The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-27 00:00:00

Ttflt
4~ U

LONDON, FRIDAY, FE;;RUARY 27, 1346.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack at
Five o'clock.

After the presentation of various petitions, i
The Marquis of WESTMEATH asked whether a deputation, '
consisting of several persons, waited upon his Excellency the
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, after the conviction, and before
the execution of BRIAN SEERY, to pray that the convict
should not be respited, or his sentence tragsmuted, but that
he should be executed ? Secondly, whether the deputation
purported to proceed from the county of Westmeath. Thirdly,
tvliether such proceeding is to be deemed " harsh and unusual."
The Noble Marquis
pugning the conduciat then went into a long statement, im-
the Catholic clergy of Westmeath in
regard to the case of oi3
The Earl of ST. C,ERRIAN SEERY.
were not afraid of usingmANs protested against what, if he
anlunparliainentary expression, he
would designate the eaumnious attack which had
been made on the RomanguisheCatholic clergy, who, as
a body, were distin
The Noble Earl 1.1111)ern their piety kum anify.
th e letter an(i
of the Lord Lieutenant to the
has already appeared) in answer otme Secretary (which
Noble Marquis. He believed that theod the
question of the
the repr sentation to the Lord Lieutenant,eputation, in making
a sense of duty. He wonld not say this ere actuated by
but it was unusual ; but, considering the evidencenduct was hard,
trial, and the charge of the Judge, the Cord given, the
Lieutenant di •
not feel justified in interfering to prevent the I d
aw from
taking its course.
The garquis of WESTMEATH and the Earl of ST. GER 55
mutually explained.
d STOURTON vindicated the Roman Catholic priesthood
from the attacks which
For had been made upon them.
-vitt that any such discussion as
Lord Bnocau,ot thot g,
the one now entered on tended to poison the administra-
tion of justice. He hoped that the Catholic priests were
been assed on them, and
worthy of the eulogium that had
if p
it
they would be more deserving of they
at once and for ever, the abominable practice of delivering
political addresses to their flocks. If any priest, Catholic or
Protestant, were to interfere with the administration of
justice, it would be the duty- of the judge to punish him.
The County Works Presentments (Ireland) Bill was read
a second time, after a few words from Lord MoNTEAGLE and
the Earl of of ST. GERMANS.
The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage,
and their Lordships adjourned.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock, and upon
doing so called the attention of the House to a discrepancy
between the writ and the return for South Nottinghamshire,
which was amended by the Clerk of the Crown at the table,
after which erptain VYSE took the oaths and his seat for
the southern division of that county in the room of Mr.
CARTWRIGHT.
Several Railway Bills were forwarded a stage, and a great
number of petitions weikpresented in favour and against the
Ministerial free-trade measure.
Petitions were also presented in favour of the pardon of
and hue&
!root, Williams,

