The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-17 00:00:00

TB E S N, LONDON, WEDNESDAY', MARCH 17, 1841

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

draft, that the correction might be made in the letter.
if the letter bearing my sigraiure was in the re-
turn, a manifest contradiction would have appeared in
h was stated to Mr. Fennel and Mr. Bagnell;
but I solemnly declare that I had no knowledge when this
return was prepared, that that letter was not in accordance
with the draft. I ass ear there was no motive in making
these returns, but to gise as true a statement Of the case
as the tapers in our possession would enable us to do, and
I swear that it was done for the purpose-of
proving to the
House that there was no contradiction in the correspon.
deuce. The words I wrote. were for the purpose of giving
a different expression to the words used by the clerk, I
wishin g to convey
the im ression that the appointment
had been cor.firmed—l had no doubt in my mind- when the
words were inserted; they were probably inverted at the
p
time the papers rere brought forward in Bagnell's case ;
possibly they we .e not inserted until the petitions were
ordel-ed, but I have no recollection ef having inserted
them at the time the returns were ordered. The altera-
tion of the words "have hem confirmed," and the putting
the words " to be," was not done at the same time, but
long after. The alteration was made partly in
pencil, and partly in itik. The words " have
beer. confirmed" were in ink. • My first impression on look-
ing at these pal Cr, when the mstter was brought before
the House was, that the whole alteration met t have been
male at Ont 2 time, but on endeavouting to recollect
the eccurrcnces that took place two or three years
ago, it aprearcd to me possible that the alteration in
pencil and that in ink was made at the same time;; but a
stronger impression afterwards was, that the words in
pencil were subsequently written, and they may have been
written, as I sta,ed before, when tr,e correspondence with
Mr. Bagnell took place. In the letter wri.ten to Mr.
Fennell I d:d not state that what I now know was not a
correct statement, but one merely explanatory. Wo
always consider the Assistant Commissioner as virtually
conftrring when he recommends an appoiatment. I be-
lieve the answer to Mr. Fennell was a true answer. I
also believe the one to M. Bagaell to be a true answer.
(The witness then made some explanation of this state-
ment, which was Laudiale.) The letter, as sent to Mr.
Fennell, is not a true letter, but, as ccrrcetei by myself, I
consider it to be so. I consider it itiFfic eat f. r the purpo-..e.
To Lord ELLENBOROUGH—GereraIIy speaking,
it was his duty to keed a true record of all letters sent by
the Board. Many le:tera were sent out without any col ies
be;ng kept.
By the Earl ef GLENGALL—He had left out the
wends " A gentl mien, retired from business," because he
had heard that Mr. Butler-had compounded with his ere.
2itors. The return made by hial was not a tue return of
tee Report of M-. PLea,-... An the it:qui:les made re-
spa the polit'e,.l connexions or feetnris of Mr. Butler
wi-re made through the Asiitat.t-Comtplistore,-, and no

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 13

Their Lordships met at Five o'Clock.
The Archbishop cf CANTERBURY presented a pe-
tition from a place in Kent for the batter observance of
the Sabbatb.
_______

The Duke of WELLINGTON presnted a petition
from the Board of Guardians of the Walton Union,
Southampton, praying the House to pass the Bill now in
Parliament for the amendment of the Poor-laws, aid,
above all, for the continuance of the Commission.
The Marquis of NORMANBY hid on the tab'e re-
turns of the number and character of outrage; committed
in the county of Limerick, from the Ist of Oct. 1839, to
to the lst of Junc, 1840; also returds relating to the ad-
ministration of justice in Ireland, and to the state of pri-

sons in Scotland.
LORD KEANE'S ANNUITY.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON Lord Keane's
Annuity Bill was rt ad a third time.
TITHE COMPOSITION BILL (IRELAND).
Lord DUNCANNON, in moviog tl.c third reading of
this Bill, proposed amendments of a technical nature in the
second arid third' clauses. These amendment=, he said,
would not effect the object deSired by the Noble E rl op-
posite (the Earl of Wicklow), nor did he know by what
alteration that object could he effected.
The Earl of WICKLOW was sorry to hear that the
Noble Lord was not l.repa•ed to remcv,a his objec ion, as
he was most unwilling to throw any impediment in the
way of a measure which was gs 'e:aliy so importar.t. Ile
regretted that none a f the legal Lands were the House,
for be was sure he would have their support in saying fiat
his objection was insurmountable. It was this, that under
the Bill, as it now stood, any number of 1 emits cool I be
force] into a court ofjustice without notice, and judgment
could be given against them without ti eir being he r.l, or
basis g an) knowledge of the proceedings ; and further, t`-at
under such circumstances they would be liable to the casts.
He had hoped that in the time which had elapsed since tli
measure was introduced lis Noble Friend would have
been able to base so framed the Bill as to remote this de-
fect. He did not mean to oppose Bill, but should
content himself with stating this objc odor.
Lord DUNCANNON said the object of the Bill
was to prevent the nece.,sity of serving 350 or 360
separate notices and to enable the Attorre;-General to
proceed, not by separate notice but by or.e gereral notice
on all persons resic'ent in the sense diocese. There was
no possible way of effecting this object without incurring
the difficulty which his Noble Friend had stated.
The Eail of GLENG ALL said there was anoti ee
serious point 1. hith had not been n eltioncd. Wiien
those parties came in to object to the order made
for the p 3) merit of the money they must first pay the costs
incurted on the pc-ti ion. lie thrwg t etas was a ease.
