The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-27 00:00:00

hould be ready to point out the difficulties of the
country (and the accounts from the manufactur-
ing districts are most gloomy), and should pro-
pose to Parliament a great reduction in the
duties on sugar and timber, abolishing the discri-
minating duties, and proposing the abolition of
the landlords' bread-tax, or at least the substitu-
tion of a small fixed duty on corn. If, after thus
throwing themselves on the good sense of the
country, and on the interests of the bulk of the na-
tion, they should be obliged to dissolve Parliament,
they will have something to go to the country upon.
At present they have nothing, they cannot carry
on the Government, and they must choose be-
tween some bold measure of great public utility
or an ignominous retreat from power, with-
out the probability of averting that confusion
to avoid which is probably their motive
for always yielding to the Tories. They have
for five years experienced the folly of such con-
duct. The division of last night brought that
principle to its termination, and they must either
change their course, and permit the men whom
they by their obedience virtually acknowledge
to be their masters, to accede to office, or they
must aim a deadly blow at Tory policy and Tory
power.

The Peers, last night, received a considerable
number of petitions, many of which were for a
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Viscount DUNCANNON, in answer to a question
put by the Earl of FALMOUTH, on Friday, stated
that the Crown meant to try its right to the pre-
duce of all mines worked under the sea in the
Duchy of Cornwall, even to those mines which
belong to the Earl of FALMOUTH himself.
The law did not give a prescriptive right in those
cases, as the invasion of the rights of the Crown
was not more than forty years old. We must
say that
,we shall regret to see any attempt to
revive any old feudal claims of the lord para-
mount. The minerals really belong to those by
whose united labours they are brought to the
surface of the earth; and, unless the Crown per-
forms some part of those labours, it has no
right to the smallest portion of the produce.
In reply to the Earl of WINCHILSEA , Viscount
DustcArtstox stated that it was the intention of
her MAJESTY'S Government to open the whole
of the grass part of Regent's Park, as far as was
consistent with the rights of those who had laid
out money in beautifying portions of it.
Lord ASHBURTON thought it was for the in-
terest of the public to preserve these beautiful
enclosures untouched.
The Bishop of LONDON referred to the pro-
posed Park at the East End; and recommended
a general measure—always keeping in view the
vested interests of the priests in the cold remains
of our departed friends—to prevent the inter-
ment of bodies in the churchyards of London.
That nuisance, however, must not be put an end
to without making compensation to the clergy.
Viscount DUNCANNON declined to say what
his intentions were about the Eastern Park, as it
might baulk his scheme.
The Marquis of NORMANDY approved of the
Rev. Prelate's suggestion as to the interment,
and said he had endeavoured in vain to frame a
measure on that principle, but with the Rev.
Prelate's assistance he hoped it might yet be done.
The Marquis of NORMANDY in moving for a
Committee to inquire into Sunday trading on
canals, stated that he wish.-:d to give the people
engaged in that traffic relief on the Sunday.
They were now compelled to labour seven days
in the week, which was productive of much theft.
He thought it would be necessary also to extend
to railways any measure they might adopt as to
canals, so that railways might have no advantage.
The Bishop of LICHFIELD warmly supported
the motion. which would be received throughout
the country with great satisfaction.
Lords COLCHESTER and HA THE RTON suggested
that there would be a difficulty as to estuaries
and tide rivers, but the traffic on canals might be,
stopped on Sundays to the advantage of the
public. The Committee was appointed. We
hope their Lordships will examine the boatmen,
as well as the boat-owners anci the clergymen, on
the lines of the canals. For our part we do not
believe that the boatmen wish for their Lord-
ships' interference. Let them, however, at least,
be asked. Perhaps the boatmen, taking our hint,
will depute some of their own body to ask thei r
Lordships to hear them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a
Bill to remove doubts as •to the liability of a
Peer to be punished for felony. Their Lordships
then adjourned.
In the Commons Sir CH ARLES GREY extorted
a little explanation from' Lord STANLEY as to a
speech the Noble Lord made in 1832, touching