Mr. WARD with drew the notice he had given to move
e
that the petition of Ohe Glasgow, Paisley, lokAyr Railway Compa sly, with respect to their bill, be taken
into consideration, and that the parties have leave to proceed
with their Bill.
R. PEEL presented e petition from Tynemouth in
Sir
favour of the reduction of the timber duties proposed by the
Government.
A Message from the Lords brought up several Bills, which
were read a first time and ordercd to pe read a second time.
Sir R. PEEL, in answer to a quo
to the
esaciodrnthiaavrt afguteesrtitohne,
decision of the House with regard
he proposed to go on as rapidly as possible with the other
articles of the tariff, but he intended that the House should
dispose of the corn-law question first.
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped at the same time that the subject
of Indian corn would be taken into consideration.
On the motion of Mr. O'Corrsts:u., the petition from the
Middleton Poor-law Union was ordered to be printed with
the votes.
On the question for the resumption of the debate on the
corn importation measures,
Mr. ROEBUCK hoped, if another night was to be devoted to
the debate, the House would not be again occupied for two hours
and a half with such a speech as that which they bad heard
the night before last. He hoped, for the honour of the
House and the protectionists, that their time would be occu-
pied by arguments, and not by personal invectives.
Sir R. Nous thought that the Hon. Member for Bath was
the last person who ought to be so mealy-mouthed as to
deprecate personalities.
Mr. BRIGHT stated, without hesitation, that all that had
been said by the Honourable Member for Knaresborough
with respect to Mr. WILSON was totally without
foundation. The starch manufacturers wished for no pro-
tection ; and if they did, Mr. Wu.sosr would be the last
to support it. It was unfortunate that in all the speeches
of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough he made assertions,
but never proved them.
After some observations from Mr. CoNuxoux, Dr. Bow-
RING, and Captain Irrigate,
Lord Moarrra read a letter to the House from
the operatives of Yorkshire, denying the statement that they
were compelled to sign petitions in favour of a repeal of the
corn-laws, and stating that the operatives were more anxious
tor the carrying of that measure than their masters.
A new writ was ordered for the borough of Brid-
port, in the room of Mr. Baillie Cochrane, who since
his election had accepted the office of her Majesty's Chiltern
Hundreds.
Mr. Ross then resumed the adjourned debate on the Go-
vernment free-trade measures, which he most warmly sup-
ported.
Mr. BEcisErr DENISON was sorry the Honourable Mem-
ber for Knaresborough was not in his place, because he had
on a previous night made use of his name in a manner that
hg was not entitled to do. He trusted that in future for his
own sake he would be more careful how he made use of the
names of Hon. Members without their knovfledge or assent.
He denied that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the
Government had deceived him into seconding the Address,
but he must confess that he never thought he would have
gone so far as to have proposed a total repeal of the corn-
laws. If he could be convinced that a repeal of the corn-
laws would be beneficial to the working classes he would
vote for their repeal ; but, believing that protection to corn
was protection to the working classes, he felt bound to
give the measures of the Government his opposition. He
thought the Government ought to have given the agri•
culturists a lease of the Bill that was passed in 1842. He
believed that agriculture was in its infancy, and that it
would be able to keep pace with an increase of population.
If the measure of the Government was right, the time for
bringing it forward was wrong and ill-chosen. He had been
elected for the West Ridiu because be was favourable to the
protection of agriculture he had given no pledge to that
effect, but he felt bound ha honour to uphold the professions
by which he had obtained his seat. If he had changed his
mind he should have felt bound to resign his seat, and
not state that he had done so, and with that statement to
dispose of all his speeches. He was determined to stick by
all his speeches, and be could not therefore support the
Government.
Mr. BROTHERTON supported the Government proposition,
considering it a measure of humanity and justice, if the
corn-laws were only abolished with a good grace.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER gave his cordial support to the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for the city of Bristol, believing
that the Government measure was calculated to injure all
classes of society.
Mr. CARDWELL supported the measure of the Government.
Mr. Farm opposed the Government measure. He could
not believe in the sincerity of the conversion either of the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, or of the
Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London. He believed
that the majority of the population of the country were
with the protectionists, and that if free trade was put up to
auction by universal suffrage, it would be throws at once
into the British Channel. Her Majesty's Ministers on this
question would have a nominal majority, but a bond fide
ministry. In a new Parliament there would be no less than
300 protectionists.
Air. SEYMOUR opposed the Government measure. The
feeling of the tenant-farmers in general he believed to be in
favour of protection.
Mr. VILLIERS then addressed the House. He claimed the
Honourable Member who bad spoken last as one of the
supporters of the repeal of the corn-laws, because he had
stated in Dorsetshire, that if they could not defeat the plan
of the Honourable Baronet, he would rather have a total re-
peal. He deprecated the delay that had taken place in
the discussion of the question. The House had been for
the last three weeks bearing the arguments over and over again.
He was glad to see the concessions that had been made by
the Government to common sense and humanity. He could
not see on what ground the Right Hon. Baronet ought to
have been subject to the reproaches that had been cast against
him. He believed that people were proud of the Right Hon.
Baronet for having courage enough to throw to the winds
the domination of a factious party. He believed that the
more opposition was given to the measure, the more
it would be endeared to the people. The protec-
tionists said that they did not object to the opening
of the ports: how long had they been of that opinion? Why,
only since they knew that there was no grain to come in.
They had been discussing for eleven days the system of pro-
tection, and it was quite clear, at this moment, that the House
had not a single idea of what it was. It had been said that the
League had got up the Goatacre meeting. He denied it,
and asserted that the League had had nothing to
do with it. Lord STANLEY, who was now the
leader of the protectionists, had told them what
protection was—that it raised the price of land and food, but
did not enhance the price of labour. The protectionists
could not get out of the fact, because if that was not the mean-
ing of the law, it had no meaning at all. The protectionists
thrived when the people were starving—was that, he would
ask, a state of things which ought to be allowed to exist any
longer? The corn-law must either be supported by force or
opinion ; force had been tried and failed, and opinion and
humanity were against it.
On the motion of Mr. G. BANKES, the debate was adjourned
till to-morrow.
Lord J. RussEtt hoped that as the debate had lasted so
long it would be concluded to-morrow.
Mr. R. SPOONER joined in that hope, but he could not
allow the debate to close without affording to every Member
who ventured to address the House an opportunity of doing
so. He wished to explain to the Hon. ember for Wolver-
hampton the grounds on which he intended to support the
amendment that had been proposed.
The debate was then adjourned till to-morrow, the orders
of the day disposed of, and the House adjourned.

