The Sun.
London, England, 1840-06-03 00:00:00

CLAIMS OF THE BRITISH LEGION.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRIF;isVediOask
the Noble Viscount opposite if there were any hopes
that the negotiations on the subject of the claims of the
British Legion would be brought to a satisfactory and
speedy termination. If the Noble Viscount could hold.
out to him such an expectation, he would postpone the
motion of which he had given notice of an address to her
Majesty on the subject for Thursday next.
Lord MELBOURNE said that the r;gociations
were still going on, and he trusted they would be
brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY then said that
he would postpone his motion from Thursday next till
a later period.
Lord RAYLEIGH presented petitions from Ray-
leigh, and from. various places in Essex, against any
alteration in the Corn-laws. The Noble Lord also pre-
sented a petition from Essex in favour of Church Ex-
tension.

CHURCH INTRUSION (SCOTLAND).
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented peti-
tions from various places in Scotland against the intrusion
of Ministers in the Scottish Church. The Noble Marquis
proceeded to say that the excitement prevailing on that
subject in Scotland was already so strong, as not to re-
quire that anything should be said or done in the
House or elsewhere, which could tend to aggravate
the feelings of the people of Scotland. He should
say that if that people, attached as they were-
to all the principles of their Presbyterian Church, con-
sidered that by the decision of the Civil Judicature of
the country their rights had been infringed on, they
would only conscientiously discharge their duty in endea-
vouring to obtain an alteration of the law. The pastors
of that Church would, in his opinion, have deserted
their obligations, and would not fulfil their duties, if they
did not endeavour to maintain the Ecclesiastical Juris-
diction of their Church when they thought it had been
assailed.

The Earl of ABERDEEN was at a loss to un-
derstand what was the meaning of the Noble Mar-
quis in the observations he had offered to the House.
The Noble Marquis had said that the people of Scot-
land had a right to call for an alteration of the law
which they complained of. Undoubtedly they had.
—(Hear, hear.") But when the Noble Marquis
(Breadaibane) had said that they were justified in cox.-
plaining of an entrench:lcent on their rights, and a viola-
tion of them, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) should say
that no such violation had taken place. The law of
the land had been justly and equitably pronounced,
and the clergy of Scotland could not lawfully resist it.
The hundreds of petiti.ms which had been presented
against Church Intrusion, left it to the wisdom of Par-
liament to devise the means of effecting their objects.
1, my Lords (continued the Noble Earl), profess myself
as favourable to Non-Intrusion as any of those petitioners,
but then it is the Non-Intrusion sanctioned by the law
and supported by the constitution of the Church ; and
give me leave to say, that while the Church of Scot-
land is receiving the support of the State she must obey
the law—as a Church of Christ she may exist without
the law, but as a National Church, and maintained by
the law, she must obey the law.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Earl concluded by saying that he deferred any
further discussion on the subject till the whole proceed-
ings of the General Assembly were before them.
The Earl of CAMPERDO WN said he entirely
differed from the Noble Marquis who had presented
these petitions, and he must express his strong con.
viction that the Church of Scotland was at present in
direct opposition to the decree of the Courts of
Law to which she herself had appealed, and that
no body of men in this empire ought to be
allowed to bid defiance to the judicial authorities ; and
he must also express his conviction--attached as he
was to the Church of Scotland—the course she was
now pursuing was calculated more than anything else to
advance the views of those who were for a separation
of Church and State, a consummation which he most
earnestly deprecated. The Bill of the Noble Earl was
mainly but a confirmation of the old law, and he deeply
regretted the position in which the Assembly, opposing
that law, had placed themselves.
The Marquis of BREA DAL BA NE said the General
Assembly could not justly be designated as rebels.
Lord BROUGHAM said he felt the impropriety
of continuing a conversation of this nature, but he
rose to remark upon a word which had fallen from his
Noble Friend who had just sat down. He had not applied
the term ‘. rebel" to the Church of Scotland, and in the
present excited state of that minority, for minority he
believed them who were in opposition to the law, he
could not allow it to go forth that he bad used such a
term, and he must add that it was by no means true
that the majority of the Church was opposed to the
law—it was only the majority of the Assembly—(Hear)

