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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT•

- - -
HOUSE OF LORDS, IfiLuzcil 16.
Their Lordth ps met at Five o'Clock.
The Arebbishnp (.f CANTERI3URY presented a pe-
t:Von from a place in Kent for the better observance of
the Sabbath.

The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
from the Board of Guardians of the Walton Union,
Southampton, praying the House to pas.; the Bill now in
Parliament for the amendment of the Poor-laws, and,
above all, for the continuance of the Commission.
The Marquis of NORMANBY laid on the tah:e re-
turns of the number and character of outines committed
in the cuunty of Limerick, 'from the Ist of Oct. 1839, to
to the ht of June, 1840; also returns relating to the ad-
mit.iitnrion 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 read a third time.
TI THE COMPOSITION BILL (IRELAND).
Lord DUNCANNON, in moving the third reading of
this Bill. proposed amendments of a technical nature in the
second arid third' clauses. These amendments, he said,
would not effect the object desired by the Noble Eerl op-
posite (the Earl of Wieklsw), nor did he know by what
alteration that object could be effected.
The Earl of WICKLOW was sorry to hear that the
Noble Lord was not I,A-epa.-ed to remove his objection, as
he was most unwilling to throw any impediment in the
way of a measure which was g3Leraliy so important. He
reg.-ctt:Tl that none of the legal Lords were iii the House,
for he was sure be would have their support in saying that
his objection was insurmountable. It was this, that under
the Bill, as it now stood, any number of persons could be
force I into a court of justice without notice, and judgment
could be given against them without tl.eir being licit-3, or
having any knowledge of the proceedings ; and further, that
under such circumstances they would be liable to the costs.
He Lad hoped that in the time which had elapsed since th.:
measure was introduced his Noble Friend would have
been able to have so framed the Bill as to remove this de-
fect. He did not mean to oppose the Bill, but should
cont,:nt himself with stating this objection.
Lord DUNCANNON said the object of the Bill
was to prevent the necessity of serving 350 or 360
separate notices and to enable the Attorney-General to
prole d, not by separate notice but by one general notice
on all persons resident in the same diocese. There was
no po,sitle way of effecting this objA:t without incurring
the difficulty which his Noble Friend had stated.
The Earl of GLENGALL said there was anothe;
serious point which had net been mentioned. When
those parties came in to object to the order made
for the payment of the money they must first pay the costs
incurred on the peti,ion. lie thought this was a hard ease.
Viscount DUNCANNON thought it would be thc same
with scpzrate notices.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE suggested that the
Bill should be delayed for a few days to afford time for
consideration.

vy
The Earl of WICKLOW and the Earl Of MOUNTCASHEL
also recommended delay.
Lord D UN CA NNO N said be regretted these objections
had not been mentioned in the discussion that took place a
week ago. He had, however, no objection, if desir:d, to
postpone the 8.11 to this day week.
The debate was adjourned according]
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE pre ented petitions
from the county of Dowr, against Church Patronage in
Scotland. The Nal? Marquis said Le did not concur in
the opinion expressed by the petitioners.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL moved for copies
of certain pa?ers, referring to transactions which had
taken place between the Guardians of toe Union of For-
moy and the Poor-law Cornn.issioners.—Ordered.
The Marquis cf NORMANBY begged to inform the
Noble Lord opposite that Mr. Stanley, the Secretary to tie
Poor-law Commissioners of Ireland, was in attendance, and
ready to answer any questions which might be put to him.
On the motion of the E irl of GLENGALL, Mr.
Stanley was called to the bar and 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 Commistioers of Ireland. The acting Com-
missioner was Mr. Nicholls. Ile was the only Com-
raiisioner who set at the Board in the moatli
of February, 1840. Condi not say whether
be (the Commissioner) was or was not in Ireland in Fe-
bruary 1839. If he acre he was the only Commia,ioaer
in Ireland. All the proceeding of the Commissioners
were entered, not in a letter-book, but upon a register.
They had no letter-books, but all letters that were
received we.e ente:ed 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-
Lieutenant of Leland had been in the office of the Poor.
law Commissioner, but he (Mr. S.) bad nct the honour
if b. ing in the room with him, and could not say whether
he had 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 return dated May,
1840, was in witness's band. writing. It concerned
the appointment of Mr. John Butler as the 1?.,-
turning officer for the Clanmell Union. It con-
tained the letter from Messrs. Hawley and Hancock, the
Assistant Commisiioner, recommending Jahn Butler to
that office. That letter atrlved by post, and Mr.
Nicholls was not then in Dublin. Mr. Earle was
the Commisaioner in Dublin upon the 14th of February.
Before he referred to the Return No. 3, he begged to be
understood that when he was first asked, was Mr. Nicholls
in Ireland in February, his reply meant he was so in
February, 1840, but in February, 1839, Mr. Nicholls
was not there, but Mr. Earle was. No. 3 was the
letter in which Mr. Fennell offered himself as the
returning officer of the Clonmel Union. The recommen-
dation cf Mr. But er from Mesita.. Hawley and Hancock
did not arrive in Dublin till the 18Ji, two days after the
receipt of Mr. Feanell's letter. Turning to Vie paper
No. 4, witness found that it was the letter of Secretary
of the Pow-law Commissioners, dated 18th February,
1339, and addressed to George Fennell, Esq., Clinmcl.
It stated that in reference to his (Mr. F.'s) letter, the
a rater was directed to inform him that it was not received
until after the Commissioners had determined to elect an-
oVrer person.
Lord G L ENG A LL—Was that letter ever written, and
if it was written was it ever sent to Mr. Fennell?

Witness could have sworn, afew days ag that it was,
but circumstances had 'ince occurred welch convinced
him that part of that draft was not coped into the letter
which was actually
Lord GL ENG ALL referred the witness to a letter
dated the 19th sf F,b., and addressed from the Poor-law '
Commissioners' office in Dublin, to Mr. Fennell, 'in-
forming him that his applicati in did net arrive until after
an appointment was made of another person. The Noble
Lord asked was thet in witneis's hand-writing.
Witness—lt was. He could only account for its not
being included in the return of the correspondence from this,
that no draft was made after that which was dated the
18th, and which was not sent. The clerk who copied it
put upon the record in the office the, original instead of the
amended: chart, and in this way alone—(as well
as we could understand the witness who spoke in a very
indistinct and hesitating manner under the reporter's
gallery)— et this way alone he could account for the
copy entered on the corie3phndence not agreeing
with the letter which was actually sent.
I altered the original draft. I have brought thedraft of
Ow letter as altered. I produce it; it is in the band-
weiting of the clerk of correspondence. The cJri-octions
are in my hand-wr None of the corrections there we, e
made at the time the letter was brought to me for signatuu.
The draft is coped in the returns to this House. Tne
extent of the corrections in my own handwriting would be •
pe:ce ived from the difference in the handwriting.
These words would be just sufficient to ful the space or-
cupEed by the words objected to. If the clerk had taken
the corrections as made, he cool l have read them
as written for him, The corrections made were just suill-
elect to fill the space. 'The erasure was made subse-
quently to the pc ind et which the letter bears date.
By the Duke of WELLINGTON—That book was a re-
cord of the proccedi.igs of the Cernmissioners kept in obe-
chence to the provision in the third section of the Poor-
law Amendment Act.
By the Earl a GLENGALL—Tbe letter No. 4 in the
return was not the letter sent to Mr. Fennell. In ex-
planation of the statement made to Mr. Fennell that an
appciatment had been made, the recommendation of Mr.
Hawley and Mr. Hancock not arriving In Dublin until the
18th, the witness said that the clerk made the statement
Horn his knowledge of the selectiin of Mr. Butler. Thee
letters were never laid bef.ne Mr. Earle. Instructions
were given by the Commissioners to the clerk, either ve..-
batty or in writing. Mr. Phelan teas in daily attendance
when the cie•k wrote the. tte r. It was witness who
direct d the 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. He could not account for the letter net being
answe ed on the 16th ; tt might have been from pressure GI
business. Mr. Inelan never suggested alterations in the

