The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-19 00:00:00

TRZ SU', LONDONs rniDAT EYEN'ING, mAnen 191 ni47

. -
Charles Brown, plutnbcr, Sum( .syt street, Aldgate, Mart it
26, at one, and Anal 30, at twelve, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Belcaer, official assignee ; Lawrence, South-squate,
Gray's Inn.

George Teil and Basil MTenzie Ronald, merchants, Ohl
Jewrv-chambers, March 31, and May 6. at one, at the C 4 tart
of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee, Coleman-street-
buildings ; Hughes, Kearsey, and Masterman.
Thomas Bruce Wavell, miller, Lake, Isle of Wight, April
1, at half-past eleven, arid April 26, at one, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Graham, cfficial assignee, Coleman-street ;
Turnley, Ludgate-street.
David Elwin Columbine, money scrivener, Regent-street,
Saint James's, April 3, at half-past eleven, and May 14, at
twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Greeu, official assignee,
Aldermanbury ; Rickards and Walker, Lincoln's Inn-fields.
Thomas Walkden, scrivener, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire,
April 1 and 30, at ten, at the Town-hall, Sheffield. Free-
man, official assignee, Leeds ; Moss, Sergeants' Inn ; Branson,
Sheffield.

William Sarginson and Matthew Rigby, builders, Bury,
Lancaster, March 30 and May 4, at eleven, at the Man-
chester District Court. Putt, official assignee, Manchester;
Clarke, Gray, and Woodcock, Lincoln's lnn-fields; White-
head, Bury.
John Hunt, merchant, Manchester, March 31, and April
22, at eleven, at the Malikhester District Court. Hobson,
officir.l assignee, Manchester; Slater and Heelis, Manchester.
Henry William Shipley, lace manufacturer, Nottingham,
April 1 and 23, at twelve, at the Birmingham District Court,
Nottingham. Bittleston, official assignee, Nottingham; Bow-
ley, Nottingham.
Thomas Re...der, miller, Foleshill, Warwickshire, April 1
and 22, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court.
Christie, official assignee, Birmingham ; Messrs. Dewes and
Sons, Coventry ; Weeks, Cook's-court, Lincoln's Inn, London.
Thomas Jobling, grocer, High Conside, Durham, March
26, at eleven, and April 29. at twelve, at the Newcastle-
upon-Tyne District Court. Wakley, official assignee, New-
castle-upon-Tyne; Ingledew, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Messrs.
Williamson and Hill, Verulam-buildings, Gray's Inn, London.
Richard Dix, saddler, Wells, Somersetshire, April 6 and
30, at twelve, at the Bristol District Court. Huton, official
assignee,. Bristol ; Whitaker, Lincoln's-inn Fields, London ;
Hobbs, Wells.

Thomas Hardwick and Winter Hardwick, auctioneers,
Leeds, March 30 and April 19, at eleven, at the Leeds Dis-
trict Court. Rope, official assignee, Leeds ; Walker, Fur-
nival'a Inn, London; Blackburn, Leeds; Lee, Leeds.
William Glover, woollen manufacturer, Leeds, March 31
and April 21, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Young,
official assignee, Leeds; Sudlow and Co., London; Payne,
Eddison, and Ford, or Bruce, Leeds.
Rev. Andrew Keir, clerk, North Cave, Yorkshire, April 7
and 28, at ten, at the Kingston-upon-Hull District Court.
Kynaston, official assignee, Hull : Capes and Co., Gray's Inn,
London ; Robinson, Beverley ; Bell, Hull.
William Smith, mercer, Uttoxeter, March 30, and April
27, at the Waterloo-rooms, Birmingham, at eleven. Valpy,
official assignee, Waterloo-street, Birmingham ; Catlow,
Cheadle.

