The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-23 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(LAST NIGHT.)

Lord KILLEEN took the oaths and his seat for the
county of Meath.
The SPEAKER announced that he had received from
the Hanaper Office, Dublin, a petition against the return
of Lord George Beresford for the county of Waterford.—
Ordered to be taken into consideration on the 27th of
Apri'.
Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from Paisley,
against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter.
Referred to the Committee.

Mr. HUME moved for returns relating to Superannua-
tions granted to persons connected with the Lottery Office.
—Ordered.
Also, for an account of the number of ships which
hive passed the Sound during the years 1827, 28, and 29.
—Ordered.
Also, various returns relating to the importation of corn
during the past year, and of the amount of revenue de-
rived from the importation of corn since the passing of the
present Corn Laws.—Ordered.
Also, for various returns relating to the appointments
to the army during the past year, and of the officers in
the different services who have been allowed to sell their
commissions, and of all pensions and superannuated allow-
ances granted. —Ordered.
Mr. I-H.151E presented a petition from a town in S,.:ot-
land, in favour of a free trade to India.
Sir T. GOOCII presented a petition from the Hundred
of Gosport, praying for a repeal of the malt tax.
.31r- C. I3ARCLAY said he would take that opportu-
nity to set himself right with the House and the public,
respecting, the observations he had made on the announce-
ment by his Right Hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, of his intention to propose the repeal of the
duty on beer. He then said that lie considered the repeal
of the duty a great tenefit to the brewer and the public :
and though he then only expressed his own opinion, lie
bad since found that many other persons in the trade con-
curred in it. An opinion had since gone abroad, that be-
cause he bad not taken that occasion of stating the injury
that would arise to the publicans froze: having the retail
trade thrown open, he was sacrificing their interests. The
House would recollect, that he had on a former occasion
stated the injury that would arise to the property of the
publican from such an unlimited extension of the trade;
and those gentlemen who were on the Committee also
knew that he had not been unmindful of tke interests and
just rights of the publicans, on whom the propnaed ex-
tension of the trade would bring a heavy loss, and who
would certainly be hardly used, and have much reason to
complain, if their interests were not protected ; but he
had also a duty to perform to the public, and he would
perform it faithfully, as he had hitherto done, whatever
threats might be held out. He did not think the mistaken
opinion that appeared to exist respecting his conduct would
have been formed, but for the misapprehensions or misrepre-
sentations of the public press. In the Morning Adver-
tiser of Friday last, a paper that was in great circulation,
he was accused of having combined with the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to open the retail trade, and of having
abaualled the interests of the publicans to promote the in-

terests of the brewers. He had never abandoned the in-
terests of the publicans, but would be happy to co-operate
for the introduction of regulations into the Bill for their
protection and benefit. The Morning Advertiser ap-
peared to threaten him with the consequences of his sup-
porting the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer;
but such arguments were net likely to have any influence
on his conduct ; though he hoped he was perfectly open to
conviction from arguments addressed to the reason. He
had said that the repeal of the beer duties would be so
great a benefit to the brewers that, in consideration of it,
they ought to be content to pay the forfeit in the diminu-
tion of the value of the securities they may hold. He could
not but feel and lament that the measure of throwing open
the trade would be injurious to publicans, bath in town
and country ; but he would do every thing in his power to
lessen the amount of injury, by regulations in the Bill ; and
he was confident the publicans, whose interests he had
never deserted, would find him a better supporter of their
interests, in conjunction with the public benefit, than those
by whom his conduct had been condemned.

• Mr. BENETT asked whether all the beer on hand on
the 10th of October next was to pay duty? If so, the
regulation would entirely suspend the sales of old barley
for the purpose of malting.
Mr. N. CALVERT expressed his hope that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would be induced to carry one of
his measures without the other, and that the trade in beer
would be left as it was.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that

if he took off the duty on beer without giving freedom to
the sale of that article, he should not be relieving that class
whom he wished to relieve, but should be putting the
money into the pockets of those who carried on the trade.
He should not be driven from his own reason and judg-
ment by what he believed to be the exaggerated alarms of
the retail dealers in beer.

