The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-09 00:00:00

not aware that the Government had any intention of
1 taking any part in this matter, but he had since
seen the Bill proposed by Mr. Dalhousie, and it did not seem
to aff•ct the parties who were most interersted in these under-
takings:—viz., the original shareholders, and he, therefore,
hoped that the Howe would accede to the present measure.
Sir GEORGE CLERK rose for the purpose of taking an
objection to the motion on a point of form. From the state-
ments made by the lien. Member it was quite apparent that
it was a most important question, and one which, if carried,
would introduce a new mode of legislation with regard to rail-
ways. Instead, therefore, of moving it as a clause, he would
suggest to the Hon. Gentleman the propriety of introducing
i. into the Bill of which he had charge, or of moving
that it should be inverted in the Bill which would shortly come
down from the Lords relative to railways. At any rate it
would be a much mere expedient course to make it the subject
of a separate Bill rather than a sessional. order.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE quite concurred with the
•Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down, that
the present course was most inexpedient, unusual, and
extremely inconvenient. The motion was one which wa;
more properly the subject of an Act of Parliament rather than
a clause. He, therefore, agreed with the suggestion made,
that the motion should be brought forward in the shape of a
distinct Bill, or should be ins,•rted in the Bill introduced by the
Hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Hudson.), or in that brought
forward in the other House of Parliament by Lord Dalhousie,
when it should come down there.
Mr. HUDSON, agreeably to the suggestions thrown out,
would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion ; but
be begged to state that his only object in introduing it was to
protect parties who had signed the deeds, and to prevent the
recurrence of those scenes which took place in 1836,1838, and
lt.39.—Motion by leave withdrawn.
POOR-LAW REMOVAL BILL.
Mr. JAMES presented a petition from the poor-law
guardians of the Greenwich Union against certain clauses in
the Puor-law Removal Bill.
POOR LAWS.
Captain POLHILL presented a petition from the Board of
Guardians at Brighton, complaining of the general provisions
of the Poor-law Removal Bill, which they considered favoured
the vagrant more than it did the honest householder. They
prayed, therefore, that the Bill be ameniecl.
THE TEN. HOURS' 7;ILL.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the factory workers
:n the mills of Mr. APPhail, of Glasgow, in favour of
the Ten flours' Bill.

Mr. G. HUDSON presented several pcti'ions in favour of
the Eastern Counties Terminus and other railway Bills.
Lord JOHN MANNERS presented a petition] against the
union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
In reply to Mr. CHRISTIE respectlng the case of Mary
Anne Tyler, whose case was detailed to the House in a petition
presented on the 7th instant,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he had fully inquired
into the particulars of the case, and had come to the conclusion
that the decision of the magistrate was illegal. He had also
informed the magistrate before whom the case was heard of
the conclusion at which he had arrived, and that the ease
would be specially reported to the Lord. Chancellor.--( Hear.)
In conclusion he would say he had not the slightest objections
to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
The motion was then agreed to.
TEN HOURS' BILL.
Lord G. BENTINCK presented a petition from Bath,
most numerously and respectably signed, in favour of the Ten
Hours' Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
SEES OF ST. ASAPII AND BANGOR.
Mr, BANKES presented a petition from the clergy of
Dorchester, praying the House not to permit a union of the
dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor.--Ordered to lie on the table.
The HON. GENTLEMAN also presented a petition from the
poor of the county of Dorset, praying that the owners of houses
rated below six pounds should be assessed, and not the residents
of such habitations.

SUGAR DUTIES.
Lord JOHN RU ,SELL gave notice, on behalf of his
Noble Friend Lord Palmerston, that when the question of the
sugar Outies came befor the House, he would move an address
to the Crown, that Spanish sugars should be admitted to
those countries on the same terms as the most favoured nations.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it was his intention to
bring the subject of the sugar duties before the House
at the earliest possible period. He could not state the
precise day, but he was not aware of any obstacle to
prevent the question from obtaining an early consideration.
CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the report of the Committee on this Bill
was brought up.