The past administration of the poor-laws in the notorious
Andover Union is to be the subject of a motion, next Thurs-
day. in the House of Commons. Mr. ETV/ALL, the Member
for the borough, is to move for a " Select Committee to in-
quire into the administration of the poor-laws in the Andover
Union, and into the management of the union workhouse ;"
and Mr. CHRISTIE is to move an addition to the Hon. Mem-
ber for Andover's motion, to extend the inquiry of the pro-
posed Committee to " the conduct of the Poor-law Com-
missioners and their late Assistant-Commissioner, Mr.
PARKER, in reference to the two investigations held at
Andover, and into all the circumstances under which
the Poor-law Commissioners called upon Mr. PARKER to re-
sign his Assistant-Commissionership." We called attention,
very soon after the publication of Mr. PARKER'S appeal from
the Poor-law Commissioners to the Home Secretary, to the
serious imputations which his remarkable pamphlet contains
on the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners, both with
reference to the Andover investigation and their treatment of
Mr. PARKER. Mr. PARKER has now presented a petition
to the House of Commons, and Mr. M‘DouGAL, the late
master of the Andover Workhouse, whose conduct was the
subject of the investigation, has done the same. We
shall print these petitions on a future day. In the
meantime we make one extract from Mr. PARKER'S
petition, which brings such a charge against the Poor-law
Commissioners, that, without admitting their guilt, they can-
not but join in desiring Parliamentary inquiries. Mr. PARKER
states, " That the facts connected with the bone-crushing in
the Andover Workhouse, and the presumptions raised by the
subsequent charges and statements, that the inmates had
been driven by hunger to satisfy their appetites by eating
marrow, and gnawing off putrid meat from bones which they
were employed to crush; that the female inmates, by gifts
of food, had been induced to endure the master's solicita-
tions without complaining of his conduct; and that one
woman in particular had brought much public odium upon
the general character of poor-law management, whilst
the conclusion of the inquiry, resulting from the Commissioners
breaking down the adjournment granted by your petitioner, did
not satisfy the public, the board of guardians of the Andover
union, or the accused.
" That your petitioner believes, and is prepared to bring such
evidence as the nature of the case admits, to prove that the Com-
missioners sacrificed your petitioner to divert public odium from
themselves."

" Sacrificed Mr. PARKER to divert public odium from
themselves !" Wbelieve no one can read Mr. PARKER'S
pamphlet without Omitting that Mr. PARKER. makes out a
strong case in support of this serious charge. The Poor-law
Commissioners may be able to answer his case. If so, let
them do it before a Committed. When such a charge is
made, if the appointment of a Committee is resisted by the
parties charged, only one interpretation can possibly be put
by the public on the resistance ; and that is, consciousness of
guilt.

