The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-26 00:00:00

RAILWAYS.

Mr. P. BUTLER presented petitions from Limerick,
and other places, in favour of the Great Munster Rail-
way.
Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from Wolver-
hampton in favour of the Shropshire Union Railway and
Canal Company,.
LABOURERS IN FACTORIES.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented:a petition in favour of' the
Ten Hours' Bill. Ile also presented a petition from six
factory girls, in the employ of Messrs. Baxter and
Brothers, manufacturers, of Dundee. The petitioners
eurbsj,eacnt.dipirea(ymedr.thteunHcoounisebet)o
bmealikeevesdomtheaitntqhueicryirettaon.
complained of ill-treatment at the hands of their em-
pthloe3S
stances of the case were these. The Messrs. Baxters had it
appeared increased the wages of some of their workers,
and these girls made a demand for a similar increase,
which was refused them. They did not in consequence
attend their work one afternoon, and when they re-
turned on the following morning, the six of them (the
youngest being only 13 years of age) were locked up
tin. six hours and then taken before a magistrate
(but previously he might state that they had been com-
pelled to sign a paper making certain admissions), when
they were sentenced to ten days imprisonment, with
hard labour. They, therefore, prayed the House to
make inquiry into the matter, with a view to remedy
this grievance.
Dr. BOW RING presented five petitions from Bolton
in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill.
THE CORN-LAWS.
Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition, signed by 5,000
of the inhabitants of Bath, in favour of the present pro-
posal of her Majesty's Government with respect to the
free admission of foreign grain.
DUTY ON COPPER ORE.
Mr. J. PARKER presented a petition from the
Cutlers' Company, Sheffield, praying the House to re-
peal the duty on copper ore.
THE CORN-LAWS.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition
from several inhabitants of Westmoreland in favour of
free trade.
Mr. 0. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
occupiers of land in the county of Chester in favour of
the present corn-laws.
Mr. W. MILES presented a petition to a similar effect.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented a petition from the
Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in which the peti-
tioners stated that in consequence of the length of the
present debate on the corn-laws, great embarrassment
resulted to every branch of trade in the district of Lan-
cashire, and throughout the kingdom generally ; and
they therefore prayed the House to come to as speedy a
decision as possible on this question.
FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES.
Captain PECIIELL presented a petition, signed by
seven hundred of the inhabitants of Brighton, praying
for a free pardon for Frost, Williams, and Jones. The
Hon. and Gallant Member said he had to inform the
House that the parties signing the petition were most
respectable, and had affixed their places of residence
to their names. The [lon. Member also presented
another petition from Mrs. Mary Shuttleworth, of Man-
chester. square, praying the House to interfere in her
behalf with the Commissioners of the Income-tax, who
had, in assessing her property in the funds, neglected
to pay over to her the residue, thereby occasioning her
great distress, so much so that her goods bad been
seized for debt.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition, signed by
upwards of nine thousand of the inhabitants of Roch-
dale, iu favour of the Tea Hours' Factory Dill.

