The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-07 00:00:00

THEE SUN, LONDON, WEDIsTESDAY EVENING, MARCH 7, 1849.

IMPERIAL P ARLIAMEN T,

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 6.

-- -
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Fivo o'clock.
COMMONS INCLOSURE BILL.
This Bill passed throuuli Committ(e.
DUBLIN SAVINGS' BANK.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the
depositors in the St. Peter's Dublin Savings' Bank, com-
plaining of the losses to which they had been subjected
iu consequence of the conduct of the directors and the
negligence of the Government. The Noble and Learned
Lord urged the necessity of making some compensation
to these unfortunate sufferers.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said that the whole sub-
ject of savings' banks' management would ere long be
brought under the notice of the House.
The Marquis of LANSDO WNE defended the officers
of the Government from the charge of negligence; he
admitted the hardship of the present case, hut was not
prepared to say that the Treasury could recommend any
compensation should be granted.
The subject then dronp,,d.
PETITIONS.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition in
favour of some measure for the prevention of the seduc-

Lion of females.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions in
favour of the navigation-laws, of the ( qualizltion of
duties, and of the repeal of taxes pressing on agriculture.
The Earl of LUCAN presented a petition from a
board of guardians in Ireland against either a union or a
national poor-rate.
Earl FORTESCUE presented a petition from Sid-
mouth in favour of an alteration of the law of settle-
ment, and of the substitution of a national for a local
poor-rate.
The Earl of RODEN presented a petition from the
grand jury of the county of Louth against the imposi-
tion of a rate in aid in Ireland. The proposal of this
rate in aid was most unjust, and its imposition would
tend to alienate the affections of her Majesty's loyal
subjects in Ireland. He would not have objected to the
imposition of a property-tax, but he did object to this
rate in aid. _ _

The Earl of WICKLOW viewed with horror the
measure against which the petitioners had protested,
and implored th Ministers to reconsider the
matter before they went too far. lie did not
object to the imnosition of an additional burden
on Ireland, although he did not admit that Ire•
land was not taxed i❑ proportion to her means, but he
thought that burden might be imposed in a manner less
obnoxious than that proposed by the Govern-
ment. He had desired originally that the property tax
should be extended to Ireland, bec tuse ho knew
that Ireland would 102 the suiferer ultimately by the
exemption. There could not be a doubt but that
when the income-tax should be renewed for England, it
would be extended to Ireland; and why should it not be
extended now, and appropriated for the next two )e irs
to the relief of the poor? He would propose that the
sums lent from the unions should, if repaid within two
years, be devoted to the purpose for which it was
proposed to raise this rate in aid. He had no
doubt but that the money would be raised
at once, and he hoped the Government would adopt one
or other of them. He objected to the rate o❑ principle,
and if it were but a penny he should object to it equally,
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
SICILY.

Lord STANLEY, in putttng the question, of which
he had given notice, would abstain from any obser-
vations on the events which had taken place in
Sicily during the last twelve months. He would assume
that through the intervention of the British admirals
an armistice had been enforced between the King of
the Two Sicilies, our a'ly on the one side, and the Pro-
visional Government of the insurgents in Sicily, on the
other. This armistice was of great advantage to the
Sicilians, inasmuch as it gave them an opportu-
nity of purchashing arms and paying for them by forced
contributions levied on the wealthier inhabitants who ad-
hered with unflinching loyalty to the King. He had
been informed that a contractor who had contracted to
supply arms to the Sicilians had also entered into a con-
tract to supply arms to the British Government, and
he had been informed that, being unable to per-
form his contract with Sicily, he had applied
to the Ordnance for permission to withdraw
certain arm. from the Government stores to which they
had been supplied by the contractor, in order to enable
him to complete his contract with the Sicilian Govern-
ment. The Ordnance demurred until the sanction
of the Executive Government should be obtained,
and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
authorised such withdrawal. This he consi-

dered a proceeding of a very questionable
character, and, in his judgment, not consistent with the
maintenance of strict and impartial neutrality.—(hear,
hear.) his wished to ask the Noble Marquis whether
the facts were has he had stated them. He should re-
joice to find that he was mistaken. He should reserve
any expression of opinion as to this transaction to the
period which could not be far distant, tor, on the receipt
of the answer of the King of the Two Sicilies to the ul-
timatum sent from this country, the negotiations would
be brought to a close, and there would then be no obj.•c-
Lion, he conceived, to lay before their Lordships all the
materials necessary for a full discussion of the whole
subject.—(Hear, hear.)
The Mar(Fis of LANSDOWNB—The matter alluded
to by the Noble Lord lies within a very narrow compass.
Unquestionably there is a foundation for the question
which the Noble Lord has asked, and lam now

