The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-30 00:00:00

CORN.LNWS.

Earl FITZ WILLIAM said it was not his intention to
fix any day for the discussion of the Corn-laws, but he
must take that, the only opportunity he should have before
the financial statement should be brought forward else-
where, of drawing the attention of the House to the Corn.
laws, in conne::ion with our finances. The Noble Duke
had alluded to the impolicy of keeping our establishments
on a low scale, but that was only half the questi9n. These
could not be maintained without a large and increasing
revenue, and how was that to be obtained? Commerce
was diminished, manufactures were diminished, and were
those who signed petitions for continuing the Corn-laws
prepared to say that the revenue of the country could be
kept up without revising the whole system of the import
duties? _ .

The Earl of WARWlCK.—Certainly.
Earl FIT Z WIL LIAM thought the Noble Lord could
have paid little attention to the recent investigations on
the subject. They must make up their minds to lay
their taxes not on those who laboured for wealth, but on
those who had acquired wealth. They must make up their
minds to a property-tax. As to what the nature of
it might be was a different question, hut they must make
up their minds that they could rot exempt them-
selves from taxation in the way they had hitherto
done.—( Hear.) They could not say that they
would exempt one article from the searching exami-
nation to which the whole system of import duties most be
subjected. It was a delusion to imsgine that they could
say to the people you may have cheap tea or cheap sugar,
but you shall not touch that article on which our rents
depend—you shall not have cheap bread. The increase
in the exports of half manufactured articles, connected as
it 'A-h° with the decrease in the export of the perfected
manufactui:', was one of the most fatal symptoms. These
ne•e matters des-'"ing of the most serious consideration,
and he should not have :lone his duty if he had not called
attention to the subject on eve of the financial state-
ment being brought forward. Ti; Noble Earl then pre-
sented several petitions in favour of a rcc'sion of the Im-
port Duties, and a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Earl STANHOPE said the decline of the revenue
was solely attributable to a repeal of taxation. He thoughi
the old prohibitory system the one most conducive to the
comfort and prosperity of the country.
Lord ASHBURTON said, if they gave up a large
amount of Post office duties they must expect a deficient
revenue. If the Noble Earl would bring the question of
the Report of the Committee on Import Duties regularly
Prove that a more
before the House, he (Lord A.) would
shallow, vague, partial, and unfounded statement had
never issued from either House of Parliament. The
manufacturing distress was entirely owing to the state of
the currency in the United State, and if the currency of
America were placed in a sound state their difficulties
would disappear.
Earl FIT Z W IL L I A NI denied that there was atemporary
fluctuation merely in the demand for our manufactures; the
demand for them teas gradually and steadily on the de-
cline. It Leas riot clear that the stale of the currency on
the other side of the Atlantic might not have been in-
fluenced by the iransactir:ns on this side of the Atlantic.
The Earl of CLARENDON presented a petition from
the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, praying for
the repeal of all discriminating and protective duties
whatever. Also a similar petition from Musselburgb.
POOR-LAW.

Earl STANHOPE presented several petitions pray-
, ing for a repeal of the new Poor-law, and gave notice
' that if the Bill now in progress in the House of Com-
mons on the subject of the new Poor-law, continuing the
unconstitutional powers of the Commissioners, should be
brought up to that House, he should on notice for the
second reading, move that it be read a second time that
day six months.
-The various Bills on the table were forwarded a stage,
And their Lordebipaaajourped_at Seven o'Clock.