the Irish franchise, in which the Noble Lord, as
reported in the Mirror of Parliament, was made
to speak throughout of a rent of 101., while he
had really spoken, he said, as the Bill spoke, of
an annual interest of 101. According to the Noble
Lord, the Mirror of Parliament had committed
an error throughout the speech, and made it un-
intelligible. Whether the reporters were in error
or the Noble Lord's memory have failed him, is not
for us to say. If the reporters were not in error,
however, the Noble Lord, when he brought for-
ward the Irish Bill, must have meant to give the
Irish a totally different franchise from that
tor which the Noble Lord now contends.
The House went into a Committee on the
Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Bill. Lord
HOWICK moved an amendment to the first clause,
with a view to establish that the beneficial inte-
rest in a freehold or leasehold property shall be
the test of the right of voting. The Noble Lord
offered this amendment to the House with a
view of settling the important question, and me-
diating between the conflicting parties. He
spoke of the change proposed by the Ministerial
Bill as very great, and he treated it throughout
as upsetting the principle of making the franchise
depend on property. Yet the Noble Lord voted
for the second reading of the Bill, and then pro-
fessed himself pleased with the simplicity
of the rate-paying principle. He has now
conic to the conclusion that the principle of
the existing law is wise, but the manner in
which it is carried into execution not so. He
proposes that the value of the property should
be ascertained by the assessment to the Poor-
rate. But were he to keep up the 101. principle,
he would make the franchise even more stringent
than is contended for by the Tories ; he meant,
therefore, to propose that the beneficial
interest, as determined by assessment to
the Poor-rate, should be 51. ; the .51.
being over and above the rent payable. He
meant to propose, too, that being rated to the
poor at, it was understood, 201., though the per-
son had no lease, should give a vote, thus esta-
blishing in Ireland, as in England, a right to
vote in a tenant-at-will. The Noble Lord con-
cluded a long speech, by declaring that his
scheme was just and fair to all parties. Just and
fair, or not, it is one of those trifling, petty-
fogging arrangements, which are not adapted to
the age and to the people, and will be laughed
at, as if a doctor was to recommend a little
sugar to man in a violent fever.
Lord M ORPETH opposed the amendment, and
declared his .intention to abide by his own pro-
position.
reHe properly pointed out that Lord
was
atotal
introductiond
departure
from h
of atenat n te principle
-at -ivi ll fran-
chise n
of
the Reform Aand
ple as the Ministers ahsagreat a change
in princi-
dered it moreover a deluisli opnr,o propose
and
dn.o t He
ael
ucloant
es id-
to enlarge the franchise.
Mr. C. WOOD spoke in favour of Lord
and described it as an
d
franchise. He mentioned that
Oi
at present disfranchisement was at the rate of
addition to toptrhope sit proposition,
1,000 persons aye , - ar and that in a few years
the whole question would have to be again taken
up. Lord MORPETH's plan, he said, would dimi-
nish the number of electors to the extent of
one-sixth. The leasehold franchise was one of
sand, which was gradually falling away.
Sir C. GREY said the amenclient, far from a
verbal one, would operate most injuriously.
Lord STANLEY considered the amendment
identified with the great principle for which he
contended, and which the Government measure
sought to destroy.
Mr. O'CONNELL merely confined his remarks
to telling the House that Ireland understood the
insults it was heaping on her.
Lord JoHN RUSSELL stated that he had made
concessions for the sake of getting the Bill
passed, and he was, disappointed. He called on
the Tories, if it was their determination not to

allow the Irish to be represented, to take their
stand on that ground, and openly adhere to that
principle.
Sir ROBERT PEEL wound up the debate, di-
recting his force chiefly against what Lord JOHN
RUSSELL had said, accusing him of seeking to
divert the attention of, and indulging in decla-
mations against the intentions of, his opponents.
After the Hon. Baronet resumed his seat, and
Mr. O'CoNNELL, Lord Howlcx, and Lord JOHN
RUSSELL had given some explanation, the Com-
mittee divided. The result is stated above.
The House resumed soon afterwards—the
Committee to sit again on Wednesday—and then
adjourned.
Lord HOWICieS first amendment, which in-
volves no consideration of amount, was adroitly
devised to catch all the Tories, and it caught
them. We are inclined to suppose that Minis-