The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-03 00:00:00

Mr. Robert Clive, Sir George Grey, Mr. Hogg, Mr.
John Elliot, Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Parker, Lord
Viscount Sandon, Mr. Strutt, Sir William Somerville,
Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. Ed-
ward Buller, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Horsman,
Lord SANDON did not think that the Committee,
as proposed by his Hon. Friend, would carry out the
objects which it had in view. He thought some other
names ought to be added, or it would not be fairly consti-
tuted. He had no personal feeling on the subject, and his
only desire was that a fair and impartial Committee should
be appointed.
Lord G. SOMERSET was afraid the Report of the
Committee, if constituted as proposed by the Hon. Gen-
tleman, would not be satisfactory, because undoubtedly it
would be such as to overwhelm the opinions entertained by
gentlemen on his (Lord G. Somerset's) side of the House.
Sir R. PE EL was surprised that the Government
could not be satisfied with less than a preponderance of 15
to 6. The usual majority of 7t060r8 to 10 might
be all very well, but 15 to 6 was never heard of.—(Hear,
hear.) He should willingly consent to have his name
struck off the list, because the Bank Committee had just
commenced sitting, and he could not attend on both--
( Hear, hear)—so that he hoped some other Member would
be selected.
Mr. SMITH (who was nearly inaudible) said the Go-
vernment had considered that three Members were so op`
posed to their policy as to the opium trade, that they might
be deemed hostile—Sir G. Staunton, Mr. Crawford, and
himself.—( Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said he did not know that the opinion 3
of Members were expected to be formed previous to in-
quiry.—(llear. ) He did not think any of the six Mem-
bers on his side had so made up their minds either way.--
( Hear.) If they had he had no idea which side they
were.—( Hear. )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the objection of the
Right Hon. Baronet would have been a good one if this
had been a party question, but such not being the case,
lie did not see why the lousiness of the Committee could
not be conducted by Members from one side of the House
BS well as from the other.
Mr. GO ULBURN said the Noble Lord's argument
was, that the consideration of a most important national
question should be left to the supporters of the Govern-
ment, because, forsooth, it had not been made a party
question.
Mr. H E RRIE S would look with the greatest jealousy
on the composition of the Committee. The question, as
he understood, was, whether the value of this opium,
amounting to two millions and a half, should be paid by
the Government, and the House was now about to put
itself into the hands of a Select Committee to deter-
mine that question. He protested beforehand against
being bound by its decision, although it was impos-
sible not to feel that the Report of that Committee
would in some degree affect the decision of the House.
The Committee was not one appointed to inquire into ge-
neral matters, but it was one the question before which nar•
rowed itself into this, whether these claims were or were
not to be satisfied at the expense of the Government.
His Honourable Friend opposite said that he was op-
posed to the policy of the Government on this question.
He understood that there were Gentlemen on the other
side, who differed with the Government in the view they
took of this subject ; and he supposed that it was consi-
dered that these Gentlemen were a match, to set off against
those who approved of the conduct of the Government.
Gentlemen on the other side, no doubt thoroughly
understood this subject; Gentlemen on his side the House
had no opportunity of doing so.—(Cheers.) Government
had already expressed- a distinct opinion by refusing to
pay the bills ; and it was rather remarkable, that after that
public refusal, they should have expressed their willing-
ness, without any debate, to assent to the appointment of
that Committee. This certainly looked very much like
an understanding on the subject. He, however,
understood the Hon. Gentleman to say that such was not
the case; but as this was a subject in a very narrow
compass, and in which the Committee would have to de-
cide yea or nay, he thought they were bound to look to
the composition of this Committee with some jealousy.
Mr. ABEL SMITH was in possession of no other in-
formation on this subject than other Hon. Members. He
supposed that the Government would take the same view
of the subject in the Committee which they had taken pre-
viously to its appointment, in which case their views would
be in opposition to his own.
Mr. FINCH was glad this question had been raised.
He thought that the manner in which this Committee was
proposed to be appointed was objectionable; considering
the circumstances of the nearly equal division of parties in
that House he thought that in questions of this sort bath
sides of the House ought to be fairly represented.
He thought also it was a wrong course of pro-
ceeding to place the same Member on three
important Committees at the same time. The Hon, Mem-
ber for Tamworth had said very fairly, that it was impos-
sible for him to consent to be appointed on this Committee,
because he had most important duties to perform on other
Committees. And he would ask the Hon. Member for
Chichester, who was already a member of the Bank Com-
'
mittee, and of the Committee for the Improvement
of the City of London, whether he thought it right that
he should also be a Member of this Committee?
Sir HENRY HARDINGE thought the Committee
as at present composed bore on the face of it great par-
tiality. He thought the proper course would be that.,
the appointment of the Committee should be postponed
until to-morrow.
Mr. E. SMITH acquiesed in the suggestion, aed
the appointment of the Committee was postponed till to-
morrow.