Thomas Potts, draper, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, March 30,
at half-past ten, and April 29, at one, at the Newcastle-
upon-Tyne District Court. Baker, official assignee, New•
castle-upon-Tyne; Inglndew, Newcastle-upon -Tyne ; Will-
iamson and Hill, Verulam-buildings, Gray's-inm.
Thomas Slattery, corn broker, Liverpool, April 9 and 23, at
twelve, at the Liverpool District Court. Turner, official
assignee, Liverpool ; Sharpe and Co, Bedford-row, London ;
Lowndea and Co., Liverpool. •

PRICE OF SUGAR.
The average price of Brown orMuscovado Sugar, computed
from the returns made in the week ending March 16,
1847, is 345. 03/4d. per cwt.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool.
sack at Five o'clo( k.

POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Earl ST. GERMANS presented a petition from Salt-
ash, in the county of Devon, praying for a repeal of the
Poor Removal Act, and the substitution of a parochial
settlement.
The Bishop of DOWN and CONNOR presented a
petition from the ratepayers of the county of Lincoln,
praying for a repeal of the Law of Settlement; and also
a petition from Di omore, in Ireland, praying for a repeal
of the law forbidding marriage with a deceased wife's
sister.
The Earl of WICKLOW presented two petitions from
the county of Wicklow against the principle of out-
door relief, and against any alteration in the mode of
rating in that county. Also, a petition praying the
Goveinment to encourage au extensive system of emi-
gration. If he might be permitted to offer a suggestion,
which was not, however, one of his own, for he had not
yet fully considered the question, it was that facility
should be given by her Majesty's Government to grant
leans for the purposes of emigration, under the same
arrangements as were prop aed with regard to loans for
the improvement of estates.
POOR REMOVAL ACT.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
a rate-payer of Storrington, in the county of Sussex,
complaining that the Poor Removal Act operated
against him in an unjust and grit items manner, and praying
fora remedy. He hoped that the Noble Marquis (the Mar-
quis of Lansdowne) would see the necessity of having the
whole Law of Settlement brought under consideration.
lie must say that he differed altogether with the report
which the Select Committee on the Poor R moved Act had
come to, and thought if they delayed the amendment of
the Act till the whole question of the Law of Settle-
ment was disposed of, great injury would be inflicted,
It was not possible in one session of Parliament, and
before a general el, ction, to give that due consideration►
which such an important subject as the law of settle-
ment required. He had also a petition from the union
of Newenton, in the counties of Hereford, Worcester,
and Gloucester, to the same effect.
Lord CAMPBELL said, that having the honour of
being on the Committee, he entirely concurred in the
report which had emanated from it. One reason which
had greatly influenced him in cootirg to that decision
was, that the other House had strongly recommended
that there should be no legislation on the subject, till the
whole question had been fairly considered. But he would
not have come to that decision, if his own opinion had in
any degree led him to a different conclusion. It might
perhaps, have been as well if the Act had been retro-
spective as well es prospective, but if they were to bring
in a Bill now, having reference only to that clause, their
Lordships would find that there would be a great deal of
difficulty attending the working of it.
The Earl of SUFFOLK was understood to agree to
the prayer of the petition.
Lord BROUGHAM took the same view that the
framers of the report had taken, the general complainant
from the country against this Act was, not that it was
oppressive or unjust, but that it was so written that they
could neither make head nor tail of it.—(Laughter.)
They knew their mother tongue very well, but they
were unused to the step mother tongue of this Act of
Parliament.
Lord BEAUMONT did not rise to &fend the Act of
Parliament, but he wished to say one word in defence
of the decision to which the Noble Duke's Com-
mittee had come. One of the propositions made
to the Committee ha-1 been already disposed of by
the Noble and Learned Lord ; the other proposition
was, that they should frame another Act which would
operate from that time forward, and be somewhat
different from the Act passed in the last session of
Parliament ; but if that had been done, he felt
convinced that a great deal of inconvenience would
have arisen under the altered sydtetn. The only thing
in the Act difficult to be understood, was the proviso.
But even admitting that the ambiguity existed, he for
one should deprecate any interference with the Act, be-
cause it would affect that principle for which
they had been so long contending, namely, the
interminable removals of the poor from place to place.
That principle bad been established, but not carried out
efficiently, because no settlement was given. Under
these circumstances he thought they would derive the
advantage from the present measure, that it would lead
to the coneideration of the whole question, and when the
whole question had been considered, then should then
adopt measures to meet the imperfect state of law with
respect to removal.
The, Duke of RICHMOND begged to remind his
Noble and Learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell),
that he was of opinion that this Act was injurious to a
large class of the poor, who were most entitled
to the consideration of their Lordships' House ; be-
cause of late they (the Poor-law Guardians) had been
bringing into the unions those who had been receiving
outdoor relief. This law was said not to be retrospec-
tive; but in one case it had been decided that it was re-
trospective, and he would wish to know what Guardians
were to do under these circumstances. His Noble Friend
opposite (Lord Beaumont) had said, that the measure
would lead to much confusion, and give rise to a great
deal of litigation. Ile hoped and trusted that if her
Majesty's Government would not alter the plan, which
they had taken from Sir James Graham's sugges-
tions, that they wonld do justice to the poor-law.
guardians, and hear the expenses of any litigation that
might ensue.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Lord ASHBURTON thought that this measure was
certainly one entitled to consideration. Now, as
respected the opinion of the Noble Lord, al-
though he was satisfied that that opinion was distinctly
given, yet it could hardly be taken as a criterion for
the whole country. In the north of the country, where
he resided, it was very probable that this Act tight have
worked mischievously, but where he (Lord Ashburton)
resided it had proved of considerable benefit. and be-
fore it was repeated he thought that tune ought to be
given to the people to ease themselves of their obli
cations to each other.