drat'.
The Earl of GLENG ALL rose to order. From the
course
which the evidence had taken, it was clear their
Lordships would want to call other witnesses. He was of
opinion that three witnesses who wtre to be ca'led, ought
The Marquis of. NORMANBY said certainly, it was
desirable that no communication should take place between
witnesses the were to he called, hut he did not know whe-
ther it was ncc e iiiary to order twin to retire.
nxotant,ion be
nti:an . the House while another witness was under
e
Lord EL LENBOROUG II said it was clear that the
House would re ;Mire to call some other wittesses. They
ought net to be in the House while other witnesses were
under examinativ•
The Nia,quis of NORMAN BY—Such being the view
of tCe House, it ought to he communicated to the persons
lately t-) be called.
In answer to Li r.l R E DE SD A LE,
Witness said, that No. 1,329 was the letter to John
Bagnell, the answer to which did not appear on the minutes.
No. 1,407 was the letter of the Assistant-Cornmisioncr,
gi,ing his masons for not calling the meeting at Clonmel.
The Asssittrnt-Commissioner was the writer of the let-
ter 1,407. There is no entry of tie date fif the letter to
Mr. Begoell, but we have a copy or it. el nuber is
not en tees r( tans. 1 have contrasted tThe ette ms from
the Foor-law Commissioners to Mr..l. Begnell of the 12th
Mr.reh 1839, stating that Mr. 1,111 Bu; ter was re .urn-
mended ta them as a pi oper persen to perform the duties
of returning cfficcr, 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
row copied cr faithfully given in the return. It is true
that the letter wri:t2n to Mr. Fennell, dated the 18th of
February, 1839, and which states that the application to
be appointed returning officer did not arrive until after
the appointment had been made in favour of another, was
of a totally different nature to that sent to Mr. Bagnell, ita
which it was statA that the appointment was not made,
which was what I wished to express the letter to Mr.
Fennell, and for that purpose I made an alteration in the

draft, that the correction might be made hi the letter.
If the letter bearing my signature was in the re-
turn, a manifest contradiction would have appeared in
liae was stated t) Mr. Feanell and Mr. Bagnell;
but I solemnly declare that I had no knowledge when this
return was prepared, that that'letter was nut in accordance
Kith the draft. I swear there was no motive in making
these returns, but to eas true a statement of the case
as the rapers in our possession would enable us to do, and
I swear that it was done-for the purpose of provieg to the
House that there was no contradiction in the correspon-
dence. The words I wrct.: were for the purpose of giving
a different expression to the words used by the clerk, I
wisl jig to convey the impression that the appointment
had been confirmed—/ had no doubt in my mind when the
words were inserted; they were probably inserted at the
time the papers were brought forward in Bagnell's case ;
possibly they were not inserted until the petitions were
ordered, but I have no recoil, ction c,f having inserted
them at the time the returns were ordered. The altera-
tion of the words "have been confirmed," and the putting
the words " ta be," was not done at the same time, but
long after. The alteration was made partly in
pencil, and partly in ink. The words " have
been confirmed" were in ink. My first icapression on look-
ing at these pagers, when the matter was brought before
the House was, that the whole alteration mint have been
made at one time, but on endervourirg to recollect
the occurrence; that took place two or three cars
ago, it apFeart d 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 stated before, when t:.e correspondence with
Mr. Bagnell took place. In the. letter written t) Mr.
Fennell I did not state that what I now know was not a
correct statement, but one merely explanatory. We
always consider the Assistant Commissioner as virtually
conferring whets he recommends an appeiltment. I be-
lieve the answer to Mr. Feanell was a true answer. I
also believe the one to Mr. Bagnell to be a true answer.
(The witness then made some explanation of this state-
ment, which was inaudible.) The letter, as sent to Mr.
Fennell, is not a true letter, but, as corrected by myself, I
consider it to be so. I consider it sufficient fr r the purpose.
To Lord ELLENBOROUG H—Generally speaking,
it was his duty to keeo a true record of all letters sent by
the Board. Many letters were sent out without any copies
being kept.
By t';e Earl cif GLENGALL—He had left out the
words " A gentleman, retired from business," because be
had heard that Mr. Butler had compounded with his cre-
ditors. The return made by Mu was not a true return of
the Report of Mr. Phelan. All the inquiries made re-
spr cling the political oJorrexionA or feelings of Mr. Butler
were male through the Assistant-Corntnissiore-, and no

one else.
By the Duke of WELLINGTON—The appointment
of Mr. Butler was received from London. The Commis-
sioners in London were reFponsble for his appointmcnr,
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 them to warrant them in making it?
Witness—They had not anything before thorn but the
letter from Meesrr. Hancock and Hawley. They had in-
structed the Assistant Commissioners to make inquiries
as to the persons to be appoicted returning-officers ; arid
they held them responsible for the appointment.
The Duke of WELLINGTON seid the Commission-
ers themselves alone were responsible by the Act of
Parliament.
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
partizau, and had assaulted the police in Clonmcl, for
which he was brought before the Magistrates, but not
prosecuted oa account of the interference of the G.. verti-
ment?
NVtness firmly believed that no such knee/ledge was
in the minds of the Commissioners at the time of the ap-
pointment. It was upon the affidavit, for which Davies was
convicted of perjury, Butler was exonerated from the
charges made against him for improper conduct in the
functions ( f his office. Witness might have heard, but
he dii not remember, that Butler was accused of suber-
siooeinn of perjury in the can of Davies. Was quite cur-
tain that no such charge appeared 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 office up to the Ist of
March, 1841, because he was appointed at first for that
time; but he had had no dut es to perform since the com-
plaints were made rgainst, him, there having been no
election site: that time.
In answer to a question from the Earl of Wicklow, the
witness stated that no interval elapsed between the receipt
of the order for the return cf papers to this House, and the
answer to that order.
Lord G LENG ALL—If you received a letter from
Mr. Butler, on the 6'h 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 order-ed to with-
draw.
The Earl of GLENG ALL then was about to read
portions of the letter, which in the last return to the
House, were omitted from the printed copy, astericks
occupying their place. From that omission, he said their
Lordships would be able to judge of the principles which
governed the appointment of Mr. Butler.
The Marquis of NORM ANBY objected that the Nob!e
Earl could nct read them unless they related to the matter
immediately under their Lordships' consideration.
The Esrl cf GLENG ALL said the Commissioners
stated that they were not aware that Butler had any po-
litical connection. The letter would go far to provJ why
he was appointed re•urnit g officer.
The Marquis of NORM ANI3 Y thought they had better
postpone the immediate sunjert of i .quir;. It was not
necessary that they should go a,. once into a complete and
distinct part of toe inquirr.
The Earl of WICKLOW saw no objccihn against
reading the extract.. He conceived they were calculated
to bear out the object in view.
Lord EL LEN BOROUGH thought that they eeuld
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 aereturnieg
officer, there could be no necessity for laying it before
their Lordships:.
The Earl of G LENG AL 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 Clorimel. In that letter he wished also
to have another person to assist in getting him that place,
which was worth about 301. a-year.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was complained
of that those papers were garbled. He had moved for
extracts from the original proceedings of the Poor-law
Commissioners, and the Noble Marquis and her Majesty's
Ministers bad in consequence thought proper that the.
Poor-law Commissioners should attend before th.t House
and give an account of the various omissions in those
papers. Now they were toll that there were but a few
sheets of paper here and there and in different places
which would tend to explain the mode in which those
transactions were carried or, and that the Noble Lord
(Normanby) had some of those sheets in his hand. Now
that was not the way of conducting an inquiry, and fir
his part he considered that the present was a most serious
question. It was of the utmost importance to know how
these proceedings were carried on—how these appoint-
ments were made—who made them—in short, their origin
up to the very moment when they were laid before the
House.

