The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-19 00:00:00

DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. tHRISTIE, on behalf of Mr. Hawes, intimated that
he in► ended to postpone the order of the day for going into
Corzmittee on the Daaish.Claims till June the 10th.

EAST HAMPSTEAD UNION.

Captain PECH ELL moved that the petition of the ratepayers
of the parish of Winkfield, complaining of the conduct of the
Poor-law Commissioners, and the proceedings of the board of
guardians of the East Hampstead Union, be printed.
After a few words from Sir JAMES GRAHAM, to the
effect that it was intended' to send down a Commissioner to
make inquiry into the matter, the motion was agreed to.
GAME-LAWS.
Mr. COLLETT called the attention of the House to the
circumstances which had recently token place in Sussex in
connexion with an information laid against a poor person
for purchasing game at the instance of Sir Charles
Taylor, and who was severely punished by the magistrate.
Tlfe Hon. Member then read an information which had been
laid against a person of the name of Barnard, at Petersfield, to
the same effect, and stated that an answer had been given by
Lord Langdale to the effect that the information hod not been
acted upon, which had been laid before Sir Charles Taylor.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the person referred
to by the Honourable Member for Athlone (Mr. Collett)
bad been convicted under the game-laws. The name of that
person was Silvester. The question was whether this person
had been committed on the information laid before Sir Charles
Taylor Now he had made inquiries of Sir Charles Taylor,
and be found that that gentleman was rot on the bench at the
time the conviction was made. He had also made in-
quiries of the bench of magistrates as to what had taken
place on this occasion, and he found that there was
no reason for the Ministers to interfere, as, from what
had taken place, his did not think that Sir Charles Taylor
had been at all implicated, and therefore no case, so far as he
could see, was made out for the intereesitien of Ministers.
Sir Charles Taylor was present, but took no part in the bu,i-
nets. The policeman Hall denied that he had had any con-
versation with Sylvester in reference to the transaction, and
he ( Sir J. Graham) was unwilling to bring the character of
an Hon. Gentleman into jexta -position with that of a eon-
victed horse-stealer, in that Howe.—(Laughter.) It appeared
that Sylvester had been convicted at Manchester for the crime
of horse-stealing, and he considered, there-ore, that his evi-
dence should be received with a considerable degree of doubt.
Since the Hon. Gentleman had put his first question he had
introduced another charge, aehich he ( Sir J. Graham) had
had no opportunity of investigating, and, therefore, when he
came down to a iswer the first question, he was quite unpre-
pared for the copies of affidavits which an Hon. Member had
laid before the House. (The Right Baronet then read the re-
pert of the case, as it appeared in the provincial papers. )
Now then be understood the question to have been narrowed
to the three persons he had named ; but if there was to be a
new question -he hoped the allegation would be made on affi-
davit, and if they should not be proved to be true, the whole
question would then be properly investigated by the constitution
of criminal proceedings against the party making the affidavit.
Mr. COLLETT said, the Right Hon. Gentleman would
see that the report alluded to the conviction of Mrs. Bridges.
Mr. BRIGHT said, there always appeared to be extra-
ordinary sympathy is that House for any official who
might have any charge brought against him, especially if
be happened to be a magistrate.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and
Hear.) He would contend for it that such was the fact, and
he did not think that any Hon. Member of the House would be
found bold enough to deny it. He did think that the Hon.
Member for Athlone was perfectly justified in calling attention
to this matter ; and there were many persons inPetersfield
who had said that what had appeared in the public papers
was a correct representation of what had taken place,
and that Sic C. Taylor was present in the justice-
room, and did not contradict it. It appeared
that this woman had been convicted on the information of a
servant of Sir C. Taylor, and that certainly looked suspicious,
and the woman was sent to gaol for a month. How could she
know that the person in question was not licensed to sell game?
