The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-11 00:00:00

VTR STN, LONDON, rnmAy, JUN

IMPERIAL. PARLIAMEI

HOUSE OF LORDS: Junc 10.
Their lordships assembled at a Quarter to Five
o'Clock.
Messengers from the Commons brought up the Lon-
don and Greenwich Railway Bill.
Lord DUNCANNON moved the third reading of the
Court-house (Ireland) Bill, the Militia Ballot Suspen-
sion Bill, the Assessed Taxes Composition Bill, the
Vaccination Bill, and the Ordnance Survey Bill.
Agreed to.
The Tithe Composition Bill was read a second time.
The Sugar Duties Bill went through Committee, and
was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition
from 48 clergymen of the diocese of Bath and. Wells
praying for an alteration of the sth and 6th of
William IV. which prevented marriages in a certain
degree of affinity. The Right Rev. Prelate said he was
not an advocate for the measure.
Lord STRANGFORD would ask the Noble Lord at
I the Head of the Admiralty whether any vessel had been
sent out in order to ascertain if possible what was the
fate of the President steamer. He (Lord Strang ford)
understood that the Portuguese Government had done
so, and however much they had to complain of them
in other respects, the fact did them much credit.
Viscount AIELBOURNE requested the Noble Lord to
wait for a few minutes, till his Noble Friend the Earl. of
Minto was in attendance.
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from Mon-
trose, and other places in Scotland, praying for a settle-
ment of the Church of Scotland question. He did not
mean to enter into any details of the question at present,
but he thought the first thing that ought to be done was
to obtain a compliance with the law as it at present
stood. That he believed was the feeling that prevailed
in that and the other House of Parliament.
RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.

The Earl of DEVON presented a petition from Ire-
land, containing the signatures of several persons pos-
sessing property to a very large amount, and from al-
most every part of the country, in favour of the construc-
tion of railroads in Ireland, which the petitioners firmly
believed would tend more than almost any other measure
to promote the prosperity and develope the resources of
the country. The petition .was signed by upwards of
50 Peers, 40 Baronets, 39 Members of Parliament, and
numerous Gentry of property in Ireland. In that opinion
he cordially concurred, and as a person connected with and
interested in its prosperity, he was most anxious to see
such a measure carried into effect. He understood that
a Bill for the establishment of railways in that country
had been lately introduced into the other House. With-
out pledging himself to the details of that or any other
plan he should give it his best attention when it came
under the consideration of that House.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL would give the petition
his best support, because Ireland required the advantage of
railroads as much, if not more, than almost any other
country. In the first place, tlip great amount of the po-
pulation, and the low price Mvages, would enable them
to construct these railways at one half the expense of
those that had been formed in England. In addition to
that the landlords were so anxious for their construction
that they would give them land for nothing ; and the
materials were in every part of the country in the
greatest abundance. He had no doubt, therefore,
that the railways would pay in Ireland ; and
if they only started with low fares, as in Belgium,
and other parts of the Continent, there was no doubt that
Railways would ultimately pay in Ireland. The subject
was one well worthy of the consideration of their Lord-
ships.—(Hear, hear.)
THE PRESIDENT STEAM-SHIP.