RPSllTUri!seTtßoAcaDllEth'e attention of
Lord LYNDSHUUL
their Lordships to a subject of considerable import-
ance. Their Lordships had no doubt read the papers
which had been laid upon the table regarding the
Sulphur Monopoly in Sicily, and their Lordships were
perhaps surprised to find no mention of a copy of the
treaty which had been negotiated at the close of the
last year by Mr. Macgregor with the Sicilian Govern-
ment, and that no copies had been furnished of the cor-
respondence between that gentleman and the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs. At the time the Noble
Viscount proposed to lay these papers on the table of
the House, he stated that he should produce among
bring
goble Viscount the question
them the copy of the treaty ; but he afterwards stated
that he would not produce it, but he did not assign any
reason for that change in his mind ; and he (Lord Lynd-
hurst)
before b
etel thoughtilause ,
nt hiserd
order
duty
thattothe
bri
might have an opportunity of stating to their Lordships the
reasons for his change of determination, and the grounds
on which he refused the production of the papers in
question. Very possibly it might he said that that
treaty had no relation to the question of the sulphur
monopoly ; but even if that were so, the treaty itself,
and the correspondence relating to it, were documents
of so much importance that he should be entitled to
move for their production. It could not, however, be
said with truth that they did not connect themselves
with the transactions in question. The two matters
were negotiated together—they were mixed up toge-
ther while the negotiations were carried on, and they
were concluded by the same individual ; and that which
was absolutely conclusive with respect to their connec-
tion with the present question was, that in that
treaty so negotiated, and the terms of which wore
settled between the parties, it was expressly stipulated
that all monopolies, except some of the Royal monopo-
lies, including those of salt, tobacco, and gunpowder,
should terminate
thatthey
d
odriiagi
not forme an essential part of these
documents, and that they were required to give their
Lordships full information with respect to tb state of
these transactions. But not only was the treaty not
laid upon the table, but no part of the correspondence
relating to it, although it was quite obvious that many
letters must hare passed between Mr. M'Gregor and
Lord Palmerston on the subject. Among the letters
which were produced, and which were merely extracts,
it would appear that the utmost care and caution had
been used to cut out and exclude every thing relating to
the treaty, or having the most remote reference to it.
But it might be said that this treaty and these papers
could not he produced without inconvenience to the
public service. It was manifest to any persons who con-
sidered the subject, that it was quite impo_sible for them
to form a correct opinion with respect to the

position :of this country with regard to Naples,
and in particular with regard to the conduct of the
Government of this country, with respect to these trans-
actions, without:the production of these documents ;
and if it were said that these documents could not
be produced without public inconvenience, the
answer was, that on all occasions of this
description if full information could not be communicated,
information should be entirely withheld ; because if all in-
formation were withheld they were placed in this situation,
they were compelled to suspend their judgment with res-
pect to the conduct of the Government; but to give them
only partial information, was to lead them into rash and
possibly incorrect conclusions on subjects of the most vital
interest to the country. If it were necessary.to cite au-
thorities on this, he could cite one of the highest character
in the opinion of the Noble Viscount. He referred to a
remarkable speech delivered in the other House, by a
Noble Lord, in the year 1810, when he took that same
line of argument he (Lord Lyndhurst) was now pursuing,
and stated on that occasion, precisely what he had now
stated. " When the time arrived the Government thought
information might be communicated without it being in.
cumbent to give such papers as should really elicit the
transactions to which they relate, and afford such explana-
tion as should enable Parliament to receive sound and
correct information as to the course pursued, they
should be furnished ; but to 'give imperfect in-
formation was to make a mockery of Parliament
under pretence of submitting to its jurisdiction." The
Noble Lord was then in opposition, and then of 'course he
was for obtaining the most extensive information on every
subject respecting Foreign politics, though now be found
it convenient to restrict it as much as possible.
Lord LANSDOWNE—It must have been in some
other year.