Vi count DUNCANNON thought it would be the same
with separate notices.
The Marquis of DOW NSHIRE sugc3.e i that the
Bill should be delayed far a few de; s to afford time for
corsider:t.on.

one else.
By the Duke of WELLINGTON—The appointment
of Mr. Butler was received from London. The Commis-
sioners in London were responsible fer his appointment,
though the recommendation was made by the Commis-
sioners in Ireland.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said the Commission-
ers were responsible for this appointment. He asked,
what had they before the:m to warrant them in making it?
Witness—They had not anything before them but the
letter from Messrs. Hancock and Hawley. They had in-
structed the Assistant Commissioners to make inquiries
as to the persons to be appeieted returning-officers; and
they held them rerportsible for the appointment.
The Duke of WELLINGTON sail the Commissior.-
ers themselves alone were responsible by the Act of
Par'i ament.
The Earl of GLENG ALL asked whether any part of
the information communicated to the Commissioners re-
specting Mr. Butler was that he was a violent political
partizan, and had assaulted Vie police in Clontnel, for
which he was brought before the Magistrates, but not
prosecuted on account of the interference of the Gevern-
:pent?
Vt7.tness firmly believed gest no such knowledge was
in the minds of the Commissioners at the time of the ap-
pointment. It was upon the affilavin for which Davies was
convicted cf perjury, Butler was exonerated from the
charges made against him for improper conduct in the
functions e f his office. Witness might have heard, but
he dil not remember, that Butler wa; accuse] of subor-
nation of perjury in the case of Davies. Was quite car-
lain that no such charge appearel upon the proceedings.
But many other charges were made against him for ne-
glect of duty, and Mr. Nicholls had lost confidence in
him. Mr. Butler remained in the ((Bee up to the Ist of
March, 1841, because he was appointed at first for that
time; but he had had no dut es to I erform since the com-
plaints were made against him, there having been no
election sire that time.
In answer to a question from the Earl of Wicklow, the
witness stated that no interval elapsed bet.veen the receipt
of the order for the return of papers to this House, and the
answer to that older.
Lord GLENG ALL—If you received a letter from
Me. Butler, on the 6th of February, why did you not
return it in the last, with that of Mr. Fennel', which you
did not receive until the 16th ?
The witness' answer was net heard in the gallery, but
he produced the letter itselr, when he was ordered to with-
draw.
The Earl of GLENG A LL then was about to read
portions of the letter, which in the list return to the
House, were omitted from the printed espy, astcricks
occupying their place. From that omishri, he said their
Lordships would be able to judge cf the principles which
governed the appointment of Mr. Butler.
The Marquis of NORM AN BY objected that the Noble
Earl could not read them unless they related to the matter
immediately under their Lordsbips'eonsideretien.
The Esrl cf GLENG A isf3 sield Che Commissioters
stated that they were not aware that Butler had any pc-
litical Connection. The letter would go far to prove why
be was appointed returning officer.
The Marquis of NORM A NB Y thought they Whetter
postpone the immediate subject of isquiry. It was not
necessary that they should go a,. once into a complete and
distinct part of the i quire.
The Earl of W ICKLOW saw no objection against
reading the extracts. He conceived they were calculated
to bear out the object in vier.
Lord ELLENBO ROUG fl thought that they could
not go into a general inquiry into the conduct of the
Commissioners.. Unless that part of the letter bore on the
subject of the appointment of that gentleman asreturnirg
officer, there could be no necessity for laying it before
their Lordships.
The Earl cf G L ENG A L L said that it-did bear on that
subject. On the 6th of February, Mr. Butler wrote to
Mr. Phelan to endeavour to get him appointed re-
turning officer of Clenmel. In that letter he wished also
to have another person to assist in getting hi n that place,
which was worth about 301. a-year.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was compla'ncd
of that those papers were garbled. lie Lad moved for
ext, acts from the original pre( eeeirtgs of the Poor-law
Commissioners, arid the Noble Marquis and her Majesty's
Mini tens had in consequence thought proper that the
Poor law Comaissioners should attend heft re th-,t House
and give an account of the various omissions its those
papers. Now they were toll that there were but a few
sheets of paper here and there and in different places
wee(' would tend to explain 'ho mode is which those
enactions were carried Cr, and that the Noble Lord
(Normanby) had some of those sheets in his hand. Now
that was not tine way of conductug an i nquiry, and fir
his p art he consilered that the present was a most serious
question. It was of the utmost importance to know hors
these proceedings were carried on—bow these appoint-
ments were made—who made them—in short, their origin
up to the soy moment when they were laid before the
Hoene.
The Marquis of NORM ANBY sa'd he hat no objec-
tion to the readi g of the letter produced. It was said
that it related to tee subject of inquiry. The subject was,
no doubt, as the Noble Duke had said, a very important
one, and they ought to proceed with it with the utmost at-
tention. [The letter from Mr. Butleeto Mr. Phelan was
then react, the purport of which war requesting the ap-
pointment of returning officer, and stating that the Attor-
ney-General for Ire land had made him ( Mr. Butler) many
promises, but had yet done nothing for him.]
The examination was then resumed2—Witness could not
say for certain whether the Attorney-General was Mem-
ber for Clonmal or not. Never bra-d that Butler waste-
commended by the Attorney-General.
In answer to a question from the M treenis of NOR-
MANDY relative to the dates of letters received since
the year 1839, the witness stated that he was not certain
whether in the Book of Minutes thee was any particular
column appropriate for the clat.fs of letters.
