The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-31 00:00:00

INLAND WAREHOUSING BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDO WNE in moving the
second reading of the Inland Warehousing Bill, said
that its object was to give to towns that were not tech-
nically ports, the advantages of having bonded ware-
houses. He could not see what objection there could
be to the Bill, and he trusted that their Lordships
would agree to it, as he believed it was calculated
to effect a great deal of good. If their Lord-
ships allowed the measure to go into Committee, they
could then determine as to the towns to which this
advantage should be given. The parties that had hi-
therto enjoyed the privilege which was to be extended
by this Bill, had enjoyed it as a monopoly and he
therefore could not see what right they had to deprive
the public at large of the benefit of the warehousing
system. The Bill had been very fully considered in
the House of Commons, and had met with almost the
universal approbation of that House.
Lord ASHBURTON felt bound to object to the
second reading of the Bill, as he could not see
any benefit that would be derived by extending the
principle of bonding warehouses to inland towns. If
any benefit could be shown be should be one of the last
men to oppose the Bill. The whole object of the mea-
sure was to give to the consumer in inland towns a
longer period for the payment of the duty. He could
not see what possible advantage there could be in
making these inland warehouses in different towns, look-
ing at the rapid communication that at present existed
in the country. The strongest case that had been made
in favour of this Bill was with respect to the town of
Manchester, but there, in consequence of the establish-
ment of railroads, the merchant was as conveniently
placed, with respect to his goods, as any tradesman in
London. Considering that the revenue would be sub-
jected to great uncertainty, if the Bill became law,
he should move that it be read a second time that day
three months.

Lord BROUGHAM thought, considering the pe-
titions that had been presented by his Noble and
Learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst), praying to
be heard against the measure, that their Lordships ought
to pause before they allowed the Bill to be read a
second time. That Bill cams within the principle laid
down by him a few nights ago—it was brought up too
late for consideration, and that was a good ground fur
their rejecting it. It was brought into the House of
Commons only on the 16th inst.—was not that a good
ground for not agreeing to it ? He gave his hearty con.
currence to the motion of the Noble Lord, but on the
ground of time alone.

Lord MELBOURNE had not the experience of his
Noble Friend opposite, nor the eloquence and expe-
rience of his Noble and Learned Friend, but with all
respect to them, he considered they had not made out
a valid case against the Bill. He contended it was not
necessary to make out a case of a great grievance for
such a Bill—if they showed that it would be for the
benefit of the trade of the country, then they
had made a strong enough case.—( Hear, hear.)
For instance, in the case of Nottingham, it was
almost in the centre of the island, why should the
people there be obliged to go to the sea ports for all the
goods they wanted ? Surely it would be a great [accom-
modation to them to have them on the spot, and so the
same held good with all inland towns. He denied that
the sea ports had obtained any rested interest in ware-
housing. Such a doctrine would put an end to all im-
provement. The privilege was sought for by a great
number of towns, and it would confer a great benefit
upon the commerce of the country. It had passed
through the other House with a large majority,
and though he did not lay so much stress upon that as
his Noble and Learned Friend, for he thought that
Bills which were sent up by a large majority might be
properly rejected by their Lordships ;so on the other
hand he thought that some passed by even a majority
of two ought and might beneficially to pass that
House.—(A laugh.) He would certainly give his vote
in favour of the Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM said he had not spoken of
vested interest, except so far as it gave the parties a
right to be heard.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The
House divided, when there appeared—

For the Bill, Contents
Non-Contents 4B
Majority against the Bill lO
The Sheriffs Exemption Bill went through Committee
without amendment.

The Imprisonment for Debt Act Amendment Bill,
and the Bankrupts Estate (Scotland) Bill were read a
third time and passed.
The House then adjourned till Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Juzr 30.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. BLOUNT took the oaths and his seat as Member
for Totnes.

