared rather favourable to the corporate system in Germany, yet he (Lord Palmerston) was not aware that any opinion had been expressed by Bremen to accede to the request to unite with the Zollverein for the purposes before stated. NAVIGATION-LAWS. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved that the Navi gation-laws Bill be read a second time. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK rose to oppose the motion. He did so because he thought the present mea sure was a pretext to undermine the present navigation laws. Since the suspension of those laws, innumerable vessels, in all parts of the world, had been waiting for freight and could not get it. There had not been more than one or two ships from the Mediterranean since the suspension of the laws, and at present rates were every day falling at Alexandria, Constantinople, and Odessa. He therefore contended that the necessity for the further suspension of the navigation-laws had entirely passed away. With regard to the small vessels from the Elbe and the Weser, which formed so large an item in the re turn of the number of foreign grain -laden vessels, which had been laid on the table, the further suspension of the laws from September to March would be wholly inope rative.—(Hear, hear.) If the Noble Lord had been so desirous as it was stated to bring in a large supply of foreign corn cheaply, he might have spared the five steam-ships that were cruising off Portugal for that pur pase, and by this means he would have done far more good than by suspending the navigation-laws.—(Hear, hear.) This was the course pursued by France, and it was productive of the greatest advantage to the trade and commerce of that country. If this suspension of the navigation laws was to be considered as preliminary to the abrogation of these laws, he would ask the Noble Lord how he proposed to man the navy ?—(Hear, hear.) America had attained the great eminence which at pre sent characterised the navy, not, as it was falsely stated, by relaxing the navigation-laws, but by giving her shipping the greatest protection. In 1814 the British navy was manned by 114,000 men, and now the number was not more than 30,000. It might be said that when the corn laws were repealed the navigation laws must share the same fate. He did not see the con nexion which existed between them, or that the one followed as a necessary consequence of the other. It gave him great pain to see some shipowners supporting the abolition of the corn-laws at the time that measure was brought forward, and he sincerely hoped that they should not have occasion to regret the part which they took against the agricultural interest.—(Hear, hear.) He had a comparative statement of the number of grain laden ships that came to this country from the United States of America, from the 10th of September last to the Ist of May. There were 294 vessels belonging to Great Britain, and 450 to the United States. Of these there were only 3 of the former which had met with any accident at sea, while there were 21 American; of those that were obliged to put back and discontinue their voyages, there were 3 British and 17 American; of those which were obliged to have their cargoes thrown overboard there were 6 British and 27 Ame rican; and of those that had been stranded there were 4 British, while there were 12 American.—(Hear, bear, and cheers.) This, he thought, proved that the British pilot had not lost his cunning, nor the British sailor his skill or energy; and, believing that this measure would have the eflct of destroying the shipping interests or this country, and of undermining their naval superiority, which, more than any other cause, had contributed to their greatness and their power, he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Lord J. RUSSELL said, I do not propose to con sider—and I hope that this House will not consider — that this is a question with regard to the repeal of the navigation-laws.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever may be the merits of these laws—whether it may be right to main tain them inviolate—whether it is right to make certain changes in them, or right to repeal them altogether — that is not the question brought before the House under the present Bill. All that I will say, therefore, on that part of the supposition of the Noble Lord—and which occupied a considerable part of his address to the House —is, that I beg to remind the House that, when the Committee upon the navigation-laws was appointed to sit, it was a question of the most serious importance to the country, and in the consideration of the report of that Committee, or the evidence which authorised any alteration to be made in the navigation-laws, this House is bound to consider the burdens upon British ship owners, and take into consideration any disadvantage they may have to contend with, at the same time that it considers any restrictions which are to be imposed upon foreign shipping. That will be at last for our con sideration; but the question now before the House is, whether the present navigation-laws shall be suspetvied —and it must be obvious to the House that we may sus pend laws of this nature without at all affecting the principle upon which they are founded. With respect to the very questior. of the corn-laws, the corn-laws have been, during the last fifty years, frequently sus pended; sometimes for six months, sometimes for a year, and sometimes fur two years, the great majority of both 11 , ,U503 of Parliament at the same time maintaining the policy of these laws, and firm on the principle that they ought not to be altered. This may be urged in regara to the navigation-laws, and I own that I am surprised at the Noble Lord and his friends taking this course with regard to the navigation-laws at the present mo ment, having consented to the suspension of the corn laws. It appears to me that if you consented in prin ciple to the suspension of the corn-laws you wilt be perfectly justified in coming before the next Parliament and saying, "We have not given up the principle of protection— the Parliament which has been dissolved was gi eatly in error in doing away with that principle, and we require a sliding scale or a fixed duty on corn, for that even is a system found upon a better policy than the total repeal of these laws." You would be perfectly justified in raising such an argu ment ; it is probably not a strong answer to such a proposition to say that you are precluded fi om making such a proposition, because you suspended the corn-laws during the past year. If that is the case with regard to the navigation-laws, it cannot be urged as coming against the navigation-laws, that there has been a certain period in which you proposed to suspend those laws. The Noble Lord, having consented to the suspen sion of the corn-laws, declares that the navigation-laws ought not to be suspended. Now, what is the ground for suspending the corn-laws? It is expected that there will be a great quantity of corn brought into this country, and therefore it is the policy of this country to use every means