The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-23 00:00:00

NAVIGATION LAWS.

Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from the butChers
and bakers of South Shields, against the Navigation
Laws.

AGRICULTURE.

Mr. PITSEY presented a petition, signed by several
hundreds of farmers, praying that measures may be
taken for the improvement of agriculture.
CANADA. _ _ _

Sir H. DOUGLAS, seeing the Secretary for the Colo-
nies in his place, wished to ask whether it was so that
the Governor-General of Canada had issued proclama-
tions, giving the United States vessels privilege to enter
the port of Montreal, and to use the free navigation of
the river St. Lawrence; and, if it was so, whether it did
not produce such an alteration in the navigation-laws as
to prevent provisions being conveyed into the British
dominions by the vessels of the United States, for which
there was a special proviso in the existing laws?
Mr. HAW ES said that the Government had not yet
received any information on the subject.
NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. VERNON SMITH wished to ask his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hawes) whether any arrangement had been
entered into respecting New Zealand.
Mr. HAWES said that there had been an arrange-
ment entered into which he hoped to be able to lay
before the House in a few days. Most satisfactory
accounts had been received from Captain Grey, which
also would be laid before the House in a few days.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the Lords brought up some Bills.
ANDOVER UNION.
On the motion that the orders of the day be now read,
Mr. VILLIERS said that in requesting the indulgence
of the House for a moment he was desirous to explain
that if he had had the most distant notion that there
was an order of the day which would enable Hon.
Members to enter upon a discussion on the Andover
Union Committee he should assuredly have been in his
place, and he could assure the House that he would
not refer to that discusion if it related
only to himself, as he would have been then
perfectly willing to let the matter remain where it was ;
but there was another person involved in the question ;
and, therefore, although he was aware that he was
rather out of order, he threw himself on the indulgence
frf the House, assuming that where there was a
question involving the character of an Honourable
Member, the House would allow that Member to
make his explanation. He said that there was
another person involved in this question—he meant
Sir Frankland Lewis. When he (Mr. Villiers) brought
this matter forward, he did so simply because a
letter had been put into ,his hand stating that
that gentleman's belief was totally at variance
with that of the Honourable Member for Wey-
mouth. That gentleman had heard with astonish-
ment that the question which he believed had been
put to him bad been denied, but nothing that had
been said had altered his belief upon the matter, and he
(Mr. Villiers) fully agreed with him in that opinion.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Weymouth had
asserted upon his honour as a gentleman that he had
not done so. He (Mr. Villiers) was aware that an
[ion. Member's asseveration should not be doubted,
but notwithstanding this he should make bold to
refer to what was really the property of the
House, namely, the report of the Committee. He proved
then, that the question No. 22,622, put by the Hon. Me-
mber was this, whether there was not an arrangement that
on Sir F. Lewis's retirement his son should succeed him.
Now, that was a question which affected the arrange-
ment between Sir Frankland Lewis and his son. Sir
Frankland Lewis professed to explain the arrangement;
hut the (Mr. Villiers) was not satisfied. But the
difficulty was not whether the question was put, but
whether it was a proper question, and not whether
he agreed with Mr. Chadwick, but whether be had
made any agreement with that gentlemen on his
accession to office. He had accordingly referred, on the
suggestion of the Honourable Member for Finsbury,
to see whether this question had been put or not,
and whether it had been answered. On refer-
ring to the journals he found this question, " When
your son succeeded you did you guard him against Mr.
Chadwick?" He (Mr. Villiers) would say, then, that this
question had been put, and that if he had been
misled he had been misled by the report of
trht,eporretphoert
foouf
nt igt tueees,
tiaonndh rbeefeenr rpinugt. taondthoatn
the Committee, not by the short-hand notes, but by
ad
dhethaCtotmhmis
the representation of a Member of this House he found
chat in the journals it was stated also not only that it
was answered, but answered in detail. Whether it was
a private question, and one therefore fit to be put
to the Committee was the matter for another statement.
The question was thought to be an improper one, and
the room was cleared. The Hon. Gentleman got his
friends to come down to the House to justify him.
Lord INGESTRE—I rise to order, Sir. The Hon.
Member ought to confine himself to a justification of
himself, and not stack Hon. Gentlemen.
Mr. VILLIERS—I am not out of order. I did not
refer to any one.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman ought to con-
tine himself to his own justification.
Mr. VILLIERS then proceeded—He was not on the
Committee, but all the witnesses had complained of the
conduct and tone of the Hon. Member for Weymouth.
Sir Frankland Lewis had complained often of his conduct,
mad he complained to the chairman of the Committee,
Mr. Eastlake, also—(Order.)
The SPEAKER decided the Hon. Gentleman was out
order.
Mr. CHRISTIE—Sir, I am quite satisfied with the
manner with which the House received my distinct
,lenial of the charge last night (Hear hear)
and I consider it would be beneath me
to again deny it after the solemn pledge which I have
already given of its injustice.—(Hear.) After the
honourable testimony borne to my conduct by many
lion. Members, and amongst others my Hon. Friend the
Member for Shrewsbury, who saw and heard me daily,
I do not think it would be agreeable to the House to
again enter upon the discussion.— (Hear.)
LEGACY DUTY.
Dr. BOWRING said, as he did not think he could
succeed in obtaining a Select Committee to inquire
whether sundry amounts have not been and are illegally
detained by the Treasury for legacy duty on the pro-
perty of testators not domiciled in the United Kingdom,
he would withdraw his motion.
COPPER DUTIES.