The Marquis of NORMANBY sa'd he bat no objec-
tion to the readi g of the letirr produced. It was said
that it rcl tited to the subject of inquiry. The subject was,
no doubt, as the Noble Duke had said, a very important
one, and they ought to proceed yr WI it with the utmost at.
tention. [The letter from Mr. Butler to Mr. Phalan wai
then read, the purport of which was requesting the ap-
pointment of morning officer, and stating that the Attor-
ney-General for Ireland had made him ( Mr. Butler) many
promite', but had yet done nothing for him.]
The examination was then resumed—Witness could net
say for certain whe her the Attorney-General was Mem-
ber for Clonmel or not. Never heard that Butler waste-
commended by the Attorney-General.
In answer to a question from the Marquis of NOR-
MANDY relative to the dates of letters received since
the year 1839, the witness stated that ho was not certain
whether in the Book of Minutes there was any particular
column appropriate for the dates of letters.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said, that, in conse-
quence of the course which the examination had taken, he
thought it right that Mr. Phelan should be called to the
bar of the House. When he objected to his attendance
on a former occasion, he had no i lea that Mr. Phelan was
present in Dublin at the time when the pa-ticular transaa.
Lion occurred, to which the examination had reference.
It would not be possible for him to attend before Monday.
The Earl of WICKLOW suggested that Mr. Nicholls
should be allowed to return and remain in Ireland, until be
should be summoned to attend the bar.
The Marquis of NORMANBY felt bound testate, in
justice to Mr. Nicholls, that he had come prepared to an
swer any questions which their Lordships might put to
him. He quite concurred in the remark of the

Noble Earl. -
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was very pos-
sible that the returns could not be made.. It was desir.
able, however, to have distinctly before them, in writing
from the Commissioners, how the matter stood. It was
most important that they should know whether they were
or were not to have information with revect to those
transactions.
The Marquis of NORM ANBY thought that with a
view to that object, it was desirable that Mr. Nicholls
should he agowed to return to Dublin.
The Earl of GLENGAL L said that before Mr.
Nicholls retired, be should wish to be informed whether be
was in Dublin in the mouth of February and May.
The Marquis of NORNI A N Y, aft:r a short eunte-t-nce
with Mr. Nicholls, stlteti that he was in Dublin partcf the
month of February, and pert of May.
The Earl d G LENGALL sail that the cue involve I
not merely the falsification of the returns, but the whole
conduct of the Commissioners in the transaction.
The evidence was then ordered to b© ptilted, and an
order made for the Etendance of •Mr. Phelan on Monday
next. _ .

Their Lordships then wijourned till Thursday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MdRCII 16.
The SPEARE rt took the ( ltiar at Four o'Clock.
On the motion of Mr. D A RB Y the Waniogore Inclo-
sure Bill was read a second time.
Mr. BERNAL brought up the Report of the Cora-
mitt:4e on the South Wcst.:rn Railway 8;11.
Mr. BLAKE rose to move that certain clauses be Wel
to the Bile. His object was to enable the Company to
take possession of lands for the purpose of making repairs.
The accidents which occurred rendered it qulte necessary
that such poners should be gbad iver. One instance
occurred, in which if the landowner had refused per-
mission the railway must have been stopped. It was not
refused by him; but other landowners bad prevented the
Company from coming upon their lands to make repairs.

Pe had no intention, by taking this course, to infiir ge upon
the Standing Orders of the House.
On the first c!ause bring read,