The Earl of MIN TO understood that before he en-
tered the House a wish had been expressed by a Noble
Earl, to know if any steps had been taken by the Ad-
miralty to relieve the President steam-ship, in the event of
her being still at sea. He was sure the Noble Earl would not
doubt the intense interest with which they had watched,
and had endeavoured to obtain all the information in their
power, and to have the best advice from persons of expe-
rience on the subject to discover the fate of that vessel—
(Hear, hear)—but they had been Compelled to come to
the conclusion, having. exhausted all their sources
of information and inquiry, that they could tak
no measures which would be calculated to afford the
slightest information or relief. Another report had
been circulated in the newspapers that day, which
was calculated to raise again, he feared, very false
hopes. It was stated . that a large steamer
in distress had been seen in' St. George's Channel.
He (the Earl of Minto) had been employed that
morning in following, up that subject, and he had
no doubt whatever that information of that sort
had reached town, but at the same time lie felt bound
to say that he had no reason to believe that that report
was well founded, and he feared that it was one of those
most odious and incomprehensible attempts to take ad-
vantage of hopes which might be excited with reference
to the money market.—(Hear, hear.) If a vessel
had been seen under such circumstances it was impossi-
ble but that some authentic information on the subject
would have reached the Admiralty before the
present time. It appeared to him that no
exertions of theirs could be of the least service, but if
they were the Noble Earl might rest assured that they
would have spared no exertions for such a purpose.
Lord STRANGFORD thanked the Noble Earl for
the information.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
very numerously signed from the town of Swansea, pray-
ing their Lordships to institute an inquiry into the ex-
isting restrictions on commercial intercourse. The Noble
Marquis said he should lay a Bill on the table of the
House to-morrow for renewing the existing law relating
to usury for one year.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented petitions against the
present Corn-laws from Yorkshire and other places.
Lord -MELBOURNE presented a petition for the
abolition of Church patronage in Scotland.
The Earl of DARTMOUTH presented a petition
from West Bromwich in favour of the Corn-laws.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from
Bradford in favour of Church extension.

The LORD CHANCELLOR laid upon the table a
Bill for the better administration of justice in the Court
of Chancery, and explained some of its details.
Lord BROUGHAM expressed his regret that the Bill
relative to the new Vice-Chancellor's Court would. not
pass this year, owing to an accident that had taken place
elsewhere.

Earl MOUNTCASHEL presented a petition from the
North American merchants of Liverpool, praying that
no alteration be made in the present timber duties, for if
such were the case their ships would remain void and
useless.

Earl FITZWILLIAM would remind the Noble Earl
that the proposition of the present Government was not
at all anew one, as it had been brought before 'Parlia-
ment nine years ago, when the present Lord Spencer was
Chancellor of •the Exchequer. He (Lord Fitzwilliam)
would ask the Noble Earl ►whether it followed that be-
cause the ships could not be wholly laden with timber,
that there were no other things to make up a cargo?
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said if there were
other things he should like the Noble Lord to point
them out.

Earl FITZWILLIAM said that if these ships were not
employed in carrying timber from Canada they would
soon find employment in bringing timber from other

places. _
Lord COLCHESTER said the Noble Earl, having
stated that this measure would not throw the sailors out
of employment—
Earl of FITZWILLIAM—No, no, I did not.