At the same time, we are strongly inclined to suspect that
the Poor-law Commissioners will induce Sir JAMES G/LAILUS
tloirr.ecsisittittihsrie
Finqul7 to be moved for by Mr. ETwALL and
passed in the lious
session on the subjectseeohfaCommonsattentively
since
ob
thebeginningserved allthoaft hasthe
and we
prodmuc
see SirJ.GRAHA connected with the Andover inquiry,
public view.
everything concealed fro st apparently determined to keep
mrl.icerfA was
n w iasked
cK
communicated
g a
otrzuattphteh:
Poor-lawwh ich i t
Commissionersi s k nown that
the objectionable character
cornpfiaduopers; and he re-
fused, far back as 1843, pointing
of the bone-crushing employment
fused, stating that the paper was a
communica-
tion, and not signed by Mr. CHADWICIC.nt
have the Poor-law Commissioners to inveastt papers,business
written in the course of public business, by il,
secretary, a public officer, with a confidential ir
cha-
racter? As to the paper not having been signed by Mr.
CHADWICK, perhaps that may be the customary way of doing
business in the Poor-law office; at any rate the paper is
authenticated as Mr. Camowictes without his signature. It
has come out before Parliamentary Committees that the
Secretary of the Poor-law Commissioners does not attend the
meetings of the Board, and that no minute-book is kept of
the Commissioners' proceedings, This is a very irregular
v-ay of doing business, and of a piece with the Secretary's
reports to his superiors being unsigned.
41c J4nr4 GM wt also UM Fp** that? who lir.

ETWALL brings forward his motion, he intends is lay some
papers relating to the Andover inquiry on the table of the
House of Commons. But why does he wait till then to pro-
duce these papers ? He intends them, it is to be inferred, as
a substitute for the Committee of Inquiry which Mr. ETWALL
is to move for. If he were to produce them, however, before
Mr. ETWALL brings forward his motion, Mr. ETWALL and
others would be able to judge whether these papers are suffi-
cient.

We cannot help reverting to one statement in Mr. PAR•
ERR'S pamphlet, on which we are surprised that no question
has been pit to Sir JAMES GRAHAM. Our readers will re-
member Mr. WAKLEY'S first statement on the subject of.
bone-crushing in the Andover Workhouse towards the close
of last session. On the Ist of August, 1845, Mr. PARKER was
sent down to Andover by the Poor-law Commissioners,
by order of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, to investigate
the truth of Mr. WAICLEY'S statement. On the sth of
August Mr. Peaxxn made a written report to the Poor-law
Commissioners, which may be read: in page 7 of his pam-
phlet, and with this written report sent up the depositions which
he had taken at Andover. This written report and the de-
positions were transmitted to Sir JAMES GRAHAM. On the
Bth of August Mr. PARKER was desired to call on Sir
J. GRAHAM, and did so. The next day, the last day of the
session, Sir J. GRAHAM made a statement in the House of
Commons of the results of Mr. PARKER'S inquiry, making
no mention whatever of his written report, or of the
depositions—leaving it to be supposed that no
such things were in existence,—and resting his
statement on Mr. PARKER'S verbal communications
of the day before. Why was this? Was Sir J. GRAHAM
afraid to produce the written report and the depositions ?
Are these yet produced ? Or are they among the papers to
be produced, when Mr. ETWALL makes his motion ? It is
high time, we think, that these papers were produced. Mr.
PARKER says (p. 8) :—" Although my report to the Commis-
sioners, and the accompanying depositions, had been in your
hands for two days previous to this interview, you preferred
to rest your statement to the House (9th August) on this
verbal communication with me ; a course, of whose expe-
diency it is not for me to make question, but which I may
allude to with some regret, inasmuch as an impression was
necessarily produced that this important inquiry had been
conducted loosely and inefficiently, and with a desire to sup-
press the real facts." We hope Mr. WARLEY will not lose
sight of this curious point. Looking at the case altogether,
Mr. PARKER has strong claims to a full and searching inves-
tigation. At the time of the inquiry, several journals, and
The Sun among the rest, made remarks on the improper
mode in which it was carried on, and as these
remarks implicated Mr. PARKER, he ought to be allowed
every opportunity of justifying himself.