The Marquis of NORMAND Y said, that, in conse-
quence of the course which the examination had taker, he
thought it right that Mr. Phelan should be called to the
bar of the House. When be objected to his attendance
on a former occasion, he had no i lea th at M e Phelan was
b oTuhl
de
hEea Earl
allowed
cd WICKLOW,te
rdistinctly
shaltitarhisnicseeettiti:rhylr:ileaen:Ldb7beoeasaferret;rodeeal
present in Dublin at the time when the particular transac-
tion occurred, to which the examination bad reference.
s
jishutixiswetiro.cueladt.ohnv olietql:bli.
gee for hies to attend before Monday.
boundthat
testate,
inl
the remark of the
shouldTh e bem asummonedrct,ii e f
N too
cuautA.rtireienlddN
itiO
Noble Earl.
information with respect to those
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it w,asinverwytiptions4-
sible that the returns could not be revs,. It was desir-
able, however, to
have
from the Commissioners, how the matter steed. It was
most important that they should know whether they were
or were not to have Lordships
tesi
them, in
prepared
u rti.3,oeui
tj
iiihnteo

The Earl of WICKLOW aid the Et rl of MOUNTCASHEL
also recommended delay.
Lord DUN CAN NO N saidhe regretted 0 eie objections
had not been mentioned in the di atusston that took pL c 2 a
week ago. He had, however, no objection, if desr4d, to
postpone the 8.11 to this day week.
The debate was adjourned accordingl:.
The Marquis of DOWNSH IR E pie ented petitions
from the comity of DJvvr, against Church Patronage in
Scotland. The Noble Marquis ssil he did not cot. our in
the opinion expressed by the pstitieners.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL moved for col ies
of certain Fa,iers,- referring to transactions whi t.he had
taker' Flace between the Guardians of the Union of Fer-
may and the Poor-law Commissioners.—Ordered.
The Marquis of NORM A NBY begged to inform the
Noble Lord opposite that Mr. Stanley, the Secretary to the
Peor-law Commisrieners of Ireland, was in attendance, and
ready to answer any questions which might be put to him.
On the motion of the Ertl of GLENGALL, Mr.
Stanley was called t 3 the bar aid sworn.
In answer to questions put to him by the Earl of
GLENGALL, the witness stated that he was Secretary
to the Poor-law Commissioners of Ireland. Tne Poor-
law Commissioners of England and Wales were also the
Poor-law Commission era of Ireland. The acti ag Com-
missioner was Mr. Nicholls. lie was the only Corn.:
rt,i;sioner who sst at the Board in the month
of February, 1840. Could not say whether
he (the Commissioner) was or was not in Ireland in Fe-
bruary 1839. If he were he was the only Commioi alter
in Ireland. All the proceeding of the Commissioners
were entered, not in a tettet-book, but upon a register.
They had no letter-books, but all letters that were
received vie. e entered upon the register. He bad that
register with him, and it contained all the matters con-
cerning the Clonmel Union in February, 1839. No
person had access to those books who were not em-
ployed under the Poor-law Commissioners. The Lord-
Li •utenant of I eland had been in the office cf the Poor.
la.v Commissioner, but he (Mr. S ) had net the honour
b ing in the room with him, and could not say whether
he Lai inspected the books or not. The Lord-Lieute-
nant had frequently called at the office, but what he did
he (Mr. S.) was not aware. The re:urn dated May,
1840, was in witness's hand writing. It concerned
the appointment of Mr. John Butler as the
-
turning officer for the Clonmell Union. It con-
tained the letter from Messrs. Hawley and Hancock, the
Assistant Commisiioners, recommending J hn Butler to
that office. That letter "atrived by post, and Mr.
Nicholls was not then in Dublin. Mr. Earle was
the Comrrissioner in Dublin upon the 14th of February.
Beare he referred to the Return No. 3, he begged to be
understood that when he was first asked, was Mr. Nicholls
in Ireltind in February, his reply meant he was so in
February, 1810, but in F'daruary, 1839, Mr. Nicholls
was not there, but Mr. Eerie was. No. 3 was the
let er in which Mr. Fenuell offered himself as the
returning officer el the Clonmel Union. The re commen-
dation cf Mr. But er from Messrs;. Hawley and Hancock
did not arrive in Dublin till the 18th, two days after the
receipt of Mr. Feitnell's letter. Tun-lin,, to the paper
No. 4, witness found that it was ae letter ofi the Secret try
of the Poor-law Commissioners, dated 18th February,
1839, and addressed to George Fennell, Esq., Cl mmel.
It stated that in reference to his (Me. letter, the
writer was directed to inform him that it was not received
until after the Commissioners had determined to elect an-
other person.
Lord GL E NG A LL—Was that letter ever written, and
if it was written was it ever sent to Mr. Fennell ?
Witness could have swore, a few days ags, that it was,
but circumstances had since occurred which convinced
him that part of that draft was not coplel into the letter
which was actually tent.
Lord GLENGALL ref rrcd the witness to a letter
dated the 19th e f Feb., and addressed from the Poor-law
Commissioners' office in Dublin, to Mr. Fennell, in-
forming him that his epplicai in did not arrive until after
an appointment was made of another person. The Noble
Lord asked was that in wittie,b's I acd-writing.
Witness—lt was. He could only account for its not
being included in the return of the cot respoodeace from thi
that no draft was made after that which was dated the
18th, and whieh was not sent. The clerk who copied it
put upon fie record in the office the original instead of the
amended: d'art, end in this way atone—(as we!l
as we could understand the witness who spoke in a very
indistinct and hesitating manner under the reportet's
gallery)—i i this way alone he could account for the
copy eatered on the comp ondence not agreeing
with the letter which was actually sent.