by which that admission may be free and open to all, and if that principle is good with regard to the corn which is to be admitted, why should it not be held good with regard to the vessels in which that corn is brought ? If you admit corn free of duty, you must also take measures to admit that corn as freely as possible, whatever may be the vessel in which that corn may come—we should not ask any questions with respect to the lading of these vessels, or their country, or the parties who own them; but because they bring provisions, on that ground we admit them. It appears to me that the two questions stand upon a perfectly similar footing, and it is quite inconsistent for the Noble Lord, haviug agreed to sus peed the present corn duties, to raise a new objec ion to the suspension of this other law, and thus impose a restriction upon the admission of corn from which the duty is removed. The Noble Lord says, and says truly, that I stated the other day that I was prepared to argue that if 500,000 quarters of corn came in under the re cent suspension of the navigation-laws, still I should be prepared to contend that these laws ought to bo further suspended. I did so declare myself; because I think that the necessity of the country is such that we ought not to impose any restrictions whatever, and that the best is to make the admission of corn as free as possible— whether the benefit arising from that admission may be small or may be large. At least I have asserted that principle, and I have taken away any restriction tinder which corn is admitted. That as an argument is perfectly good, whatever may be the amount of corn admitted. The Noble Lord has agreed as to the quantity of corn admitted—he has agreed to those returns, which I believe, with regard to most of the ports in the United Kingdom from which those returns have been received, are correct. I find with regard to London and Liver pool the quantities are the same. Lord G. BENTINCK—You have no return from Liverpool. Lord J. RUSSELL—With regard to some of the ports, I believe that the custom-house has made an error with regard to the quantity which might have come in if the navigation-laws had not been suspended, and there may be some alteration necessary in the general return, but as to the total amount which it represents it is pro bably correct as to what has been introduced. The amount introduced has been brought in by 508 ships, amounting in tonage to 63,555 tons. The Noble Lord says that it would have been far better to have sent line-of- battle ships, which could introduce corn from foreign countries. I argued this question at the commencement of the session, and satisfied one Hon. Gentleman, who made a motion upon that subject, that in the first place the amount of tonnage of the line-of battleships which we should have at our co mman d time ta d v e for fitted th up e r e c theseep reception 0 1 i n n e o of would have been small ; and, in the s e c o n d pl ace , i t corn ; and, in the next place, that it would have taken them away from any military service in which they might be required. Supposing that any question like the question of Ot a h e i te , wh i ch arose a few years since, were to arise with any foreign power, it would have been a great disadvantage to the public, to have found ourselves crippled by the employ ment of these ships, so necessary to r th e serv i ce of the c ountry for some other purposes. The last argument which_l used, and which was the strongest of all, was, that when the State interfered in subjects of this nature, the more it proclaimed that it was about to undertake to fur nish that which commerce usually furnishes, the more it had disturbed and checked and discouraged the natural enterprise and trade of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Now, what will the tonnage of the Queen, the Trafalgar, the Albion, and the Rodney amount to if they are estimated ? The Queen, 3,104 tons; the Albion 3,110 tons ; and supposing the other two ships to be of vital =MA or nosey eo, we would tb e f ple o krice!' ;eO 5- ' fefl yool‘e is s i Vhal THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORN IN G, JULY 3, 1847. for Lynn. The Noble Lord did not make the sugges tion attributed to him by the Hon. Gentleman. What he said was, that at a time when several ships laden with corn, and bound to this country, were unable to obtain egress into the Atlantic by stress of weather, there were several ships of war cruising off Portugal and doing nothing, which might have been better employed in assisting these ships out of their difficulties.—(Hear.) He would not detain the House any further, and he would sit down imploring the Noble Lord at the head of the Government to give his most serious and at tentive consideration t) the subject of the navigation laws, and not too hastily come to a conclusion upon it. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he wished to tell the Hon. Gentleman that he had understood him (Lord John Russell) quite correctly, and he questioned if the nevi o'ation•laws ought to be left for future deliberation. Mr. TRELAWNY supported the Bill. Mr. S. HERBERT said, so far as this Bill was con cerned he had no sort of objection to its passing. He was most anxious that there should continue to he an ample !supply of food in this country and in Ireland, particularly during the fruit season, and without giving any opinion upon the large and important question of the navigation-laws, he was not disposed to resist the progress of this temporary measure. He did most sin cerely regret that the Government had abandoned a Bill which, if calculated to be useful at al', would be pre eminently useful in the present year. Mr. MITCHELL would confine himself t) the ques tion of the expediency of these laws, and the question was, could ships be chartered at a lower rate of freight •han at present ? He affirmed that they could not, and therefore that did away with the necessity of the Bill. Taking all the freights together, the freights were 30 per cent. higher than they had been last year. It should be recollected that the greater part of the British ship ping was employed in the conveyance of corn, which they took in preference to other freights. He did not see, therefore, that any necessity now existed either for sending ships of war to bring corn to this country, or for the suspension of these laws. Mr. AARON CHAPMAN fully agreed with the Hon. Member who had just sat down, that it would have been imprudent to have used ships of war in the carrying of corn, and he as fully disagreed with the ar guments of the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Trelawny), who appeared to found all his arguments on hiaknowledge of the Royal Yacht Club.