Mr. BERRIES wished to call the attention of the '
House to a circumstance which he thought it was neces-
sary it should be acquainted with. Some time since he
had called for certain accounts relating to the Post-office,,
which were furnished about a week ago. Those accounts
were ordered to be printed ; and upon looking at the
printed papers he found that the statements differed ma-
terially from the accounts laid on the table in the estimate
with regard to the Post-office ; between the time
of its being laid on the table of the House and the
time of its being printed, a difference had been made of
80,0001. That was a circumstance which he thought ought '
to be explained. If anything had induced the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer to make the alteration, he would no
doubt lay the additional paper on the table, or withdraw
the return for the purpose of amending it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served that there had been no concealment or fraud. The
Post-office had made out an estimate and sent it in, but
just as that estimate was actually printed the Secretary °f
the Post-office stated to him, in a letter, that some mis-
take had been made in the calculation, and reques-
ted to be allowed to put in: the altered estimate.
That amended estimate had been put in and printed.
He begged further to state that no communication what-
ever had passed between him and the Secretary of the
Post-office on the subject, except to ascertain what was the
course he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished. to
pursue with regard to that estimate, and that from the time
that estimate was sent to him no communication whatever
had taken place.
Mr. HERRIE S had not intended to make any in-
sinuation that any improper intercourse had taken place
between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Seer!.
tary of the Post-office. Neither did he mean to say that
any blame was to be imputed to the Right Hon. Gentleman,
but he should not have discharged his duty if be had no
called the attention of the House to the subject.
SHERIFF EVANS.
Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that he would more
that the order for the attendance of Mr. Sheriff Evans
be
put off till the 4th of May.
CORN-LAWS.
Mr. HUME presented several petitions against the
Corn-laws.
Mr. PATTISON presented five from the city of 14°13-
don against the Corn-laws.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the Order of the Day for resuming the debate ea
the Corn-laws being read,
Mi. WODE HOUSE rose and said he had never de-
fended the Corn-laws, nor would he ever advocate them
on any other ground than that stated by Mr. Huskisa°l4
that the Corn-laws involved such immense interests In
this country, and were so closely connected with the
well-being and comfort of all classes, and mte;
over so surrounded with peculiar difficulties, thaa
they must be governed by considerations connecter
with ourselves, and only secondarily by our relation
:1
with foreign countries. The present Corn-law had existed
twelve years, and during that time wheat had beidt3e
on an average fifty-seven shillings a quarter, from`l
nine millions of quarters had been imported e
uty
foreign countries, and during the whole period th ,surris
had not been over five shillings, surely then the L'eI
law could not have been productive of so much e•vo-
At that time the King of Prussia openly
.and unceall of
cally declared that he should take that opportuniti
by
taking the duties off corn, and he would bo gold
what
what this country did, and he would impose -wer ti
duties he pleased.—( Hear, hear.) That was the anso.
of the King of Prussia, and might not his example be on- I
tobcorhufui egtat snhht,
geot uectepdoovouebnnrweytwri
atyletin,otiwilmn
ieetrhwxt mightiaelremes; e,interest
in
ne
not dependentth,e‘n l
y country.tothf co r
]ended cTohrii?
lowed by the Governors or Governments of other That •
ially
intetrienstit
sit
respect ttowoagntryie.ufilvtoureyewaraesTe-oer
laabec,
e rnaotite nexwe'
principleav rage p
nowr odu cien didop tioil-
He was connected with a numerous body of mene „rn-
aesedon
et woefn tgyr
ebautsbeexto
were now dispersed throughout every part of tu,aot
pire, under circumstances of peculiar distress--he aut
the hand-loom weavers. In a publication latelybored
forth he saw it asserted that laws could
on injustice and partiality as the Corn-laws were
never be of long continuance.—(" Hear," from the
Hume,) Now the question which he understood
House to be discussing was whether or not these 01;10.,
were based on injustice and partiality.--
tar put
hear.) These opinions had been from ycar to gar
by Lord Fitawilliam, but had been most sn
of
fully met. In the third Report upon the conclitLeec.'nf the
hs rid-loom weavers, Mr. Mitchell stated that the ellint_sa
introduction of foreign corn would be that priceseciu"
Government could be justified in inflicting so mucbe.
and with respect to a free trade in corn, ho obsery
d.
on the speculation of producing a certain degrec_ct, :Soy
The difficulties of carrying into effect the r °
the intro.
Amendment Act had been very great, but -y r _ wore
duction of foreign corn, a large body of laboureids
_seer
thrown out of employment these difficulties -woe°. ac`_.,s
be overcome. In a year in which a great failure
s:epr__','.rd,,
should occur, the usual supply of corn would be
er_lit`
as the Governments of other countries would not per
a a dee'?
under such circumstances to be exported.
He
forth, Viet
debt of gratitude to Mr. Mitchell for haying put .
8,1
Report. In his part of the country, likewise, 'gut
had their itinerant orators, as well as in other parts,
as 'the
was happy happy to say they had signally failed; and
; let the'll
vernment was fond of agitation on this subject,
agitatewith
with their united, or their disunited Cahinet,
ea-
their 200 gentlemen to assist them, and he thanked 1-1
th h
yen that among his constituents, who were subject to erasa t
treme distress and poverty themselves, their -Tsbeit.
would be received in the same manner as t f
lecturers had been. He would now call the att,..ntio.nsbeod
the House to the Report of Mr. Chapman, and he w'