extremely glad to have an opportunity of
stating all the circumstances. A contractor who
had been habitually a contractor in the service of her
Majesty's Government, did in the autumn of
last year (I believe previous to the armistice) make an
application to the Board of Ordnance, for the purpose
of being allowed to take back certain guns which he
had make for her Majesty's service, to enable him to
fulfil another contract for the use of the Sicilian Go-
vernment at that time.—(Hear, hear.) The Board of
ordnance did make some application on the subject to
the Foreign Department, and unfortunately it did re-
ceive from the Foreign Department instructions to afford
facility to the contractor, and did allow him to take back
those guns. lam ready to say, that when this transac-
tion came to be considered by her Majesty's Govern-
ment, although they did not believe that it amounted to
any direct interference in the contest going on between
Naples and Sicily, yet that it was liable to misconception
and might be considered a direct interference; and,
therefore, it was the deliberate opinion of her Majesty's
Government that it was a matter of regret that that per-
mission had not been withheld—(Hear)--and acting
according to that line of duty which should al-
ways be observed, and especially between two powers
like England and Naples—the latter being comparatively
a less power, it was felt that this country should be be-
forehand in tendering satisfaction, and at the commence-
ment of the present year Mr. Temple was instructed to
explain the nature, and the (whole amount and extent
of the transaction, and to add that it had occurred
through inadvertence, and that measures would be taken
for the future to prevent the recurrence of any such
inadvertence.—(Hear.)
Lord BROUGHAII said that his Noble Friend had
mentioned the Sicilian Government. He must mean the
insurgents in Italy.—(Hear.)
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—I meant the Go-
vernment de facto existing in Sicily.
Lord BROUGHAM—you can no more call that a
Sicilian Government than you can call Mr. Smith
O'Brien and his committee the English Government.—
(" Hear, hear," and laughter.)
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH would not enter into
the discussion of the general question, although he had
a strong
feeling as to the obligations incurred by Eng-
land with regard to Sicily in 1813. They had a consti-
tution before 1813, in respect of which they stood
much in the same position as England stood to
its constitution before William 111. The consti
tution of 1813 was guaranteed by Great Britain. In
1816 the constitution was reconstructed, Sicily was
united to Naples, and their constitution was destroyed.
The Sicilians were now in arms for that constitu-
tion. They were insurgents, as the Barons of England
were insurgents against King John—as the people of
England were insurgents against James 11. They were
in arms to recover their constitution, and when that
matter came to be debated, he trusted that the decision
would be such as to maintain the honour of the country.
The Earl of ABERDEEN thought we had nothing to
do with the cause for which the Sicilians were in arms.
If we had given guarantees to them we should support
them, but if we had not it was disgraceful not to observe
a strict neutrality. With regard to the transaction
which had given rise to this discussion, he should not,
after the explanation of the Noble Marquis, pursue the
subject further.
The Duke of WELLINGTONisaid the King of the
Two Sicilies assumed the title iu virtue of the treaty of
Vienna, and that the union of' the two king-
doms took place in virtue of that treaty, alai
that treaty the Government of this country was
bound. The Government was not bound to
enforce the execution of the treaty upon others, but it
was bound itself not to depart from the letter of the
treaty, and he hoped no step had been taken by this
country which could be construed into a breach of the
articles of that treaty.
The Earl of MINTO said that though he had endea-
voured, and had been most anxious, to effect an accom-
modation of the differences between the King of Naples
and his Sicilian subjects, and to maintain the union
between the two Crowns, he never consented to treat
the Sicilians as a people in open rebellion against their
lawful sovereign; but, on the contrary, he had always
considered them as having engaged in the assertion of
rights for which, at least, a very meritorious case had
been made out.
Lord BROUGHAM said he thought the Noble Lord
who had just spoken had either forgotten to look over
the treaty of Vienna lately, or else seemed to con,ider it
as having no bearing on the question. If the Noble Eerl
had not a copy of the treaty, be should be happy to
send him one, and would earnestly recommend him to
examine the papers on the question before the discussion
came on.
The Earl of MINTO said he was perfectly acquainted
with the contents of the treaty of Vienna; but the 104th
act of it, which most related to the present:question, only
provided for the restoration to the King of the Sicilie s
his Neapolitan dominions, and recognised his title as King
of the Two Sicilies.
The subject then droppod.
IRISLI PRISONS,
Lord MONTEAGLE moved for Irish criminal re-
turns, and for returns showing the mortality in the pH-
sons of Ireland, during each of the last five years. The
Noble Lore?, in speaking., of the iecrease of crime which
had recently been observed in Ireland, said that although
a great portion of it was no doubt attributable to the
augmentation of distress and indigence, a very injurious
effect had been had upon it by certain measures, to say
the least of them, of a very doubtful policy. He meant
the abolition of the punishment of transportation, without