He knew that at the time when it was illegal to sell game
many Members of that House were in the habit of purchasing
Cries of "No, no.") They could then be supplied with
as much game as they pleased for dinner. In the present case,
here was a pour labouring man sent to gaol for a
month, and he would have remained there for the full
time, had it not been that the Honourable Member
for Athlone (Mr. Collett) kindly forwarded the money to re-
lease him.—(Hear, hear.) No one knew how gross were the
proceedings of the magistrates on the subject of game, and he
trusted that the present case, with the others of' a similar cha-
racter that had been brought under the consideration of the
House, would induce the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of
the Home Department to introduce a measure so as to
change the present state of the law. Nothing could
be worse than it was at present ; as, from the
great body of the magistrates who adjudicated in these cases
being interested in the preservation of game, it was impossible
to get a just decision.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. LEADER considered the charge of an infamous
character, and therefore he did not think they should bring
forward the name of Sir Charles Taylor in the way they did,
without very good reason. It was not of so much importance
to attack public men, for they were used to it ; but to charge
a private gentleman, almost 80 years of age, with a disgraceful
proceeeding, without good grounds and evidence, was too bad.
He could say that there were no estates in that neighbourhood
that were better cultivated than that of Sir Charles Taylor, and
he could assert that the bulk of the returns of that estate were
expended in giving employment to the neighbouring poor.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE thought the time of the House
might have been much better employed at the present moment
than the discussion of this matter. The question, if be
understood it aright, was, whether Sir Charles Taylor had,
in his capacity of magistrate. overstepped the rules which were
prescribed to him for the fulfilment of his duty. He must say
that he thought the greatest injustice had been done to Sir
Charles Taylor in this matter. He could not help saying that
lie conceived that the Hon. Member for Athlone had deserted
the ground which he had originally taken, and had entered into
a series of statements quite irrelevant to the matter in hand.
He had stated, on the information of Sylvester, that policeman
Hall had been convicted before Sir Charles Taylor in the
penalty of five pounds for a breach of the game laws. Nov, it
appeared that the facts were, that this man had not only been
convicted on this count, but on others, of a breach of the game
laws. Now, what were the circumstances ? Not only was Sir C.
Taylor arrainged upon the information of a common
culprit without any evidence, but had been so ar-
raigned without any sufficient grounds. He should
inform the House that Sir Charles Taylor had been 34 years
a Member of that House and 35 years in the Commission of
the Peace. He thought that under the circumstances the evi-
dence which had been laid before Government against such
facts was quite unworthy of notice, and that the time of the
House had been most grievously wasted.
RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
Mr. B. DENISON said that from a report presented to
the House on the 17th February, 1846, and which was con-
firmed and received on the 21st April, it appeared that a
certain rate was to be adopted in railway Committees under the
report of the Gauge Commission. On this report a decision
had been come to in one way in room No. 10, and a
decision had been come to in No. 11 quite in a contrary way.
He found that it had been required by the House that to-
morrow he should take part in the discussion of this question
in a railway Committee, and he wished for some communica-
tion to know upon what rule his conduct should be guided.
Sir R. PEEL said he was sorry that the Hon. Member had
given an opinion that, taking everything into consideration, was
erroneous. The report, and the evidence consequent on that
report, had been made by her Majesty's command to the Board
of Trade; and the Great Western Company, the railway which
was principally interested, were allowed upon their application
to make such remarks as they might think fitting; and it was only
after receiving these suggestions that the report was furnished
to the Government. The Board of Trade were fully aware of
the value of those suggestions, but as many interests were in-
volved, and as the evidence was of a voluminous character, it
was necessary that an opportunity should be given fur the pro-
per consideration of them. With reference to the subject of
the gauges, it must be remembered that opinion was all on the
side of the narrow gauge.
Sir R. PEEL said the House was aware how much the
Government had been occupied by the business of the House
since the 21st of April. He hoped that the report would
shortly be ready for laying on the table of the House.