110 USE OF COMMONS, APRIL 29.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o' Clock.
Alr. WALTER was introduced by Sir F. Burdett and
Mr. Fielden, and took the oaths and his seat for Notting-
ham, amidst loud cheers from the Opposition Members,
BRITISH PLATE GLASS COMPANY.
Mr. R. HODGSON moved that the British Plate
Glass Company Bill, which had been referred to the
Hampshire List, should be referred back to the Committee
of Selection, with an instruction to the Committee that it
he referred to the Surrey List instead of the Hampshire
List.
Mr. ESTCOURT defended the conduct of the Com-
mittee of Selection, but thought it immaterial to what list
the Bill should be referred.
Mr. HODGSON HINDE supported the motion.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed the motion, on the
ground that the House was bound to support the decision
of the Committee of Selection, unless some improper con-
duct could be proved against them.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS thought it desirable that the Bill
should be referred to a Committee, the members of which
were more connected with trade and commerce than the
members on the Hampshire list, and he should therefore
support the motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared,
For the motion
Against it
M,,jority against the motion
On the motion of the Earl of SURREY the Bury
(Sussex) Inclosure Bill was read a third time and passed.
Lord BA RRINGTON presented a petition from the
Poor-law guardians of a union in Surrey against certain
clauses in the Poor-law Bill.
Mr. LANGDALE presented petitions from the Roman
Catholics of Leicester and another place, praying that
paupers of that persuasion might be attended by Roman
C.tholic clergymen in the workhouses.
Mr. LEADER presented petitions from the Tower
Hamlets and Westmins:er, praying for a free pardon for
Frost, Jones, and Williams. The Hon. Member pre-
sented several other petitions, the purport of which we
were unable to catch from the great noise prevailing in
the body of the House.
Mr. VILLIERS presented the following petitions
against the Corn-laws—one from the City of London,
signed by 1,260 householders, with the names of the street
and number of their residences affixed; two from Rather-
hithe ; one from Tottenham-court-road ; two from West-
minster ; one from Southwark; one from the county of
Down; one from the linen bleachers of Spring Vale, Bain-
bridge ; and one from the operatives of Stewarton, in
Sectiand.
Sir R. BATESON presented eighteen petitions from
Londonderry, Down, Donegal, and Antrim, against Church
Patronage in Scotland.
Petitions in favour of Church Extension were presented
by Sir CHARLES BURRELL and Lord LisconN.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN presented a petition from a
place in the county Limerick in favour of the Government
Registration Bill, and against that of Lord Stanley.
The Honourable Member also postponed to Thursday,
the 13th of May, the motion of which he had given
notice, for the House going into Committee on Fri-
day next, to consider an address to her Majesty, pray-
ing that she will be graciously pleased to recom-
mend to Parliament that provision be made for carrying
into effect the suggestions contained in the second Report
of the Commissioners appointed to consider and recom-
mend a general system of Railways in Ireland, subject to
such extension or modification as may appear desirable to
her Majesty's advisers and to Parliament.
Mr. G. PALMER begged to ask what was the inten-
tion of her Majesty's Ministry respecting the Poor-law
Commission Continuance Bill ? The Hon. Member,
who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say
that he thought it bet er for the Government at once to
bring in a Bill to abolish vestries, and to deprive the
parishes of England altogether of the power of regulating
their affairs.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL, who was also very imperfectly
heard, did not intend to act upon the sugge,tion of the
Hon. Member.—(Hear, and a laugh)—but Ise would pro-
ceed with the second reading of the Poor-law Bill on
Monday.
In answer to a question from Col. SIBTHORP,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was his intention to
bring in the Civil Contingencies' Bill on Monday next.
Mr. O'CONNELL postponed to this day week the in-
troduction of his Bill to facilitate the proof of bribery and
corruption at elections of Members to serve in Parliament.