Mr. SHIEL should tee) it his duty to object to the
introduction of these clauses, because when the Bill was
originally introduced no notice was given that such powers
would be sought for. These clauses departed very irate- i
rially from the Bill of which notice had been given, and
on behalf of the department to which he had the honour to
belong, he should feel it his duty to resist them.--a( Hear.)
He believed that an attempt had been made in Commit is e
to introduce c'auses of a similar nature, but they had been
objected to ; and surely it was not upon bringing up the
report of the Bill, at a time when the parties had no no.
tice whatLver, that such clauses should be introduced.
Mr. W. PATTEN would also resist the clauses In
his experience upon Railway Committees he could eta e
that similar propositions had been frequerray made, but
in every case they had been resisted; and he believed such
power had Lever been allowed in any Ra lway Bill.
Mr. PE ASE thought some power ought to ba given to
the railway propri.aors to make repairs in cases of occi-
dent, but at the same time he could net say th,,t he en-
tirely approved of these clauses. It should not, however,
be supposed that because they a ith:d to i ravent an attempt
being made to obtain powers of an objectionable nature,
they also wished to restrain the enterprise of the country.
Mr. ESTCOURT wished to express his great ob- !
jection to the introduction of such clauses as that now
before the House. It had Lean attempted on former
occasions but the House had rejected them. When the
Bill was printed and proposed in the first instance, it did
net contain these objectionable clauses, and he
believed parties in the vicinity of railways were
not aware of the intention to introduce. then.
He could nct show the opportunity to pass with.
out congratulating the lieu e upon the appoint-
ment of his Eon. Friend as Chairman of the Commi tee
on Ways and Means.—c Hear, bear, hear.) They owed
it to the vigilance of his Honourable Friend that
this subject had been brought under the coosidere-
tion of the House. He (Mr. Estcourt) was sure
that it was sa,isfactery to the pubic that it was so brought
to light, and tact empts were resisted to introduce mea-
sures in Committee, of which the public had not receieed
ample notice. It was now known that such aelempts
would be vigilantly watched, aid that his Hon. Fiend
would bring them before the House, and give the H, use
an opportunity of examining them, and of rejecting them if
deemed objectionable.—( Hear, hear )
BERNAL seii he was glad this matter was
brought befote the House. He was satisfiad that the
origeral evil of thin proposition lay in the form in which
ti e notices in the country newspapers were warded
( Hear.) The words were so comprehensive that they
would include almost an) thing. Persons in•crested could
not be sufficiently apprised of clauses sought to be intro-
duced in this manner. The Bi'l as it stood before the
House, was a Bill to raise an additional caFit,l. He
thought the House should take into consideration the
propriety of improcing the farm of notice. —( Hew,
hr ar. ) It should he reduced to a Standing Order, net
the notices should be more distinct. If sucu a step was
decidei upon, the House could then order the rejtion to
be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders,it should
stand on the same ground as the notice, and thus they
would not be se tished with vague and loose allegation.
Wit) respect to the clauses denonieeted modern clauses,
doubts were entertained whethe in legal tendency they
were for perpetuity, or a limited space of years; and it
was on that account these clauses were introduced, to do
away with any doubt as to the construction elf the Act.
Mr. B. WOOD said that having acted in the Commit-
tee, be concurred entirely in the opinion that had been
expressed by his Hon. Friend. He telt that a vast im-
provement had lately taken place in the manner in which
unopposed Bills were conducted, but, at the same time, he
thougnt, on the present question, they were treating t' e
Railway Company with some harshness. The clause
which was new before the House was one which
was absolutely necessary for the purpose of enabling the
Company to keep up the repair of the road. Without
that power it was quite clear that the road must either be
at the mercy of the landowners, or fall to decay._
( Hear, hear.) If they had come with the proper
notice, there would be no difficulty, he apprehended,
in passing the Bill. It had biers mentioned on the other
side of the House that that was an unneard of clause. Now
he believed that the clause was introduced into every Bill
tela ice to the subject passed within the last one or two
yearn. It was a clause which was established as a mods 1
clause, as he understood, and it appeared to him to be a
clause essential to the maintenance of railways.—( Hear.)
and different in no degree from that attached to Bills re-
lating to turnpike roads. The reason of the aromoters
of the Bill coming before the House at that stage wan
simply on account of the formation of a new roao. He
thought that it was rather hard that the Corm any should
now he opposed when parties were taken by surprise.
They came to the House with a clause arising
out of circumstances which they could not foresee,
which occured since the first Bill was printed—circum-
stances which involved them in law suite, and might in-
volve them in great difficulty ; even between the present
time and next year, when they could come anew before the
House,that Company might he essentially injured, and the
public greatly inconvenienced. Under these circumstances
he was inclined to press the House to pass the law.
Lori G. SOMERSET thought that if the effect of
the clause would be to adjudicate in favour of one parry
and against the other, that was a sufficient reason against
the granting of the clause. The Directors of the South-
ampton Railway were to have a power of taking 500 yards
along the whole line of railway without taking imme-
diate possession of it, but always keep:3g the
powers thus vested in them hanging over the
heads cf the landed proprietors. So monstrous a power
as that, in whatever shape it might be brought before the
House, was, he thought. certain of being negatived.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS objected to the grievances
to which the landowners were likely to be subjected by that
13ill.

M. BLAKE, after the opposition which he I,al met
with from bath sides of the House, withdrew his proposed
(hoses.

_
The Bill was Oren reported, and ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. CHETWYND presented a petition from a place in
S:affordshire against the Stafford and Rugby Railway Bill.
The petitioners said that the railway would be of no public
beneti!, and that its only object was to put money in the
pockets of the projectors.
Sir G. CLERK rxesented a petition against the Pul-
lock and Govan Railway Bill from the agent of a conti-
guous estate.
Colonel LYGON presented a petition from cer a:n
landowners cf Worceiter against the Severn, Navigation

On the motion of Mr. R. GORE, the Patent Roiling
and Compressing: Iron Company Bill was read a second
time.

Lord SANDON brought in the Liverpool Docks' Bill,
which wa3 read a first time.

On the motion of Mr. 13ROAD LE Y, Bogdea's
ralisation Bill was a read second time.

Mr. B. WOOD presented a petition from certlin
pa.ties in Southwark, praying for compensation under tt.e
Southwark Improvement Bill.
Sir C. STYLE presented a petition from Comberford,
praying for the extinction of Church-rates, and the im-
mediate liberation of Mr. Baines.

Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from
Caithness, praying fur the abolition of Church Patronage
in Scotland.

Mr. W. GLADSTONE presented a petition from
Newark, against the MedicAl Reform Bill.
Mr. J. ROUND presented a petition from MaIdol", in
Essex, to the same effect.

Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from Chemists
and Druggists of the borough of Stamford, again.t the
R,form
Mr Alderman COPELAND presented a petition from
Stone-upon-Trent to the same eff,,c;.
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition from Bris-
tol to the same effect.
Not less tha•r 30 or 40 Members, who had petitions on
tFe same subject, then moved simultaneously towards the
tab's, and presented them amidst the laughter of the
House. The only one which v.e could distinguish in the
confusion was a re ition presented by Mr. Gaily Knight,
from the Medical Association of Nottingham. in favour of
the
Mr. W. PATTEN said, seeing the Hon. Member for
Lambeth in his place, he begged leave to ask him on
behalf of those win) had entrusted him with this pitition,
whether it was or was not his intention to ritain those
clauses in the which affected the trade of chemists
and druggists. They:bad been left out of the former
B►ll, but introduced into that before the House, and he
wished to know what was the Hon. Gentleman's inten-
tion with respect to them.
Mr. HAWES said he bad no hesitation in answering
the Hon. Member's question, and stating again to the
House as he did before, that he bad not the least idea of
affecting the trade of the chemists and druggists by any
of the provisions of the Bill, arid if there was any
ambiguity—and ho doubted that there was—in the
Bill be would remedy it by a distinct clause•.

In answer to an HON. MEMBER,
Mr. HAWES said that he intended to bring in the
Medical Reform Bill to-morrow. _ _ .

Major CHETWYND give notice that on Thursday be
would move for Returns of the number of trdriked and
unfranked lettersthat passed through the Post-ellice since
the sth of January 1837; also for Returns relative to the
number of money-letters since that period.
Sir G. STRICKLAND gave notice that in Comm
that
on the Poor-law Amendment 13111 he would move
certain alterations be introduced into the 1301.
Mr. EA STHOPE gave notice that to-morrow bc
would move that the petitions which be had presented from
Leicester in favour of the liberation of Mr. Wm. Baines,
and for the abolition of Church-rates, be printed.
Mr. ROC 11 E moved fo certain returns connected
with publ.c works in Leland.—Ordered.
Alr. BA tiN El 3 move.' for a return of each mail coach
or cart, or other eonveyarce drawdiby horse', employed
by the Pont-olliee for the conveyance of lette-s in any plrt
of 14.;ngllud or WO )C.l, on the Ist days of Alareh in the
1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841; stating the
years 1837,
number of horses by which each was drawn, the place to
and from which letters arc conveyed by each ; the number
of Passengers which was allowed by law to carry; and the
toms of agreement entered into by the Post office with
the proprietors of each such conveyance for the conveyance
of letters, and for what period.—Ordered.
OUND DUES.

hipowner?, and other inhabitants of Hull,
Mr. II UT r presented a petition very numerously signed
dues now levied on Btitish vessels pass-
irg the coat of •
eh_
oymn,ll,7or.rifl,ii,intoi,tso,
~fthl/eninark The
Hon. Meinter then said
he would call the attention of the House to the motion of
which he bad given notice on that subject. Ile recant
to refer to these taxes which were now levied by the King
of Denmark on British vessels passing between the (.;.7-
tcgat and the Baltic Sea. The grievance which he com-
plained of, although he believed it was not unknown at the
Foreign-office, was comparatively new to the House.
In-
deed so far as he was informed, it had never become a subjrct
cf discussion in Parliament. It should not, however, be ima-
gined on that account, that the evil was of a trifling,nature,
in regard to our national industry or the general welfare d
the country. He believed that the real cause of the silence