Lord PALMERSTON said a communication had been
made to him of a very ingenuous invention, applicable to the
goods traffic, by means of which goods could be transported
from the broad to the narrow gauge, and from the narrow to
the broad gauge. The inventor had taken out a patent for his
invention, and a report upon it had been submitted to the
Board of Trade by General Paisley. He would ask the Pres'.
dent of the Board of Trade whether it was their.intentirthe to
take any steps with reference to the invention, and also whether
they would have any objection to lay upon the tablew of the
House the report of General Paisley ou the subject?
Sir G. CLERK stated that there would be no objection to
lay the report on the table of the House.
Mr. RUSSELL said that until the report of the Commis-
sioners, the directors of the Great Western Company had no
means of ascertaining the nature of their decision ; as soon,
however, as they had seen it they immediately opened' a com-
munication with the President of the Board of Trade, who
declined to express any opinion on the statements made to
him verbally, and desired to have them reduced to writing.
The officers of the company had been so much employed
latterly that they had not had time finally to prepare this re-
port, and he hoped, however, that it would be ready in a few
days.

Mr. LABOUCHERE considered that it would be the best
course to suspend the further progress of the Bills before
Parliament for broad gauge lines, and where they were op-
ponded.
posed by narrow gauge lines that they should also be sus-

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
t Gentlemanthe Secretary r. SE wished to know. from the Right Honourable
whether of State for the Home Department,
theranc he act of incorporation had been issued for the fur-
e of the
nationala
Sir JAMES Ga for schools in Ireland, and, if so, what
steps had been t
Aorir the formation of those schools.
AiVI said that the charter of in-
corporation had been issued,
sary steps had hem taken
for fand he understood that the neces-
13REACH _lie formation of the schools.
Ok PRIVILEGE.
Mr. BANKES said he had, for the last five or six days de-
layed bringing before the
matter which involved a
bread! of one of the privileges ofs that House, because he did
the corn-laws. Rut he
not wish to interrupt the debate u
appeared in a public
now wished to state that a staterneuptoi'ladtha
talcen place in
newspaper in reference to a proceedin
that House, and which he did contenctgwaas:aohna4infringement of
the privileges of that House. He was by no means anxious to
resist the legitimate exercise of the right to
. criticise the conduct of public men in that-
but a letter had appeared in the THouse ;
newspaper on Tuesday last, which he wished to bringmbeies
that House. It had been written in consequence of
.o
servation he had made upon the state of Ireland, and ine an_
ewer to which the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland took-
the occasion to taunt him (Mr. Bankes) with the state of the
labouriog poor of Scotland. And a clergyman of Dorsetshire
thought proper to take notice of that speech, and to write a
letter to the Times newspaper. In that letter the rev. writer
took the speech for his text, and commented very freely. He
was surprised at that letter coming from the Rev. Gentleman,
f ,r he knew him to be a gentleman of character; and in giving
his opinion of that letter he separated the character of the rev.
writer from the article in question, when he called it quite
unworthy of him—in fact, wholly unworthy of him. The Hev.
Gentleman had been in the habit of speaking of him (Mr.
Bankes) with great freedom, but he had always treated such
e immentaries with the greatest contempt. But when he
spoke of a young man, who for the first time addressed the
House, he (Mr. Bankes) felt that some notice was called for.
The Reverend Gentleman was very fond of dealing in attack.
Last year the honourable and reverend writer
was called by the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir
James Graham) the "popularity hunting parson."—(Loud
Welter.) He was against the Right Hon, Baronet at that

time, 11,7 tan with him, and perhaps that would very rriste-
vialiy the Right Hon. Baronet's opinion of the Ref. Uen-
tlematt. He hoped that What. *Mild fall froth him (Mr Bankes)
that evening would Meet the eye of the Bishop of the dioeeq..—
(Cri,a of " Oh, oh.") lie hoped his remarks on the Rev.
Gentleman's conduct would come und, r the notice of his
Bishop, for that was the proper mode of complaint. This was
the view of the question which he took, and if the Rev. Gentle-
man again acted in the manner he had done, he should certainly
move that he be brought to the bar of the House. If they
visited persons of inferior station and education for infringing
the privileges of the House, he could not see how they could

I pass over those in a higher condition of life, and who were cog-
nizant of what they were doing. He was sorry the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Ireland was not in his place, the more so as
he understood his absence to arise from illness, as he (Mr.