BENETT and Mr. CALVERT explained.
Lrrd ALTHORP hoped that the Right Hon. Gentleman
would not allow himself to be driven from his measures as
he had explained them to the House.---(Hear.)—lf the
trade in beer were not thrown open, he hoped the duty
would be taken off malt, and not beer.

The petition was ordered to be printed.
Sir T. GOOCH presented a petition from a parish in
Suffolk, complaining of agricultural distress.—Ordered to
be printed.
Lord STANLEY presented petitions from Chorley, in
Lancashire, praying that the House would open the trade
with China.—Referred to the Committee.

Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Rochdale,
praying fur the abolition of the punishment of death for
crimes against property.—Ordered to be printed.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition signed by 13,000
persons, and agreed to at a meeting regularly convened by
the town authorities of Manchester, complaining of dis-
tress, which the petitioners described as being unexampled.
The Noble Lord said that he could not agree in the opinion
that the distress was so great as that, but it was undoubt-
edly very severe. When the debate, now in abeyance,
came before them to-morrow night, he should vote both
against the motion of the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury,
and the amendment, because he thought it calculated not to
afford relief, but to create delusion.
Sir G. PHILLIPS said that the petitioners looked to
relief from economy in the public establishments, and the
putting an end to monopolies, and particularly the mono-
poly of the trade with China.
Lord STANLEY said that the petition had been agreed
to three weeks back, and he was glad to say that since
that all the information he had received represented the
state of Manchester to be gradually improving.
The petition was ordered to he printed.
Mr. WODEHOUSE moved for returns of Accounts re-
ceived at the Foreign Office from his Majesty's Consuls
abroad, relative to the prices of foreign corn in 1829.
Ordered.

Mr. SYKES postponed his motion, which stood for
to-morrow, on account of the long-pending debate on the
distress of the country, which seemed likely to survive
that distress itself.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
Sir A. CAMPBELL presented two petitions from Perth
against renewing the Charter of the East India Company.

—Referred to the Committee.
Sir J. GRAHAM presented a petition from a parish in
Cumberland, complaining of distress.
Also a petition from the Hibernia Mining Company,
praying for a duty on Foreign Lead.—Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. F. LEWIS presented a petition from the county of
Radnor, against the alteration of the Welch Judicature.—
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice of a motion for to-
morrow, upon the subject of two individuals having been
tried twice for the same offence in Van Diemen's Land.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from two per-
sons relating to the Pig-market in Dublin.

After a few words from Mr. G. MooRE, Lord L.
GowER, and Mr. OCONNELL, the petition was ordered to
be printed.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from an indi-
vidual, complaing of the state of the Coal Trade in Dublin.
Mr. G. MOORE defended the system under which the
trade was regulated.—Ordered to be printed.
The same lion. MEMBER presented a petition from
John Boyle, complaining of the impediments thrown in
the way of Freeholders ; one from a parish in the county
of Waterford, against the Vestry and Subletting Acts;
and one from the parish of Dysart, in the same county,
against the same Acts. He also presented a petition from
a parish in the county of Meath, complaining of the in-
conveniences they suffered from the union of the parish
with another.

The same Hon. MEMBER presented a petition from the
Borough of Athlone, praying for an alteration in the elec-
tive franchise of that Borough.—Ordered to be printed.
The lion. MEMBER presented a petition from the
Apothecaries of the county of Clare, against the present
mode of management by the Corporation of Apothecaries
of Dublin ; one from a parish in the county of Carlow,
against the Grant to the Kildare-street Society ; and a
petition from various parishes in Dublin, praying for the
restoration of the Forty-shilling Franchise.—Ordered to
be printed.
The eame Hon. MEMBER presented a petition from
Drogheda praying for a repeal of the Union, and complain-
ing that none of the benefits promised from that measure
had been realized. . _