EVENING EDITION,

IT'

1 which bad been so long observed on the ssdiject n ?or
.
i the House of Commons arose from the cirestramee of its ,--
I belonging to a class of questions whi7
..12t ey could 7er"
not become a matter cf party wee:fare, _ mnifpigaged -'7, ~
r the attention of Hon. Members. He • Yts<o.4. k-aip , T;A-V--I
experience of that evening-a(Great triA ?.\pi,r'4t :,::,:- 1);"
this time in the House)—to convince ictisittkOtai ' --'7/1,
of that nature were but lightly considere , s Aare a'a /
-ea
.....s
".„.
by the Government, and lie could not belies e
.....
,
Administrations since 1814 had been alive to th i " risi-
-41 g p,,,
of the ques:ion, as affected the commerce of the country,
they would ever have permitted the King of Denmark to
impede and harrass British trade by the levying of those
dues. He could not imagine by what argument such a
system could be defended. It was contrary to every re-
ceived maxim of international levs—it was' opposed to the
universal practice of the civilised world, and to those wise
principles which regelated the intercourse of kingdoms.
He could not conceive how an impost of the kind had Leen
se long tolerated—en impost which advanced ;ha price of
our goods in foreign markets and of foreign goods in our
markets—which stopped our ships in their voyages and
exposed the it crews to harrowing restrictions and
impediments, affecting in a most mischievous manner
the operations of our comme-ce. If the law were
a legal one it might perhaps be i a'iently submitted to.
But if it could be shown that the King of Denmark had
violated the treaty on which he founded his
el.iim—if it could be shown flea he had exercised
power tglinst our trade which the treaty itself expressly
f abide, tie (Mr. H.) thought that under such ci, cum-
stances i- was a fair subject of consideration and inquiry
whether or not the contract bete een the two nations
hsel not been annulled. He should not fatigue the House
by soy lengthened statement of the origin of the Sound
does. It was sufficier t to state that these tolls bad been
arbitrarily, and sometimes forcibly exacted by the King of
Denmark, and wete at length recognised and sanctioned
by the States •of Holland in 1645, by the Treaty of
Christianople. Specific clarges were laid down for
cacti artmle of commerce, and with respect to
those riot stated in the to iff, it was agreed that
they should be taxed one per cent. act vnioreni.
In 1647 the Kirg of Holland Lecame a consenting party
to mother treaty, by which the King of Denmark unde.-
took to establish lighthouses and buoys in the Cattegat
and the North Sea ; c rtai:t fixed payments were to be
made to the Danish officers at Elsinore, and the King of
Denmark bound himself by a solemn engagement, never,
on any pretext, to increase the amens tof Ville. In 1814,
by the Treaty c f Kid, these tells were confirmed,
bete een G:eat Britain and the Crown of Denmark, and
that was done at a grievous sacriace cf Britian commerce,
as it would be admitta d that the King of Denmark had
effected a bargain with al ch he should be content.
Wnat had been thd result ? Ever since the signing of
the Treaty of 1814, toe Government of Denmark bad
been eng,vgad in considering by what means it could vi,-
late its stipulations. He would• now reed to the attention
of the /-louse the nature of the taxes that t'-en canted.
He f and tnat a tariff was concluded between Denmark
and Russia i r 1645, and according to that, with respect to
goods not enumerated in the tariff, Russian subjects were
tot to ply more than one per cent. The tariff between
Great Britain end Denmark granted the same advan-
tages to British subjects as those conferred on Russians
rry the former tariff. —( neer, Lear, hear.) With
respect to the tariff of Cleistianople instead of one per
cent., sometimes five, six, and even eight per cent, were
exacted by it, and fixed payments were substituted for per
certage. On Norway and Swedish deals 1,509 per
cent. over the legal charge was of:en exacted. On cotton
and woollen goods, on sugar and coffee, a per centage
was at times exacted enormously beyond what eas
specified in the tariff. There could be no doubt that we
were suffering under a degree of oppression and injury
l in daring vielition of the t eases which bad been
concluded t ruching this subject. For 26 years that state
of tnings was going on. Our powers in the North
of Europe, which were once so great, in
to-pest to the sui,jrct now befsre the House were
greatly diminished, and he trusted we would not wait till we
sew Brmish commerce excluded from the Baltic ; which
would ce.tanly soy' he the case unless rigorous
me sns were taken to enforce the rights of the
British merchavite—( Hear.) He would not go further
into a subject which appeared so unpalatable to the
House, but which was of vast importance to the great com-
mercial constituency which Le represented. He trusted
the Noble Lord would think it necessary to take the sub-
ject into his consieb ration. There were few things that
would bring the Noble Lord into greater accession or fame
than proving himself to he the emancipator of our com-
merce from the thraldom to which it wait now subjected.
Tne Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, That, in the
opinion of this House, the Tariff of Sound Does now le-
vied at Elsineur is not a Tariff which the King of Denmark
is emit: ed to maintain ; and that the Sound dues require
such a revision as will facilitate the commercial relations of
this country with the altic Ports.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Lord PALMERSTON would not dispute any of the
propositions which his Hon. Friend had so ably and dis-
passionately propounded, because he could do no better than
say that the statement which he had made with regard to
the mariner in which the Sound dries wcrei now levied
was almost entirely the case of the British Government as
against the Government cf Denmark. Therefore it was
not his wish to weaken the propositions which his
Honourable Friend had endeavoured to establish.
This was not the first time, however, the subject
had been brought under the consideration of the Govern-
ment in that House. Indeed, the ground on which he
should request his Honourable Friend., as a mat-
ter of else: eion, either to withdraw Lie motion,
or riot to resist V..e nertion of the preti rus ques-
tion, was that the suejmt had for sonic time past oc-
cupied the serious nttention of Government, aid that they
were at this moment in negotiation with the Government
of Denmark upon the matter—(li, ar, hear)—and that
consequently any expression of opinion on the part
of the House, such as was then proposed, would
be an unfitting and an inexpedient i A:l:position of
Parliament in a negotiation pending between the B. itiill
Crown and thee: own of Denmark. Mere especially when the
dispa: i:y of the streegth of the two countries, was caul-
dered be thought it would not only upon goneral principle
be inexpedient, but in some manner ungracious at the
present moment. Her Majesty's Government Lai made
a communication on the subject some time ago to the
Government of Denmark, through the Danish Minister in
this country. The result of that communication had been
that the Danish Minister who was before on leave of
absence from 'this country, returned especially for the
purpose of coming to some arrangement with the British
Government. He felt it due to the Danish Government
to state, that in their communications on the subject, they
had evinced a fair and candid disposition, and had entered
into the question with a view to the completion of a
settlement which might be satisfactory to all parties. Her
Majesty's Government felt that they could not object to
any dues which were legally exacted; but they contended
that a great portion of the numerous dues levied were .
not maintainable by any interpretation of the treaty.
There was one point in which he (Lord Palmerston) could
not agree with his Hon. Friend. hie could not think
with him that whatever might have been the oppressive
nature of those duties, they bad diminished the
commerce cf Great Britain with the Baltic.
They might undoubtedly have in some degree
cperertvaeinatettatitstbeayughmadenttacaidoend, atanudchonteo thingdivert
w thens cquite
certain that they had tended much to divert the chart-
eel of our commerce.—(Hear, hear.) But it appeared
from a pamphlet, of which he was sure his Hon. Friend
would be the last to deny the authority, and which had
ably discussed the whole question—it appeared from the
last pages of that pamphlet, that if the commerce of Greet
Britain with Denmark had not been of late years increased it
had not at all diminished. But it was certain that a great
portion of the commerce which would have been carried on
though the Sound had been diverted into another course ;
and that was also a circumstance which should weigh with
the Danish Government, because it ought to show them
that the maintenance of these high duties did not add to
their revenue to the extent they might have imagi, ed, and
that by reducing the dues, so as to restore the commerce be-
tween the two countries, the revenue of Denmark would in
truth sustain very little if any diminution. Having stated
thus much, arid having said that the British Government
was engaged in astive negotiations with the Government
of Desinark on the subject, and that the latter Government
had shown a real and sincere satire to come to a fair un-
derstanding with regard to it, and hoping as he did that
these negotiations might be brought to a satisfactoofrya cceOton:
carlY,epteahosoNunodbledits.Locrorerydt
elusion long before the expiration of a yearter
expiration he
tury, as Lis Hoe. Friend anticipated—
(Lord P.) trust.
his hopes and expectations on the ahr
e—trusted
beingt
hat
withdraw his motion or that
rnwi°,rteb
waste
a'tse
t,,
his Hon. Friend would either
of the House against
he would abstain from taking sensethestior.
the motion for the G
• "vitst lufethere was any immediate
d of even a qua rte rine faati
matte-,
eioasnrasii:ndtuwhiaiittchgndergwaow:iiincaghtiotthnheset
Horn. Gentleman would, in
Sir R. PEEL said brought to a satisfactory con-
prospect of the matterriboctedni:neg
elusion' at an
the subject, and that the House of
his opinion, crEchrer
wiute°,Otnto interim e, it should be considc.ted that
the ;eat Britain had not . been,ecitnoviledg d
butpreeent the interference of the House of Corn-,
the question
just claims
,k acre not in conformity with the treaty.
Lord admitted that the duties • --e .
'lnc Noble
rs °nu gad been P
now levied by
mt then,
occ; ?ma "No one wished to resort to violence, but What,
fhtahte
D m
solemn engagements were habitually
nCorociet.4ll n coolsiternnaotthp.
alternative,
in
nurhei
his
redress, n and if
but
t:at
violated, there was
rn and temperate and becoming lao-
pealed tbat
t the House of
,Cnoim:aeoenms
esdhotuoldhiimn ctaol
ence of the House. The Noble Lord
gasp fortify tt.e Crown in its
be a case for te legitimate interfer-
ence
had application
ad madefor redress.
ds
treats::
Lunt ha the course of his speech which he (Sir R. Peel)
did not think could be justified.
The Noble Lord had said
that there had been no diminution
n:
of the comeree be-
tween Great Britain and Denmark under the present du.
ties, and the Noble Lord seemed to conclude that that was
a reason why they should not complain of the present sys-
' tern. He (Sir Robert Peel) was of a contrary opi-
nion, and he felt that if the commerce of the country
bad not been incrca cd, as might have naturally been
expected, those duties were not justifiable.—( Hear. )
If the existing duties prevented the trade from incress-
jug, or if it directed the trade into other or indirect clean_
nets, they were hound to demand their reduction. If the
Government of Denmark refused to adhere to the provisions
of the treaty entered into with it, he ( Sir Robert Peel)
in that House interfering to strengthen
Ministers in a remonstrance to the Da-
nish Government.--( Hear.) There were many reasons why
the Danish GCVCTRITIeIit should be anxious to preserve a
good
nd anr i'
with
gwithdrawn
the manifestation of opinion from all part; of the House
1 which had been elici'ed would produce the best results,
' without pushitg the matter to an extremity. If the Hon.
Genie:ran found that the existing negot ations failed in
wereuearost
producing a proper result, then he had tee power of bring.
ing the question forward again, and he (Sir Robert Peel)
for one, would be prepared to support the motion in the
event of the appeal which would be made by the Noble
Lord, who was the representative of the British Govern-
i inent, failing to produce the proper result.

