The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-31 00:00:00

PLIVILEGE.

Tie Order of the Day for the consideration of this
subject
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he understood
the Sergeant-at-Arms bad a statement to make as to the
action of trespass. He moved that he be called in and
heard.

The Sergeant-at-Arms being called to the bar, said the
Assistant Sergeant said four messengers had been served
with notice of declaration in actions commenced by T. B.
Howard : and he produced the declaration.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that it be read
by the Clerk.
The declaration was then read, which stated that it was
an action of tresdass, brought by Thomas Burton Howard
against Edward Allen Gossett, William Bellamy, and
others, for entering the plaintiff's house, and creating a
disturbance therein. The damages were laid at 1,0001.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in the ab-
sence of his Noble Friend it became his duty to pro-
puce a motion to the House upon this subject.
From the verbiage of the document which had
just been read, was difficult to discover either what was
the exact form of the action to be brought, or what it was
of which the plaintiff complained. It did not appear that
he questioned the privileges of the House, or the legality
of the warrant. but what he said was, that there was an
excess of violence on the part of the Officers of the
House in the execution of that warrant. The Hon-
ourable and Learned Member for Ripon, whom
he did not then sec in his place, had, he believed, re-
ceived a letter from Mr. Howard on that subject, and he
himself had received our purporting to come from Mr.
Laurie, Mr. Howard's solicitor, in which he stated that
the complaint was of excess of violence on the part of
the officers of that House. The question was, what course
ought the House to adopt where there was an absolute breach
of the privileges of the House, it was not only right but
the House was called upon to interfere in a summary
manner, but in this case the action was brought, no to op-

pose the orders of the House, but to complain of what
the cfficers had done in the execution of their duti.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

TIIC LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
at Fire o'Clock.

Several Bills were brought up from the Commons.

The Earl of RO SE BE Et Y presented a petition from
Linlithgow, prayiug for atotal and immediate repeal of the
Corr-laws. It vial almost unnecessary for him to state
that he could not support the prayer of the petition in all its
extent; be was favourable, however, to a modification of
those laws, and he thought it would soon be indispensible
to modify them, particularly with reference to the scale of
duties. He was convinced that by such a plan much might
be done for the improvement of the country without being
at all injurious to the interests of the agricultural interest.
The Marquis of BUTE present:d :etitions from Avon-
dale, Hamilton, and other places, in favour of the Non-
intrusion principle, and 30 petitions from different parts in
favour of the present system of Corn-laws.
The Bishop of LONDON presented two petitions from
parishes in Nova Scotia, praying. for protection to the
Church in the colonies.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a peti-
ion from alparish in Cheshite praying for the repeal of
,he Corn and Provision Laws.

The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition
from Durham, praying that a stop might be put to the
Opium Trade. Also one very numerously and respectably
signed by persons in the county of Durham, praying for
the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. He
could not go that length, but had the petitioners prayed
fur a modification of the laws, and a reduction of the duty
upon corn, he would most willingly have given the peti-
tion his support. He had the good fortune to possess a
certain portion of land, and he naturally wished agr:culture
to succeed, but as he thought the excessive protection
given to agriculture was the cause of much of the distress
and poverty which prevailed throughout the country. He
knew that there were many able advocates both is that
House and out of it for a continuance of the Corn laws;
but, in h:s opinion, they ought to be revised, and the duty
reduced, for his maxim had always been " to live and let

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, although he had
not the :good fortune to possess the same influence and
power in the county of Durham as the Noble Duke, but
he could not permit it to go forth that there was not a
very considerable portion of the agricultural interest
in that county hostile to any alteration of the
Corn-laws. He wished to ask the Noble
Viscount opposite whether there was any truth in
what he saw stated in the journals of the day, relative to
a certain meeting said to have taken place in Downing-
street. From that report it appeared that two hundred
persons, calling themselves delegates, had taken Downing_
street by surprise, and had entered to a very considerable
extent into the question of the Corn-laws. lie should
like to know in what manner that meeting was to he
viewed, because, at the end of the report, the Noble Vis-
count was made to say that he had received and answered
them in his private, not in his official capacity.
Now he (the Marquis of Londonderry) could
not conceive how the Noble Viscount could

ecetva two hundred delegates upon such a quo,-
lion in his private c pacity. He wished to ask ti e
Noble Viscount whether the report was correct, whether
it was a true statement of his opinions, as stated by him to
the Delegates, whether it was merely the private opinions
co" Lcrl Melbourne, or whether an ra of the Ministers,
respecting tae Corn-laws ; and, if so, how was the House
to look at the discrepancies between those answers, and
the statements made by the Noble Lord last year ?
Tne declaration made by the :Noble Lord last year was
very strong. He could not say that which he .had last
made was exactly the same, but let their Lordships look at
the statement of what passed, and ask themselves if they
con!d gather from it what the Noble Viscount intended to
do respecting the Corn-laws, for it was a myst.fication
which was unworthy the position he held as first Minister
of the Crown. He thought the question was one of such
vital importance that the first Minister of the Crown was
bound to tell them, whether he meant to repeal, or by
changing the duty, to alter the Corn-laws, or was deter-
mined to support them as they at present stood. Be,
therefore, begged to know whether the statement was cor-
rect, and whether the Noble Lord had spoken in his pri.
vate or official capacity.
L MELBOURNE said be coul I not say whether
th s statement referred to by the Noble Marquis was cor.
rect or not, as he had not beard of it, and therefore could