Mr. VAN HOMRIGH defended the Corporation of
Dublin against a statement made upon a previous night
by the Member for Clare. Is was not, he said, true, as
stated by the Hon. ;Member, that the funds at the disposal
of the Corporation for charitable purposes was 20,0001. a
year. The utmost amount he believed was 2,0001., and
no funds could be better managed.
Sir C. WETHERELL doubted whether precedent would
sanction such a petition as this. He believed there was no
instance of a petition for the dissolution of the Union with
Scotland presented by a Scotch Member. Before his mind
was made up, he should like to have the sense of the House
upon the question whether it could be received.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY said there was no Parliamentary
precedent against receiving such a petition. The House
need not act upon such a petition; indeed he should be sorry
if they did; but he saw no reason why it should not be re-
ceived.
Mr. MOORE was authorized to state that what was put
forward by the Member for Clare, with respect to the funds
of the Corporation of Drogheda, was entirely without foun-
dation.
Mr. LOCKHART doubted whether this petition could
be received. He would propose that the receiving of it be
postponed, that time might be given to look for precedents.
In a matter so Ready affecting the Crown, and tending to
a separation of two branches of the Crown, such petitions
should be previously sanctioned by the Crown.
Mr. Secretary PEEL was not surprised at the doubts
which arose upon the point of receiving the petition. He
would take that opportunity of protesting most strongly
against so mad and absurd a project—so utterly destructive
of the interests of Ireland itself, as the dissolution of the
legislative union. He doubted, however, whether it would
be advisable in this case to depart from the usage of the
House, in ieceiving all petitions respectfully worded. The
petitioners did not pray for a dismemberment of the Empire,
because, even if the Union should be repealed, Ireland, as it
was previous to that measure, would still form part of the
dominions of the Crown, though with an independent Le-
gislature. It was certainly competent to Parliament to re-
peal the Union, and he therefore doubted whether they
could refuse the petition. lie could not, however, find
terms strong enough to condemn the agitation of such a
question.
He regretted much that persons could be found
eapabL2 of lending themselves to the mischievous purpose of
disturbing qt.?. minds and exciting the hopes of ignorant
men by such discusiions., The free admission of the natives
of Ireland into the Legislature, and into all the situations of
the State ; the frien sly intercourse, alike beneficial to both
countries, which now existed ; the measure of last .7.a"es.;ion,
the good etiects of which begin to be so sensibly felt, ought
to prevent the agitation of such a question, and he could not
find language strong enough to expt-,ess his condemnation of it.
Mr. O'CONNELL regretted that the petition he pre-
sented the other night front Drogheda, was mixed up with
this other petition. He would express no opinion on the
subject of a Union, but he denied that he was the enemy of
Ireland or England who was friendly to a repeal of the
Union.lreland prospered' and was rapidly advancing in
manufactures and agriculture, under her native legislature,
and the certainly wSs taut bettered by the Union, He

trusted the connection between the countries would subsist
for ever, but he thought it would be for the advantage
of both, if, like the Canadas, Ireland bad an independent
Legislature.
Sir C. WETHERELL said, the contract of the Union
was one entered into by two independent nations, upon
principles of honour and mutual advantage. In his opi.
nion, a di,solution of the Union would be treason to the
interests of both nations. Let the Member for Clare
bring in his Bill to repeal it, and see how it would be re-
ceived. He disapproved of this subterraneous, this sly,
slippery mode of introducing a subject of such importance.
It appeared to him inconsistent with the privileges of the
House to receive a petitiou on a subject with respect
to which no Hon. Member would move for leave to bring
in a Bill.

Mr. BERNAL said, if it was tretsonab!e to propose
such a petition, the course of his Hon. and Learned Friend
should oe to move an impeachment of the person who
offered it to the House. If Parliament was competent
to repeal the Union, he did not see how they could refuse
this petition.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could see no objection
to receiving the petition. It was competent to any Mem-
ber to present a petition for the establishment of the feudal
system. Though they may not concur in the petition, it
was no reason why they should refuse to receive it.
Mr. HOBHOUSE spoke in favour of receiving the pe-
tition.