EVENING EDITION.

Mr. L A BOUCHE RE was sure that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had misunderstood his Noble Friend when he
said that the Noble Lard bad alieged that it eras not the
design of tha Government, or ins intention, to urge
upnn the Danish Government, without delay, the justice
and propriety of putting- an end to the existing abuses.
His Noble Friend was, h evremely anxious
that these representations should be made without delay.
If the- Right Hun. Ge:t!ernan appeared to think tha-
Leteuse these grievances n•ete of keg standing, it might be
...Ithiaable to depart from the usual c..urse and adopt an ad-
.lre:is to the Crown, there might be some weight in
that argument if application had been made to the Danish
Government, and that they had neglected or refused to at-
tend to it; but in justice to the Danish Government he
must say that no reuresectvion had been made to it
sth last year. He did net think the Government
to blame in not having made tie rep etentation, because,
in point of fact, their own attention ha 4 been only re-
cently called to it, by the remonstrances of the merchants
of Great Bti!ain. He agreed with the Ri;2llt. Hon. Gar-
tkonan, that it was necessary t'at these rules should be
revised and altered with as little delay as possible, and he
had no doubt that the negetiations then going on would
lead to a speedy and swlsfactory conclusion. In the ra-
monstrance to the Danish Goivrament, they stated that
it would be desirable that these matt,rs should be brought
to a conclusion hereto the opening of the nav!g ttion. Con-
sidering that these tolls and dues were of a some evhat corn-
pliated nature, the Danish Goveintrent had expresse 1 its
readiness at once to make a conce,sion on some ci those
points which pressed most upon the commerce of that
siountry. These concessions were iax!equa..e to the just
eleniands of that country, but consideting the manner in
which they had been effered, end it being stated that tl ey
were not made for the purpose of interposing delay, her
Majesty's Government had felt it their duty to express
their sa•i_f,ction at the proposal, and to accact it. Under
these circumstances, he thought his Hon. Friend would
best consult the interests of the cnmmerei-•1 community,
by withdrawing his motion.
Mr. A. WHITE said that the subject was one of Altai
irroortance to the commercal interest of that country, and
they were much indebte 1 to his lion. Friend for bringing
ts, subject forward, but after the statements of the Right
I:Jo. Gentleman, ha thought the most judicious course
would be withdraw the motion.