But for the satisfaction of knowing that the monster dis-
cussion is now oscillating on the very verge of the divi-
sion, last night's debating wouldhave been sufficient toplunge
every impatient politician into a fit of the most sullen despe-
ration. Beyond all former evenings, it stands forward
the dullest, drowsiest, and most miserably sluggish. One
after another, like ducks in foggy weather, the protectionists
strolled forth from the coop of the Ministerial benches to
quackle annoyance;at the impending storm, and retired with a
similar incapacity to retard the tempest that approached.
More abortive efforts at speech-making can scarcely be roked
out of any previous volume of Hansard: repetitions, arguments
of the very stalest nature, iterations, bungling quotations
from the return tables, and frivolous efforts at the facetious,
forming the bulk of the orations. And the prodigious
assurance with which certain Honourable Gentlemen pre-
sumed upon occupying the invaluable time—not of the
Commons only, or the Right Honourable the Speaker, or
the short-hand writers, but, of the nation itself by intruding
their private opinions upon the proposed commercial policy;
as though it were a matter of one straw's importance to be
acquainted with the internal mechanism of these Parlia-
mentary automata. We have observed elsewhere that public
curiosity as to the individual views of our principal statesmen
has been already satisfied to the utmost, and have hinted,
moreover, that the most sensible course which could possibly
be adopted by the Legislative ciphers, filling the back
benches in the Lower House, would be, that of maintaining
an imperturbable silence. Had this recommendation been
acted upon, many severe bilious attacks might have been
spared the puppets of the Hon. Member for Bristol, by pre-
venting those violent ebullitions of spleen which must have
militated considerably against their own health,
while they have excited the risibility of their
opponents. As to what these eloquent small-talkers think
of Sir ROBERT PEEL or of Mr. Husiussow, or the League, or
what not, the people are supremely indifferent ; in the ba-
lance of general estimation a pin would outweigh these
fribbling personalities ; and to each and all of these wor-
shipful Members (however important in their own considera-
tion) the expressions last evening applied by Mr. ROEBUCK
to Mr. BUSFEILDPERRAND are equally applicable and equally
significant. " What would any man in the country
give for such opinions ? Why, not a guinea, nor half-a-
guinea, nor half-a-crown, nor a shilling ; not a penny, nor
half-a-farthing." Se inexpressibly unnoticeable are these
fine-spokennothings.S/As if, however, to:usurp the capland
bells entirely for his own enjoyment, Mr. SPOONER—the far-
seeing and considerate Mr. SPOONEZ—has the admirable
prudence to insist upon a still further prolongation of the
debate, as many Honourable Members had not yet had
an opportunity of expressing their sentiments upon
_ _

the matter under discussion. One of those inimitable Arabian
Legends, which date back to the dynasty of HArtourt
ALRASCHID, is devoted, if we remember rightly, to the con-
versation of a certain " talking tree," every leaf of which was
a separate tongue, wagging more for its own particular grati-
fication, than for anything else that was ostensible.; If there
be not an analogy between this curiosity of vegetation
and the Parliament of this present session, we suspect
that several branches of the eastern tree have been cast upon
the floor of St. Stephen's. Possibly, however, the evil is
traceable physiologically—the protectionists are just num-
bering the last few hours of a very protracted existence ; they
may be thus garrulous from extreme decrepitude. To speak
candidly, their behaviour throughout this discussion
upon the Ministerial measures, but especially during
the last few nights, is so intolerably preposterous,
that it is almost beyond the bounds of possibility to treat
the matter with any degree of gravity. They enact such a
sorry and contemptible part, that a calm dissection of their
arguments is a thing not to be attempted. Thus Mr. Ross,
and Mr. CHRISTOPXER, and Mr. FiNcif, and Mr. Siarmouit
breathed an increase of lethargy and lassitude upon all but
their own excited party, until this distressing sensation was
dispelled towards the close of the evening by the speech of the
Hon. CHARLES P. VILLIERS. For many years the consistent
and unflinching advocate of abolition with reference to the
corn•laws,it was a subject of no little interest to hear from the
lips of that Honourable Gentleman himself, his satisfaction at
the change of opinion which had at length conspired to
crown his repeated efforts in the cause of free trade
with the most full and triumphant success. The party cries
with which his proposition for the repeal of all duties
upon grain had been received again and again from those
identical benches were, according to his own announcement,
still ringing in his ears. Bearing this in recollection, the
contrast exhibited by this session must, at moments, appear
to him something little short of the miraculous. While this
great and glorious alteration of our commercial code
is being achieved through the intervention of the
Premier, and the indomitable on-struggles of the PUBLIC
WILL, we must accord the praise which is so justly merited
by Mr. ViLuEns—to that untiring and staunch supporter
of the measure as originally conceived At the same time
we cannot but await, in exultant confidence, the consumma-
tion of those various powers and exertions—a consummation
which will be completed within such few movements of the
clock—a triumphant division.