Lord PORTMAN conceived that it was quite ne-
cessary that the question of the removal of the poor
should be decided upon as early as possible ; and he
must entreat that his Noble Friends, the Members of the
Governmant would, before the end of the session,
bring in a Bill, not a declaration, but an enactment which
would have the effect of doing what the Act of last ses
sion was intended to effect, viz., a retrospective in-
fluence upon the present state of the several pa-
rishes. He did not suppose that before the end
of the present session they would have time to
settle the question, and as it would be requisite before
Thursday next to give notice of removal to all the
parishes interested, for by the Act Lady-day
was appointed as the F xpira•ion of the time
for giving notice. It, therefore, absolutely

,
necessary that something should be done before
the ctnclusion of the session, for, unless they did, they
would have an immense number of pour before Michael.
was without any legitimate settlement. Shoultrthe
notices of removal be carried into effect, and the

poor be carried out of the parishes where they
now resided they would have to be taken to places
where there ►ere no houses to receive them ; and

befnre winter they would have a number of people
without a home or a right of relief. In one in-

stance which had come unat,r his notice, a number
of individt,als bad beets removed from the workhorse by
order of the medical man, and had been taken into

the houses is the place; the consequence of this %as
that they could not be taken to the several parishes to

He had understood that; this list was objected to by the
agellts of both. On the 16th of February the Committee
of Selection gave notice that the SelectConamii tee would
meet ou the 20th of March, that is one week later than
the time prrvtously appointed ; and with this notice
also they gave lists, as he understood, of the mem-
bers whom they had appointed to serve on the Com-
mlttee, comprising, as he believed, 300 Members and
a list of the Members ehj. cted to by both sides was re-
quested, and the Committee of Selection appointed the
Monday following for the settlement of the afbir. With
the notice stating the circumstance, they had given the
name of the Member who was named as chairman, as
well as those of the Members who were to act on the
Committee. He understood that these lists were again
objected to by both parties. The Hon. Member for Co-
ventry had been named as the chairman of one of these
Committees, and had complained to the House that this
objection should be permitted by the Committee of Se-
lection. The several agents of the Companies, as he
understood, had then stated the names of all the mein
hers, to which they objected. The only proof of this
which he had was a letter received by Mr. Creed, the
agent of the North-Western Company, part of which he
would read. This letter was dated the 16th of March,
and it stated that the writer had communicated the
names of the members objected to to the Committee of
Selection ; but, however desirable it might be
to shorten their labours, yet such a wholesale
objection as that stated in the communication
of the Company could not possibly be allowed.
He wished to have some explanation upon the subject
from the Hon. Baronet opposite, and he should be glad
to be corrected if he hod misrepresented any part of the
matter; but if what he had stated was truth, he must
say that the course which had been pursued was dero-
gatory to the House; and while he admitted the zeal
and ability wi.h which the Hon. Baronet performed the
laborious duties imposed upon him, he could not he'p
thinking that he had, in this instance, committed an
error of judgment. - -- -
Sir J. Y. BULLER said he had great pleasure in an-
swering the question of the Hon. Gentleman. The ap-
plications were not made to only three companies, but
to all the principal railway companies which were likely
to have Bills before the House this ses•
sion. They were requested, for the guidance
of the Committee of Selection, to -state whether
they objected to any Member sitting upon their Bills,
and if they did, their reasons for doing so. Only two
answers, however, were received— oae from the
Great Western Company, and the other
from the London and North Western Company.
As that course was the course prescribed by law in the
case of contested elections, that the parties petitioning
were called on to state their objection, he did not see
why that was not the proper courseito be adopted in this
instance. He did not know what were the numbers to
which the railway companies did object, but be be-
lieved that the Great Western Railway did object to a
much greater extent than the opposing company.
Mr. ELLICE said it appeared to him that when Hon.
Members heel been asked to serve, and had agreed, and
their names were published in the papers of that House,
he had hoped that his Hon. Friend opposite would have
come down and admitted that the Committee were in
error in having received these objections as valid, with-
wit giving reasons to Hon. Members for the course they
Fad adopted. As respected himself, if the Committee of