Lord COLCHESTER would tell the Noble Earl then,
that the timber from Norway and other places, was
always brought in the ships belonging to the country
from which the timber was _ brought. He (Lord
Colchester) would inform the Noble Earl that the ships
employed in the colonial timber trade, were not fit to
bring any articles that would be injured or spoiled, by
which they were therefore totally unfit to carry such
articles as corn.—(Hear; hear.)
Earl FITZWILLIA)I thought that if the ships were
not fit to carry goods that would be damaged by wet,
they must be very bad ships.—(A laugh.)
Lord COLCHESTER—At any rate they employed
sailors, and brought profit to their owners.—(Hear.)
Lord ASHBURTON presented a petition to the same
effect from South Shields, and he would take that op-
portunity of alluding to what the Noble Lord opposite
(Lord Brougham) had stated on Tuesday, and in con-
firmation of what lie (Lord Ashburton) then said, he
would read a few ser_tences from a very eloquent speech,
delivered by the Noble and Learned Lord, upon the then
existing distresses of the country.—(The Noble Lord
then read an extract from a speech of Lord Brougham,
in which he (Lord Brougham) advocated a protective
system of duty on corn.) He (Lord Ashburton) thought
the Noble Lord could not, after what he had just read,
complain of what he (Lord Brougham) facetiously
termed his (Lord Ashburton's) sliding scale of opinion.
He (Lord Ashburton) would not reproach his Noble and
Learned Friend for having changed his opinions ; on the
contrary, he thought great praise was due to him. lie
did not for a moment blame his Noble Friend for having .
changed his opinion since 1815. But he would advise
the Noble and Learned Lord not to throw stones when
he had so many windows of his own.
Lord BRO U GHAM said he took the arguments his
Noble Friend brought forward against him, in good part,
and he must say that he was rather disappointed, from
what he had stated the other night, that he had
been able to bring forward so small a discrepancy in his
conduct now and in 1817. The Noble Lord had made
an attack upon him as the enemy of the Corn-laws, of
which he (Lord Brougham) had previously declared
himself the champion. Now, in the first place, he
would state to their Lordships, that his Noble Friend
had alluded to the year 1815, when the Corn-law debates
were brought on, and his Noble Friend had referred to
something that he (Lord Brougham) had said on the
debate on the Corn-law Bill. He (Lord Brougham) had
said that that was utterly impossible, because he was not
a 11Iember of Parliament at that time, and never took
part in that debate in any one of its stages. Now, with
respect to the opinion that he entertained in the year
1817 on that subject, his Noble Friend was kind enough
to state that it was no charge against a person if, after
twenty-four years, he thought fit to change his opinion.
But that was not enough, it ought to have led him to
another observation, and that should have been, that the
party should have had twenty-four years' experience.—
(Hear, hear.) At the time, perhaps, he had made use
eh
of the words dos Noble Friend had just read. They were
used at the time the original law was about to come into
operation. But was it matter of course that after
twenty-six years of experience, when it was found that
measure had failed to alleviate the distress of the coun-
try, that his opinion should change, and that he should
think protection a measure not required?—(Hear, hear.)
Circumstances had changed since then. He did not
mean as to the distress of the country; but were the land-
holders in the same position now, and was the country in
the same position in which it was in 1817.—.(I-fear,hear.)
He thought if his Noble Friend stated a few more of the
observations he had made on • the subject, he (Lord
Brougham) would almost venture to say that one of the

main grounds on which he (Lord Brougham) rested th.e
opinion which he held, and which he subsequently held
upon Mr. Canning's Corn-law Biil, was the situation in
which the landed interest was then placed. It was the
state of the Poor-law. Haa -no Change taken place hp
that subject ?He was unwilling to enter into subject
in: any of its branches, and he was particularly unwilling
to say anything in its bdnilf. That measure had been
termed a landholders' Bin, but:. he would say that it
was for the purpose of
improving the circumstances
of the labouring population of this country themselves.
That was the main and grand object of that great mea-
sure, which at the same time conferred benefits on other
classes of the community. He considered that the land-
owners having been relieved by that Bill made of itself
a most material difference in the question of protection
due to the landed interest. He had .no hesitation in
saying that he was anything rather than a person pe-
remptorily or in any sense of the word denying protec-
tion to the landed interest. Was it no protection to say
gradual and hot instantaneous repeal ?
• wa;g.it not pro-
tection to say take off so much per cent. year, after year
until ultimately you will have taken off the whole ? Was
not that protection ?
Lord ASHBURTON—None.
Lord BROUGHAM—Would the Noble Lord rather
have a total repeal at once ?—(Hear, hear.) Now, as to
what his Noble Friend had said with respect -to the
attack he (Lord Brougham) had made upon him for his
changes in opinion—he had said certainly that the preju-
dices 'of his Noble Friend were not of a very fixed prin-
ciple, but parttiok somewhat of a sliding scale.—(A
laugh.) He must say he was rather astonished that hi.:.,
Noble Friend should have shown so much soreness-on
the subject, If his Noble Friend merely --changed
his opinion with no sinister motive—with no
motive of interest without the possibility of
being interested—if there had been such a change,
why should he be so very sore on account
of the remarks he (Lord Brougham) had passed upon
him—a mere passing remark—a kind of parenthesis.—
(A laugh.) He (Lord Brougham) must say that his
Noble Friend had taken to himself a much greater de-
gree of blarnef than he (Lord Brougham) had awarded
him. But with respect to the other parts of his Noble
Friend's speech, in which he tried to draw him into a
discussion, he .would say that he differed from those
with whom he had long acted, whose great knowledge of
the subject—whose intimacy with the details could only:
be equalled by their devotion to the cause—the question
of slavery. He differed from them, and he did not.. He
could not go the length to say that the emancipated
negroes of the West Indies should be treated
with a greater degree of protection than others, for
the sake of what was called the system of the working of
the emancipation, which had been tried, and which he
(Lord Brougham) denied to have been tried as an expe-
riment. He (Lord Brougham) could not see why they
should exclude sugar the
.produce of slave labour, and
not exclude cotton andotherlirticles. He begged their
Lordships' pardon for going into these subjects, but his
Noble Friend seemed to think it incumbent on him (Loyd
Brougham) to state his opinions on them.
The. Earl of WINCHILSEA would tell the Noble
Lord that no reduction had taken place in the burthen
of the landholders. He did not approve of the continu-
ance of the powers of the Commissioners, nor did he
think that out-door relief should always be refused to
able-bodied labourers.