Lard L YNDHURST—Oh yes, it was on the 10th of
March, 1830. Their Lordships were placed in a situation
not a little singular; but on this occasion only, but on all
similar occasions, it almost always happened in communi-
cating official information, that it was much less extensive
than that communicated to the rest of the public through
the ordinary channels of intelligence. But in this case all
knew the history of the transaction. The terms of the
treaty were sanctioned by Mr. M'Gregor on the one side,
and by the agents of the Sicilian Government on the
other. Those terms were entirely approved of, and
the ratification was looked for with impatience
by the British merchants. But they were disap-
pointed, and they fund at last that the duties which
were to have been abolished if the treaty had been carried
into effect were enforced by new regulations. When he
said that the terms of the treaty were known and approved
of by the British merchants trading to Sicily, he said that
which was notorious. Tho differential duties in favour of
Naplct, amounting to 30 or 40 per cent., were to be abo-
lished by a certain day, named in the treaty. It was far-
ther stipulated to reduce the existing duties 10 per cent.,
and to reduce the duty on British colonial produce,
whether imported into
_the Sicilian dominions direct from
our colonies, or from Great Britain, to one-half. The
Sicilian merchants were satisfied with Mr. M'Gregor's
conduct in bringing about the treaty. But not only was
the ratification desired by the British merchants, but also
by the landowners in Sicily ; and it appeared from the
letter of Mr. Kennedy to Lord Palmerston, that the
people of Sicily were all most desirous of the treaty,
which was also wished for by the Neapolitan Go-
vernment itself.—( Hear, hear.) In November last
all the terms of the treaty were settled ; but the
ratificatiobs had not been exchanged up to the present
day. He had heard various absurd reasons assigned, as to
why the British Government did not assent to the ratifi-
cation. But he found ono reason suggested, in the
documents which had been laid upon the table ; and it
appeared to him to be the probable one, although it also
appeared to be the best possible reason for the ratification,
It was suggested that there was good reason for not rati-
fying a treaty with a Government which did not act upon
treaties that already existed. But he apprehended that
was a reason why this treaty ought to have been ratified.
It was true that the monopoly granted by the Neapolitan
Government was an infraction of the treaty of 1816. But
the Government of Naples denied the infraction ; and the
treaty in question settled the disputed point by putting
an end to the monopoly. After that the only question
which would have remained between the two Governments
was the amount of compensation which should be paid to
those who were injured by the violation of the former
treaty. The fact was that this country was most unfortu.
nate in the superintendence of its commercial affairs. Let
them mark the history of the trade. In 1837 the monopoly
had been first established on the part of the Government.
But that monopoly was a direct infraction of the treaty of
1816. It was productive of great and incalcuable injury
to our commercial interests in Sicily. That was asserted
on the part of the Government of England. But the
monopoly had been persevered in, the injury had been
continued, and up to this moment no redress had been 03-
tained, nor was there a likelihood of obtaining any. Was
he not right, then, in complaining of the supineness of the
Government of this country with respect to those proceedings?
He would not enter into any details advanced in the public
papers on the subject, of the losses sustained in this coun-
try. He would, however, refer to a document laid on the
table of the House, which gave a short and striking view
of the subject. They would find it:stated, on the authority
of Mr. M'Gregor, who appeared to have paid the greatest
attention to the subject, that the effect of the continuance
of the monopoly would be to exclude British commerce alto-
gether from Sicily. He stated that a single house in Glasgow,
the house of Tennent and Co., would be under the necessity
of importing for their own use, and of paying, in conse-
quence of the monopoly, an additional sum of upwards of
50,0001. Such was the extent of the evil to our com-
merce, and the manufacturing interests of this coun-
try. Ile would allude to another passage of the
letter of Mr. M'Gregor, in which that gentleman
stated that the British merchants had a quantity
of sulphur on hand, which they could not export unless by
paying a duty of 84s. Bd. a ton, in consequence of the
monopoly. That would be utter ruin to them, and there
was therefore an immense quantity of sulphur lying in dif-
ferent parts, which would be useless so long as the mono-
poly continued in force. The present state o f things of-
fered in consequence nothing but prospects of ruin to cur
merchants, instead of their former flourishing condition. The