Mr. ASHLEY presented a petition signed by 11,000
working men of the county of Cornwall, in relation to
the copper duties, and moved that it be printed with the
votes.
Mr. MUNTZ then rose to movo " That the House
resolve itself into a Committee of Customs, to consider
• he duties upon the importation of copper (Act 5 and 6
Vic., c. 47), with a view to their reduction or
abolition." He said that previous to 1829 a large
quantity of copper ore was usually smelted in
South America. The quantity, however, was
reduced by a wise alteration of the law in relation to the
importation of that article. But another alteration was
',1,1,.ade in the law in 1842 prejudicial to the importation
„f ore into this country, so that in
inatiufactucgs,thisandinlB43 the
,10,,001tY
tons,
imported was 19,829 tons, in 1845
00 b
et
ionn
,s.
supTehr The
manufacture actually 13
,eded, and this was the country
case in the town which he re-
presented ; therefore it 1)
fir the consideration of this
a very serious matter
s fact that France had imported this House. Now it was
irted 1,600 tons of copper into
South America and smug"n'
11.,(Laegoing on to a great ex-
tent into Adelaide. The lion.
from Valparaiso, which stated member then read a letter
ter
a great improve-
ment was going on with respect to
The Hon. Member concluded by moving that the
article.
resolve itself into Committee, to consider tthee House
duties
upon the importation of copper, with a view to their re
duction or abolition.
Mr. ENVART most heartily seconded the !notion;

for this was a matter of too much importance to the
mercantile marine to be neglected, and he, therefore,
concurred in the views of the Hon. Member for Bir-
mingham.
Sir CHARLES LEMON thought that this inquiry
was one which was quite uneccessary, for it had, by no
means been satisfactorily proved that the new plan was
better than the old one, for the only proof they had of
it was the existence of a report to the judicial Committee
and the unsupported assertions of those who were in-
terested in the promotion of the use of the invention.
He would quote another simple instance to show that
duty upon copper ore was a new tax. The Hon. Gentle-
man then read several lengthened extracts from the blue
book, which he said were of a nature to mislead the
public. It had been said, and it was true, that there
had been a rise in the price of copper during the last
year. But why ? Because there had been a consider-
able falling off in the production of the foreign mines,
and or the mines at home ; also what was said of the
discovery of coal in America, was an old subject. It was
well known that there were coals in America, as great
in extent as the fields in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
But he would not occupy the time of the House un-
necessarily. All he would ask of the House was, that
before any change was introduced, some inquiry should
be made, and some reason shown that injury would not
succeed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
rose then in order that the debate might not be prolonged.
He had stated at an early part of the session, that he
could not hold out any prospect of a reduction in the
custom's duties this year, and the charges which had
fallen upon the country since then gave him no en-
couragement to diverge from that statement. Having
said so much at that early period, lie could not be sup-
posed to oppose the Hon. Gentleman's motion now, ex-
cept on a ground which he had laid down previously.
On that ground and that alone, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the question, he would oppose
the motion.
Lord W. POWLETT thought the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had adopted a course which the affairs of the
country rendered necessary.
Mr. CAREW said that after what had fallen from the
Right Hon. Gentleman, he did not think it would be
right to take a course opposite to what the Right Hon.
Gentleman had suggested. In confirmation of what
had been stated with respect to the importations to the
United States, he begged to say that the quantity of
copper exported from this country into the United
States had become doubled within the last year.
After a few words from Mr. BROWN,
Lord SANDON said that having, on a different occa-
sion, taken a part in this question, he did not wish the
present occasion to pass without saying a word. He did
not agree with what had been said about the application
of free-trade principles to this question. He trusted
that xo change would take place until the matter had
been more fully considered.
Mr. RASHLEIGH opposed the motion, which he
considered prejudicial to the labourers in mines.
Mr. SPOONER said that if they refused to smelt
Chili copper here, it would be smelted elsewhere, already
a large manufactory was at the present moment being
established at the mouth of the Elbe—if the duty on
copper was not taken off, they would drive out of the
country a great manufacturing interest. The present
duty yielded only 50,0001. a year, and such was too
miserable for a Government to care about, especially
when such a tax was opposed to the best interests of the
empire.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that he regretted he had
to oppose the Members for Birmingham, who had been
formerly in alliance with him, he would be very glad
that the Government would make some declaration as to
what they would do in the next session of Parliament—
it would be very agreeable to the Cornwall miners on
the one hand and the manufacturing interest of Birming-
ham on the other.
Mr. TURNER said that it was their duty to protect
the interests of the great working body of the whole
country. He was in favour of the motion, but he con-
sidered it would be better to adjourn the question to a
future session.