Bankes) could not answer the taunt which the Noble Lord had
thrown out. He (Mr. Bankes) had put a question to the
Noble Lord, vs hich had been only answered by a taunt about
the Dorsetshire labourers. He asked him how the
measure in relation to the importation of corn,
could benefit Ireland, either now or at a future
period; and to the taunt about the Dorsetshire
labourers being as bad as the peasantry of Ireland, the
only answer he would give to that was, how could the measure
benefit the peasantry of Dorsetshire ?—( Hear, hear.) So if
it would not benefit the peasantry of Dorsetshire it would not
benefit the pea=antry of Ireland. The Noble Lo:d had not
yet, however, answered his question about how the measure
was to benefit the people of Ireland. Perhaps some of his
colleagues would do so that night. He ( Mr. Bankes) recol-
lected a conversation with the Hon. Member for Durham
(Mr. Bright)—not a confidential one—in relation to the re-
turn of Lord Ashley to that House, and on that occasion the
Hon. Alerober said the reason they (ihe Anti-Corn-law
League) attacked Dorsetshire was, because that Noble Lord
had attacked them.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and
cheers.) On the whole of the matter, he could not see that
there was any express declaration, as to the course which was
likely to be pursued, or the effect which was likely to be
wrought by the reduction of wages.
Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. Hume rose together, but on the call
of the House

Mr. BRIGHT proceeded to say that this was a breach of
privilege, and he thought that it should be tested by
facts, and he certainly did think that the recommendation
which had been thrown out would have been wisely taken.
What might hare been the subject of communication to
which the Hon. Member alluded, he could not pretend to
know, and it was therefore impossible for him to speak posi-
tively respecting it, without having communication from some
Hon. Gentlemin.—( Hear, hear, and cheers, from both sides
of the House.) Of this motion he certainly heel had no inti-
mation but with resp,-et to the condition of the labourers of
.`.-oi-riersetshire, in comparison with these of Dorsetshire er
Wiltshire, he could not say whether he had made any differ-
cone with regard to them. But this much he would say that
' if he had stated that there vns no difference between the
condition of the people of these counties, and that of the
people of the other counties in England, he should he telling
that to the [inure, and to the people of England, which would
be grossly unlust to every member of the community.
Mr. HUME wished to ask whether the Hon. Member
opposite had any sufficient documents to show that the subject
was brought under discussion in the House, for without them
he himself was committing a breach of privilege.
Mr. BANK ES di; not wish to name the clergyman who
had so severely criticised the proceedings of the Hon. Member
for Durham (Mr. Bright), but if the House desired it he
would do s:). He would only state from it, that he asserted
that that Hon. Gentleman was not up to his work, and that
he was unworthy of the terms for which he was engaged. lie
further asserted that the labourers said, that they knew not
who was in fault, but it appeared to them, one man made the
bullets anti another shot them. Who was the real culprit he
could not say.
Mr. CHRISTIE said he was quite sure the Hon. Gentle-
man would himself feel no objection to the name being men-
tioned, nor to the production of the letter, a portion of which
was read that night. The Rev. Dr. Northcote was a most es.
timable gentleman, but he was not prepared to say that that
reverend gentleman, in all instances, could act in such a manner
as to please every one. His impression was, that there was
n-thing in that letter of which the reverend gentleman should
be ashamed, and nothing certainly that infringed on the privi-
leges of that House. He was sure that if the Hon. Gentleman
had read the whole letter, the House would say that there was
nothing in it to justify the remarks of the Hen. Member for
Dorsetshire. He was sure that in the whole letter there was
nothing to lead to the charge which had been made in that
House.

Mr. WAKLEY—The reverend gentleman had, no doubt,
the opportunity of reading the debates in that House, and
having noticed the personalities which take place within those
walls, had taken the same liberty out of doors. He feared the
Hon. Member had something to answer for in that respect.