British merchants, in their memorial to the Board of
Trade, had stated that by reason of this monopoly, the
trade in Sicily had been entirely suspended. They had
resided there in daily and constant hope—which, however,
had been daily and constantly frustrated—that, by the in-
tervention of the British Government, their losses and
wrongs would be redressed. Now, what was the state of
things now ? No measure of any rigour had been taken,
until it was apprehended that Parliament would interfere;
that is: not till January in the present year—the letter of
Lord Palmerston to Mr. Kennedy. What had been the
result ? Why, a mediation at Paris, 1,200 miles from
Sicilyl—three weeks or a month being required for an ex-
change of couriers. By this course the object of
the monopolists had been completely accomplished,
that object being delay. The monopoly had not been sus-
pended during the negotiation. The mediation was not
stopped. Still did the monopoly go on ; each day it lasted
bringing fresh losses on our merchants. Why, the mono-
polists and the Neapolitan Government had in January
said that six months snore of the monopoly would
answer their purpose. In June, that period would he
arrived at. Thus the whole aim and design of the mono-
polists had been advanced by the negligence of the Go-
vernment, the markets of Europe would be filled by sul-
phur at the monopolists' prices, our policy would excite
the laughter, the derision, and the scorn of all nations ;
it would be seen that our own folly had completely fur-
thered and completed the views of our rivals, and the lan-
guage of the French and Sicilians was, " We have gained
a great triumph over the English—, Avec Monsieur
M' Gregor ;' " and soon they would be able to add a yet
prouder boast, and say, " Avec Messieurs Melbourne et
Palmerston."—(Laughter.) He would cite another ex-
tract from the same speech of singular eloquence, as well
as the poetical quotation with which it was con-
cluded and adorned, it being strikingly applicable
to the present state of affairs.—(Hear.) " Negotia-
tions in this matter have been undertaken, and
have ended in acknowledged nothings, (precisely the
case with the sulphur monopoly.) The Government has
eluded the wishes of the subject (precisely the case with
the sulphur monopoly) and we hear on all sides, from innu-
merable towns, a dismal universal hiss ; the sound of public
scorn." He quoted the whole of this passage as much
more strong and less objectionable than any thing he could
urge on this subject. Ile had touched very generally on
matters connected with the motion he seas about to make,
and the papers he desired should be laid upen the table as
the time would shortly come when it would deserve and
receive more minute investigation. Ile would, therefore,
conclude by moving that an humble address be presented
to her Mejesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased
to give directions to be laid before that House a copy of
the Treaty with the Neapolitan Government in 1830, and
of the correspondence between Lord Palmerston ald Mr.
M'Gregor, relating thereto.
Lord MELBOURNE said that perhaps their Lord-
ships would remember when last this question was brought
forward by the Noble and Learned Lord, he ( Lord Mel-
bourne) had given an account of those praccedinn''s
of Mr. M'Gregor at Naples, which the Noble Lord
called negotiations, awl of that document which
he denumivated throughout the whole of his speech
as a treaty, and in those expressions—negotiation and
treaty—lay a good deal of the fallacy of the Noble Lord's
argumeet. On that occasion he (Lord Melbourne) showed
there was no d•ssire whatever for concealment on the part,
of her Nlajety's Government, and when the time arrived
to which the Noble and Learned Lord alluded in his speech,
that would lie the time to go more fully into those matters,
and into a more ample and deliberate examination of them ;
but be begged to say at tile present moment that he could
feel theic would be no difficulty in being aisle to convince
their Lordships these documents were not of such a nature
and character as ought to be produced, and more particu-
larly that, if they were such as ought to be produced at any
time, that unquestionably they ought not to be produced
under the present circumstances, and in the present, state
of iiffairs between this country and Naples. On no
ac-
count whatever ought those papers, in his opinion, to be
produced o at all, and unquestionably not at a time whets ne-
go •
triltions were pending on the whole matter at issue be-
the two countries. Their Lordships were aware
tars'ca'etr
fur some years, as the Noble Lord had stated, there
had been negotiations between this country and Naples
on the subject of the treaty of 1816, and that we
were always desirous for an alteration it that treaty, with
respect to the duty on shipping, arid on the part of the
Neapolitans for an abatement of the preference we had
with respect to the amount of duty to other nations ; and
in the course of those negotiations the Neapolitan Govern- ,