After a few words from Sir CHARLES LEMON i❑
explanation,
Mr. MUNTZ said if Hon. Members knew as much of
trade as he did they would not be so hasty in coming
to a conclusion against the motion. He said he would
press the motion to a division.
Mr. NEWDEG ATE regretted that he could not give
his support to the motion.
Sir G. CLERK would oppose the motion on the
ground stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that
he could not afford to lose so much revenue. He hoped,
however, that the present Government would watch the
experiment which bad been already made, and shape
their coure accordingly.
Mr. G. PALMER opposed the motion, on the ground
that it would be unfair to deprive the. Cornwall miners
of that protection which they had hitherto enjoyed. .
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—

For the motion
Against it

Majority
The motion was consequently lost.
WASTE LANDS OF IRELAND.

Mr. P. SCROPE then brought forward the resolution of
which he had given notice, that the waste lands of Ireland
offer an available resource for the immediate employment

and future maintenance of a part of her population, now
apparently redundant; and that it is expedient to
apply them to this great national object, making
equitable compensation to their present proprietors.
About 12 years ago he brought forward a similar mea-
sure, and he regretted that he was not able to have that
attention drawn to it which its merits deserved. lie
was extremely sorry that the Government had aban-
doned the measure which they had in contemplation
with regard to this subject, and he hoped it would not
be deemed presumption in him to bring it forward at
this late period of the session. The Hon. Gentle nan
was proceeding to state the grounds on which he,thought
the motion necessary, when
An HoN. MEMERR moved that the House be counted.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and there not
being 40 Members present, the House stood adjourned
till to-morrow.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.)
GROUP A.
WATERFORD AND X.IIVIERICX RAILWAY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
DECISION.
At ter some further discussion the room was cleared,
and on re-admission,
The CHAIRMAN announced that the preamble was
proved.

DirnLxN, DUNDRUM, AND RATHFARN.

The case for this Bill was opened, and evidence partly
heard.
The Committee then adjourned.

GROUP B.

GLASGOW, DUIVIPRIES, AND CARLISLE

(No. I.)

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

- -
Mr. Locke, C.E., corroborated the evidence of last
witness, and said that he believed the Caledonian Com-
pany would never have invested their capital in the line,
if they considered the Dumfries Company would have
got the Bill.
Mr. Cocx.nunwthen addressed the Committee against
the Bill, and took a review of the evidence, with the
object of showing that no case had been made out why
the Bill should receive the sanction of the Committee.
DECISION.

The room was then cleared, and on our re-admission,
The CHAIRMAN announced that the preamble of the
Bill was proved.

PAISLEY AND RENrizzar (SALE OR

PURCHASE).

Mr. 'WHITELEY opened the case for the promoters.
Mr. AUSTIN appeared for the river Cart trustees, but
an objection being taken to his locus standi, after some
discussion, the objection was affirmed.

DECISION.
The usual formal evidence having been given,
The preamble was declared proved.
The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow.

Room C.

BIRMINGHAM, WOLVERHAMPTON, AND

STOUR VALLEY.

This case, which was opened yesterday, was again
resumed to-day. A great number of witnesses were
examined, whose testimony was only as to the general
advantages of the line.
The Committee then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP VI.

TAUNTON AND CASTLECARY BRANCH,
AND ELEADON TO WELLS, &c.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The Committee were occupied during the whole of
the remainder of the day in hearing the evidence of
Mr. Gregory, the engineer to the line,
The Committee adjourned till twelve to-morrow.