[lt will be remembered that a double return was made
from this Borough ; the numbers on the poll being
equal; on inquiry we find that the rule in such
i cases s, that the first corner of the two candidates shall
be sworn in as Member, but he cannot vote till the va-
lidity of the election has been determined on.]
On the motion of Captain PECHELL the Brigh-
ton Cemetery Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the Lords'
Amendments to the Newark, Belper, and Oldham,
Small Debts Bill were agreed to.
Sir E ARD LEY W ILMOT presented a petition from
the stationers and paper manufacturers of Birthingham,
praying that in any scheme for the introduction of a
penny postage their interests might be attended to.
CHURCH-RATES (LAMBETH).
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from G. W.
Webb and Apsley Pellatt, inhabitants of the parish of
Christchurch, Surrey, stating that the petitioners are
Protestant Dissenters, and conscientiously object
to forced contributions for the support of the Established
Church—that a rate was ordered to be levied for the
support of the parish church in the parish of Christ-
church, Surrey, which the petitioners had refused to pay,
that they were cited in the Ecclesiastical Court, and
the expenses amounted to twenty times as much as the
matter in dispute, which they were compelled to pay,
and abandon further proceedings, in order to save them-
selves from ruin, and they prayed the House would take
measures to remedy this injustice.
CHURCH IN CANADA.
Mr. P KI NGTO N presented thirty petitions from
different townships in Upper Canada, stating the peti-
tioners had settled in that colony under the firm per-
suasion that they were to enjoy the benefits of the
British Constitution, a part and parcel of which was the
Established Church ; that there was no support for
that Church from tithes, which they did not wish to
see established—( Hear, hear)—but they considered
they were entitled to the same protection as the Roman
Catholics of Lower Canada, and praying that the
House would not sanction the diversion of any property
granted originally for the support of the Church to any
other purpose. Also a petition from the Chiefs and
Warriors of the ()windage and other Indian Nations,
who had been converted to Christianity by the Church
Missionaries, to the same effect. The signatures were
attested by Adam Elliott, the Missionary who had
converted, and the signatures specified the names, resi-
dences, and callings of each of the persons signing, and
also the number of persons whose opinions each Chief
represented ; and he gave notice that if early next
Se
ssion her Majesty's Government took no steps this
matter he should feel it his duty to call the attention of
the House to the frightful extent of religious destitution
existing in Canada. The Hon. Member also pre-
sented a petition from Church Staunton, in Devon,
to the same effect.

Mr. YORKE presented a petition from the Cam-
bridge Union denying the statement of the petition pre-
sented a short time since by Mr. Fielden. The petition
was ultimately withdrawn in consequence of an infor-
mality.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from an
individual in favour of the Irish Municipal Bill, and
praying that he might receive compensation under it.
He (Mr. O'Connell) would have considered the petition
of great importance and worthy the consideration of
the House, if there had been any chance of carrying
the Bill. The Hon. Member also presented a petition
from Dublin complaining of the expense of the erection
of a new gaol there.
Mr. HOPE presented a petition from the members
of the Society of Briti,h Artists, stating that in place of
deriving considerable profit from the Institution, they
had expended considerable sums upon it, and complain-
ing that the whole of the privileges belonging to the
National Gallery had been entrusted to a private and
irresponsible body.
Mr. A. YATES moved for a return of all applications
made for military in aid of the civil force in Ireland since
the Ist of January.—OrdMertd.
JAAICA.

his Hon. Friend the Under
in his place, begged to ask
question the answer to which must be of very
him a
siderable Importance to the people of this country.
SecA/riert.aßryEfoßrNtAhaLCsoeleolniges
cane had seen in a newspaper a paragraph relating to
proceedings in the island of Jamaica, in which it was
stated that there had been a meeting of the Baptist
Ministers, in which resolutions were passed, stating that
hegoeght not to be called upon to pay rent for their
g :nd it was further stated that the negroes
were o
arming themselves, and that a great number of
tcettnaers
s stands of arms had Leen purchased for them in Kingston.
He had no private letters upon the subject ; but seeing
it stated, he was anxious to know what knowledge the
Government had upon the subject.
Mr. LABOUCHERE—It was not only not the
fact that no information of that kind had been received
by the Government ; but on the contrary, all they had
received was of a totally different nature—that the
negrees were pursuing a quiet, innocent, and orderly

EVENING EDITION.

j course, and all was going on well. As re-
I yarded the meeting of the Baptists, no doubt
there lied been a meeting of them ; but the
resolutions passed were very indignant ones, that any
I doubt would have been entertained of the liability of
the negro to pay his rent, which they were most willing
to do. This view of the case was confirmed by many
private letters which he had seen.
Mr. O'CONNELL—Was the Hon. Member aware
that it was publicly stated in the Jamaica newspapers
that the people were arming ?
Mr. LABO UC HERE—The Government were not
aware of that fact.
On the motion of Mr. F. MAULE, the Lords'
amendments to the Prisons Bill, were agreed to.
One of them being against the rules of the House, but
being a very reasonable one, the Standing Orders were
suspended for the purpose.
PRINTING THE BIBLE IN SCOTLAND.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that as under the recent re-
gulations on this subject, a Secretary would be appointed
to perform certain functions, he presumed he would be
paid, and it would be satisfactory if the allowance would
be included in the annual estimates.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that it would be
included in the miscellaneous estimates.
TITHE COMMUTATION BILL.

