The Sun.
London, England, 1824-03-05 00:00:00

WOOL TRADE.

Mr. STUART VirOliTCEl3*ltesenied four petitions from
merchants and wool-dealers of Leeds, against the exportation
of long wool to foreign countries, and asked if it was possible
for England, with her present corn laWs, to run the race of a
free trade against the continent. In common justice and rea-
son, if the principle of free trade was to be acted upon, the first
example we had of it ought to be a free trade in grain.
SILK TRADE.

1
Mr. ELLICE presented a petition, pretty nearly to the
same effect as the last which had been laid before the
House, from the Operative Weavers (riband weavers) of
Coventry. In consequence of the intention' intimated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to admit the importation of
French silks, a vast number of workmen in Coventry had
already been thrown out of employ ; and the whole trade, in
fact, of the town was suspended until the final decision of
the Right Hon. Gentleman was known. The petitioners de-
clared that they had no objection to a free trade; but for them
to maintain it, with the corn laws as they now existed, was
quite impossible. The Corn Laws amounted at present vir-
tually to a prohibition. The great cost in riband-making was
the cost of the labour, which was cheaper by one half in France
than in this country. He could assure the House, that at the
very moment while the master weavers of. Coventry were pre-
paring the present petition, they had received a message from
the magistrates, stating, that in consequence of the high price
of all provisions, the workmen refused to go on any longer upon
the existing rates of wages.
Mr. ROBERTSON said that the petitioners mistook the
view of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had intended
not to assist them with respect to the home trade so much as to
enable them to compete, up to a certain point, in the foreign
markets.

Mr. PETER MOORE bore witness to the truth of the alle-
gation in the petition.
Mr. DUGDALE presented four petitions from parishes in
Warickshire, against the importation of Foreign Silk. He said,
that workmen already were being thrown out of employ every
day ; and matters would speedily be worse, if the Chancellor
of the Exchequer did not come to a determination.
Sir JOHN WROrfESLEY presented a petition from
William Henshaw, silk throwster, of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
praying that the importation of Foreign Silks 'night not pass
into a law.

BURIAL OF ROMAN CATHOLICS IN IRELAND.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT had intended to bring forward a
motion upon this very important subject, but was glad to find
Ministers taking measures to accomplish the end which he had
in view. He postponed his right for the present, in hopes that
the course pursued. by Government would be satisfactory to the
people.of Ireland generally, and likly to contribute to the tran-
quillity of the country.
Mr. PLITNKETT acknowledged the candour of the Right
Hon. Baronet in deferring his motion before the House. The
question was, doubtless, one of great importance ; and it had
occupied much of the attention of Government on both sides of
the water. He trusted that the bill which he should ask leave
to-morrow, or at latest on Monday, to bring in, would meet
the views fully of the Right Hon. Baronet. Al present, he
could only state properly, that the repeal of the Act of William
111. was complied with.--. 4 Hear !)
SOUTH AMERICA.
Mr. CANNING brought up copies of our communications
with France and Spain with respect to the Spanish American
colonies. It would probably be recollected, the Right Hon.
Secretary said, that, in the debate upon the King's Speech, he
had stated, that some time would elapse before he should be
able to communicate precise information with respect to the
Spanish 'American colonies. The papers now upon the table
contained that information : according to custom, they had been
printed ; and copies would be distributed in the course of the
evening.

WEST INDIA COLONIES. •
Mr. ,CANNING, while he was upon his legs, gave notice,
that to-morrow se'nnight he should lay before the House, by
his Majesty's command, the papers connected with that part
of the Royal Address which related to the state of the West
India Colonies. In laying those papers upon the table, he
should take the opportunity of stating the course which had
been pursued, and was intended to be pursued, in reference to
the Resolutions of the House last year.
•
FRENCH INDEMNITY MONEY..