IMPORTATION OF JEWELLERY.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition, signed by 296
pawnbrokers, silversmiths, and jewellers of London, praying the
House to adopt some measures to prevent the importation of
jewellery, which was now largely imported into the country at
five per cent.

CUSTOMS' DUTIES BILL.
Or, the motion for bringing_ up the report on this Bill,
Lord G. BENTINCK rose to oppose the motion. He
thought there was good reason for opposing the further progress
of the Bill which sought to remove duties amounting to no less
than 2,400,0001.. He contended that if the Government con-
tinued to receive that amount, they would be enabled to reduce
the amount levied on exciseable articles. When the duties
were taken off glass and auctions, amounting to 900,0001., the
country v as at once relieved from the cost of collecting that
sum, which amounted to 52,0001. ; and, at the same time, were
relieved from 450 excise officers. The present reduction proposed
in the customs would not effect the reduction of a single excise
officer. They diminished the amount of duty, but did
not at all reduce the amount of collecting that sum. In pro-
portion, therefore, as they lowered the amount of duty, they
increased the per tentage of collecting. Another reason
which he had for opposing the Bill, was that it would give to
the foreign producer a share in the benefit as well as the home
consumer. If they reduced the duty on soap, hops, and bricks,
it was clear that the entire remission must go into the
pockets of the subjects of Great Britain. It was admitted
on all sides, that soap was an article which tended consider-
ably to the comfort of the poor, and it was also of great
service in the manufactures of the country. The duty on
hops amounted to about 300,0001. per annum, being no less
than 2d. on each pound. That duty put the hop growers
to the greatest possible inconvenience ; they could not
gather their hops without sending the excise officers twenty-
four' hours notice of their intention to do so. The effect of the
reduction of the tax upon the importation of foreign timber
had had the effect of seriously damaging the Canadian timber
trade. It was perfectly clear that the Baltic timber growers
had now a monopely.—(Hear, hear.) They had given to the
Baltic people that monopoly by the measures which they had
introduced ; and the Government was now proposing to in-
crease that monopoly still further. The reduction on foreign
timber did the greatest injury to the revenue of the country.
They had the authority of the Hon. Member for Sunderland
for saying that there were five millions of cubic feet of timber
used in the formation of railways in the country, and that that
quantity would have been used irrespective of the duty being either
10s. or ses. a load. See, then, what an enormous revenue
this would have given to the country.—(Hear.) In the year
1840 there were imported from the Baltic five hundred
and sixty ene thousand, three hundred and thirty-two
loads of timber; and that would also have been consumed
irrespective of the duty.—(hear, hear.) Mr. Pitt argued
tbat for every 100.000/. France gave, England should give one
million. They had put it out of their power to give anything
or receive anything in return, for they had given all they pos-
sessed away. Mr. Pitt did not propose to admit the grain of
France, or anything which came into competition with the
produce of England. And that was the sound policy which a
great statesman should follow. It was the policy of Mr. HII3-
kissen, of Mr. PH-, and of Mr. Canning.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Huskissou, speaking of the American tariff in 1838—the
Americans having raised their duty on wool to 14 per cent.—
observed, that if such a proceeding was eventually carried out,
the Engli,h nation would retaliate. He referred to the bene-
ficial effects which the country had derived from putting a
protection on indigo. He therefore proposed that they should
put a duty on cotton, and encourage its growth in the East
Indies. It was char that Mr. Huskisson was not an advocate
for free trade without its reciprocity.—( Hear, hear.) Like
the Right Hon. Baronet, he was sure, at all events, he
'''fiaesthncioutgria disciple
cy wofhicAhirsh. auPlidttbeoardopotfedAwlra.s,
tCoarnen(itongoe.
nthe t
adout
otircess !_n theue
atrade
hear.)of those
A And
dciotiawnotur countries
alsow hi which took i
wise
eur
policym a-
had no shipping of their own, but who used
to reduce the duties on the imports of those whichd
oucor
shiespecially with regard to China.—(Hear, hear.) Ipt p
wn ga
s, and
t
free trade that was wanted. How would it act with regard
to Canada ? What was the feeling there ? I shall quote,
not
from the language of Mr. Papineau, not from the language of
other gentlemen identified with him, but from the language of
the Alinisters of the Crown in Canada.— (Hear,- hear.)