On the motion of Mr. FOX MAULE the Tithes
Commutation Bill was read a first time.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.

On the motion of the same HON. MEMBER, this Bill
was also read a first time.
REPRESENTATION OF TOTNES.

Sir GEORGE CLERK said that at the late elec-
tion for the borough of Totnes the number of voters,
as the House was aware, was equal, and two certificates
had been returned to the House from the Clerk of the
Crown, stating the return of Mr. Blount and Mr.
Baldwin. It had been the practice at the com-
mencement of a Session to make a sessional order
that when a double return was made both Members
should withdraw until the House should declare
which was properly returned. Since 1834, that
sessional order had not been renewed, and some diffi-
culty might now exist. It was impossible that both
these Gentlemen could be allowed to take their seats,
and he, therefore, thought the safer course would be to
take the course which was pursued up to 1834. As one
of the Gentlemen had taken his seat, he had thought it
necessary to mention the circumstance to the House, to
prevent the inconvenience which might arise if he should
give any vote to-night, and would now give notice that
he should to-morrow call the attention of the House to
the subject.
PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.

Sir C. GREY, in rising to bring in a Bill for esta-
blishing throughout England annual meetings of people
in their parishes, and for securing to the industrious
classes a regular influence in the election of Members
of Parliament, said that if any one supposed he was
trifling with the House, or had not an earnest desire of
carrying it into effect, they did him great wrong. The
time was come when it was absolutely necessary that
Parliament should consider the situation and claims of
that portion of the people who had no share in the
election of Members, and he believed the circum-
stances of the age, and time had, by increasing the
intelligence, and consequently increasing the excitement
and aspirations of that class of people, made it quite
impossible that they should remain in the condition in
which they had previously subsisted without danger.
If any one suspected him of revolutionary principles,
or of rashness in adopting this motion, he would appeal
to the whole course of his life, to his known principles
of loyalty, to the situations of trust he had held
under the Crown, to his time of life and disposition, to
protect him from so injurious a suspicion. In conse-
quence of the great difficulties connected with the con-
sideration of this question, he had selected this
period of the Session for making his motion, and al-
though it might appear paradoxical, yet h., would avow
it was not his expectation—it was not his wish that the
measure should be carried into a law and completed

this Session. His main object was to call the atten-
tion of the House to the subject, and his desire wo '.
on 1d
beh
accomplishedtetable of if he
the House, and
were permitted to lay the
it
printed for future consideration. He proposed to
iconfine theto E
aogpl
ae adt! ion
because
of the
h e
nit
he aosnugrhet c tohuel d first
tried with greater safety in that part of the United
Kingdom. He hoped that would be a sufficient excuse
to these Gentlemen who represented Scotland and Ire-
land for his not extending it to their countries. He
would now state the object and details of his proposed
measure. His first object was that the people should
be enabled to hold meetings without riots, tumult,
and disorder, and tending to secure to those who
were not qualified by property to vote in the
election of Members of Parliament—not a right of vot-
ing—not Universal Suffrage, nor Household Suffrage,
but something which he hoped would satisfy the public
and produce that good, looked for by some from more
extensive and sweeping measures, namely, an influence
in the election of Members of Parliament. The right
of petition and the right of meeting to frame pe-
titions, was already established and recognised as
an undoubted part of the most valuable rights of
the people. S 3 late as Lord George Gordon's
riots there was an attempt by the then Chief Justice
of the Court of King's Bench to put a restriction on
the right of petitioning, and of assembling for the pur-
pose of petitioning, resting on the antiquated statute of
the 13th 'of Charles 11. But it was unneccessary for
him (Sir Charles) to state how that attempt
was met by that House, and in particular
by Mr. Dinning. The practice of petitioning and
meeting had since universally prevailed, and no
limit whatever could be put to the number of per-
sons who might meet for the purpose of petitioning,
or who might sign the petition they wished to present.
What he wished to propose was, that instead of meet-
ings occasionally taking place in a disorderly and tu-
multuous manner, there should be stated periods at
which it would be known the people would assemble ;
that there should be stated places, and such sub-
divisions of those meetings, that in none of them
should there be overwhelming numbers or such
as were likely to lead to confusion or tumult.
It had been said recently by the Secretary of State for
the Home Department that although the right of meet-