Col. DAVIES, in rising to bring forward his motion upon
this subject adverted to the fact of its having already been be-
fore the House in the hands of the Hon. Member for Knares-
borough. His Hon. Friend, though he had not been successful,had
obtained one object—he had induced the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to admit that the money in question was undoubtedly to be
considered as droits of the Crown, for the distribution of which
the Ministers of the Crown were responsible. Upon this he
differed, however, from the Right Hon. Gent. If the money
belonged to the Crown, then it could only be matter of grace
and favour for the Crown to account to Parliament. But if the
Ministers of the Crown took possession of it in their character of
stewards of the people, the money could only be appropriated by
vote of Parliament. He would have moved in this business last
session but for the lateness of the returns for which he had
waited. He wished to have particular information on the sum
of 9,900/. paid to the Chevalier Canova, for the removal of works
of art. Considering that the dismantling of the Louvre had caused
the greatest and most inveterate hatred of the French people,
who looked upon the works deposited there as the fairly-won
spoil of more than 100 battles, it was particularly deserving
of attention. The second article upon which he pressed for
information was, the sum of 1,169,000/. paid over and above the
money admitted to have been received as indemnity for the sup..
port of the English army of occupation ; because it had been as-
sumed,
until the returns were laid before the House, that the
French people were to have borne the whole charge of main-
taining that army. He moved for particular accounts with re-
spect to this and some other items.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER believed that

there existed no difference of opinion as to the application of
the French Indemnities sufficiently great to induce Ministers
to refuse the information now required by the motion. On the
contrary, he for one felt great pleasure in giving the papers,
which he trusted would give the House the most ample_ sa-
tisfaction.
The Austrian Loan Bill was read a third time and passed.
DEMISE OF THE CROWN.
Sir R. HERON rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to pre-
vent the renewal of official appointments on the demise of the
Crown. It might be proper for him to account for the delay.
which had occured since the time (1 early two years ago) at
which he had given his first notice of a motion on this subject.
At that time there were so many subjects of pressing and im-
mediate expediency, that he thought it best tg give way, there
being no fit opportunity to call the attention of the Legislature
to it. In the course of last Session the temporary indisposition
of the King prevented him. It occurred to him, that such a
moment would be the most unfit in point of delicacy, and that
ceremony and respect which were at all times clue from the
Parliament to the Crown. Although the subject was of
great importance, it was not of so copious a nature as to jus-
tify him in occupying a very large portion of the time of the
House ; so that if the House would give their attention to
hins, he would not detain it for any length of time. It was
well known that formerly the occupation of every office, and
the existence of Parliament itself, terminated with the life
of the King. It was found that great inconvenience arose from
this sudden suspension of all the legislative and executive
functionaries, and a Bill was brought in to prevent that effect
with respect to the Parliament. Various Acts were passed
from time to time, which partially and by degrees removed
the inconvenience of the renewal with respect to some of the
superior offices. At length it occurred to the enlightened mind
of the late Mr. Ponsonhy, that it would be far better to put an
end to the whole system of renewals, and discontinue the,raising
of a highly disproportionate tax upon a certain class of persons
who were not particularly qualified to bear, to be put into the
pockets of another class of persons, without the slightest regard
to the character, merits, or other consideration of the parties.
The only change which he contemplated was, the rendering
perpetual this measure of Mr. Ponsonby's. hich had only
been adopted for a particular occasion. He could conceive
no grounds of opposition but such as ought to hare pre-
vented the objectors from allowing that measure to pass.—
What reason, to take an example, was there that enormous fees
should be received by the Chancellors of the two kingdoms
on the demise of the Crown, for the renewal of commissions
under the Great Seal ? It was the worst policy to pay efficient
offices badly. But the proper course, if badly paid, would be
to enlarge the salaries, and not leave them to so fortuitous,
accidental, and contingent a mode of remuneration, which
might sometimes occur frequently in a short space of time,
and sometimes would not occur once in a very large space of
time. It was not proposed to put any obstacle in the way of
the most unrestrained exercise of the prerogative. On the ac-
cession, it was customary at present for the chief officers of
state to tender the surrender of their employments, which they
received back again from the hands of the new King. The
alteration with respect to the commissions in the Army and Navy
would not produce the slightest inconvenience. With respect to
Magistrates, nothing could be more inconvenient than the sud-
den suspension of their powers throughout the whole of the
country. If it were to be objected that the bill of Mr. Ponson-
by was only for a particular occasion, his answer would be,
that Ministers could not then have speculated on the succession.
—The King was in good bodily health, as appeared from the
bulletins of the time, although from Session to Session his
mental imbecility was admitted. With respect to the right of
individuals to the property of those fees, they were chiefly paid
to officers dependent on'the will of the Crown. Besides, in the
case of the Chancellor, what an ungracious thing would it be
to refuse this bill, after having passed that of 1817—to take
away the fees from one grown grey in business, to give them
to an upstart, probably without merit, who might succeed him.
He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill.
Mr. CANNING was so far from thinking it right to pass
this Bill on account of the passing of the Bill of 1817, that on
the contrary he thought this Bill utterly inconsistent with the
constitutional principles which regarded the Crown as the
fountain of grace and favour ; and which, in consequence,_
while they left those subjects to the Crown, took away all
those exercises of the prerogative which were harsh and ungra-
cious. This bill, on the contrary, went to restrain the milder
and more gracious exercises of the Kingly office, leaving it, in
cane erta view acce,nsion, surrounded by a Ministry which would
be fastened on the Sovereign by his predecessor. As to the bill
of 1817, it regarded a state of circumstances which might rather
be considered a transition of the powers of Sovereignty than
an accession to them. The Regent was in possession of full
powers, he had chosen 143 Ministers, there could be no neces-
sity for their removal On his accession, which did not in the
least add to his quantum of power. The act which prolonged
the existence of the Parliament to six months after the demise
of the Crown was rin violation of the old principle, because the
tiCiero
se:ner:i aseBof
would totally alter the Constitution, and abridge the power of
preserved wholly, whereas this bill
f
might be doat , he
the Crown power
otihne
admitted, with respect to the expense of
itsgrace and favour. Something
stamps in thi renewal of Commissions (Mr. Hume said " and
fees") and fees--he was willing to take in that suggestion. But
he was afraid that by, going into the subject he must also con-
sider the other question of
compensation to those to whom the
fees were due.