Lord PORTMAN allowed that the question of the
Corn-laws was undoubtedly more or less connected with
the Poor-laws. He did not wish, he should say, to in-
troduce any material alteration in the Poor-laws by
bringing back the former pernicious system. He thought
that the present law could not be carried into effect with-
out the assistance of the Commissioners, although he
should not much regret to see the Assistant-Commis-
sioners done away with. He did not often • see them at
their duty, and he thought the law could be worked in-
dependently of their services.
The Earl of IVINCHILSEA did not wish to dispense
with the services of the Commissioners for the present ;
but he thought that they might, after a few years, work
the law without their assistance. He acknowledged the
distresses of our labouring population, and he would wish
to diminish or relieve it by a sound system of emigra-
tion, which was a subject he hoped to see soon taken up
by the Legislature of the country.
After a few words from Lord PORTMAN,
The Marquis of SALISBURY did not wish to see
our labouring population—the sinews of the country—
banished, under a system of emigration, to foreign
lands. He was persuaded that the country itself was
amply sufficient for the sustenance of its inhabitants if
its resources were properly cultivated. With respect to
the Poor-laws he could not approve of the system of
granting out-door relief to able-bodied labourers.

- Earl STANHOPE should observe, on--tilesUbject of
the Poor-laws, that the change in the former system had
been brought about for the purpose of diminishing the
burdens upon the country. But the fact was, that the
expenses of the existing law exceeded the expenses of
the law for which it had been substituted. In
Bradford and its neighbourhood the increase had
aMounted to 501. per cent. An appeal was now
about to be made to the people, and he trusted they
would indicate their sense of the nature of the present
Corn-laws in language which no one could mistake. He
placed great confidence in the good sense of the people,
and more especially in the good sense of our labouring
population, who unfortunately were not represented. He
would repeat an assertion he had made on a former
evening, that he would rather be governed by the
Chartists than by the present Administration. Be was
not an advocate of the doctrines of the Chartists ; but at
least under their principles the rights of labour would not
be trampled under foot' DS they would under the present
Administration with its principles of free trade.
Lord BROUGIUM said that the principal object of
the new Poor-law was that of benefiting the labouring
population themselves. It had no doubt relieved the
land of an overwhelming burden, but that was not the
only grounds nor the principal grounds upon which it
had been passed.
Earl FITZWILLIAM observed that the increase of
poor-rateS in Bradford could not have arisen, as was sup-
posed by the Noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope), from
the new Poor-law. It arose from the distress prevailing
in that as well as in other manufacturing towns, and that
distress had been occasioned by very different causes.
After a few words from the Earl of STRADBROKE and
Earl STAMIOPE the conversation dropped.
A m 'per from the House of Commons brought up
the Insole lt t Debtors (Ireland) Bill, the New South
Wales Bill, the Australia Bill, and the Clerk of the
Peace (Lancaster) Bill. These Bills were each read a
first time.
Their Lordships then adjourned.