not vouch for its correctness, but what he apprehCndecl the
Noble Msrquis referred to was some difference between
what he bad said in his private and official capacity, not
relating to the main subject, but to some opinions be had
stated in the course of the meeting with reference to
foreign trade. He certainly stated an opinion he very
much held, that they would not by relaxing the Corn-laws
obtain a greater facility from foreign countries for the irr-
portation into them of our manufactures.—( Hear, hear.)
Oa which a delegate stated that that declaration would
have a great effect on the country, and wished to know
whether it was his (Lord Melbourne's) private opinion, or
the opinion of the Government, and he answered a
clearly. He stated it merely as his own opinion.
The MARQUIS of LONDONDERRY then read
an txtract from the Report of the inteni..w in tale
newspaper, to the effect that Lord Nlelboutne said that
" the total repeal at present would be most injudicious ; t

give all at once was not the way to obtain concessions from
Foreign Powers." He wished to know whether that was
to be one of Mr. O'Connell's instalments. He thought
the Noble Viscount should state the determination of the
roment on the subject.
The Earl of RADNOR who was heard with great diffi-
culty was understood to say that, in consequence of the
lateness of the last and the ensuing Sessions, there would
be a famine, if the Corn-laws were not repealed. He
begged their Lordships to attend to the effect of the Corn-
laws on the Poor-laws. The object of the Poor-laws was
to produce a free competition of labour, but that ought to
bo accompanied with a free trade in food. Although
he was fsvourable to the Poor-laws, yet he would
support a modification of them, if an alteration
were not made in the Poor-laws.—.( Hear, hear.)
The avowed object of the Corn-laws was to keep up the
price of bread. That was declared to be the object when
they were established, and it was said at that time that if
the landlords were not protected in that way they would be
ruined. After some further observations he expressed a
hope that their Lordships would well consider the subject,
and be prepared to deal with it when it came before them.
TLe Noble Lord then presented a number of petitions in
favour of the alteration from Devon, Hampshire, Cheater,
Lanark, Somerset, and other places in England and Scot-
land. We understood him to say that the petition from
Somerset was signed by a very wealthy landowner, Sir
Thomas Lethbridge.—( Hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND said the great object of

the Corn-laws was that the nation should be independent
of any other country foe bread.—( Hear, hear. ) On this
view of the subject he would refer his Noble Friend
(Lord Radnor) to the speech of the President of
Ameiica.—(llear, hear, hear.) His Noble Friend,
like other agitators, stated what he assumed
to be the opinions of the agriculturists, and then argued
upon them. They put the question to the people, as one
of cheap bread, but if they told them that the question was
whether they would have cheap bread and butter, or no
employment, or would have bread at a reasonable price
and good wages—( Hear, hear, hear)—if the question was
put in that way to the people, they would not be so will-
ing to sign petitions.—( Hear, hear.) Was it the fact that
the labouring classes were in distres.? Look to the state
of the Savings Banks. In November 1838, there were
690,138 depositors, and of these 600,000 were deposites
of 71. on the average.—( Hear: hear.) That shewed to
what what class they belonged.—(Hear.) But in No-
vember, 1839, there was an increase of 40,000 depositors,
and the amount of the deposits was 7,200,00C/.—( Hear,
hear.) Did that spew that the people were in distress
He should like to know what were the wages in the parish
in the Noble Lord's neighbourhood, from which one
of the petitions came ? In his own neighbourhood the
wages were 12s. a-week, and when the men were on task.
work they earned 15s. a-week. If the Corn-laws were
repealed undoubtedly there would not be full employment,
as a great deal of land would be thrown out of cultivation.
Lcrd RADNOR believed that the repeal of the Corn-
laws instead of diminishing employment would increase it.
It would certainly increase it in the manufacturing districts.
The Duke of RICHMOND asked how much able-
bodied labourers got in the part of the country which the
Noble Lord raferred to ?
The Earl of RADNOR—Their usual pay is about
Os. a week.

The Duke of B UCCLEUG H said that if they were
so well paid, he did not see what complaint could be made
on the subject.
The Duke of RIC lINIOND presented petiticns from
West Grimston and Shipley, in Tussix, against any alte-
ration in the Corn-laws ; also a petition born the Board of
Guardians of a union in the county of Snsscx, and another
from a place in the county of Elgin, to the same effect;
also a petition from a parish in Aberdeen against the intru-
sion of Ministers to the Scottish Church.
@AFT SITTING.)