On the question that it be read a second time being put,
Sir C. BURRELL rose and said he must oppose the mo-
tion, because he was convinced that if this Bill passed a great
number of persons would be thrown out of employment in the
agricultural districts, while those who would be able to get em-
ployment would have to put up with very low and miserable
wages indeed. In his opinion, too, the famine in Ireland was
by no means a sufficient reason for the passing of this measure.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to read some documents
in support of his arguments, showing the relative
bearing of the prices of corn and labour at
various periods since the passing of the corn-lasys.
He was quite certain that if the present. law was car-
ried in'o effect, it would not be possible for the
labourers of this country to compete successfully
with those of Germany, and other continental nations:
The Hon. Gentleman proceeded in his address to the House in
opposition to the Bill, but in so low a tone of voice as to render
it perfectly impossible to hear one word.
Colonel VERNER begged to say a few words on this sub-
ject. He should have addressed the House on the previous
stages of this Bill, had not so many Hon. Members pledged
themselves to do so. So much hail been said with regard to
Ireland, that he felt it to be the duty of every Irish Member
to express his opinions upon this measure. He did net
rise with the presumptuous idea of entering upon the question
with regard to the effect which this measure would have upon
the public at large. He rose, however, for the purpose of ex-
pressing the alarm with which this measure was contemplated
in that part of Ireland in which he resided—a part of the coun-
try which was mainly dependent hitherto on its agricultural
produce for support. The effect which this measure would
produce upon the public at large had been fully and ably de-
tailed by Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House over and
over again, and it was unnecessary for him to follow in the wake
of those Honourable Gentlemen.---( Hear, hear). He would
merely detain the House for a few moments, for
the purpose of stating in whet manner the people of his country
would be injured if it were passed into a law. He believed
that, during the progress of these debates, sufficient
attention had not been paid on the part of the Government to
the interests of the small farmers, the holders of ten and fifteen
cores.—( Hear, hear.) He should like to know who would
remunerate those men for the expense which they had been put
to in cultivating their land, and erecting houses thereon.
( Hear, hear.) The small farmers in that pert of Ireland
in which he resided were decidedly apposed to this measure,
because they were convinced that it would tend to their ruin.
He agreed with the Hon. Members who had opposed this
motion, that the results of its passing into
law would be to bring a national calamity ; and those
who had introduced the measure should look upon them
selves as participators in that calamity. If the measure had
been introduced by the Noble Lord the Member for London,
or by any other Hon. Member on that side of the House, or
in fact by any Hon. Member but the Right Hon. Baronet,
he would not have been so much surprised.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman then detailed the experience which he
had of the Right Hon. Baronet's policy—he at one time had be-
lieved him; the person best fitted to lead the House
of Commons, but he was now under the sad ne-
cessity of changing all his long-cherished opinions.
(The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman then read several extracts
from the Newry and other Irish papers, which, as far as could
be gathered from the noise that prevailed, were to the effect,
that there was no scarcity of wheat,oats, and barley in Ireland.)
There had not been so good a harvest in Ireland for many
years as in the present year, and, therefore, it was altogether
unfounded to say, that there was such a scarcity to be appre-
hended in that country.
Sir W. JOLLIFFEsaid that it was with a most painful
feeling he opposed a Government which he had supported for
so many years, but on the present occasion be
could riot help expressing his dissatisfaction at the
course which Government was punitive w:th regard to this
measure, and he could not conceal fro n himself that for a con-
siderable time back the Right Hon. Baronet had been syste•.
matically attacking the agricultural interest. He complained
that a return respecting the poor-law, which he had moved for,
had not been presented to the House. That return would
have enabled him to have made out, a strong case before the
House. He would, however, go into a few details with refer•
ence to the operation of the poor-law. In the Newberry
Union he found that there were in Jan. last 91 inmates less
than in the same month of 1845. Although the Right Hon.