—(Laughter.) In his opinion the safety of this country depended upon our navy, and the efficiency of that navy depended upon the encourage ment of the shipping now employed in commerce. He thought that the Bill was not required, and should not be proceeded with. Mr. TRELAWNY explained. Lord JOHN MANNERS said that after the declara tion of the Noble Lord that he would give this measure his unbiassed consideration next year, he (Lord J. Man ners) was not disposed to oppose the further suspension of the navigation-laws. Mr. HUDSON said that he did not think it would be wise at present to obstruct the Government, for he was prepared to grant that some interests in the country might be benefited by the suspension of the navigation laws for a time. Mr. FORSTER hoped that the Protectionists would not at the forthcoming eleztion raise a cry in favour of the shipowners similar to that which in 1841 they raised for the agriculturists, because the former interests would be very apt to imagine that their fate would be the same.—(Hear, hear.) Lord G. BENTINCK said, after what had been said he should not put the House to the trouble of a division, and should withdraw his amendment. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. CUSTODY OF OFFENDERS BILL. The House then went into Committee on this Bill, and the clauses, after some verbal amendments, were agreed to.—Report on Monday. PRISONS BILL. _ _ . Lord MAHON wished to know whether, after what occurred, the Noble Lord intended to proceed with this Bill during the present session. He thought, con sidering the period of the session, and the absence of many Honourable Members who took much interest in the matter, it would be advisable, and more conducive to the public interests, if it were withdrawn. There certainly was no haste for it; and ho trusted, therefore, that the Noble Lord would not press it on a thin House, but adopt his suggestion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would take the Noble Lord's suggestion into consideration, and his Right Hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) would, on Monday, state the course which the Government intended to adopt with respect to the measure. STOCK-IN-TRADE EXEMPTION BILL. On the second reading of this Bill being moved, Sir R. H. INGLIS deprecated the changing of the law without discussing its principles and its influence on those who would be affected by it. He considered that the Bill proposed too sweeping a change in the law, and that any change should be gradual.—(Hear.) Unless they were prepared to bring in a general Bill they would do great injustice to a large portion of the country. If they were prepared to rate stock in trade, the owner of tithes had no right to complain ; but if they did not do so they would inflict a grievous injustice upon them. He did not intend to divide the House ; but, unless the Right Hon. Baronet gave a pledge that ho would bring such a Bill as the one he had recommended next session, he should be compelled to do so. Sir G. GREY admitted that the subject was fraught with difficulties. The Bill had been brought in in ac cordance with a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. tie was ready to admit that the subject required future legislation, and, no doubt, mature consideration might lead him to bring forward a more general and unobjec tionable measure than the one before the House.— (Hear.) He did not think any greater burden would be placed upon the tithe owner than on the owners of any other description of property.—(Hear.) Sir JOHN TROLLOPE would rather that this Act should be made a permanent one than that the question should be mooted annually. He did not think that the statements of the Right lion. Baronet were so explicit as the House had a right to expect. Mr. HENLEY thought it would be impossible to make the Act permanent. He admitted that the subject was one that ought to be looked at with a very jealous eye. If the law was not either put an end to or suspended, it would lead to eternal litigation. After some observations from Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. HUDSON expressed a hope that the Government would tur❑ their attention to the rating of railways, as at present he thought the mode of rating those under takings was most unjust. In some instances railways paid two-thirds of the rate of the county through which they passed. He trusted that Government would either bring in a Bill on the subject, or grant a Select Committee to take the matter into consideration. After a few words from Colonel ROLLESTON, Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that he would not press the House to a division, but he hoped the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Home Secretary would take the subject into consideration during its recess, and bring forward a mea• sure next session for the purpose of removing the evils which at present existed on the subject of rating. After a few words from Mr. B. ESTCOTT and Sir C. BURRELL, Lord G. BENTINCK thought the subject too im portant to be discussed in such a thin House, when there was no Cabinet Minister present except the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment. This was one of the evils which resulted from their working double time. He should, therefore, move that the House be counted. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but there was a sufficient number of Members present to form a House. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday next. The House then adjourned till Five o'clock. The House resumed at Five o'clock. SUTTON HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT BILL. Sir J. Y. BULLER moved that the report from the Committee on the Sutton Harbour Improvement Bill be considered forthwith, prints of the amended Bill having been deposited on Wednesday, the 30th day of June last. Mr. GREENE suggested that the better course would be to recommit the Bill. Sir JOHN Y. BULLER would consent to the re committal of the Bill, provided that the Committee were , allowed to sit on Monday next. This course was agreed to. COMMIS lON IN THE LORDS. Sir Augustus Clifford, Usher of the Black Rod, appeared at the bar and summoned the House to the bar of the House of Lords, to hear the Royal assent given by commission to several Bills. The SPEAKER, accompanied by several Members, left for the House of Lords. On the return of the SPEAKER, he announced that several Bills (for which see Lords' report) had received the Royal assent. LORDS' AMENDMENTS. The Lords' amendments- to the following Bills were considered and agreed to : Ashton Gas Caledonian Railway (Branches to Canonbie, &c.) Chard Canal and Railway (Eottension and Amalgamaton) Dublin and Drogheda Railway (Purchase of Navan Branch, &c.) East Lothian Central Railway Eastern Union and the Ipswich and Bury Saint Ed mund's Railways Amalgamation Edinburgh Water orks Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle Railway, and Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock. and Ayr Railway (No. 1). Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle Railway, and Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 2). Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle Railway, and Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 4). Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway, and Glasgow and Belfast Union Railway (No. 1). Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 2). Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 4). London and North-Western Railway ( P or tobello and Wolverhampton Branch, Sze.) Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway,, and Manchester and Lincoln Union Railway, and Ches terfield and Gainsborough Ctmal Amalgamation. Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Extension from Athlone to Galway). Newport, Abergavenny, and Il e reford Railway (Exten sion to Taff Vale Railway). Northampton and Banbury Railway. Parkgato and Ches ter and Birkenhead Junction Railwa y . S o uth Staffordshire Railwa y (Cannock, Wyrley, an d Norton Branches, &c.) Swansea and Amman Junction Railway. York Improvement (Lendal Bridge and Approaches). Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from a great number of officers employed in the administration of the poor-law in England and Wales, praying that the Go vernment would grant a superannuation fund. RELIEF COMMITTEES. Mr. B. OSBORNE presented a pcition from Long. 100, A irelaudt praying thitt. the Mouse would institute have had 12,000 tons available for these purposes. 63.555 is the amount of tonnage which foreign ships have introduced into this country, and which could not have been introduced except by a suspension of the navigation laws, and they have left you to have the employment of these ships for any other purposes you might require. The Noble Lord bats introduced an assertion in his speech which has nothing at all to do with the present discussion—namely, the policy pursued in Portugal. That has nothing whatever to do with this subject, be* cause if these ships had not been in Portugal they would have been in the Mediterranean. They are part of the military marine of the country, and are the kind of force on which this country must rely in case of any sudden danger. But these foreign ships have done all this work—they have done five times as much as these vessels could have done for the benefit of the country, and without the expense. They have sent these ships, and they have done it without any expense further than the natural payment or profit chargos which are paid and expected by merchants. Therefore I entirely dissent, as I said at the beginning of this session, from this plan. I disagree with the plan of bringing out a corps of line-of-battle ships for the pur pose of bringing foreign corn into this country. But beyond this, let this House consider for one moment this question apart from the question of the navi gation-laws. What has been the immense impor tation of corn which has been carried on by the trade of this country for the purpose of supplying the United Kingdom with food. 'Ye have had, as I shall presently show, an unprecedented high price in corn, but at the sarre time the efforts which have been made by the trade of this country have been carried on to an enormous ex tent. Some time ago the importation of corn was at the rate of nine millions of quarters, but during the last month, and indeed latterly, at the rate of twelve million, of quarters in the year, and in some particular weeks it has exceeded that amount; but altogether, Ibelieve, when the accounts are made out, that there has been an im mense importation —a greater importation than ever was known, and I should say that not less than six millions of our people may have been fed during the present year by that importation from foreign countries. Compare that with with any effort which could have been made by line. of-battle ships. Compare this immense amount of corn and shipping, owing solely to the enterprise of merchants and importers. Compare these with any efforts the Government could make, and then you may estimate the fact that, by throwing open the ports, and giving the intercourse with foreign countries, you have saved the people from suffering from want of food. But the Noble Lord seems to think that this must be a repeal of the navigation-laws, because there are no extraordinary circumstance—that the neces sity has passed. He says that there are no circumstances which require this. Lord G. BENTINCK—I said that the necessity would have passed away by the Ist of September. Lord J. RUSSELL—Now let me ask the attention of o n c v c e u r r y r ed i great e a n t t f h a e i luarset of v t m be on e th rn s p . s T . he l r t e w ha a s been sest in France t the House to the extraordinary circumstances which have France at one time had only 18 days' consumption, at an other 25 days ; and some went so high as to say that 40 days' consumption of food was wanting—that the supply was to thatextent deficient. That deficiency extended to Germany to a very great extent, so much so, that corn upon the Rhine had risen at one time to 90s. per quar ter, and the peace of the country was disturbed in Prus sia, and in other parts, owing to the extraordinary rise in provisions. This has called for importation from all parts of Europe and America from which any supply was to be had. There has been an extraordinary supply from America, and there has been, as I have stated, a very great importation to this country. France had re quiredShaear; esatnidn r a n t n c c e o n wouldw hi c b h v i e f t b h e e e r n e b b r a n d u g b b e et here, a gd s o b o a a great part of the importation from the Black been taken to France for the consumption of that country. In the month of January we thought the case so urgent, that we proposed a suspension of the corn duty and the navigation-laws, and that suspension was at once agreed to. The average price for the preceding six weeks to that time was 635. 10d. per quarter, and in one week preceding the price was so high as 70s. 10d. per quarter. Under these circumstances, the House agreed una- 1 nimously to the suspension of these laws. Since that time there has been a most extraordinary rise in the price of corn, and we have seen corn in Mark-lane rise to 100 s., 1085..;i- 4'14 . on one day, I believe 115 s. per quarter.-!-- - (lloWheek . .) The price has again fallen, but the average fAiti last six weeks, by the London Gazette, is' 94'9: rd. per quarter.—(Hear, hear.) The price of corn, let me repeat, when the House consented unanimously to the suspension of the navigation-laws, was 63a. 10d. per quarter ; and now, when the price is 945. 