ment promised the revision of the whole of their tariff —of
the whole duty on their exports and imports, and in the
new treaty engaged that this treaty should be made to de-
pend on the continuance of the amount of duties so settled
in that tariff. It was for that purpose alone Mr. M‘Gre-
gor was sent to Naples—for the mere purpose of adopting
the duty between the two countries, and settling the tariff.
He entered into a negotiation with Prince Cassarol on
the subject, and certainly did frame notes with respect to
the negotiation, which each signed and transmitted borne ;
but that document could in no manner be called a treaty,
as Mr. M'Gregor had no power to enter into a treaty,
nor any instructions as to the manner in which such treaty
should be framed; and, consequently, although theso
notes were not framed on sound principles, and
well fitted to form the basis of a treaty, yet
in them were many fundamental objections, which
rendered it impossible that document could be ratified as a
treaty, in the shape in which it was framed. For instance,
when the Noble Lord stated that all monopolies were
abolished by an article in that document, he was com.
pletely mistaken, for it did not affect the sulphur mono-
poly. It stated that British commerce should not in fu
Lure be fettered by monopolies, and those which existed at
that time were put on a completely new footing. It
abandoned the ground under which they were taken, and
on which they stood, and all claims on the part of those
who had suffered by the proceedings of the Sicilian Go-
vernment, to indemnity ; for under ainew treaty they would
not have been valid, and therefore they would have no
claim to indemnity. It was confined wholly to future ne-
gotiations, which was necessarily all that could be
effected by those notes which had been signed
by Prince Cassarol and Mr. 11.Gregor.—(Hear, hear.)
The only thing to be done then was to frame, with all ex-
pedition, a new treaty upon these notes, at the same time
supplying whatever was defective in them—amend-
ing what was vicious, and retrenching what was super-
fluous, and sending them out to the Neapolitan Govern-
ment. That was the course that was taken, but it was
evidently perfectly impossible--it was not consistent with
their duty or interests, or indeed was it possible in any
way to have ratified these notes as a treaty in the shape in
which they then stood. The only light in which they could
be considered was as a part of the negotiations, and ac-
cording to all Parliamentry usage, it would be in the
highest degree improper to produce them while the nego-
tiations were pending, as they undoubtedly now were.
The negotiation was, at the present moment, pending, and
under the mediation of the French Government. The
rest of the notes a ere merely amendments and renewals
of the treaty of 1816. The treaty, although it had been
suspended by the sulphur monopoly question, was still a
pending negotiation, and as soon as that matter had ter-
minated would be again renewed, and therefore, on the
simple grounds that it was not wise or judicious on general
principles to produce such a correspondence, he trusted
most confidently that their Lordships would not support
the motion of hie Noble and Learned Friend if he insisted on
the production of these papers. He admitted that
if the Government could produce information it should
be produced, but that they had already done. The ob-
ject they hail in view was to vindicate their conduct with
respect to Naples, until there had been a theided refusal
on the part of the Neapolitan Government to abolish the
sulphur monopoly.: From the moment the mediation of
France was accepted, a new era was introduced and a new
state of things arose, and he contended that it was not
wise or prudent to embarrass in any way that negotiation
by the production 6f papers relating to that part of the
transactions. That was the short ground on which he
should refuse his assent to the motion. Their Lerdships,
he trusted, would be of opinion that it would be far more
judicious to wait until the whole matter had terminated,
and then these papers could be produced without detri
ment to the public service. The Noble and Learned
Lord, not content with moving for the production of these
papers, had spoken with great contempt and disapproba-
tion of the course that had been pursued by her Majesty's
Government. He had said that there was great delay and
great neglect, and that the interests of the merchants had
been compromised and injured. If their Lordships would
look at the cause of the delay, they would find that it had
arisen from the conduct of the Neapolitan Government.
They had more than once promised to put an end to the
monopoly, and under such circumstances it would hardly
have been wise or prudent for the British Go-
vernment to have adopted what his Noble and
Learned Friend called a more decisive course, but
which he would call a more violent proceeding. He
believed the negotiations were going on with as great
speed as possible—there had been no suspension of the
proceedings, and he had ne reason to think that any de-
lay would take place. fie admitted that while the trade
was under suspension, considerable inconvenience and loss
must result ; but he believed that no good would come of
discussing these points. Upon these plain Parliamentary
grounds he trusted their Lordships would not compel the
production of these papers.
Lord LYNDHURST begged to ask what treaty it
was the Noble Viscount undertook to lay upon the table.
Was it the imperfect treaty, or the one that had been after-
wards drawn up at home, founded upon these notes ?