Mr. PEASE hoped nothing would be 'tat undone by
she etovernmeat to bring about the entire abolition of
:hose duties. The merchant-veseli were obliged to go
thruugh all sorts of obeisances by lowering their flags, &c.,
;34.)re the Castle of Eisineur, which was frequently attended
wlt'a great dtby and inconvenience. Another great elute
a delay and embarrassment aruze from the Custom House
ulT2cers requiring a detail of every article in the packages.
V/ LL IE RS said he had no doubt his Hon. Friend
rt,culd see the propriety of allowing the previous qoer,tion
be now carried. According to what had Lean sta.ed
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Pre.,ident of the Board
of Trade, the concessions made by Denmark were quite
nadequatc to satisfy the just demands that were
made. He hoped his Hon. Friend would persevere in his
thfurts to remedy the abuses complained of till he saw his
views worked out. That was not a mere English question,
but one in which the whole world was interekted. Other
stari:ins were looking now to what England would do in
too matter. Those duei were a scandal to the whole
world. England might as well seek to establish Channel
duos on all goods that were imported into this country.
Mr. HUTT repl'ed—He trusted that a quarter of a
year would not pass away befire the Noble Lord would be
ogle to announce to the House that he had concluded a
treaty with -Denmark by which the dues would be reduced
to their legal form. But in his opinion the dues might in
surne way or other be abolished altogether.
The previous question was than carried.
PETITION OF WILLIAM BAINES

Mr. EASTHOPE movrrd that the peti•ion of Wm.
nairie, now a prisoner in the gaol of Leicester, yre-
sentrLd FeLruary 2, be printed and circulated with the Votes.
Mr. A. WHITE se,xmded the motion.
Lord HOWICK inquired whether the petition lied
been ordered by the Comrnittee to be printed?
Mr. EASTHOPE replied in the negative. It was his
intention to submit a motion on Thursday next on tl:e sub-
ject of the petition. The pe:ition had not Leen printed, and,
therefore, he thought it was only fair to the House that the
petition should Lc in the hands of Members.
'Or. NICHOL—WiII the Hog. Gentlernal state the
tecins of his motion ?

Mr. EASTHOPE could not state the precise terms of
the motion ; but it would be founded upon the content; of
the petition.
Lord HO WICK had tliought the Hon. Member had
stated no sufficient case t.) justify the House in ordering
tt e petition to be printed with the Votes. The Committee
eel ice had been appointed on the subject of printing peti-
tialls made a strong and unanimous representation to the
Ilouse that the petni ms should not be printed with the
Votes except in cases where the subject was not only to
ho brought under the consideration of the House, but where
it was a matter of passing and urgent necessity that it
should be brought in.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber had stated that the petition had not been ordered to le
printed; but from anything that had beets hitherto
stated it might be inferred the Committee on public
petitions was not aware of the intention cf the
Hon. Gentleman to bring the subject forward. If
any intimaion had been given to the Committee that the
subject would be subsequently brought under consideration
of the House, no doubt they would have ordered it to be
minted. The lion. Member had not shown that there
was any particular urgency in this case, which could justify
the House in departing from the rules which had been
laid clown.—( Haar, hear.) It was obvious, from the
number of similar notices which appeared in the Votes,
that if the House did not set its face against the practice,
end resist the attempt to depart from the general rule,
clash Member would think his own case most important,
awl would think the application of his own constituents was
one which ought to bo specially at'endad to, and in that
stammer, little by little, a rule would be broken which had
boon found to work with great advantage.—(Hear, hear.)
As no case had been made out for acceding to the motion,
Ito felt bound to oppose it. The best way would be for
tele Hon. Member to bring the subject under the conside-
retion of the Committee upon petitions, and he had no
doubt that next week it would be ordered it to be printed.
Mr. EASTHOPE having concluded that there
could be no possible objection to the printing of the
petition under the circumstances of his having given
notice that ho intended on Thursday to found a
motion upon it, he did not imagine that it would
have been necessary to occupy the House by stating the
grounds on which he moved the petition be printed. The
petition contained a mere statement of the circumstances
and the causes which had led to the confinement of the
petitioner, and the time he had bees confined, and
prayed that the House would adopt some measure for the
purpose of releasing him from his confinement. On two
occasions the House had declared that the cause of the
petitioner's confinement ought to be removed, and he only
asked that the subject should be brought before the House,
In the hope that it would lead to some practical relief.
hieking it would be a great severity on the petitioner to
tell bins that his peti.ion should not be printed, so as to
ire-et the eves of every Member of tl.e House, he
stie-t press the printing of the petition, and if it was op-
po:cei he should divide the House upon it.—( Hear.)

•
7,1 r. WARBURTON hoped the mction of his Hon.
F,iend would be acceded to, for it came distinctly
within the regulation which the Houseitself had laid down.
He should be exceedingly jealous of restricting any
further than it was already restricted, the right of de-
batiug on petitions; thtrefere, he did hope that the
pttitinn would be printed and laid tefore tie House pre-
vious to the day when the debate on the merits of the
petition would come on.

ieeet STANLEY sail he confessed that whether the
tlettee eequieseed iu the motion for printing the petition
eir not, he thought the p esent vas not a case in which
rip uhjtet of piloting or not printing care under eon-
3'dere'-iete The petition which was the subject of dit-
,eussion was presented cn the 2d of February, four
or :tee days after tha opening cf the session, arid
corn equently eon to which the attention of the Corr-
anitt“! . for printin
g e etitions was immediately di-
eeeted, yet, up to the
not pi iuted the pctitior, attrhelent time, they had
recent date were °u,lihhe ethers of more
i rural it.,ferrf
etefrom ce to be drawn that was, teat in tht.
Committee
mpeittit'eaeontottsiieb.
there were some grounds that led the
-stain from printing it. He teas not aware that there were
roy lion. Members present elie took an active part in that
C.fleitiittee, and could therefore inform him (Lord Star_
ler) gh,qll.lr there were any grounds ter th! Committee
not pi ieting the pet ton. h
owould
.s wish to know lhat,
btca..ic if there were any sut ,rouridie irence they
wee: form a it ong arg
wont against the °me now or_
.
ds rate: the petition to be la case, however, that
the House should Recede to ti c ,notion of Vee Hon. Gen_
tleman ke trusted it would direct the petition to be printed
witn ~ii for the use of the Members only.
Mr. E AST HOP E said he had no objection to the adop-
tion of that course.
L ABOUCH ERE said that the difficulty
of
which
714 e :t ;t. in the matter was, that he apprehended the rule.
un.
teie liewe directed that petition was to be print,
le4t, is ?:ad some inditiival reterem e to a mitt in of which
as Memee: had given notice. The object of the p
1 op eeemed a g oeral one. True the petitioner stated he
was ievisoneu; and if his Honourable Friend contem-
Pieee,l alluding in his motion to tie imprisonment
a the petitioner, it was a perfectly right thing that the
1' titian should be printed, in order that the House might
ixe 'That the nature cf the complaint made by the peti-
tieee.: wee. But if the motion was a mere general one
on the subject of Church-rates, he thought that they could
rot, without iateinging on the rule made in those eases,
direct the printing of the eeti ion as of course. He rid
think that it was of importance that they ought to adhere
to whatever rules were once laid down, not only with
respect to petitions on which, such as the present, cer-
tain feelings were entertained, but also with respect to
those on which no such feelings were experienced.
Mr. BROTH ER,TON raid that the rule of the Com-
mittee for the printing ef petitions was, that no petitions
from individuals should be printed unless they complained
of personal grievances. When petitions were of a gene-
ral nature, it was not considered necessary to erint them.
Mr. BAINES said that the Hon. Member who het!
just sat down declared that pet tions were not printed
tin:CSS they complained of some personal grievance. Now,
if imprisonment was not a personal grievance, and a very
great one, too, he (Mr. Baines) knew not what was a Fer_
maul grievance. The House would hardly do justice to
its own feelings if it withheld the publication of the pen_
Lion on which the motion was to be grounded ; for the real
question was whether they would print the petition, and
thereby obtain for thenue'Nes all the necessary information
relative to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. T: DUNCONIBE concurred with the Right
Hon. Gentlemen the President of the Board of Trade as
to ti:e propriety of strictly adherirg to the rules laid down
relative to the subject under eisees,ine ; and, in accord-
ance with these tales, he (Mr. D.) maintained that the
petition ought to be printed. In February 1839, that
!douse had come to a decision as to the necessity of
adhering to the established practice with respect to
the presentation of petitions that had been laid
down by the Speaker. The House divided on the
occasion, when there was a majority of 148 to