Baronet hal said that the growers of wheat in this country
were of so little importance that they were not worthy of much
consideration, yet in his (Sir W. Jolliffe's) part of the country
alone they grew some 15,000,000 quarters per annum. He
seas ever as ready as any other Hon. Gentleman in that House
to help forward a measure that was calculated to advance the
public good, but he felt himself bound to oppose a measure like
this, which sought the aggrandisement of one party at the ex'
'tense of another.—( Hear. hear. )
Mr. GEORGE BANKES fully concurred in the observe-.
tions of the Hon. Baronet who had just sat down. Ho rose
for the purpose of expressing his surprise that, after the speech
of the Hon. and Gallant Member who had preceded him, re-
specting the effect which this measure would have on the
small farmers of Ireland, the Noble Lord the Secretary for
Ire'and had not risen to contradict the statements which he
had made. And as that• Noble Earl had not done so, the enlY,
conclusion to whiele they could come was, that the statements of
the Hen, and Gallant Member were perfectly true.—(Hear,
hear.) They now heard from an Hon. and
that Gallant Member,
connected with Ireland, that the distress incountry 1V25
not so great as it had been pictured to them. They were told,
too, by the same Hon. and Gallant Member, that instead of
alleviating this distress, the measure of the Government would
increase it? Now, if his Ilan. and Gallant Friend were
in error, why did not the Noble Lord the Secretary for
Ireland, who had recently been in that country, get up and
tell them so.— (Hear, hear.) But his Hon. and Gallant
Friend's statements were quite correct, and he for one defied
the Noble Lord to get up and refute them.---(Cheers.) Allu-
sions had been freely made, in the course of the debate on this
subject, to the year 1822, and he was not sorry for it, for that
year was in some respects a parallel with the resent, so far as
the distress and suffering in Ireland was corpmerned; but the
Government of that day didnot propose to alleviate it by sacrE;
Irelandficing o ne
was,o f according great interests of the country.—(Cheers.e
• ording to Lord Darnley, in a most lamentabll
state of suffering and distress in the car 18°4, that exceede:
in extent the present crisis, but no measures of this kind we'''. resorted to to remove it. No, it was removed by the sriin.; tatteoue subscriptions of the people, aided by grants of pub
money from the Exchequer; and this was hssw 00
ought to remove the distress and misery of the present day--;
( Hear, hear.) Ile was not there to
deny that there was e°
want in Ireland. He wanted the Secretary for Ireland to a
him what was the real state of that country. He had a riga
to assume that it was in a state of prosperity, especially aselhe
Right Hon. Gentleman hail kept silence on the subject.
ld
Hon. Baronet was no doubt well read in history, and he sreeeed
be aware that Ireland was a subject which had occasiA.,
anxiety for years past. The first of the Tudors, Henry vi.lise
had directed his attention to that point, and the statutes ofled.
times were worth leading, from the information they aff(!_r,robl
The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from one d !nlana
statutes, which reprobated the custom of turning arable_iime
Jac-
into pasture ; and the result of such a practice was the d'uftleo-
ticn of the population in particular parts. From the abae
ment of tillage, it came to the result that the poor-law °fil not
zabsth was passed, and the people were paid by alms 34 Eli-
by labour. If it was necessary to enforce the poor-law "similar
zabeth in Ireland, the same result, if a
eeniely,
plan was followed in England, would follow, ,;'„,,fer
the want of employment for the labourer. He had but
confounded the question of the Corn Bill with Irelannt.that
the Government had done so, and had asserted that
ever,
measure would afford relief to Ireland. They had, h°_", once
not proved their case, and he called upon them to do so as
if it laid in their power.
sitbistion
Lord LINCOLN stated that in consequence of indisp°
be had not been able at an earlier period to take part 'eshould
discussion, which had so long occupied the House. He
ehardly
ahaadv et
ethoughtt
ei tt
hheaida
vbi
teaetni
~nneacteoss as
pr
eakh
f o rwt
eeh Secretary
h
showered upon him. He would hold himself responsible for all
that had been stated with respect to the condition of Ireland'
and was satisfied that those statements had not been exaggo,
i,
rated. The Hen. Member for Northamptonihire could
.-
ad
bee