Selection had applied to him, he would at once say
whether either party had any just cause of objection to
him. But when he stated that in neither of these com-
panies had he the slightest interest, the remarks of the
Honourable Member, it would be seen, were ground-
less and false. The House, he thought, should pro-
tect Honourable Members from such imputations
being cast upon them, as it was necessary for its cha-
racter that its proceedings should not be called in ques-
tion, unless on sufficient grounds.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN -must say that he was not
surprised at the Honourable Gentleman taking the
matter up so warmly.• It was well known, however.
that there were many objections to Members serving on
such Committees, which did not in the least effect the
character os those who were objected to. He must
say that the the situation of the selected Com-
mittee was a most painful one, and if it was ren-
dered more so, it would be impossible for it to dis-
charge its duties with efficiency.—(Hear, and cheers.)
His own impression was, that the Hon. Member had
committed an error, but he did not think the course the
House had adopted would in any way lower its high
character.
Mr. ELLICE explained. He hoped he had not
expressed himself in any way to offend the
llonourable Member.— (Hear, hear.) It was true
he had spoken warmly on the subject, bat he did so
because he believed the character of the House was in-
volved in the matter.—(Hear, hear.) He disclaimed any
intention of wishing to cast any imputation whatever
on his Honourable Friend opposite, he disclaimed it the
other night, and he did so now. Ile knew the
arduous duty of a member of one of the Railway Cum-
mittees ; but be hoped that the practice of making
charges against a Committee behind its beck would nut
be repeated again.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. HERBERT considered that there was no wish
on the part of the Hon. Gentleman with whom the dis-
cussion had originated to cast any imputations on the
Hon. Member (Mr. Ellice). A misrepresentation pre-
vailed as to the right of persons to object to members
nominated to serve upon Committees. The South Wes-
tern sent a list to the Committee of Members to whom
they objected, but they refused to entertain any such
proceeding on the part of the Company, and the list was
in consequence returned to them. What the Committee
asked for was, a list of:the Members who were disqualified
from sitting on the Committees from their connexion
with various railways.. It was possible that a Corn-
mittee might not know those Members who were ei
rectors of companies ; and, therefore, it was necessary
that such a list should be-furnished to them whenever
they required it.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE stated that he endeavoured to
explain as well as he could, that he had no intention to
impute improper conduct to the members of the committee
behind their backs. The imputation, if it really was
an imputation was this, that every member
of the committee, with the exception of two,
were selected from one district of the country.
The discharge of the Committee had no reference to
private character or private connexion. Now he would
put himself upon the judgment of the House, he was
called upon by his lion. Friend to say that what
he bad done was wrong, and that he would
not do so more, but he maintained that what
he had done was right; and it, at any future time, from
any oversight or want of information, they should have
nominated a Committee., and afterwards it ap-
peared that there were good reasons to discharge
it, he would consider it his faithful duty to
face the obloquy which he knew attended him
at the present inoment.—(Cries of " No, no.") At all
events he knew that he had given some offence to his
Hon. Friend, but he would tell him that the reason why
he did not confer with him was, because there was no
question of private connexion, it was only an objection
to a line of country, and it was nothing which any
Gentlemen could answer, as required any eommu-nica-
tion with individual Members.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he rose as a Member
of the House, although he (lid n often take part in
the duties to which the discussion referred, yet he
thought it necessary to do so, after the statement
of the lion. Baronet. The objection to his Right
Hon. Friend was not that he Lad any private interest
or another to disqualify him from serving on the Com-
mittee, it was only to the ("lace which he represented,
and upon which there could be no difference of opinion
as to matter of fact. Ile concurred generally with the
Hon. Baronet, and he felt qaite sure that the House
could not do better than to leave all these matters to his
discretion, and he was certain that he would exercise a
sound discretion, and preserve the character of the
-House. He considered also that the House ought to
support him in the discharge of very onerous duties.
Mr. ELLIS wished to know whether should a Com-
mittee be appointed, after the fullest investigation and
named in the votes, it could be discharged without the
interference of the House.