I altered the original draft. I have brought the draft of
the letter as altered. I produce it; it is in the hand-
writing of the clele ef correspondence. The c:)r. ections
are in my hand-wr tint. None of the corrections the re wet e
made at the time the letter was brought to me for sionature.
The draft is copied in the returns to this House. The
extent cf the corrections in my own handwriting would be
perceived from the difference in the handwriting.
These words woul l be just sufficient to fill the space oc-
cupied by the words objnted t). If the clerk had taken
the corrections as made, he cool I have read them
as written for him. The corrections made were just suffi-
cient to fill the space. The erasure was made subse-
quently to the Fe:iod at which the letter bears date.
By the Duke of WELLINGTON—That book was a re-
cord of the proceedings of the Commissioners kept in obe-
(Peace to the provision in the third section of the Poor.
law Amendment Act.

By the Earl cf GL ENG ALL—The letter No. 4 in the
return was not the letter sent to Mr. Fennell In ex-
planation of the statement made to Mr. Fearell that an
.pptiatment lid hee.i made, the recommendation of Mr.
Hawley end Mr. Hancock not arriving in Dublin until the
181 h, the witness said that the clerk made the ,tatemtnt
from his knowledge of the sriteti to of Mr. Butler. Thee
letters were never laid befete Mr. Earle. Instructions
were given by the Commissioners to the clerk, either ver-
bally or in unting. Mr. -Phelan wai in daily attendance
when the cie k wrote the letttr. It was witness who
d:rect d thc alteration to; be made with regard to the ap-
pointment having been conferred on another person.
The: e was no record of any instructions given by Mr.
Phelan. lie cou'd not account for the letter act being
ansvt e ed on the 16th ; it might have been from pressure of
busincir. Mr. Phelan never suggested alterattons in the
tfraf-.

The Earl of GLENG ALL rose to order. From the
course which the evVence had taken, it was clear their
Lordships could want to call other witnesses. He was of
opinion that those witnesses who were to be called, ought
not to be in the House while another witness was under
examination.
The Marquis of NORM ANBY said certainly, it was
desirable that no communication should take place tetween
witnesses that were to be called, but he did not know whe-
ther it was nece3s4ry to order them to retire.
Lord EL LENBOROUG H said it was clear that the
House would re .wire to call some other witnesses. They
ought nct to be in the House while ether witnesses Were
under examination.
The Marquis of NORMANBY—Such being the view
oft• e House, it ougl.t to he communicated t) the persons
likely to be calla'.
In answer to UT 1 RE DESDALE,
Witness sail, that No. 1,329 was the letter to John
Bagnell, the a ns &Ter to w hich did not appear on the minutes.
No. 1,407 was the letter et the Assistant-Commissioner,
g iv ing his teascns for not calling the meeting at Clonmsl.
The A s,i.te,t-Commissioner was the writer of the let-
ter 1,407. There is no entry of ti e date of the le.ter to
Mr. Bagnell, but we have a copy of it. The number is
not on tnese r; turns. I have contrasted the letters from
the Poor-law Commissioners to Mr. J. Bagnell of the 12th
Mattel) 1839, stating that Mr. Joha Butter was re:om-
mended to them as a proper persen to perform the duties
of returning officer, but that the appointment was not
made, with the letter in the return, and the words, with
the exception of the formal introductory ones, which are
now copied cr faithfully given in the return. It is true
that the letter wriAen to Mr. Fennell, dated the 18th of
February, 1839, and wLich states that the application to
be appointed returning officer did not'arrive until after
the appointment had been made in favour of another, was
cf a t eally different nature to that sent to Mr. Bagnell, in
which it was stat'd that the appointment was not made,
which was what I wiihel to express :In the letter to Mr,
Fennell, and NI. that parposo I math, an alt4ratioki 11(1

of N 0
sA
dNe
sßi
rYablteh thought t that wit with
Nichollsa
bblienald that before Mr.
informed whether he
and May.
transactions.
a short conference
The Marquis
shouldvvyNi,eaiTTcwsbhhi
otieeiol
sbi‘DtierbEaueaarabitgirilriuloc::::oi,ielfndhfc t;N:GoseoilleomßtEuu
ioNNiintAGhwt
Noi
?fhBDI,
y,Luoe
anfit7ry
with Mr. Nicholls, stated teat he was in Dublin partof the
month of Fehruaty, and p'rt of May.
The Earl of GLENGALL said that the cIEC involvei
not merely the falsificntion of the returnv, but the whole
conduct of the Commissioners in the transaction.
The evidence was then ordere fto be Ited, and an
order made for the attendance of Mr. Phelan on Monday
next.
Their Lordship then adjourned till Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 111Ancu 16.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
i
On the niction of Mr. D RBY the Waningoro Inclo-
sure Bill was read a sec Jed time.
Mr. BERNAL brought up the Report of the Com-
mitteen
e
o thpoßoßs I t.h BLAKE ros
se
object
landsel/co t move
fs waso : that certainlt
er
r ll
e o
purposeeßailwayn b l
ethe Company to
take B
clauses be added
Aire. LiesitsE r
n ofs of making repairs.
