The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-15 00:00:00

PILOTAGE BILL.

Their lordships then into committee onthisbill
The Earl of HARDWICK opposed the 10th clause,
and called upon the house to exempt Liverpool from the
operation of the bill, on the ground that the navigation
of the Mersey was so difficult, owing to the
changeable character of the sands and sandbanks,
that it would be dangerous to intrust a master
or mate with the pilotage of his own vessel, as
this bill proposed. There would be no objection to give
such authority to the master or mate of a coasting
vessel, but there was decided objections to extending it
to foreign-going vessels.
Lord STANLEY of Alderley op pos ed the proviso
Lord COLCHESTER supported the amendment,. be-
lieving the safety of life and property rendered it abso-
lutely necessary that Liverpool should not be included
in the bill.

[LEFT BITTING.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS. (TRIS DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 1 o'clock.
NEW WRITS.

On the motion of Mr. BUTT, a new writ was issued
for Dungarvon' in the room of Mr. Maguire, w
his election, bad accepted the Chiltern Hundred,;' since
On the motion of Mr. E. BERKELEY, a n-e
was issued for Stamford, in the room of the Right}fo—:
Mr. Jierries, who, since his election, had accepted the
Chiltern Hundreds.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the following bills were
considered and agreed to :—Banbridg
wae, Dubliarboun, N
;ewry,
and Belfast Junction Railway ;
Galy Hr Har-
wich Docks and Pier ; London and North Western and
Buckinghamshire Railways ; Saint Margaret and Saint
John the Evangelist, Westminster, Vestries ; Severn
Valley Railway ; South Wales Railw
SD
ay (eviation)
South Wales Railway (Pembroke, &c.)South Wales
Railway (Power to purchase, &c.)
Rushbrooke's Divorce and the Baron Vivian's
Estate bills were read a third time and passed.

PETITIONS.
Mr. B. WALL presented a petition from the metro-
polis in favour of opening the Crystal Palace on Sundays.
Lord D. STUART presented a petition from Maryle-
b°ne' praying the house to interfere in behalf of Edward
M
urray.

Colonel BLAIR asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether the Government had received any confir-
mation of the truth of a report, that an island, contain-
ing an almost inexhaustible supply
of guano, has been
lately discovered on the east coast of Africa, and, in the
event of the report being true, whether it was their
p
intention to take any steps that cause that article
culturists
to be obtainedmoderate price by the agri-
Mr. CARDWELL said no such information had
reached him ; but with regard to the supply guano
generally, he had been in communicatioPwlbtift,lhe Ad-
miralty on the subject, and instructions had
to the fleet in the Pacific to supply any informationteny
might receive with respect to new discoveries of guano.

METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATION.
Mr. HAMILTON asked the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty, in reference to Parliamentary Paper No. 115, of
Session 1853, and to the communication made by Lieut.
Maury to the Secretary of the -United States Navy,
and the conference suggested in the letter of the
Secretary of December 16, and of Mr. Ingersoll of
March 7, whether any such conference had yet been
held, and whether any steps had been taken with a
view to establish an uniform and accurate system of re-
cording meteorological and other observations at sea ?
Mr. CARDWELL said this subject had been brought
under the attention of both the Board of Trade and the
Admiralty, and Captain Beechy would attend the con-
ference at Brussels on behalf of the former Board.

THE CAPE.
Sir D. L. EVANS gave notice that early next session
he should call the attention of the house to the policy
which this country had pursued towards the Cape.
POSTAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SUEZ
AND BOMBAY.
Mr. GREGSON asked the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty whether her Majesty's Government had taken
any steps to improve the postal communication between
Suez, Aden, and Bombay ; and if so, when such im-
proved arrangements may be expected to take effect ?
Mr. COWPER said the steam communication in
question was in the hands of the East India Company,
who were taking steps to improve it.
BRITISH MANUFACTURES.
Mr. PELLATT wished to ask the Secretary of the
Treasury why the following British manufactures are
charged higher duties in Holland than those of other
favoured nations, viz., iron manufactures 6 per cent.,
while those of .elgium and Germany are 2 per cent. ;
hemp and linen manufactures 6 per cent., while those of
Belgium and Germany are 1 per cent. ; cotton and wool-
len manufactures 6 per cent., while those of Belgium and
Germany are 4 per cent. ; and earthenwtre 10s. per
cwt., which amounts to about 35 per cent., almost a
prohibitory duty ; and whether her Majesty's represen-
tative in Holland has remonstrated against these charges
since Parliament reduced its import duties upon butter,
cheese, eggs, and other productions of that country.
Mr. WILSON said there was a difference in the
duties, but we have not with Holland a treaty based
upon the favoured nations' clause. We had no right,
therefore, to claim to be put on the same footing as Bel-
gium. With regard to the latter part of the question,
no doubt such representations would be made by the
Foreign office.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION IN INDIA.
_ _ _

Mr. LUCAS wished to ask a question of the Presi-
dent of the Board of Control, as to the provision made
for the exercise of the Catholic religion in India, in pur-
suance of the compact of 1833, and also to the provision
hereafter to be made for the same purpose.
Sir C. WOOD agreed that the principle laid down in
1833 was that ample provision should be made for the
Roman Catholic religion in India, and he was quite pre-
pared to admit that the present provision was quite
inadequate for the purposes it was intended for. There
was no objection to increase it if it could be done.
TURKEY AND RUSSIA.