Mr. TRANT had some doubt upon the subject. Let
those who proposed a repeal of the Union take care that
others did not propose a repeal of the measure of last ses-
sion. The majority of the population of Ireland were
Roman Catholics, and if the Union were repealed, the
Protestants would be placed entirely at their mercy.
Sir J. NEWPORT regretted that the subject of the
Union was introduced at all. Whatever might have been
his opinion originally of the measure, the repeal of it now
must be productive of the worst consequences to both coun-
tries. The measure of last year produced the best effects,
and he deprecated any proceedings that had a tendency to
prevent it from producing all its beneficial consequences.—

(Har.)
Mr. PORTMAN hoped the House would not adjourn
this petition, as it might lead to a temporary doubt as to
the propriety of receiving it.
Mr. BROWNLOW said if there was a general senti-
ment in Ireland, in favour of the repeal of the Union, it
would only be strengthened by rejecting this petition. His
conviction was that the national sentiment of all classes in
Ireland was favourable to the Union, and the Member for
Clare would find that he embarked in a vain speculation if
he endeavoured to sow dissention upon this subject in Ire-
land. He trusted this was the last time they should hear
of any petitions upon it.
Mr. HUME spoke in favour of receiving the petition.
If it was refused, it would strike at the root of the right of
petition. No man was more anxious than himself to con-
solidate the Union, but he did not think the Right Hon.
Secretary was justified in reprehending the petitioners for
expressing their sentiments.
Mr. Secretary PEEL did not reprehend individuals for
expressing their sentiments. What he reprobated was the
doctrine held out by the petitioners. He should suspect
the petition was got up at a convivial meeting, for he saw
subscribed to it the names of Paddy Bray and Billy Pow-
derly.
Mr. O'CONNELL said these persons were registered
freeholders of Drogheda. _

Mr. LOCKHART said there were cases in which peti-
tions could not he presented without the consent of the
Crown. His only object in proposing an adjournment was
to ascertain whether this case was one of that kind. He
should not press his amendment.

The petition was then read at length. On the question
that it do lie upon the table,

Mr. O'CONNELL said there was nothing insidious in
the getting up of this petition. He had nothing to do with
it, but being put into his hands he thought it his duty to
present it, and in doing so he expressed no opinion. He
never wished to legislate upon sectarian principles. Even
if the Union were repealed it would place 156 Protestant
Peers in the Upper House and only six Catholics. This
must obviate the danger which the Hon. Member (Mr.
Trant) apprehended. Nothing should ever prevent him
from looking for what he considered beneficial to Ireland
and not injurious to England.
The petition was ordered to lie upon the table.
Mr. BYNG presented a petition from certain inhabi-
tants of Paddington against the Watching and Lighting
Bill.—Referred to the Committee on the Bill.

Lord ALTHORP presented a petition from certain
parishes i❑ the county of Northampton, complaining of
distress.—Laid on the table.

Lord F. L. GOWER brought in a Bill for the better
regulating linen manufactures in Ireland, which was read,
and ordered to he read a second time on Thursday next.
Sir J NEWPORT wished to know what was the
intention of Government relative to the growth of tobacco
in Ireland.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was the intention of Government to propose a duty on
tobacco grown in Ireland, and lie hoped very shortly to be
able to speak more fully upon the subject.
Mr. HUME wished to know when the remainder of the
Deccan prize money would be distributed, as great anxiety
prevailed upon the subject.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT said that in 1826 a large distribu-
tion had taken place, but upon the subject being in that
year referred to the Treasury, it was found necessary to
refer the prize list to India for further information. Above
800,0001. had been distributed, and as it was found that
several of the natives of India had considerable claims,
delay became a matter of necessity. In the course of two
or three months the case would be more fully heard by the
King in Council, when a further distribution would take
place. He need only add that the money not distributed
was at present i❑ the Bank of India at Calcutta at five per
cent., in which state it would remain till its final distribu-
tion. The East India Company had acted in the most
liberal manner.
Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from the So-
ciety of Quakers in Ireland, praying that the crime of
forgery should not he punished with death. There was
no class of men whose petition deserved greater considera-
tion, although he could not go the length of fully support-
ing its prayer.
Mr. LENNARD was sorry to hear that forgery was
still to be punished with death ; that and other thefts
should be subjected to a milder punishment.
Mr. Secretary PEEL had given notice for Wednesday
upon the subject of forgery, and would then state the ex-
tent to which he was prepared to go.
Ordered to be printed.
'Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from the in-
habitants of Stroud, praying the abolition of the " Truck
System."