A.cter a few words from Lord SANDON, which did
not retsch the gallery,
Mr, ,AGLIONBY suggested that before the Com-
mittee thotrainated by the Committee of Selection was
reported .to the House, or appeared on the votes, some
communi,.mtion should be made to the Members :6 hom the
Committee% of Selectiion intended to put upon the list.
He suggested that after this a c.mmunication should
be made to lion. Members, that then he might himself
object; but Ile did not think that the honour of the
House would be advanced by striking out the names of
Hon. Members of the Committee alter they had once
been placed upon it.
Mr. VILLIERS STEWART thought it was scarcely
fair that this charge should be brought forward
a second time, as that had been done in the first in-
stance, and an explanation given.
After a few words from Mr. BOUVERIE the subject
dropped.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.
In answer to a question put by an Hon. Member, Mr.
M. GIBSON said, that it was the intention of the
Government to proceed as speedily as possible with the
Bill relating to the Collection of Agricultural Statistics.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS' BILL.
Lord MAHON wished to know what course was in-
tended to be pursued with respect to the Juvenile Of-
fenders' Bill.

Sir G. GREY said that the Bill was proposed to be
read a second time, and that any discussion which might
arise upon it should be taken upon a subsequent stage.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir It. PEEL hoped the Noble Lord would allow him
to remind him of a rule of the House to which he often
used to call his (Sir Robert Peel's) attention, it was to
give the House distinctly to understand what
order of the day was to have the precedence over
the others.—(Hear, hear.) He believed it was gene-
rally understood that the Poor Relief Bill would be pro-
ceeded with, but it would be certainly an advantage to
have more decisive intimation.

Lord J. RUSSELL admitted the propriety of the
Right lion. Baronet's remark.

WINDOW-TAX.
Lord DUNCAN wished to know whether there was
anything in the Health of Towns Bill, bearing upon the
window-tax? The Noble Lord the Commissioner of
Wood and Forests had given an opinion, in which he
expressed a decided coviction that this tax militated

against the health of the population.
Lord MORPETH said that the window-tax was a
financial, as well as alsanitary question, and as he had re-
ceived no intimation from the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer on the subject, he could not promise that any
alteration would be made with respect to it.
HIGHWAYS.
Mr. AGLIONBY wished to ask the Secretary of State
for the Home Department whether it was the intention
of Government to introduce any measure for amending
the law, and providing for the better management of
highways ?