The accidents wbieh occurred rendered it quite necessary
that such powers should be given. One instance
had occurred, in which if the landowner had refused per.
scission the railway must have been stepped. It was not
refttgeti by him; but other landowners had prevented the
Company from coming TB their Ihn4s to mahc

He had no intention, by taking this course, to infiiege upon 1 which had been so long observed on the subject in
the Standing Orders of the House. , the House of Commons arose from the circumstance of its
On the first etause being read, ' bslonging to a class of questions which, as they could
Mr. SHIEL should feel it his duty to object to the not become a nwitter of party warfare, seltlem engaged
introduction of there clauses, because when the 13ill was , the attention of Hoe. Members. He did not want the
originally introduced no notice was Oren that such pow( ra ' experience of that evening—(Grc at ncle prevailed at
would be sought for. These clauses departed eery trate- this time in the House)—to convince him that questions
rially from the Pie of which notice had been given, and ! cf that nature were but lightly considered by the House or
on behalf of the department to which he had the honour to I by the Government, and he could not believe if the differeet
belong, he should feel it his duty to resist them.—( Hear.) i Administrations since 1814 bad Leen alive to the importance
He believed that an attempt had been made in Committee i of the question, as affected the commerce of the country,
to introduce clamses of a similar nature, but they had been , they would ever have permitted the King of Denrraek to
objected to ; and surely it wa not upon bringing up tie ' impede and harrass Br tish trade by the levying of thee
report of the Bill, at a time is hen the parties had to no- ! dues. He could not imagine by chat a,gumeit such a
tice whit ver, that such clauses should be introduced. system could be defended. It was contrary to every rc-
Mr. W. PATTEN would also resist the clauses. In ' , ceivel maxim of international 1 tw—it was opposed to the
his experience upon Etelway Commieees he could sta e ueiversal practice of the civilised world, and to those Rise
that similar propositions had Leen frequently made, but i principles which regidined t}.e intercourse of kingdoms.
in every case they had been resisted ; and he believed such ' He could not conceive how an impost of the kind had Lent
power had l ever been allewed in rely Ea lway Bill. so long tolerated—an impost which advanced the price , f
Mr. PEASE thought some power ought to b.: g ven to our goods in foreign ira,kets and of foreign goods in our
the m i.vay pror i tors to make repairs in c ties of ,cci- markets—which stopped our ships in their voyages and
dull, but at the same time he could net say that he en- exposed their crews to harrassing restrictions and
tartly approved of these clauses. It should not, hod eve r, impediments, affecting in a most navel ieeous n.aer.er
he supposed that Mc .use they eis hod to ; rsvent an attempt the operations of our commescs. If the law were
being trade to obtain powers of an obj. ceonable nature, I a legal ore it might perhaps be 1 adently submitted to.
they also wished to restrain the enterprise of the country. But if it could be shown that the King of Denmark had
Mr. ESTCOURT wished to express his gloat ob- violated the treaty on which he founded Li;
jection to the introduction of such clauses as that now claim—if it could be shown that he had exercised
before the House. It had Lean attempted on former power egeinst our trade which the treaty itself expressly
occasions but the House la al reje, tad them. When the ftrbiels, he (Mr. 11.) thought that under such ei elm:-
Bill was printed and proposed in the first instance, it did stances i: was a fair subject of consideration and i iquiry
net contain these olesctionable clauses, and he eheteer or not the contract between the tso nations
believed parties in the vie:tiny of rade ays were In ad not been annulled. He should not fatigue the House
not aware of the intention to introduce teem. by any lengthened statement of the origin of the Sound
He could net atm the opportunity to pass with. deco It was suffieiert to stem that teeae tolls had been
out congratulating the lieu e upon the appoiet. arbitrarily, and sometimes forcibly exacted by the King of
ment of Li; Eon. Friend as Chairman of the Comnd tee Denmark, and were at length recognised and sanctioned
on Ways and Means.—e Hear, hear, hear.) They owed by the States cf Holland in 1645, by the Treaty cf
it to the vigilance of his Honourable Friend that Cl ristianople. Specific chaeges were lane down for
this subject had been brought under the considers- each artmle of commerce, and with respect to
ticn of the House. He ( Mr. Estcourt) was sure those not stated in the to id', it was agreed that
that it. was sa!i;actory to the pubic that it was so brought they should be taxed one p r cent. ad valorem.
to light, and that attempts were tesisted to introduce mea- In 1647 the King of Holland Lecarne a consenting party
sures in Committee, of which the public had not receivel to another treaty, by which the King cf Denmark unde,..
ample notice. It was now known that such aeempts . took to establish lielithouses and buoys in the CaWegat
would be vigilantly watched, and that his Hon. lerlend and the North Sea; c rtoin fixed payments were to he
would bring them before the House, and give the disuse made to the Danish office's at EMinere, and the King of
an opportunity of examining ti ew, and (f rejectisg them if Denmark bound hints:lf by a solemn engagement, never,
deemed objectionable.—( Hear, hoer ) en any pretext, to increase tie amour Cot' tolls. In 1814,
M. 13 E RNA L se i 1 Le was glad this matter was by the Treaty cf Kit 1, these tells were c mfirmed,
brought Lefoce the House. He etas satisfied that the between Greet B,iteia and the Crown of Denmark, and
origeml evil of this proposition lay in the form ia yvhiA that was done at a grievous sac, iiice ef British commerce,
He notices in ;Le country re xspapers were w, wied as it would he admitted that the Keng of Denmark had
(Hear.) The words were so comprehensive thee they effseted a bargain with eh ch he should be content.