This was what the Solicitor-General for the Crown said at a
meeting held at Toronto. He said, " that if ever there was
a time when the national credit and interest of Canada was
at stake, it was at that moment, when they were threatened
with a great and dangerous change." Why, with what satis-
faction could the measures of her Majesty's Government be
looked upon, when the officer of the Crown in Canada used
such language as this ? And what said Mr. Draper, the At-
torney-General? That gentleman, when addressing a public
meeting upon the measure of her Majesty's Government, ad-
vised the meeting to prevent, if possible, the passing of a
law which was calculated to be of the, greatest injury to the
Canadas. He said, in language not to be mistaken, " I tell
you, that I see what is coining, and I tell the people
of this province, it is of no use shutting their
eyes to the injury about to he done them ; and I would advise,
if there is no other remedy—if there is nothing else left for
them—the best thing they can do is to declare themselves
bankrupt at once, and repudiate.--(" Hear, hear," from the
protection benches.) Was this to be mistaken ?—( Hear. )
Hon. Members were well aware that the mode of distribution
of their revenue was according to the population of their towns.
The result was, that the population increased from 23,500,000
to 27,500,000, and the receipts increased irom Is. 63/4d. per
head to 2s. 91,4 d. per head ; and would the people of the Zoll-
verein consent to this reduction so injurious to themselves.
They would say first, that a mutual accommodation might
be made by a reduction of the duties of the produce of both
countries ; but now, when our markets were open to them on
any terms, they would take care to protect their own manufac-
tures. He found that in raw grain they imported 363,610
settles, each setua being about l.cwt. ; and, in 1841, the im-
ports had increased to 434,000 setuas, making, with their home
manufacture of the article, more than 900,000 setuas. In
1841, they exported 80,000 setuas of cotton hosiery to this
country, paving duty; while our exports paid duty there.
These were
the grounds which induced him to think
that there were no just grounds for the hope that our
present proceedings
take our manufactures in return for their own. There
was no hope that, because of our free trade
the demands for reciprocal benefits in return,_ would open the
markets of foreign countries to the manufactures of this coun-
try. The present, course of policy of tee Right Hon. Baronet
would give the greater portion of the beneficial effects of re-
duced duties to foreigners, instead of the English. He wished,
when the circumstances of the country admitted of a reduc-
tion of duties, to see the benefit of that remission going to
the English manufacturer. if the duties were to be reduced,
he wished to see it done in such a manner as to employ our
own shipping. The principle of the policy which seemed to
be adopted by the Right Hon. Baronet was, to deal hardly
with those n • ations which dealt kindly by this country, and to
make concessions to those nati h
I,?ns w o. opposed our interests.
He objected to our foreign as it matte concessions to
those who were enemies to, and opponents nopponents of, our interests, and
the interests of our manufacturer ; and, under these circum-
stances, he should move that the report be read a second time
that day six months.
Mr. LAWSON said he rose to secnond the motion of the
Noble Lord the Member for L n
that he followed him at a yven, din doing so he felt
.great distance in the
same task. He followed himry magno sod pro
he
intervallo." He did so in pursuance of the
opinions entertained by him on all • occasions. Fo in 1842
w4aen the amended tariff was brought forward in thatr Hou
the Right Hon. Baronet, he did not give way on that se
.b
occasion
in the opinion which he had always entertained, but he gave
notice of a motion for an increased protection duty to native
industry in general, which motion he should have adhered
to, had he received the support which he ought to have ob-
tained. He would now, with the permission of the House,
real, from a paper prepared by command of her Majesty, two
very short extracts' which 114VO Ptreng reason, for the cons.