Madrid papers of the 19th have been received, but they
contain no news. On that day the Three per Cents. closed
at 321/2 for cash and 32 11-16 at 60 days ; the Five per
Cents. at 23% at 60 days.

Several of the Paris journals were not published on Ash-
Wednesday, the compositors and other persons connected
with the establishment considering themselves much better
occupied in witnessing the procession of the bceuf gras on the
preceding day. But, indeed, the readers of those journals
have suffered no loss, for the other papers are dull, and desti-
tute of intelligence. Even the National, with every possible
wish to write a furious article against M. GUIZOT, for aban-
doning the Madagascar expedition, makes a very poor exhi-
bition, and leaves affairs nearly in the same state. Some
mystery yet hangs over the report of the Commissioner ap-
pointed to investigate the causes which led to the fall of the
Barentin viaduct. The Courrier Francais says the directors
of the Paris and Rouen, and Rouen and Havre Railroads, had
been called to the office of the Minister of Public Works, to
take cognisance of the report of M. FRISSARD, but a belief
prevailed that the Minister bad resolved not to publish it.
The Helvetie, a Swiss journal, announces that the session of
the Grand Council of Berne was abruptly brought to a close
on the 20th by the landammann. The election of the mem-
bers of the Constituent Assembly will take place on March 2.
The following are miscellaneous extracts from the papers—.

The Grand Chancellor has given notice to the Peers that, in con.
sequence of the loss sustained by the family of Baron Dupin, reporter
on the Bill for regulating manufacturers' marks, which was to bo
taken into consideration this day, the Committee could not meet and
receive the Minister of Commerce, and the President had postponed
the sitting till a future day, of which due notice will be given to Use
members.

On Tuesday, at two o'clock, the Council of the Order of Advo-
cates, and a great number of members of the bar, waited upon the
Procureur-General Dupin, to express their condolence on the death
of his brother.

A letter from Algiers, of the 18th, states that, atter his junction
with general Bedew!, Marshal Bugeaud made an important razzia
upon the tribe of the Beal-KrMfrouns, who had shown great hostility
to the French.

The Spener Gazette states, from Wirsitz, 16th inst., that some
Prussian troops had just arrived there and arrested several leaders of
the Polish conspiracy, some of whom are noblemen of considerable
wealth and influence. Several arrests have also taken place at
Thom, which was still kept in a state of siege.
A correspondent of the Presse writes from Rome :---" It appears
certain that M. Rossi will still remain some time at Rome as Minister
Plenipotentiary from France. M. Rosier, who has been for sonic time
first Secretary of the French Legation here, is on the point of taking his
departure for Mexico, as Minister Plenipdtentiary there, in the room
of M. Alleye de Ciprey. The eldest son of the Duke de Broglie is to
replace M. Rozier at Rome. Thanks to the moderation shown by
the Cabinet of Madrid, in speaking of its relations wills Rome. when
the Address waa in debate, and thanks also to the endeavours of M.
Castillo y Ayenza, the negotiations between Rome and Madrid are
approaching a happy termination ; so that Monseigneur Brunelli will
leave soon after Easter for Madrid, with the rank and title of Nuncio.
The Congregation of the Propaganda Fide has resolved to establish a
new apostolic mission in the interior of Attica, which will extend its
influence as far as the sources of the Niger."
The French Funds were very firm on Wednesday. The Three
; Ra.v;ret, 7505 fr;
Cents. closed at h4f. asc. ; the Five per Cents., 123 f. 50c he per
andbiontereau, 452 f. 50a ;
leans Railroad shares, 1,347 f. 50c.; Rouen, 1,967 f. 50c
Great Northern, 778 f. 75c. ; Avignon, 1,025 f. • Vlerz.on, 750 f.; 1S•;•
"",4 "`l4
Basle,
2732(f..
7550 cc.. Evoluieporgenseo, 550(5.f.i ;
raris
044
4440....
Acg,.