10d. per quarter, I am told that it is unreasonable in me to ask that suspension to be continued. The Noble Lord says that, upon the Ist of September, the necessity will have passed away. Who can tell that for this coantry the necessity will have passed away? Lord G. BENTINCK—I said the necessity for ships; that is the whole question. Lord J. RUSSELL—The necessity for ships will not have passed away—that is my whole argument; if we have a necessity for corn there is a necessity for ships to bring it. My argument is that it you have a ship which brings corn to you, you ought not to say " this is American corn, it has been taken from on board; it has been landed at Havre, and brought again here. I will not admit it—you must take it back again." My argument is that if you admit corn —if you have a necessity for the admission of corn, it ought to be admitted in whatever ships it may come. What are the prospects for the next year? Who can tell, however sanguine may be the expectation at the present moment, the weather of the next six weeks will give us a bountiful and abundant harvest ? Who can tell whether the harvest of the continent of Europe will be bountiful? Who can tell whether the great abundance with which America has been blessed during the past year will be continued in the present year, and that we may not have at another time , not only the difficulty of getting supplies of corn in England, and Europe, but the difficulty of having the large sup plies we have had in the present year from America? Let us not forget, with regard to this subject, that the price of corn has lately been as high, taking into consi deration the depreciation of the currency, as it was at any period of the past year ; and let us not forget what is the most remarkable part of the present subject—that there is an extraordinary consumption. But there have been very lar g e imports from the seats of foreign trade, and there h ave b ee n a ve ry great nutn ber of railway wor k s • and I believe that they have in many r es p ects 'di m i n i s hed or alleviated the calamities under which we are suffering by causing a considerable demand for labour. But, at the same time, when I look to the amount of calls upon railways from January to this time, and I fled that there has been em ployed twenty-one millions, of which somewhat more than eighteen millions are required for the United King dom, it is impossibl e not t o se e that the e x p enditure of a very large portion o f t hi s su m must have led to a con siderable consumption which would not have taken place if there had not been so extraordinary an expenditure. That consumption again leads to an increased price, and of course leaves less of the for I believe that they he" whole amount of food to be divided amongst the people of this country. But the construction of railways has in one sense tended to the augmentation of the ditli culty,mainly caused the consumption which is so much greater than has ever for this extraordinary consumption must tend to make before taken place with so high a price of provisions— the quantity of food in the country last for a shorter period than it would otherwise do. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the general result is the ports as widely as p i o f ss y i that the policy of Parliament ought to be to throw open food, and to take away up w a h t il l on of corn from would prevent one single p . eople, and . , lastly, coming into this country, the good condition of the labourin g if you look to the state of the revenue In connexion with w in find the! you ought to all these circumstances, you o b e u l v e e meanr fory r the e t s ot keep admissionc e t :o p pursue the policy of free and indiscriminate admission general conclusion, I for corn. Having come to thi s Noble Lord, and again re again refer to the plan of the pest that we will not on this question, discuss i the getion• aw . That pro prietysub- of the existence of theuavi rought under the con pot will most probably be h Abe evidence which has sideratioe of Parliament when has been taken by the Committee has been considered, and pa y serious attentiond to that for my part I promibe to roduee . I t hink that evideuce whenever it shall be p there is no question which has 60 many various sub jects—as relates to our co mmerc i al marine — as re l a tes to the state of our naval power, and as relates likewise to the general principle of treedom of intercourse—there is in fact no question which can be put on so many various bases as th e - navieation-laws. I am most unwilling to discuss such a subject towards the close of the session with the . Committee sitting—(Hear)—i and taking evidence upon it, and Ishould not be justified in proposing any determination to be taken upon such a subject. I shall be ready to consider any determination to be taken with re ference te the general principle of commercial policy reference reference to the effect of these to the altered state of the laws upon it—wit" wor ld— a nd with reference, lastly and chiefly, to the naval force and naval supremacy of thi s coun t ry . Mr. RICARDO said that he did not think the general question of the navig ation -laws at all involved in t his dis cussion. He was surprised that the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn bad made a charge against the Government that they were seeking to undtaanine the shipping interest of the country, and he 1 cou d not help thinking that in opposing • this measure the Noble Lord had some manses The vie electioneering vir- The measure in his opinion hey interest, but t adopted the suggestion of the Noble Lord to bring line-of-battle ships into competition with the merchant-traders, it would be in flicting an irre pa rable injury upon the free commerce of the country.—(Hear, hear.) H e h oped the t i me was coming when th e good old days would be revived, and when they should ewe English and American ships crossing.theAtlantie with ballast and returning laden with goods or corn. The period was fast approaching when, in his opinion, t h es e laws must be altogether abolished; and he thought, when the House was put in possession of the evidence taken before the Navigation Committee, it would be inclined to agree with him.—(Hear.) Mr. LIDDELL said the present was not a fitting op portunity to enter upon a discussion of the merits of the navigation-laws, and he should, therefore, confine his observations to the Bill before the House. It did not follow that becau se hi s N o bl e F r i en d, the Member for Lynn had consented to a further suspension of the corn-laws, he ought to agree to this measure. The navigation laws had already been suspended for a sufficient length of time, and he could not see what advantage was to be derived from con tinuing the suspension during a period when the trade of many countries wag shut up by national causes. The Honourble Gentleman who last addressed the House ridiculed the idea of bringing line-of. battle ships into competition with merchant traders, but he (lair. Liddell) thought the Hon. Gentleman had wis underatood the remuks o f the AMMO Lord the ...ember an inquiry into the operation of the relief committees in Ireland. EXCISE LAWS. Mr. EWART presented a petition numerously signed by wine and spirit dealers, praying for a revision of that part of the excise law which prohibited the sale of more than two gallons of spirit by retail ; also a petition in favour of the Health of Towns Bill. Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. WARD moved that the Committees on public and private Bills have leave to sit to-morrow. Agreed to. Lord J. MANNERS moved an address for copies of the correspondence between the Lord Primate of all Ireland and Sir Robert Peel, relating to education in Ireland in 184.5 ; and also between the Lord Primate and Lord John Russell, on the same subject, in 1847. Agreed to. PUNISHMENT IN THE ARMY. Major LA YARD wished to put a question to the Secretary at War respecting the death of John Rad cliffe, late a private in the 75th Regiment. The circum stances of the case, which he gathered from Saunders's News Letter, were these :—" The man Radcliffe was charged with shooting at his sergeant-major, but it would seem that the man fired with a blank cartridge. Nevertheless, Colonel Halifax, the commander of the regiment, made a severe order of punishment, and the man, in consequence, cut his throat with a razor. The jury that sat upon the coroner's inquest returned the following verdict We find th a t t h e d eceace d came by his death in consequence of having inflicted a wound upon his throat while labouring under temporary insanity, produced by the severity of the order made by Colonel Halifax." The order alluded to in thi, verdict, was to the effect that the hair of Radcliffe was to be cut close, that he was to be kept in strict confinement, and if any man spoke to him be was im mediately to be put in confinement. He was to be paraded before his comrades, and then marched to Atli lone, to take his trial before a district court-martial. Now the question he wished to ask was, had the Horse- Guards received any report upon the subject? Mr. FOX MAULE said Colonel Halifax was a gen tleman of high military standing and honour, and a man suited in every respect to be placed in command of a body of men. Radcliffe, who was a private in the 10th Hussars, fired at his sergeant-major, not with a blank cartridge, as stated by the Hon. and Gallant Member opposite, but with ball, and Colonel Halifax being naturally jealous of the honour and anxious to maintain the high cha racter of his regiment, made the order in question. From the inquiries he had made, however, he did not think that under all the circumstances, the man com mitted suicide in consequence of the order, for on a former occasion, after he had been found drunk upon the march, he made an attempt upon his life; and on another occasion, while anticipating the result of bad conduct, he threatened to put an end to his existence. IRISH LANDLORDS. Sir D. NORREYS wished to know whether the No ble Lord would have any objection to comply with the following motion :—On going into Committee of Supply, to move that there be laid before this House so much of the correspondence or reports of the inspectors under the Act 10 Vic. c. 7 (with the name, rank, and residence of the parties referred to), as sustains the statements made by the Commissioners of Relief in their third report, condemnatory of the conduct of committees, or of indi viduals in carrying out the provisions of the said Art. Lord J. RUSSELL could not hold out to the Hon. Baronet that he should consent to give the name and rank of the parties. The Lord Lieutenant had directed that extracts should be made from the various reports, im pugning the conduct of magistrates and others ; and according to the replies he received the Lord-Lieutenant would determine what course he would adopt. Sir D. NORREYS emphatically, and with much ex citement, asked the Noble Lord if he thought that the Irish nation would be satisfied with such a reply?— (Cries of " Order.") He appealed to the Speaker whether he was or was not in order. The SPEAKER was understood to say that the Hon Baronet was not in order. MRS. TAWELL. Dr. BOWRING wished to ask the Attorney-General whether the property of Tawell, who was executed for murder, and respecting which a❑ official inquiry has lately taken place, will, instead of escheating to the Crown, be restored to his widow? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished to undeceive Hon. Members and the public with respect to the state ment which had appeared in the newspapers respecting this matter. The House was, no doubt, aware, that when a person was convicted of a criminal offence, his property was forfeited to the Crown ; but the practice had uniformly been to grant the property to the relations who might petition the Crown for it. In this case Mrs. Tawell presented a memorial to the Trea• sury, praying inquiry, and to have the property vested in the Crown for her use; and an inquiry had been made, and it would be disposed of for her use.—(Hear, hear.) He was rather surprised that a statement should have gone forth in the newspapers imputing the grossest in humanity to the Crown, especially when it was borne in mind that the inquiry was made at her own request. MALTA. Dr. BOWRING wished to ask the Under Secretary of the Colonies whether the memorials and petitions from Malta on the subject of the grievances of that island have received the attention of the Government, and whether any measures are in progress for their redress ? Mr. HAWES said the memorials had been received, and were now under the attention of the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, and until he came to a decision, he thought it would be imprudent to say anything more on the subject. SUPPLY. Mr. HUME inquired when the Noble Lord proposed to go into Committee of Supply? Lard JOHN RUSSELL—I intend to bring on the supply on Monday. SITTING OF THE HOUSE TO-MORROW (THIS DAY.) In reply to Mr. SPOONER, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he did not think it would be necessary for the House to sit to-morrow. BORNEO. Mr. EWART wished to inquire of the Under Secre- tary for the Colonies, what measures have been adopted for the establishment of a settlement in the island of Labuan, on the coast of Borneo, ceded to the British Crown in December last. Mr. HAWES said her Majesty's Government were fully aware of the importance of the island ; but there was no desire on the part of the Government to mag nify the colonial establishments ; parties, however, had been appointed, who were competent to give the fullest information, whose reports would shortly be presented to the Government~ IRISH LANDLORDS. Sir D. NORREYS adverted to his motion on this subject. He considered. that he had been badly used by the Noble Lord in this matter, as he had refused to reply to his question. He said if any parties had been guilty of misconduct they should be held up to the scorn which they deserved, and he called upon the Noble Lord as an act of justice to say whether all were to be implicated in these disgraceful proceedings or not. Surely the innocent ought to be discriminated from the guilty. Lord J. RUSSELL said the report of the commis sioners stated that there were 1,700 committees, and that amongst them some abuses bad occurred; but the Hon. Gentleman would have it that that inferred that all were equally guilty.—(Hear, hear.) He did think that it was impossible to state this more clearly than the commissioners had stated it. He thought that the publication of all the names, and the institution of an inquiry, for both of which the Hon. Baronet asked, would be productive of great evil.