would include almost anything. Persons in:e.-estcd could What had been the result? Ever since tie signing ,:f
not be :uffleiently apprised cf clauses sought to be intro- the Treaty of 1814, toe Government of Denmark had
duced in this marine-. The Bill as it stood before the been engaged in considering by what means it could vi •-
House, was a Bill to raise an additienal eilit.l. He late its stipulations. He would now recal to the attention
thought the !Loosa should take into consideration the of the House the nature of the taxes that t' ea exist id.
propriety of improting the farm of notice. —(Hra-, He fund that a tariff was concluded between Denmark
h, ar ) It should Le reduced to a Standing Order, t .at and Rus is i a 1645, and according to that, with respect to
the notices should be more distinct. If such a step was goods not enunier.t.:d in the tariff, Russian suljects were
demi 'e I upon, the House coule then erder the petition to not to pay more than ore per cent. The tartff between
Le r, feared to the Committee on StandingOrders,it should Great Britain rod Denmark granted the same a !van-
stand on the same gniund as ti e notice, and thus they tages to British subjects as those conferred on Russians
would not be a. tidied with vague and loose allegation, by the former tsriff.—( Herm, hear, hear.) With
Witn respect to the clauses denoninetcd lewd, ra clauses, respect to the tariff of Cie istianople instead of one per
doubts were entertained whethe its legal tendency they cent., sometimes five, sit, and even eight per cent. were
were for perpetuity, or a battled space of }ears; and it exacted by it, and fixed payments were substituted for per
was on that account these clauses were introducei, to do cent age. On Norway and Swedish deals 1,500 yes
away with any doubt as to the construction of the Act. cent. over the legal charge was often exacted. On cotton
Mr. B. WOOD said that havirg acted in the Commit,. and woollen goods, on sugar and coffee, a per tentage
tee, he coccuried entirely i 1 the opinion that had been was at times exacted enormously beyond what was
expressed by his lion. Friend. He felt that a vast ire_ specified in the tariff. There could be no doubt that we
provement had lately taken place in the manner in which '.ere suffering under a degree of opt ression and injury
unoppote I Beis were conducted, but, at the same time, he in daring violation of the t eaties which hal been
thougne on the present question, they were treating tee concluded touching this subject. For 26 years that state
Railway Company with sonic harshness. The clause of things was gciag on. Our powers in the North
which was now before the House was one which cf Europe, which were once so great, in
was absolutely necessary for the purpose of enabling the le.peet to the steiject now Mare the House were
Company to keep up the repair of the road. Without greatly diminished, and he trusted we would not wait till we
that power it was quite clear that the road must either he saw Br tish commerce excluded from the Baltic ; which
at the mercy of the landowners, or fall to decay.— w.ull ce,taMly soon be the case unless rigorous
( Hear, hear.) If they had come with the proper means were taken to enforce the rights of the
notice, there would be no difficulty, he apprehended, British merchant:.—( Hear.) He would not go further
in passing ti.e Bill. It had ben mentioned on the ether into a subject which appeared so unpalatable to the
side of the House that that was an unheard of clause. Now House, but which was of vast importance to the great corn-
'he believed that the clause was introduced into every Bill mercial constituency which he represented. He trusted
re'a ive to the subject passed within the last one or two the Noble Lord would think it necessary to take the sub-
yeses. It was a clause which was established as a model ject into his tonsil. ration. There were few things that
clause, as he understood, and it appeared to him to be a would bring the Noble Lord into greater accession of fame
clause essential to the maintenance of railnays,—( Hear.) than proving himself to be the emancipator of our corn-
and different in no degree from that attached to Bills re- [tierce from the thraldom to which it was now subjected.
lating to turnpike roads. The reason of the eromoters Tao Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, That, in the
cf the Bill coming before the House at that stage was opinion of this House, the Tariff of Sound Dues now la-
simply on account of the formation of a new road. He vied at Elsineur is not a Tariff which the King of Denmark
thought that it was rather hard that the Company should is entit:el to maintain ; and that the Sound dues require
now Le opposed when par ies were taken by surprise, such a revision as will facilitate the commercial relations of
They came to the House with a clause arising this country with the 13.1 tic Ports.
out of circumstances which they could not foresee, The SPEAKER having put the question,.
which occured since the first Bill wan printed—circum. Lord PALMERSTON would not dispute any of the
stances which involved them in law suits, and might in- propositions which his Hon. Friend had so ably and dis-
valve them iu great difficulty ; even Letween the present passionately propounded, because he could do no better than
time and next year, when they coule come anew before the say that the statement which be had made with regard to
Housenhat Company might Le essentially injured, and the the manner in which the Sound dues were] now levied
public greatly inconvenienced. Under these circumstances was ablest entirely the case of the British Government as
lac was inclined to press the House to pass the law. against the Government of Denmark. Therefore it was
Lord G. SOMERSET thought that if the effect of not his wish to weaken the propositions which his
the clause would be to adjudicate in favour of ore party Honourable Fiend had endeavoured to establish.