that no man in the House would say that
there ought to be stamps,
Do alteration of the fees and especially
Mr. HUME said
in renewing the arm?' and navy commissions. As to high
offices of State, Gentlemen would not object to so light an

_ 1 expence.
move for a Committee of Inquiry. He
Mr. BROUGHAM Pro Posed to the Hon. Baronet to with-
draw his Bill, and,
thought that the object of the Bill, which was only to get rid of
fees and other expences, had been mistaken and over-rated by
the Right Hon. Gentleman. As to individual rights, most of the
offices to which the tees In, payable were held during the
pleasure of the Crnvili: 'n, others, which were patent places,
there were vested rights, wnich must be inquired into. His
illii
Hon. and Learned Flienl (Alr. Abercromby) held a place at
the
time
in f
o f passingfees
on th lOl7, which would have produced
3,0001. the of z
of the Crown ; but he did not
think fit to object to the Bill because of its general spirit. The
first object was to acquire. Precise knowledge, which would be
best obtained in a Committee,

Mr. TIERNEY did not understand how the Right Hon.
Foreign Secretary could object to this Bill, having supported
Part of the fees which, with the
the Bill, were payable to offices
the Crown_
stamps, that o f 1
formed
e Thedt
he
object
of
hu
neldde
ra ttht he egprelaeat ssueral.eof such as fees for commissions
Some were paid to the holders of patent
places, as the clerks of the rrITY Seal ; but in cases of vested
rights, it would be easy to apportion compensation.
Mr. CANNING thought that the Hon. Baronet must feel
very indignant at his friends for narrowing down his measure
to this meagre, trifling,
paltry consideration of fees and ex-
, pence after having turned bis mind—
for which he (Mr. Can_
ning) honoured him—to the great :
Po.nts of constitutional and
prerogative right, with a view to amend and refine them to the
utmost. It was against the inference of the Hon. Friends of
the Baronet, that the word " fee" did not once occur in Mr.
Ponsonby's Bill.
Mr. BROUGHAM was of opinion that the Right Hon
Gentlemen opposite would not have opposed this Bill, had it
been of that broad and constitutional cast which was ascribed
to it ; but that they did oppose it because of the petty paltry in-
significant objects to which alone it referred.

Mr. CANTING again explained.
Mr. DENMAN thought there was as much ground for
passing this Bill upon constitutional reasons, as there had been
for the Bill which continued.the Judges for life, to make them
independent of the Crown.
Mr. PEEL said, it was odd that his mind was led to the
opposite inference, by the mention made by the Honourable
and Learned Member, of the bill which, for their greater in-
tegrity, made the Judges independent of the Crown, that be-
ing the avowed object of the bill. Surely it was not very con-
stitutional or safe to make the army and navy as independent
of the Crown as the Judges.
Sir R. HERON, in reply, said that the irony of the Right
lion. Foreign Secretary did not apply to him. He had not
projected alterations in the constitution—he had not even con-
cocted the bill ; it was, word for word, Mr. Ponsonby's bill,
excepting those passages which went to make it perpetual, and
one literal error which the bill of 1817 contained.
Sir R. HERON, after a few words, then withdrew his motion.
Mr. WALLACE moved that the Select Committee on
Foreign Trade be re-appointed, which was carried.