GLASGOW, PAISLEY, KILMARNOCK, AND
AYR RAILWAY.
Mr. WARD begged leave to withdraw the notice of
motion which he gave, namely, " That the petition of
the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway
Company (presented 24th February), with respect to
their Bill (No. 5), be taken into consideration, and that
the parties have leave to proceed with their Bill." He
considered that it was better that a decision of a Com-
mittee should be erroneous than that it should be
impugned. The standing orders were the protect-
ing barrier of private interests. 'But when he had
heard that in this case, the Committee, themselves were
dtvided in the proportion of five to four on the subject
mater of this petition. He looked upon the decision of
the Committe as as a virtual abolition of the standing
orders; Such decision giving the power to any indivi-
dual landowner to throw out any private bill.
Since had presented thepetition, however, he
had been covinced that the partiesto the
petition, had themselves not done all that they
should have done, and that they had been guilty of
'aches, and that they had actually not surveyed the
lands of those who were their friends, although they
might have done so before the 30th of November. He,
therefore, considered that the case had fallen through,
and he now begged to withdraw the motion which stood
upon the paper in his name.—(Hear, hear.)
The motion was then withdrawn.
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose to present a petition from
the shipowners of Tynemouth, signed by 108 shipowners,
representing 260 shins. The petition stated that the in-
terests of the petirl ,iers would be extremely benefited
by a reduction on the duties of timber. He be-
lieved that the petition was signed by almost all
the shipowners of Tynemouth, with the exception of
three or four. The Right Hon. Baronet here sat down,
but rose again immediately, and said that the Hon.
Member for Durham had moved that a petition pre-
sented from the shipowners of the port of London should
be printed, with the view of founding a motion npon
Several petitions had been presented from other places,
which petitions took views entirely adverse from those
of the shipowners of London, and it could not be against
the rules of the House to allow those petitions to be
printed also. He therefore begged leave to move that
a petition lately presented from the shipowners of Dun-
dee, and which was quite in conformity with the one
presented from the shipowners of London, should be
printed.—(Hear, hear.) He also begged leave to move
that a letter from George Frederick Young, Esq., the
chairman of the General Shipowners Society, on the
subject of the timber duties and colonial-built ships
should likewise ho printed.
NOTICES OF MOTION.—BAZILIAN NUNS.
Mr. COOPER gave notice, that on the sth of March
he should move for copies of dispatches which had been
sent by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, relative to the
persecution inflicted on the Brazilian nuns at Minsk.
Mr. MITCHELL wished to put a question to the
Right Hon., Baronet at the head of the Government. He
wished to know if it was the intention of the Government,
in passing the present measure, if they intended to all
that part of the tariff which effected smaller articles
should stand over until the corn question was settled.
to proceed as rapidly as he could with the other articles
of the tariff, he certainly could not foretel to what length
the discussion upon the question would reach.
Mr. MITCHELL said his reason for asking was to
learn if the other articles mentioned in the tariff could
not be allowed to be proceeded with, before the corn
question was settled. That he feared would give rise to
discussion of a month or six weeks duration.
Sir R. PEEL, in reply, stated that it was his inten-
tion to proceed with the corn question.
CHANNEL ISLANDS.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to a sk what measures had
been taken, according to the promise made last session
by the Government, with reference to the administra-
tion of justice relative to the Channel Islands.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated that a committee
had been appointed about a month since, and they had
not yet recived their report.
CROWN PROSECUTIONS.
Mr. REDDINGTON moved for a return of all Crown
prosecutions in which bills have been sent up to the
grand jury for each county iu Ireland, at each Lent and
Summer Assizes in the years 1843, 1844, 1845, and
1846 respectively, giving the names of the parties ac-
cused, the nature of the crime with which they were
charged, and the proceedings in each case, i. e.
whether the bill of indictment was found a true
bill or ignored ; whethef the party accused
was tried, and at what time ; and the result
of the trial, whether in conviction, or acquittal, or the
disagreement of the jury. Return of all memorials or
applications for the aid of the civil or military power in
each county in Irelaud for the same period, specifying
the dates thereof respectively, and the names of the me-
morialists in each case. Return of the number of sti-
pendiary magistrates and constabulary appointed to any
district in Ireland, within the said period, in consequence
of such applications or memorials.—Agreed to.
MIDLETON POOR-LAW UNION.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved " That the petition from
the Midleton Poor-law Union (presented 23d February),
be printed /with the votes."—Agreed to.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped that although the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment had intimated very properly that he intended
to proceed with the Corn Bill in the first instance
to the exclusion of other articles in the tariff,
yet there was one which he trusted would be
excepted from this general rule, that was Indian maize.
This was an article of very great importance, and likely
to contribute very largely to the support of the poorer
classes of the community. He trusted, therefore, the
Right Hon. Baronet would not include this in the same
category with the other articles of the tariff.
Sir R. PEEL to this inquiry made no reply.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the motion that the order of the day should be read
for the resumption of the adjourned debate,
Mr. ROEBUCK said that before the order of the
day was reed for the resumption of the adjourned
debate, be begged to ask of the Honourable Gentle-
man opposite what time this debate was likely to
be brought to a conclusion; and the reason for his put-
ting this question was, because he had found that an
Hon. Gentleman had consumed two hours and a half the
other night, of valuable time of the House, in a
disquisition which had to do with anything
and everything but the subject of the de-
bate. He thought that this was not the way
in which the valuable time of the House ought to be
wasted. Certainly it was not the way in which to pro-
mote the character of the House for decency, order, or
anything that was great. For two mortal hours and a
half had the Hon. Gentleman gone on to rake up by-
gone speeches of Members upon the Treasury bench from
newspapers and all the other receptables of public matters
in order to establish a point, which, after all, had no-
thing in the world to do with the subject of the debate.
He trusted that the party represented by the Gentlemen
on the Opposition benches were not reduced to the ex-
tremity of using language which was at the same time
inappropriate and abusive, and that they would not sub-
stitute for argument that which, however it might
tend to intimidate, could never convince, and which
was equally unworthy of their cause, and of the respect
which was due to that House. He (Mr. Roebuck) felt
himself reduced to the use of periphrases by the rules of
the House, instead'of using those expressions with which
he felt it right to characterize this proceeding ; but the
difficulty was not created by him, but by that person on
the other side of the House, by whom it had
been adopted.—(Cries of " Order, order," and con-
fusion on the protection benches.) Do you cry order,
said the Hon. Member for Bath, when such conduct is
reprobated, why did not you cry order when the violence
was committed? He feared that the cause which was to
Ise bolstered up by such fanatical catering was but badly
based on facts. For two mortal hours and a half thal
individual had consumed the time of the House in
a tirade, which was, only after all, an expression.
of his own epinion. And what was that opinion worth ?
He would take the rule of his own profession, and ask
what any man in the country would give for that opi-
nion ? Why, not a guinea, nor half-a-guinea, nor half-a-
cross n, nor a shilling ; not a penny, nor half-a-farthing.
And yet this was the way that honourable gentlemen
presumed to trifle with the timeof the House. He thought
that this was not the way in which to conduct the debate on
a great question or likely to increase the character of the
House in the country. He did hope that the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite would have something better than
this to propose ; and if the division were not to be
taken to night that they! would lay before the House
matter worthy of consideration, and substitute something
like argument in the place of vulgar hatred, expressed in
violent and vulgar language.—(Opposition cheers.)
Sir R. INGLIS felt that the observations of the Hon.
Member for Bath had been both injudicious and uncalled
for. He accused him of erroneous representations—he
accused him of unnecessary opprobrium—he accused
him of instituting a most inconvenenient prece-
dent, and, still more of having taken advantage of
the absence of the Honourable Member to whom he
referred, which were equally inapplicable and improper.
He (Sir R. Inglis) only rose for the purpose of protest-
ing against the use of personalities, which frequently
were indulged in to too great an extent ; and he hoped
that when the Hon. Gentleman next addressed the
House he would be more guarded in the use of his ob-
servations.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRYANT agreed with Honourable Baronet that
the present was not the time for entering into a discus
sion on the ground of personality. But at the same
time he was anxious to say a few words as regarded the
attack made by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough on
a friend of his, Mr. George Wilson, chairman of the
Anti-Corn-law Lean•ue.—(Hear, hear.) The Hoe.
Member for Knaresborough had asserted that what he
put forward as fact was true, and what he stated as in-
ference might be relied on; but his statements and his
inferences might all be taken as utterly untrue.—
(Bear, hear, and Oh, oh.) Mr. Wilson had never called
a meeting of the starch manufacturers: he never presided
at a meeting of the kind, nor was he a party in a do-
putotion that waited on the Government to obtain
protection for their manufacture. The starch manu-
facturers wanted no protection ; and Mr. Wilson
would he the last man to associate him-
self with any deputation for such a purpose.—
He could tell the Hon. Member for Knaresborough that
there was one misfortune against which he ever had to
contend, and that was, that his statements were never
susceptible of proof.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COLQUHOUN said he felt certain that if the
Hon. Meinber for Knaresborough happened to be in his
place, he doubted not he would not shrink from the proof
of his assertions : and he should say that he did not
think it fair to attack that houourable Gentleman in his
absence, as he doubted not he could defend every state-
ment and assertion made by him.—(Cries of " Oh, oh 1"
from the opposite Members.)
Lord MORPETH and Dr. BOWRING lose at the same
moment, but the former gave way to the latter who said
he conceived that Hon. Members at that side of the
House had great reason to complain of the course pur-
sued by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough in this
debate. Some very serious charges had been made by