43 in favour of afire ing to the practice so laid down.
The rule in favour of which that decision was come to,
laid down that all petitions presented relating to sutjects
which Hon. Members wished to bring under the considerr-
lion of the House, were to be printed with the Votes, on
the Meaabcr giving notice when he presented the petition
that odic would bring forward a motion on the subject. lie
contended that unless that rule were rescinded, the lion.
Member for Leicester had a right to have the petition
printed. There was a general impression out of doors,
that the right of presenting petitions in the House had
been gradually restricted, and he thought that if they re-
fused to at cede to the motion they would confirm that
opinion.
S'r GEORGE GREY said that he did not think that
the request made by the Hon. Member for Leicester was
an unreasonable one. lie understood the rule of the
House to be, that when a Member wished that a petition
should be printed, he should pledge himself to bring for-
ward a specific motion founded on it on a certain day.
IF the contrary were the law the sooner it were abolished
the better.
Mr. WARD said that the rule laid down by the Right
Horn Baronet was not cmformable to the practice of the
House. He had always understood that a petition was
printed on the understanding that a motion regarding it
was to be brought forward within fourteen days. Many
restrictions were already imposed on Members presenting
petitions, and he did not think that the law on the subject
should be further limited.
The CIIANCELLOR of the EX.CHEQUER, con-
fessed that he thought that in this particular ewe consi-
dering that the party had already suffered a more than
common grievance, the petition might be printed
the sanction of the Committee. He could not, how-
ever, conceive what was the motive for the mystery
which was observed by the Hon. Member who had in-
troduced ti-c motion.
Sir R. PEEL said that it should be remembered that
dace the passing of the rule to which the Honourable
Member for Finsbury had referred, a Committea had
been appointed, to which the whole question of
the privileges of that House and the printing
of petiions and other pagers had been referred.
That Committee, of which the Hon. Member for Leicester
and the Hon- Member for Bridport had been members,
came to a resolution that, in titer opinion, before the
House ordered a petition to be printed, it should be shown
not merely that the subject of such a petition would be
brought under the consideration of the House, but that it,
being so would not even admit of such a delay as would be
oceasiorei by its being referred in the first instence to the
Committee on petitions. That recommendation of ti:e
Committee had not been Adopted by the House, but he
thought it would be ar'rvisalA to adhere to it as much as
possilla ; and that it merited their best consideration.
The rule adopted by the Hance was this—that in case of
all retilions presented relative to any subject which a Mem-
ber wished to bring under the consideration of the House,
or to be printed with the Votes, notice should be given at
the time of presenting the petition, of the day on which
he was to bring forward the motion. On the day, how-
ever, on which the Hon. Member had presented the peti-
tion, he had not given such notice. He had, in truth, to make
a motion to meet the petition, but he presented a petition to
meet a motion. It was only five weeks aft-r the Hon. Morn-
ber had given notice of this motion that he had moved for
the printing cf the petition. Now he (Sir R. Peel) did
not think that that was complying with the established
rules of that House. He put out of the question alto-
gether the nature of the peti ion, for he thought it would
be unfair of them to allow themselves to be influenced by
such a consideration. He felt that they ought to adopt im-
partially the same rule on all occasions ; but he did not
think that the Hon. Member had any reason to ask for an
exemption from that rule. He was of opinion that the
Hon. Gentleman should not be required to say whether his
motion was to be a general or a special one; but he be,
lieved he would do well to accede to the motion for print-
ing the petition for the use of Members only.
Mr. EA STH OPE said that he had already stated, and
in perfect good faith, that he intended to submit on
Thursday a motion to the House grounded on the petition,
and he had determined to refrain from any gone-
ral discussion on the question of Church-rates.
Since he have given notice, he had been urged by parties
interested in the question to delay its introduction till a
more advanced period of the Session, while he had been
urged by the friends of the petitioner to bring his specific
grievance forward as soon as possible, with a view to ad-
vance his release. On Thursday it was his intention to
bring forward the case of Mr. Baines, but he would not
bring on any general discussion on the subject of Church-
rates. He felt that in bringing forward such a motion it
was most essential that the petition should be printed, and
in the hands of Members, in order that they might refer
to it in the course of the discussion that was likely to arise.
—( Hear, hear.) He could not help thinking that if he
had made his motion without having the petition printed,
there might be a just ground of complaint against him,
that the substance of the petition was not generally known.
He hoped, so long as he had the honour of a seat in that
House, that he would never resort to any underhand means,
in order to entrap it into a discussion, without giving pre-
vious notice of his intention. _ _ _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL promised, after the
explanation of the Hon. Gentleman,that no objection would
be made to the motion. It now appeared that the peti-
tioner complained of a personal grievance, and, under the
circumstances, he did not think there could be any objec-
tion to the motion.

Lord HOWICK, after the explanation of the Hon.
Member, was not disposed to press his objection ; but ho
thought the Hon. Member should bave made a represen_
tation on the subject to the General Committee on
Petitions.

Lord STANLEY understood the motion would be to
print the petition for the we of Members only.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the sugger-
Con a most judicious one; and, as they now had the power
of printing whatever they thought proper, it was one they
oug.ht to exercise with great discretion.—(Hear.)

The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. BAINES then rose for leave to bring in a Bill
for the better enrolment of burgesses of boroughs, di-
vided into wards, in England and Wales, and for altering
the time for certain elections in such boroughs.—Agreed to.

'I he ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to
bring in a Bill to facilitate the administration of criminal
justice in certain boroughs. From the state of the oppo-
site benches—(there was not a single Member on the Op-
position benches)—he did not anticipate much objection to
his motion.—(Great laughter.) The Bill referred to
the boroughs of Birmingham, Manchester, and Bolton,
which had lately obtained a specific jurisdiction of their
own; but, there being no gaols in these boroughs, it had
been fouud necessary to introduce the present measure to
enable these boroughs to build goals.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
The East India Rum Bill, the Mutiny Bill, and the
Marine Mutiny Pill, were severally read a third time.

Colonel SI.HTHORP moved—Z" That an hutuble ad-
dress be presented to her Majesty, praying that sho will
be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid
before this House, copies of the several communications
between her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Homo
Dei artment and the Treasury, relative to the appointment
of Mr. Vizard, as Solicitor to the Home Department,
with a salary of 1,5001. a year."—Agreed to.
The House then Adjourned at Twenty Minutes past
Seven o'Cleek.