The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-20 00:00:00

CORN-LAWS.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented three petitions,
from certain landed proprietors of the county of Devon,
against the present measure. The same Noble Duke
presented a numerously-signed petition from the yoemen
of Norfolk, who complained that in the event of the
present measure of the Government passing, they
would be subjected to great injustice by the
o Jeration of the present Act of commutation
of tithes, which fixed the sum of money
to be paid for tithes upon the septennial
average of the price of corn, and the Government pro-
posed that at the end of three years all protection to the
landed interest should cease. They therefore prayed
that, in the event of the present measure becoming law,
their Lordships would introduce an Act to authorise the
taking of the average price of corn either yearly or half
yearly, instead of septennially, as repaired by the present
law. The petition was numerously and respectably signed;
and if he might prophesy, he would say that if the un •
fortunate measure of Government should receive the
sanction of their Lordships' House, many thousands of
petitioners would hold the same argument ; and he
(the Duke of Richmond), for one, did not see how the
argument could be got rid of.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.

The Marquis of CLANRICARI4 E—My Lords, I have
here two petitions to present, to which I beg to call your
Lordships' attention. These petitions refer to the
London and York Railway Bill, now in this House. The
one petitioner prays for a revival of the Committee
which sat upon the Bill last year, and the second
petitioner prays for the appointment of another Corn-
mittee to inquire into the validity of the subscription
deed of the Company, or rather into the admis-
sibility of the new subscription contract. My
Lords, the points which these petitioners raise, are
points of law rather than of fact, or indeed of anything
else ; and under such circumstances, and considering
the legal character of the points raised, I certainly think
that your Lordships ought to appoint a Committee to
hear the matter in these points argued by counsel.
It appears from the petitioners themselves, that a
considerable number—some hundreds of persons,
who subscribed the last subscription contract, are
not of the parties who have subscribed the new one; and,
my Lords, I doubt very much that they are re -
I eased ; I doubt very much that they
.can be legally
released from the engagements entered into when they
signed the old deed. There is another point, also, to
which I would wish your Lordships' attention,
namely, that the parties signing the new contract claim
to come before your Lordships as the proprietors of de-
posits paid by the former subscribers. Now. I think, that
it will be a question whether any such transfer can be
legal, or even received by your Lordships' House as such,
inasmuch as it implies an evasion of the Stamp Act.
These, my Lords,. I apprehend are points which ought to
be clearly seen into by your Lordships. 1, therefore, beg
to give notice, that I shall tomorrow move for a Com-
mittee to inquire into the subject matter of these petitions.
I shall fix on any day on which we cam have the attend-
ance of the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) whom
I do not at present sea in his place, as I consider it
highly essential that he, with other Noble and Learned
Lords, should hear the matter argued. If not a technical
objection, I think that the new subscriptaiocyinf
ondearetemadeinsoluygbbhuoet
not
but
to
amended be admitted.by th e a d
dTi
the i
o nc o
on
ft r aac
hot duNelremre
bdmaemlarat
large
eg
re.
nameswhether y our
t beo
withdrawn,
iwills a
another
nTumhel;epret.
against the London and York
Bill, are James Tyler,
Bill, and George Pryme, who prays to be released from
the engagements entered into under the former sub-
scription contract.

Lord BEAUMONT—What have we to do with the
subscription contract of last year? We have only to
do with the subscription deed now before your Lord-
ships' House. As for the transfer, there is nothing in
that; there is no transfer. How can there be a transfer
from that which does not exist? The subscription con.
tract of last year is just so much waste paper.
Tho Marquis of CLANRICARDE—PreciseIy so;
and it is into the validity of the new Subscription
deed that the petitioners pray that your Lordships
shall appoint a Committee to inquire. The present
promoters of the London and Fork Railway came be-
fore your Lordships as the very same parties who ac-
quired their Bill before the House of Commons last
year, and thus they will in the ordinary course be re-
lieved from all preliminary proceedings. That, my Lords,
is precisely the point I wish to hear argued by counsel,
and the reason why I intend to move for the appoint-
ment of this Committee. Surely, my Lords, in a matter
of this magnitude, the time necessary to hear two mode-
rately short speeches on either side will not be eonsidered
thrown away. The question is, in my opinion, an important