and against the other, that was a sufficient reason against This was not the first time, however, the subject
the granting ef the clause. The Directors of the South- had been brought under the consideration of the Goverr.-
ampton Re I Nay were to hate a power of t ilei g 500 yards meat in that House. Inched, the ground on which he
along the whole line of railway without tatting imme- should request his H mourable Friend, as a met-
diate possession of it, but always keeping the ter of encre,ion, either to withdraw his modem
powers thus vested in them barging over the or not tn resist f-e motion of the precious ques-
Leads ef rho landed prerr:etor=. So nionstri:us a power tion, wan that the subj.:et had fur some time pant tic-
as that, it whatever shape it might be brought before the cupied the serious attention of Government, aid that they
House, was, he thought, certain of being negatived. were at this moment in negotiation with the Government
Mr. MARK PHILIPS objected to the gri cameos of Denmark upon the matter—( liter, hear)—end that
to which the landowner; were likely to be subjected by that cons, qucntly any expression of opinion on the pert
Bile of. the House, such as was then proposed, would
M-. BLAKE, afmr the opposition which he eal met be an unfitting and an inexpedient let -rposition of
with nom both sides of the House, withdrew his proposed Parliament. in a negotiation pending between the British
tl tuns. Crown and the Cr own of Denmark. Moreespecially when the
The Bill was then reported, and ordered to be engrossed. dispat Py of the strength of tee two countries, was conen
Me CHET WYND presented a petition from a placitin dered he thought it would not only upon general principle
S affurdshi,e against the Stet:ford and Rugby Railway Bill, be inexpedient, but in some manner ungracious at the
The petitioners said tl at the railway would be of no public present moment. licr Majesty's Government hal made
benefi', and that its only object was to put money in the a communication on the subject some time ago to the
pockets of the projectors. Government of Denmark, through the Danish Minister in
Sir G. CLERK presented a petition against the pa. thiscountry. The result ef that communication had been
lock and Gevaa Railway Bill from the agent of a conti- that 'he Danish Minister who was before on leave of
guous estate. absence from this country, returned especially for the
Coloeel LYG ON presented a petition from err &n purpose of coming to some arrangement with the British
landowners of Woree.t -r against the Severn Navigation Government. Ile f, It it due to the Danish Government
Bill. to state, that in their communications on the subject, they
On the motion of Mr. R. GORE, tice Patent Rolling had evinced a fair and candid disposidon, and had entered
and Compressing, Iron Company Bill was read a second into the question with a view to the completion of a
time, settlement which might be satisfactory to all parties. Her
Lord SANDON brought in the Liverpool Docks' Bill, Majesty's Government felt that they could not object to
elai el was read a first time any dues which. were legally exacted ; but they contended
On the motion ef Mr. I3ROADLEY, Bogden's Name- that a great portion of the numerates dues levied were
ralissfon Bill was a read second time. not maintainable by any interpretation of the treaty.
Mr. B. WOOD pies anted a pct:tion from cert tin There was ore pa int in which be (Lord Palmerston) could
parties in Southwark, praying for compensation under the not age eat with his lion. Friend. He could not think
Southwark Improvement Bill. with him that whatever might have been the oppressive
Sir C. STYLE presented a petition from Comberford, nature of those duties, they had diminished tee
preying for the extinction of Church-rates, and the im- commerce of Great Britain with the Baltic.
mediate liberation of Mr. Baines, They might undoubtedly have in some (logic,
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petiCon from Ix:Amami its amsmenta ion, and one teiag was quite
Caithness, praying for the abolition of Church Patronage ee tain that they liad tended much to divert the chain-
;in Scotland. eel of our commerce.—( Hear, hear.) But it appeared
' Mr. W. GL ADSTONE presented a petition from from a pamphlet, ef which he was sure his Hoc. Friend
Newark, against the Medic II Reform Bill. . would be the last to deny the authority, and which had
Mr. J. ROUND presented a petition from Maldon, in ably discussed the whole question—it appeared from the
Essex, to the same effect. last pages of that pamphie', that if the commerce of Great
Sir G. CL ER K presented a petition from Chemists Brit tin with Denmark had not been of late years increased it
and Druggists if the borough of Stamford, agaltet the had not at i.ll diminished. But it was certain that a great
Medical R form 13i!I, portion of the commerce which would have been caroled on
Mr Alderman COPELAND presentcl a petition from though the Sound had been di,e:ted into another course;
Stoke-upoe-Trent to the same effect. and that was also a circumstance which should weigh with
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition from Bris- the Danish Government, because it ought to shoe them
tol is the tame effect. that
Not less than 30 or 4') Members, who had petitions on ttir theve maintenance ce
t eon then of
extent hse
theyh might have imagi ed, and
rentate high duties did not add to
the same subject, then moved simultaneously towards the that by reducing the dues, so as to restoree the c ornmerce be-
f Denmaek would in
table, and presented them amidst the laughter of the tween the tsvo countries,
House. The only one which we could distinguish in the truth sustain very
sail that British Government
little if any revenue of
Having stated
confusion was a eeidon presented by Mr. Gaily Knight, thus much, and having . . .
from the Medical ot,sceiation of Nottinghannin favour of was oegaged in a_tive negotiations sm.da the Government
t
of Denmark on the subject, and that the latter
the Bill.
Mr. W. PATTEN said, seeing the Hon. Member for had shown a real and sincere. desire te come tobeadifalirtuhz
Lambeth iii his place, he begged leave ts ask him en derstanding. with regard to it, and hoping as .