—(Hear, hear.) The more prudent course to adopt would be to take the statement as it was, and when the parties who had acted improperly were appointed to the magistracy that an in quiry should be made into their conduct. Mr. B. OSBORNE said if a Committee were ap pointed, that it could not accomplish the task which would be assigned to them under a year, and that the re sult of their labours would fill one of the largest blue books that has ever been printed. Lord CLENIENTS supported the view of the Hon. Baronet, and considered that the motion ought to be agreed to. Lord J. RUSSELL explained that the cases referred to were the exceptions. Mr. WAKLEY considered that an inquiry was due to those who had not been guilty of the abominable prac tice which had been imputed to many landlords — namely, placing their servants for support upon the rates. The matter then dropped. COLONIAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS. In reply to Mr. NEWDEGATE, Lord J. RUSSELL stated that he would make inqui ries respecting the returns for which the lion. Gentle man had moved. HONG-KONG. In reply to a question from Lord SANDON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that seref --7 T 1,-1--- in sults having been inflicted on the British Resident by the i Chinese, in this island, he had sought the aid of the , naval force, for the purpose of obtaining redreass from the Chinese authorities, and that na val force had a y discharged the duty to which he h ad felt it his duty to call them. HEALTH OF TOWNS. On the order of the day for going into Committee on this Bill, Mr. HORSMAN wished to put a question to the Noble Lord (Lord MorPeth) with respect to interments in crowded cities. lie wished to know whether the Government intended to take any measure for the pur pose of putt in g an end to s uch interments, which he said not only demoralised the people, but physically- deteriorated them. This and th e p as t sess i on mention of a measure on the subject, sae and d b a y s withouttepub public attention was becoming every day more and more directed to it, he thought that the Government ou g ht to g i ve an xplicit answer to his question, and if they were not disposed to introduce any Bill on the subject, to state what secret obstacles pre vented them f rom d o i ng so. The Bishop ofLo ndon2 years ago, when he was a poor rector, stated that no one, unless devoid of humanity, would hesitate to do all in his power to put an end to such an obnoxious system ; but notwithstanding the increase of the population, they were as far from any measure of r&orm as they were 25 years ago. Mr. HUDSON said he had been repeatedly among respectable inhabitants of York to call a meeting on the subject. The inabitants were altogether adverse to in terment in the City. Lord MORPETH—As soon as I shall have succeeded in passing this Bill with respect to the health of towns, I shall feel myself b , ,und to mature and introduce a mea sure, and hope to carry it, for the prevention of burials in towns; but I must say, I shall despair of carrying this measure if you do not at once go into Committee upon it. Mr. WAKLEY said the subject was most pertinent to that of the health of towns, and strongly urged upon th• Noble Lord to Jose no time in bringing forward a measure to prevent interments in crowded towns. Mr. HORS MAN protested against the statement of the Noble Lord, that he wished to obstruct the business of the House. This be considered was the most im portant part of the whole subject of sanatory improve ment, and he could not but think it strange that provi sions with respect to it had not been inserted in the Bill. Lord MORPETH had no intention of addressing the lion. Gentleman in an uncourteous manner, but the rea son why he did not deal with the subject of burials at present was, the physical difficulties which he found in his way. Mr. MACKINNON trusted the Noble Lord would redeem the pledge he had given—that as soon as he had passed the present measure, he would bring for ward, next session, a measure for the regulation of burials in towns—and that being the case, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be proceeded with, After a few words from Mr. P. BORTHWICK, Mr. HENLEY objected to the Nobie Lord charging them with delaying the progress of the Bill. Hon. Members only adopted the course which was legitimately open to them, in calling attention to subjects that ap peared to them of importance. The House then resolved itself into Committee. Upon clause $ being proposed, Mr. SPOONER proposed a verbal amendment, with respect to the propriety of the notices referred to in the clause being posted up on all the churches. After some di , cussion, Lord MORPETH said he had no objection to insert the words " on the door of one or more churches." The clause. so amended, was then agreed to. Colonel SIBTHORP would like very much to know what sort of persons these inspectors wei e to be, and. what salaries they were to hise ; for, as the duties they were to discharge were of an inquisitorial character, the public should have the information he required. If the Noble Lord refused to give him a satisfactory answer, he would repeat the question at every clause till they came to the 59th—(Laughter)—but he hoped he - would not give him that trouble.—(Hear, hear.) Lord MORPETH hoped the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman—(Laughter)—the Hon. and Gallant Member would not ask him to travel over again the se.me ground he did last night when he replied to that question. Ho then said that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury would fix the salary when they were aware of the amount of duty the inspectors would have to discharge, and he could not say till then what amount they would think sufficient remuneration for the services to be performed. The Hun. Gentleman talked of 100 inspectors being appointed, but he had already stated that he did not think more than half a dozen at the utmost would be requirc d. Clause 9 was agreed to, the words from " or," in line 19 to line 21, being left out. Clause 10 was agreed to. On clause 11, Mr. HENLEY objected to that part of the clause pro viding that the offices of the town clerks should be open for one month, for the inspection of the plans, without remuneration. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the clause, and said that the admission of the principle laid down by the Hon. Gentleman would lead to the greatest abuses. After some discussion the clause was agreed to. On clause 12 being proposed, Mr. SPOONER moved as an amendment that the Act should only be extended to such towns as really re quired it, whether under the management of a corpora tion or not. He should propose that only in cases where three-fourths of the rate-payers of any town petitioned that they should be included in the operation of the Bill, the measure should extend to them. Lord MORPETH said that this subject had been very gravely considered by the Government, and they, taking into consideration the many interests at work in towns, determined that this Bill should extend to all. He could not, therefore, think of altering the clause to meet the wishes of the Hon. Member for Birmingham. Mr. HENLEY said that the Noble Lord was running counter to the opinions he had always promulgated, that the subjects of this country should have the right of choosing their own representatives. Now he said that these towns were not fitted to choose their rulers for themselves. Mr. AGLIONBY said that while he fully agreed in what had been said by the Hon. Member for Oxford shire, he, at the same time, did not agree with him— (Laughter)—because he believed that in every town there were parties at the head of those towns who were not prepared to take such care of the health and come torts of the inhabitants as the Government would. After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. J. COLLETT wished to know if this Bill was intended to extend to Wales, because he saw by the title that it was designed for England. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that all legal documents which stated in the title that they were for England were understood to include Wales also ; and, therefore, the Hon. Member would not again, when scanning an Act of Parliament, require to be informed upon this point.—(Laughter.) While he was upon his legs he might say that this amendment of the Hon. Member for Birmingham was altogether without precedent. Great privileges had been conferred upon towns on the simple petition of the inhabitants, but the idea of rate payers was altogether a novel one. Mr. SPOONER suggested that the amendment could be very easily altered to the inhabitant hoeseholders, and that perhaps would obviate the legal scruples of the Learned At t orney-General. Mr. WAKLEY said this Bill was intended particu larly for the poor, but if the householders were only to be taken into consideration, the Bill would not reach the classes under them at all. Colonel SIBT1I0111? said that he opposed the Bill. I le had no doubt there were many filthy places in Fins bury—(Laughter)—and the Hon. Member was, per haps, milt in advocating it. ; but they required nothing of the kind in Lincoln.—(L-ud laughter.) The Hon. Member for Finsbury laughed ; if the people of Lin coin were mustered and compared with the people of Finsbury—(Roars of laughter)— not only would they be found cleaner than them—(Laughter)—but no cleaner people would be found to exist.—(Laughter.) The House then divided, when there appeared — For the amendment For the original clause Mejerity tor the original clause -46 The clause was then agreed to. On cleuse 13 being proposed, which excluded any place within ten miles of St. Paul's, Mr.I)UGDALE said that if supported by any Mem ber of the House, he should move that this clause be expunged. Mr. REDHEAD YORKE supported the last speaker. Mr. KEMBLE said that if it were moved that this clause be expunged, the Bill would never pass (Laughter)—he meant not pass this session —(Con tinued laughter)—and therefore he should support the retention of this clause. Mr. HUDSON could not understand why one of the Members, connected in some degree with the metropoli tan district, should vote for this clause. He thought it came with a very bad grace from him.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Fever abounded in London, and yet London was to be excluded from the operation of this Bill. Fever did not abound in York, and York was to be included. The Bill would be unjust to one portion of the kingdom and partial to another, and its ultimate effect would be to stultify itself. After a few words from Alderman HiIsrPHERT, and in answer to two questions from Mr. SpooNER, Lord MORPETH said that he had extended the cir cuit around the metropolis from four to ten miles, in order that the waters which had their springs generally speaking, at nine and ten miles off, might be included ; and the answer to the second question was, that he could not include London, because he had been informed from every quarter that, if he wished to do anything at all, he must exclude the city of London. The very association which had taken the greatest interest in all matters cot templated by this Bill, had waited upon him when he had framed his Bill, to include the city of Lon don, and bad said that in trying to get all he would lose all. Fur these reasons he was induced to exclude the city of London from the operation of the Bill. Mr. ROEBUCK said his Hon. Friend made him (Al derman(Laugh t e l r l ) u — ni apn d t he ry h ) e grepresentht Hon. one Secretaryr a t ceoprppoo,ria opposite (r. Hudson) represented another large association n.Gentl Laughter)—but the Right H en s corporat i on was was rather smeller than the corporat ion of the H on Member beside him.—(Roars of laughter., induced by ,tn po the rather pointed allus ion to the corpulency of both the Hon. Members.) He ,i howeve r ,neither, but trust to r that oratn he Noble Lord would pa., attention his own good sense , and taking what he could get now , would, at the fir st o pp ortunity, introduce a special Act f or London, whic h would have the effect of improving trust t e too d n e its sanatory condition. A f ter some observations from Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr. VVILLIANs, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that Hon. Members a rgued as if it were proposed to exclude London from all sanatory measures. Their object was to give a mea sure to the rest of the country, and to bring in a Bill for the City of London in the next session of Parlia ment. They had not included London, because the insertion of clauses affecting the metropolis w' uld only lead to further discussion, which would defeat this Bill altogether, and he was sure that the Hon. Gentle men opposite, if their zeal for sanatory improvements was any criterion, would be extremely sorry if this were the result. Mr. WAKLEY said that he intended to vote for the expulsion of this clause, and he believed that all his constituents were agreed with him. The opposition did not arise from the metropolis, but from the city of London alone.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hudson.) He might be allowed professionally to observe eto nt would Hon. M e ember for Sunderland that his t. asxcaidevice without do him no good.—(Laughter.) I d t ni ph v e would add to it a fee—(Continued laughter) — by informing his Right H on. Friend that if he did not take care, he (Mr. Wakley) as c oroner, and the Righ t Hon. Gentleman , m i g ht be ye t better acquainted. Some further discussion took p l ace , in which Mr. RT ok art H ENLE Y and Viscount EWpo s cleared, and the House divided, when The gallery ea there appeared — For the amendment For the original clause Majority for the clause ---42 The clause was then agreed to. On clause 14 being proposed, Mr. P. BORTHWICK objected that the clause, taken in connexion with the preceding one, was not easily understood. It was, in tact, capable of two meanings, and would, if not amended, give lull employment to legal rntletnen in another place. Lord MORPETH said that he should consult with his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General, and if the clause should bear such conetruution, as the Hon. Member for Evesham seemed to ascribe to it, be would amend it. Mr. P. BORTHWICK—I have not another word to say. The clause was then agreed to. ise Of ;t oi l a the rat es. ;es." '"i ~. . ;, ~ .