TOLLS ON BRIDGES.
Sir MATTHEW WOOD moved that the following
gentlemen be appointed the Select Committee, on opening
Waterloo, &c., bridges, free of toll:—Sir Matthew,
Wood, Mr. E. J. Stanley, Sir R. Peel, Mr. Herries, Sir
R. H. Inglis, Lord Viscount Lowther, Mr. Pendarves, Mr.
Clay, Col. T. Wood, Mr. G. Palmer, Mr. R. Steuart,
Mr. Barnard, Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. Wakley, Sir B.
Hall, Mr. Planta, Mr. Kemble, Mr. Alderman Humphery,
and Mr. Hawes.—Agreed to.
SEWERS BILL.
Mr. BETH ELL moved that the following Gentlemen
be appointed the Select Committee on Sewers Bill :
Mr. Bethell, Lord Worsley, Mr. Law Hodges, Mr.
Christopher, Mr. Bramsten, Mr. Ayshford Sandford,
Mr. Rice, Mr. Freshfield, Mr. Darby, Mr. Sotheron, Mr.
Charles Octavius Morgan, Mr. Grantley Berkeley :—Five
to be the quorum.—Aarecd to.
PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion el Lord MORPETH, the House then
resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.
On the motion that the second clause, as amended, stand
part of the Bill,
Lord MORPETH rose and said—Often and frequent
as this subject had been discussed, and often as its many de-
tails had been brought under consideration, he yet felt
that in the present eiitical position of this subject, after
the determined, and, indeed, mortal opposition that had
been announced—( Hear, hear)—mortal so far as inten-
tion was concerned—to the present clause, to that clause
which he had ever admitted to be the vital prin-
ciple of the measure, that he was warranted in
endeavouring, though he should not think it neces-
sary to do so at any great length, to ask the House
to take that measure into their serious consideration.
What he conceived the House to have decided by the
assent it had given to the second reading of the Bill,
not by any overwhelming weight of numbers certainly
—(laughter)—but stilt by a distinct vote, after a
most full and minute discussion, was that the
right to the elective franchise in IN land should
be ascertained and tested by reference to a fixed amount of
payments, as in the instance before the House, in accord-
ance with the valuations made under the Poor-law Bill, for
that country. In the early part of that discussion
some attempts were made to impugn the trust-
worthiness of those valuations, but the more
they had been examined into—the more they were
brought to light the more reason there seemed to admit
their general faithfulness, the more they were shown to be
in conformity of construction one with another. He did
not for a moment mean to say that all of them were
in strict accordance with the previsions of the
poor relief Act ; indeed, all of them seemed to have been
pitched at a lower standard than the Act required, but it
had been said by Mr. Nichols, the Poor. law Commissioner
in Ireland, that when they had experience of the
working of the Poor-law system in that country,
the more those valuations would be in accordance
with each other, and with the valuations made under the
Poor-law Act for this country. The observations of Mr.
Nichols were very strong. The Noble Lord then read a
quotation from the Report of Mr. Nichols to that effect.
Upon that point he must remind the House, and es-
pecially he must remind the great patty opposite,
of whom the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member
for Tamworth, and the Noble Lord, the Member
for North Lancashire, were the Leaders, that
although doubts about the propriety of applying the
test of the Poor-law valuation were expressed in the
course of discussion on the Bill, yet no such doubts or
hesitotion existed, when it was insisted not only
before the conclusion, but even before the commence-
ment of the valuation, that they should be applied to
test the municipal franchise in cities and boroughs in Ire-
land.—(Hear, hear.) There must have been a very
shrewd suspicion indeed that the tendency of that valua-
tion, or any valuation for the purpose of assessment, must
have been below the real or average valuation, yet these mis-
givings had no weight in deter, ing the party ft on] adopting i ,
as the basis of the municipal franchise, when the object
would be t 3 raise and restrict the franchise, and it was
only now that it was considered mischievous, when the re-
sult would be to simplify an important privilege. He would
have supposed that the contrary course would have been
the most just and generous—that there would have beer,
more doubt when the effect was restriction, and less than
when the object was simplification and enlargement.
But, apart from mere recrimination, what he wanted to put
to the honest and unbiassed mind of every man
in that House, and the country was that, looking to
those valuations, were they not in their very nature
as presenting a certain amount of payment and adapt-
ing a uniformity of system and principle, being ascer-
tained for a purpose entirely distinct from the franchise, and
supplying in themselves a check Ic the contrary direction.
to the desire of possessing the franchise ? Did they not in

all these respects, as well as in others, promise to give
them
.an incalculable uniformity, and a better mode of
ascertaining the franchise than existed at present? and
would they not be a great improvement on the present
system of registration in Ireland ?—(Elear, hear.) In
fact, be need not labour to prove that point, be-
cause it was not denied by any party that had addressed
the House. Many of those who spoke expressed doubts
and difference of opinion as to the mode in which the test
should be applied, but none doubted that it would be a
great improveMerat tcs rest the franchise on some
fixed and settled basis,. instead of leaving it as it
was at present, matter of opinion according to the
views and interests and oaths of adverse competing par-
ties.—( Hear, hear.) He would not again quote the
opinion of the Hon. Member for Monaghan, who bad a
virtuous horror of anything complimentary being said
to him from that side of the House, but be
could not resist °ace, more laying before the Howe,
although he did it before, When ho had not the sati.faction
of seeing the P.:ght Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-
worth, in his place—he could not help repeating to the
House what be bad stated -on the subject, and
which completely bore out his views and objects.
The Hon. Member for !Monaghan, in talking of the Irish
Municipal Reform Bill,. said he would not consent to any
test which was not a certain one. lie would nut consent
to any test which would cause a necessity for appoint.
ing a Committee to inquire into and ascertain how far
the carrying out of the Bill would depend on fictitious
votes. He would adopt no test which would involve
a mere principle of valuation. He thought that that must
be a bad principle winch held out temptations to be guilty
of false oaths. Such a test was very unsatisfactory.
They ought to know what franchise was intended to be
given, and it was necessary to adopt such a test as would
extinguish fraud and perjury, and by which they
would reek the morality and prosperity of the
people.—( Hear, hear.) He conceived that considerable
advantage would be attained if they adopted a rating on
the Poor-law. Such were the op
Hen, Member fOr MOO inions expressed by the
aghan. la the course of the pre-