Lehalf of those who had entrusted him with this petition, the ie negotia.i :us might be brought is a satisfactorya ccoerar-
-
whether it was or was riot his intention to retain those clu'i m long before
.the expiration of a quarter
clauses in the 13•11 which affected the tralo of chemists tury, as Li; Hon. Fiend anticipated—at the expiration 1:e
and druggist. They bad been left out of the former (Lord P.) trusted of even a quarter cf a year—these being
Bill, but introduced into tha before the House, and be his bores and expectations on the matter, be trusted that
wished to know what was the Hon. Gentleman's iaten- his lion. Friend would either withdraw his met:on t r that
tion with re reel to them. he would abstaie from t tkiog the sense of the House against
Mr. HA WES said he had no Imitation in answeri.ig the motion for the previous question.
the Hort. Member's question, and stating again t i the Si; E. PEEL said that if there was any immediate
House as he did before, that he had not the least idea of prospect of the matter being brought to a satisfactory colt-
affscting the trade c.f the chemists artd druggists by any elusion at an eJy period tl.e lion. Gentleman would, is
of the provisions of the Bill, and if there was any his opinion, exefeesea sound discretion in withdrawing the
ambiguity—and he doubted that these was—in the motion ; but when the Noble Lord said that negotiations
Bill he would remedy it by a distinct clause. we re entered into on the subject, and that the House of
le answer to an Hew. Metter e, Commons ought not to irterfet e' it should be considered that
Mr. il AWES said that lie intended to bring in the the question had been pending for years, durieg which the
Me ecal Reform Bill to-morrow. just claims of Great Britain had not been acknowledged.
Major CH ET WY ND gate notice that on Thursday he The Noble Lord admitted that the duties now levied by
would move for Returns of the number of franked and De-imark Vl ere not in conformity with the treaty. What,
uefranked letters that passed through the Post-office since then, was t, prevent the ieteiference of the House of Com-
the sth of January 1837; also for Returns relative to the mons? Na one whited to resort to violence, but if tb e
number cf money-letters since that period. Crown coal not procure redress, and if it appeared that
Sir G. STRICKLAND gave notice that in Committee solemn engagements were habitually violated, there WA'
on the Poor-law Amendment Bill he would move that no (Weer alternr tive, in his opinion, but that the H
certain alterations be introduced into the Bill. Commons should in calm and-temperate, and beecnni ilLasli.
application for rew'
Mr. E A STHOPE gave notice that to-morrow he gunge fortify the Crown in its
~,co_te inicrf„-
would move that the petitions which he bad presented from Th tt seemed to him to be a case fur thelbegi i °
had made a stet—
. favour of the liberation of Mr. Wm. Baines, coca of the House. The Noble Lord
be (Sr R. Peel)
Leicester inease of
and for the abolition of Church-rates, be printed. ment in the course of his scech
Mr. ROCHE moved fur certain returns connected did not think could he justified. ,
- of the C7MIECMC be-
with publ c works in Ireland.—Ordered. that there had been In diminution
d m the present du.
un i• -
Mr. BA tiNEBY movei for a return of each mail coach tween Great Britain and Douro,"
d to conclude that that was
'lleicNhoble Lord bad said
or cart, or other conveyance drawntby horse., employed t ties, and the Noble
bLeueriddsneoetmeeempitio
of
the present sys-
by the Post-office for the conveyance of letters in any part a reason why they s was of a contrary opj.
of England or Wtnes, on the Ist days of March in the tern. He (Sir Robert Peel)
years 1837, 1838, 1839, 18.10, and 1841 ; stating the nion, and he felrtratheadt, ree
Icl
yo counts
yn
number of horses by which each was drawn, the place to had not been i,ne
duties mere nat. justefiable.—( Hear. )
ifasth emcigohmtmhearcvee
ofn natural)
the
and from which letters arc conveyed by each ; the number expected,
of eassengers which was allowed by law to carry; and the If the exii=ttidhnc"
ig
ree:ed the tradc into othez or incLrect chan-
duties prevented the trade from mete is-
terms of agreement entered into by the Post -office lei h ingt
tile proprietors ef each such conveyance for the conveyance nets, or
reiyf
of Denmark refused to adhere to the provisions
Gevernment
Were bound to de:nand their reduction. If
of letters, and for what period.—Ordei ed. entered. into wilt it, he ( Sir Robert Pee!)
SOUND DUES. or the treaty
• dy in that House interfering to strengthen
saw no impropric
Mr. II [ITT presented a petitian very numerously
Ft'ei 'the hands of the Ministers in a remonstrance to the D.
by merchente, shipowner:, and other inhabitants of Hull,
nish Government.—( Hear.) There were many reasons why
complaining of the dues now levied on British vessels pass- tie Danish Government should be anxious to preserve a
ing the coast of Denmark. The Hon. Member then. seed
good understanding with Great Britain, and it tee mo-
he would call the attention of the House to the motion
ofmeant tion were now withdrawn he could not help thinking that
which he bad given notice on that subject. H e
the
h.ie
the manifestation el opinion from all paths of the House
to refer to those taxes which were now levied by
tbe Kinag-
which had been clici el would produce the best results,
of Denmark on British vessels passing between_hich be cons- without pushing the matter to an extremity. If the Hon.
tegat and the Baltic Sea. The grievanoe•
unknown al the Gen leman found that the existing neget, at'ons failed in
planned of, although he believed it wastnoorthe
House. 1..- producing a pruee: result, then h: had toe power c f bring.
Foreige-office, wan comparatively
new
w become a subject ing the question forward again, and lie (Sir Robert Pc, l)
deed so far as he was informed, it had never
however, be ' for one, would be
should net, however, ima- prepared to support the motion in tho
ef dieeussion its Parliament. It sh,.
of t li'nfenature, event of the appeal which would be made by the Noble
the evil was aes 1 ,
gine], on that Becount, that
industry or the general welfare of Lord, who as the represeLtative. of the Biiiiah Govern-
in regard to cur national
tin 'cal cause of the silence i meat, failing to ircd •
tics the proper result.
, the eotltitry, lil hclieved that