Viscount MEL BOURNE mea.,t these imperfect notes
of Mr. MiGregor ; but upon consideration he had decided
otherivise, and taken the earliest opportunity of apprising
the Noble and Learned Lord.

Lord LYNDHURST said, as the negotiations were
pending, be would not be justified in pressing for the pro-
duction of the treaty, and with regal d to the correspond-
ence, as their Lordships might be of opinion that it formed
part of the same transaction, he would not press it.
The motion was then withdrawn.
PRISON DISCIPLINE AMENDMENT.

On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on
the amendments of the Commons on the Prison Discipline
Bill,
The Marquis of NORMANBY said there was one
amendment which be wished to bring under the considera-
tion of their Lordships. It referred to the classification
of persons confined for misdemeanours and felonies. The
amendment had been proposed to meet specific cases that
had lately occurred, at the same time leaving a discretion
to the visiting justices. He was inclined to do that merely
as a temporary measure, because he was not satisfied that
this discretion should be permanently left to the justices.
He did not think that the relaxation of the prison rules
should be confined merely to the case of political libels,
but that others of the same class also should be included.
He was anxious that no delay should take place, if their
Lordships were inclined to sanction the amendment, be-
cause certainly there were some cases at present in which
it would be desirable to apply it. He had shown the
amendment to his Noble and Learned Fricod the Lord
Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and he had
given it his sanction. The amendment was to the effect
that when any person should be confined in any prison,
gaol, bridewell, penitentiary, or house of correction, and
that it should appear to the Visiting Justices, or her Ma-
jesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, that
there were good grounds why the rules of such prison
should be relaxed in his favour, it should be lawful for
such Visiting Justices to relax such rules or regulations.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said the intention of
the House of Commons was to alter the Bill expressly
to meet certain cases which had lately occurred. In
point of fact, the proposition of the Noble Marquis was
that they should agree to the amendment of the House of
Commons, for the express purpose of dealing with the par-
ticular cases of individuals now in prison. He did not
think that was a fair way of treating the question, because
if the Noble Marquis thought that these parties were en-
titled to any indulgence he had the power of exercising
the clemency of the Crown. He would appeal to the
discretion of the House, whether it was right to make this
great alteration in our policy in this way. The form of
putting in the amendments rendered it almost impossible
to understand them. He, therefore, hoped the Noble
Marquis would postpone them to another opportunity.
Lord L YNDHURST would suggest that the amended
Bill be printed, that the amendments proposed by the
Noble Marquis should also be printed, in order to give
their Lordships time to consider the matter.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that if delay were
asked for in order to have the amendments printed, of
course he could not object to it. There was one mistake,
however, into which the Noble Marquis had fallen, which
he was desirous of correcting. He had not stated that it
was his intention to remit the sentences of the persons re-
ferred to—he had not stated that such was his view in pro-
posing the amendment. The ground on which he proposed
it wiz, that he was of opinion it was very desirable that
some discretion should be vested in the Justices to act ac-
cording to the circumstances of each case, without con-
fining that discretion to any particular cases. He did
not think delay necessary, but if it were asked on those
grounds, of course he could not refuse it.
The Marquis of SALISBURY was only anxious their
Lordships should have an opportunity of considering the
amendments.
The Earl of WARWICK considered it dangerous to
make alterations in Bills like those proposed by these
amendments. It was very bad policy to legislate for par-
ticular cases. With regard to some of the cases alluded
to, and which had come under his own observation, he
would take upon himself to say that never had individuals
been batter treated in gaol than those individuals had been.
They all knew how the clamour about these cases bad been
got up, and the other House asked their Lordships to le.
gislate under the impression produced by those cases. He
thought delay was desirable—at all events they ought to
have the amendments printed, and in the mean time their
Lordships could consider the situation in which those
people were placed.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that although there
might be souse occasional convenience in the proposed ar-
rangement, yet it was so objectionable in principle that he
could hardly see how any Legislative Assembly could as-
sent to it. The Noble Marquis himself said that he did
not entirely approve of it, and that he looked forward to
some greater elteration in the law on this subject. He
would, therefore, suggest that the Noble Marquis should
t ike a delay of a few days, and then bring forward, not
these amendments, which he himself admitted
were objec-
tionable, but those alterations of which lie approved.
Lord PORTM AN said that all that his Noble Friend
asked for the Secretary of State and the Visiting Justices
was the same power as that now possessed by the surgeon
of the gaol in epecial cases. As the law was at present,
if a person were committed to prison for attempting to
promote a breach of the peace, he would be liable to be
subjected to all the severities of prison discipline
inflicted on persons convicted of nosdemeanonre,
uh!ess there were some poser of relaxation given. Now,
although he would not attempt to justify a provocation to
a breach of the peace, yet he thought their Lordships could
net be very desirous that every person convicted of such
an offence should be subjected to the same discipline as all
other prisoners.