that Hon. Member against a gentleman, who was re-
markable alike for the kindness of his heart, and the
benevolence of his disposition. He meant his friend, Mr.
Henry Ashwerth--(Hear, hear)—who had been desig-
nated by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, as a
person capable of acts of cold-blooded atrocity, and as
such he had been processionimed before this House.—
(Hear.) Now he (Dr. Bowring) had had some oppor-
tuntties of knowing Mr. Ashworth, and of the state of
things that existed in the vicinity of Bolton a few years
ago, upon which he would wish to make a few observa-
tions ; but previous to doing so, he had written notes
to the Noble Lord the Member for Newark, and another
Hon. Member, in order to ascertain from themselves
whether they were prepared to make any charges
against his friend. They were not here at present
but they begged to say that the charges of
the Honourable Member for Knaresborough were
altogether untrue ; and he begged to add, that if any
Member of that House should, more than another,, be
scrupulous about making statements in this House, with-
out proofs to sustain them, it was the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough—(Hear, hear)—and it would be well for
him if his assertions were characterised by less boldness.
Captain VIVIAN said he rose for the purpose not of
prilonging this discussion, but of closing it until to-mor-
row night, when he hoped to see the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough in his place.
Lord MORPETH said that the discussion that had
taken place with reference to the statement made by
the Hon. Member for Knareborougb, viz. that
the operatives were compelled by their masters
to sign petitions in favour of the repeal of
the corn-laws, he felt it necessary to say a
few words. Al the time that this statement was made,
he had in his pocket a letter from the workmen of a
factory called the Union Mill, which letter had been
written in consequence of some reports of a similar
tendency with the assertion of the Honourable Member
having been circulated in the House. The letter stated
that not only were the workmen under no compulsion
of the kind, but they were even more anxious than their
employers for the repeal of the corn-laws. He had also
received other letters of a similar tendency.
An HoN. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn)
moved for a new writ for the borough of Bridport in
room of Mr. Bailey Cochrane, who had accepted the
Chiltern Hundreds.

Mr. BRIGHT presented several petitions from Staly-
bridge and other places in favour of the repeal of the
corn-laws.

Mr. ROSS rose to speak, but in consequencs of
the confusion occasioned by Honourable Members leav-
ing th• House he was inaudible in the gallery.
He would, for one moment allude to the speech of the
Hon. member for Northamptonshire. That speech was
characterised by strength and elegance of
diction, but the arguments it contained were
fallacious. The cardinal proposition of that speech was
that the labourer was entitled to protection. The Hon.
Member said that property was entitled to protection, and
as the labour of the labourer was his property, ergo, he
was entitled to protection. That was a perfect
fallacy, for how could they, for one moment, com-
pare property in lands and houses to the property
of the labourer, which was his labour only ?