ing was unquestioned there existed considerable doubt
as to what constituted a legal or an illegal meeting.
The fact was there was no one criterion, nothing well
defined, no line of demarcation separating a legal from an
illegal meeting, if it were held for the purpose of peti-
tioning, and the only way of deciding was to infer from
the conduct pursued by the parties what their intentions
really were. When such a question came before a Jury for
their decision there could be little difficulty in deducing
the intentions of parties from their conduct ; but the
mischief was that instead of being drawn by a Jury after
due deliberation, these deductions had to be drawn on
the spot, in a moment, and by persons not always the
best qualified for the exercise of a cool judgment. From
these circumstances it must be admitted that this right
valuable as it was, had occasionally produced mischief.
He need only refer to the recent occurrences at Bir-
mingham, to the events at Manchester some few years
since, nay, he would go back to Lord George Gordon's
riots, to prove this assertion ; those riots had their
origin in a meeting held for the ostensible purpose
of petitioning against what was considered as a
public grievance. These evils had led before, and
were likely to lead again, to the bringing forward
by the Government of measures to restrain this im-
portant right of meeting for the purpose of petitioning ;
it had been done before in times of excitement, and
these measures had frequently been passed very hastily,
and had been denominated Coercion Bills or Gagging
Bills, and he should be exceedingly sorry to See the
present Government compelled to adopt measures of
such a nature, and he hoped measures might be brought
forward to obviate this necessity, and he knew not how
Members could more profitably employ their time
during the recess, than in considering a subject so
vitally interesting to the best interests of the people.
Having stated that his own plan was to provide that
at stated periods there should be meetings of the people
in their parishes, he begged to state that this was no
novelty. It might be startling to those who had not
considered this subject ; but one of the oldest features
of the Constitution, one that preceded the present Con-
stitution, one intimately connected with the institutions
of the Saxons, was the Court Leet or Frank Pledge.
In those times there was once a year a meeting
ipnroy:ehloefwv.h.oooaul&ld
of all persons in the district. At those meetings no
qualification was required, all persons in the district
were obliged to appear. There was no restriction upon
what they were to do or what they were to speak upon.
' De omnibus cognoscit, quamvis de omnibus non judkavit.'
He would not go through the history of the antiquities
of the Constitution of the country, but he would pass at
once to later times. At the close of the last century wheel
it was thought necessary to put restrictions upcvn
the right of meeting, an Act was passed prohibiting at iy
meeting of more than fifty persons, except meetings ,of
the people in their separate townships or parishes, and
throughout the kingdom there was reserved by that At:t
of caution and safeguard the right of holding meetinirs
in their township. He knew, therefore, of nothing
under the GOth of George 111. that would prev_earat
meetings of people all over the country on ii_elatetebaesnuhtads:msningecesods,usastilyodif
A hes
wouldto the
takeprice
th he euwaos
tueird
w e proposeckfoor f.oirt the
pure
in the meetings, and as he did nprtepthllirnde:
day,
meetings.
trymen had degenerated in the l?;reisfenneteet
not be afraid to meet in the open ,;'r
Church porch, merely as
propose that the Vestry or the tht
expense, no difficul:l,l,7l calling upon
There would be no
a sh
Parliament,elter for
or
r those
transact who wereo,e business
.0
Sheriff, or the Ma3or of a town, to appoint a place
the Lord Lieutenant of the county, the Msg:srates, the
during Easter week in winch a meeting of the whole of
should be held. It might be tasked what
I)o:proposed to himself from his motion being
agreed to. His first object was that as they were nom
-- tell the people that it for
driven to it was necessary
theav a parish.tgc
the public safety to put down all public discussion upout
public grievances, as the people saw they were now !
losing the right of publicly discussing their grievances ;I,

L 4
c_
- 72-j.
' •• t )4- A• .
1 ..,. -... '•-,-..,0-,444116 F'
: ii.., t. ,
- ' •
-..,- ,•.)-,'l-', •.' '
, •
~......._
...,..-4., .
_ :

~'
y~