Mr. LABOLICHERE moved the omission of
the 3Sth clause, which exempted all vessels belonging to
freemen of Exeter from dues in that port. It was not
a new principle, but was one often acted upon by tile
Board of Tiede before—they were anxious to do away
with such exclusive pris lieges as far as possible, and took
advantage of any parties applying to Parliament for
further powers. He considered it his duty to do so,
holding the office he was entrusted with. He thought
the Bill a very proper one, but he trusted the House
would agree to his motion.
Sir W. FOLLETT felt satisfied that when the
House was in possession of the facts of the case
they would not assent to the proposition of the Right
Hon. Gentleman. The Town Council of Exeter were
entitled, by immemorial usage and prescription, to levy
certain duties on all goods imported into the port of
Exeter. The origin of that custom was so remote that
it could not be traced. The freemen were the only par-
ties excepted from these duties, and that was the case
not only in Exeter, but in other corporate towns.
When the Municipal Bill was before the House of
Coalitions, the rights and privileges of the freemen
came under discussion, and it was decided that they
should not be deprived of those rights which they
enjoyed by prescription. That principle wag
sanctioned also by the other House of Parlia-
ment. He complained under these circumstances
of the attempt that was now made to deprive the
freemen of these privileges, and he hop,d
the House would not sanction the proposition of tire
Right Hon. Gent. The main object of the Bill was
not the importation of any new duties, but the re-ad-
justment cf those which the Corporation was already
entitled to levy. He should, therefore, oppose the
amendment of the Right lion. Gent.

Mr. DI V ETT supported the Bill in its present shape,
Mr. LABOUCIjERE said, so far from these ex-
ceptions being of no injury to the comrnerciiil interest,
there was no more fertile source of complaint aulong
them. lie felt it his duty to give the dame every op.
position in his power.
The !louse then divided, when the numbers vrere--.
For tile Bill
For the amendment
Majority —24

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
Mr. G. PALMER brought up the Report on Mr.
Austin's Patents.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from
Mr. Austin complaining of the manner in which the
Bill, on the subject of these patents, had bee❑ formerly
committed. The Hon. Member moved that the Bill
should be re-committed.—The motion was agreed to.
On the mo:io❑ of Mr. LOWTHER, the York Im-
provement Bill vvas read a third time.
On the motion of Mr. E. TENNENT, the Belfast
Charitable Society Bill was read a third time and passed.

MR. O'CONNOR.
Mr. F. KELLY presented a petition in fay.eur of Mr.
F. O'Connor, complaining that he had been subjected
to the most cruel and unjustifiable privations, and pray-
ing that the House would institute an inquiry int• the
case, and afford redress.

Mr. BYNG presented a petition from the White-
chapel Board of Guardians against certain clauses in
the Poor-laws Amendment Act—The petition was
ordered to be printed.

Mr. C. LUS HINGTON presented petitions from
Finsbury, and other places, against Church-rates and
Church Extensicn.

On the motion of Lord JAMES STUART the
Report of the Committee on the Ardrossan and Jan-
stone Railway Bill (with Amendments) was agreed to.
EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY.

The Order of the Day for the further consideration
of the Report of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway
Bill was then read and certain amendments were agreed to.

NON-INTRUSION.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a peti-
tion from Edinburgh, which was agreed to at a large
public meeting held in that city on the subject of
what was called Lord Aberdeen's Bill, relating
to the disputes at present subsisting between the Civil
and Ecclesiastical Courts in Scotland. The petitioners
stated it to be their opinion that the proposed Bill was
calculated to aggravate the evils it professed to remedy,
that it would violate:the consciences of many individuals,
and would end by subverting the establishment, and
praying the house not to consent to its passing into a law.
Sir P. POLLOCK presented a petition from Hunt.
indon against any public support to the College of
Maynooth.