Lord J. RUSSELL said—l stated the other day
that before the prorogation of Parliament I would give
the best information I could with respect to the present
relations between Turkey and Russia. I will, there-
fore, make a short statement on that subject to-morrow,
and at the same time I will move that the house at its
riiing do adjourn until" Friday next. I understand the
house will sit at 3 o'clock to-morrow, and at that time
I will make the statement I have promised.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
The Lords' amendments to the Government of India
Bill were then taken into consideration.
On the question that the amendment relating to the
" salt duty clause" be agreed to,
Sir J. FITZGERALD objected to the amendment,
which proposed to strike out the clause repealing the
salt monopoly of the East India Company.
Mr. GREGSON said it was a most unjust and cruel
thing to impose an enormous duty on salt, which pre-
vented the natives using it with their simple food. He
hoped if the clause was not omitted the company would
take steps to reduce the duty, for he believed that a re-
duction would have the effect of increasing rather than
of diminishing the revenue.
Sir C. WOOD said as the question had already been
discussed so fully, he did not think it necessary to enter
into it again. He had never said a word in favour of
maintaining a high duty on salt ; he was the last person
to wish it, and was willing to concur in any reduction which
could be made with common prudence and caution by the
Government of India. He objected to the omission of the
clause, because it was contrary to all principle for the house
to legislate with reference to the details of the India Ad-
ministration. He, therefore, though not dissenting from
the principle of the amendment made by the House of
Commons, thought the House of Lords had acted
wisely in not agreeing to the omission of the clause.
Sir DE LACY EVANS was glad the right hon. gen-
tleman objected to the abolition of the duty on technical
grounds and not on principle, and expressed a hope
that after the vote of the House of Commons he would
recommend the Government of India to re-arrange the
tax if its maintenance should be necessary.
Mr. HADFIELD protested against the amendment of
the Lords, believing that salt was as necessary to the
natives as mother's milk, and moved that the amend-
ment be rejected.
The amendment was then put and negatived without
a division.
The amendment of the Lords respecting salt, and their
remaining amendments were then agreed to.
PETERBOROUGH ELECTION.

Mr. GASKELL brought up the report of the Clitheroe
Election Committee unseating Mr. Whalley for that
borough. The resolutions of the committee have been
already published.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
—Registrar of the Privy Council, Liberated Africans
(Sierra Leone), and Passengers' Act Amendment.
CANTERBURY ELECTION.
- -

Mr. CRAUFURD moved for an address for the
production of a paper referred to in the minutes of evi-
dence taken by the committee appointed to inquire
into the existence of corrupt practices in the city of
Canterbury, described by them (question 11, 212) to be
,‘ a paper consisting of extracts from papers which Mr.
Henry Coare Kingsford handed in," but not printed
with their report ; and also for the production of certain
other papers severally described by them as " Paper B,"
" Draft Minutes of Evidence," " Minutes of Evidence,"
" 11th January, 1853, Minutes," and " Unindorsed
paper," or " Leaf of proof," and referred to respectively
in questions 10,288, 10,292, 10,297, 10,302, 10,303,
10,306, 10,307, and 10,308, but not printed with their
report.
Mr. LOWE opposed the motion on the ground that
the document was only produced before the commission
under extraordinary powers. Parliament had given to
them discretion to publish what they thought necessary,
and as they had not published the document in question,
he did not see what object could be gained by its pro-
duction now, when the whole inquiry had terminated.
Mr. THOMSON HANKEY here took the oaths and his
seat for Peterborough, in the room of Mr. Whalley.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS supported the motion. He
thought the enquiries would be a farce if the commis-
sioners were allowed to use their discretion as to what
evidence should be published.
Mr. I. BUTT denied the right of the house to con-
trol the discretion of the commissioners.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the house ought to pre-
sume that the commissioners had rightly exercised their
discretion, and considered that it would act unwisely in
ordering the production of the document. He ad-
mitted, however, that the commissioners might have
adhered a little more closely to the general rules which
governed English courts of law. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. FRENCH supported the motion.
After a few words from Mr. HUME, the motion was
withdrawn.