The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON.

tariff would enhance the produce of the foreigner at the cost of
the B:itish artisan, he must oppose it.
Lord ASH BURTON considered that the Government had
taken the property-tax, which should have been a reserve in
time of war, and adopted it to the purpose of making unneces-
sary reductions in the amount of the import duties. He thought
the idea of raising the revenue, by the reduction of duties was
chimerical. Every authority went to warn their Lordships
against that reckless system of finance adopted by the Govern-
ment. He thought the nem discovery, called free trade, would,
if carried out, injure materially the interest, of all classes of
the empire.
The original motion for going into Committee was then put
and agreed to without a division.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question, that
the House do resolve itself into a Committee, which was
agreed to without a division.
On the clauses as to the reduction of the duty on the impor-
tation of foreign timber being read,
Lord STANLEY said he thought no good would follow
from it to the country, and that great injury would be inflicted
on the partie- interested in the timber trade. He should,
therefore, move that the clause be omitted.
Earl DALHOUSIE entered into a lengthy statement of
figures, for the purpose of showing that the Noble Lord's ob-
jections were groundless. Being satised that this measure
was necessary to the interests of the country, that lbs. was
a fair duty, and that it would be beneficial in a financial view,
he felt it was his duty to give his hearty support to ir.
Earl STANHOPE said, instead of the reduction of the
duties on timber, there had been a decrease in the revenue
since the last reduction of 60.),000/. It was certainly a most,
inconvenient practice for the Noble Earl to quote from manu-
script documents in support of his arguments, as it did not give
Noule Lords an opportunity of replying to his arguments.
Earl KINN AIRD said, those reports were on the table of the
House.
Earl DALHOUSIE said, he had quoted from no documents
that were no: accessble to every one of their Lordships.—
( Hear.) lie certainly had quoted from manuscripts, but they
had been culled for convenience sake from the returns which
had been presented to their Lordships some time aga.
Earl GALLOWAY said that the reduction of duty upon
Baltic timber had been most beneficial to his own tenants and '
the country at large, and he should therefore support the
measure for a further reduction, believing that it would prove
to be beneficial to the people of this country, and those engaged
in the timber trade.—( Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Not content
Content
Majority against the amendment —l2
Clause 3, after a few remarks from the Duke of RICHMOND I
and the Earl of DALUOUSIE, was agreed to.

Upon clause 4 being proposd,
The Earl of STANHOPE objected to the provisions of the
clau ,e.

After a few words from the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the
clause was allowed to stand part of the Bill.
Upon clause 5 being proposed,
The Duke of RICHMOND trusted that the clause would
not be considered at that hour of the night, as it affected the silk
weavers, especially after the treatment they received that even-
ing at the hands of their Lordships, who called in the proxies.
The Earl DALEIO , SIE said he was not for taking ad-
vantage of the Noble Duke.
Lord STANLEY hoped that some arrangement would be
come to with respect to this measure.—(Hear, hear.)
The Corn Importation Bill was down for a third
reading on Tuesday; but as the question had been so much de-
bated, and so many divisions having taken place, he (Lord
Stanley), and the Noble Lords with whom he agreed on this
question, did not intend to divide on the third reading. They
would simply content themselves with signing a protest against
the Hill, and stating the reasons why they opposed it.—
(" Hear, hear," from the Duke of Wellington.) It might be
thought convenient, under such circumstances, to have the
remaining clauses and schedule of the Custom Duties Bill pro-
ceeded with on Tuesday, as there would be some discussion
on them.

The Duke of WELLINGTON—I have no objection what-
ever to the proposal of the Noble Lord.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 19.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'c!oek.
COVENTRY, NUNEATON, BIRMINGHAM, AND

LEICESTER RAILWAY.
Mr. SPOONER moved, that the Committee on the
Coventry, Nuneaton, Birmingham, and Leicester Railway
Bill, 11)-- revived, that it be an instruction to the Committee,
to entertain and hear the parties on the petition of William
Atkinson Gardner, and the petition of Charles Holt Brace-
bridge, with reference to the non-compliance with the resolu-
tions of the House of the 30th day of April last. If the reso-
lutions which were adopted on the 30th of April by that House
were to be maintainee, then it was imperatively necessary
that the Committee on the Bill should be revived, in order
that the case of the petitioners might be heard.
Mr. BANNERMAN thought that before the House decided
on the proposed motion, they should inquire who the pe-
titioners were. The party who petitioned against the Bill wa,
deputy-chairman of the line against which the Committee had
decided. It was also extremely doubtful whether the peti-
tioners had any locus standi before the Committee, as the peti-
tion was not presented until the day after the Committee had
given their decision.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought the explanation of the
Hon. Member ( Mr. Bannerman) was quite satisfactory, and
he should therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE understood that the resolutions of
the 30th of April directed that the Committees on Railway
Bills were to entertain every petition presented, but it would
appear that in the present case the Committee had not done
their duty. If the resolutions were not attended to, it would
be better at once to put them behind the fire. He should cer-
tainly support the motion.
Mr. ESTCOURT considered that the present case was one
of contempt of the House, inasmuch as some of the parties had
foisted a fallacious return on the Committee. He would sup-
port the revival of the Committee, not for the purpose of con-
sidering the merits of the Bill, but whether the decision of the
Committee had been come to in consequence of this fallacious
report.
Mr. GREENE supported the motion. He thought the
petition should have been entertained.
Mr. VILLIERS did not think that the revival of the case
before the Committee was the proper mode of dealing with a
fraud practised on the Committee.
Mr. SPOONER had consulted the highest authority in the
House as to the course he should pursue in the matter, and had
acted according to the advice given him.
Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped the House would not revive
the Committee upon such vague allegations as those contained
in the petition.
Mr. B. WILLIAMS said the motion was only made for the
purpose of incurring additional expense and delay.
Mr. MUN f Z supported the motion, because he thought the
Committee had not strictly followed the rules of the House.
The House then divided when there appeared-
-For the motion l2
Against it
- -

51aj,)rity against the recommittal of the Bill —6B
GLASGOW AND BELFAST UNION RAILWAY.
The report on this Bill was brought up, and the Bill ordered
be engrossed.

GRAVESEND AND ROCHESTER RAILWAY AND

CANAL (SALE AND PURCHASE).
The report on this Bill was brought up, and the Bill ordered
u be engrossed.