The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-14 00:00:00

FEBRUARN 14, 1846.

IMPERIAL PARLIAII NT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, Feb. 13.

At Five o'clock, neither the Lord Chancellor nor the
Earl of Shaftesbury being in attendance,
Lord BROUGHAM inquired if there was any ob-
jection to Lord Denman officiating instead?
No objection being taken by their Lordships,
Lord DENMAN took his seat on the Woolsack.
PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE.

Earl SOMERS presented two petitions from occupiers
of land, and other persons residing in the county of Here-
ford, against the proposed withdrawal of agricultural
protection. The petitioners stated they were apprehen-
sive that great evils would, in consequence, fall not only
on the agricultural interest, but on all classes of her
Majesty's subjects.
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

The order of the day was then read for going into
Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice Bill.

The Bill then passed through Committee,-1
the
report was brought up and agreed to.
RAILWAYS.

The Earl of REDESDALE presented a petition,
complaining that several names were attached to rail-
way schemes which were not sanctioned by the parties
whose names were thus attached. Ile considered that
in a matter of such vast importance the standing
orders in Committees ought to be carefully attended to
and enforced by their Lordship?. He (Lord Redesdale)
would sugge.t that where names were attached to
any such scheme, security should be given that the
parties had actually given their consent to such pro-
positions.
The Earl of DALIIOUSIE then rose to move the
adoption of the resolutions contained in the second
report of the Lords' Commitu e on Railways. He had
to move that certain alterations should be made
in the standing orders 219, 220, and 224, in order to
facilitate the passing of certain Bills, which were to
originate in that Rouse during the present session.
The Noble Earl then entered into a detail of the altera-
tions intended. (These have been already given in
the resolutions inserted in our Thursday's paper.)—
Agreed to.
The Earl of CLARENDON wished to ask his Noble
Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he
would have any objection to lay on the table any
correspondence between himself and the Spanish Govern-
ment on the subject of Cuba sugar?
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that he could not
have any objection to produce the correspondence re-
ferred to.

•---
Their Lordships then adjourned until Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, Feb. 13.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes before
Four o'clock.
PETITION FROM THE CITY—CORN-LAWS.
The Sheriffs of London, Messrs. Chaplin and Laurie,
appeared at the bar, clothed in their insignia of office,
and presented a petition from the Lord Mayor, aldermen,
and citizens of London, in Common Council assembled,
in which, after stating their approbation of the general
policy pursued by her Majesty's Ministers with respect
to the commercial interests of England, regretted that
the total repeal of the corn-laws was to be delayed for a
period of three years.
NEW WRIT.
A new writ was moved for by Mr. BERESFORD, for
North Nottinghamshire, in the room of Henry Gaily
Knight, Esq., deceased.
RAILWAY BUSINESS.
Lord DUNCANNON brought up the report on the
Manchester, Matlock, and Buxton Railway Bill, which
was ordered to be read a first time.
The following Railway Bills were read a second time,
and ordered to be committed:—Wakefield, Pontefract,
and Goole Railway (Methley, Askern, and Oakenshaw
branches) ; Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield,
Huddersfield, and Gcoole Railway ; Leeds and Bradford
Railway (alteration of levels in Bingley).
Mr. STRUTT brought under the notice of the House
the tact that several petitions for private Bills had been
received by the House in consequence of some irregu-
larity which they contained having been overlooked.
There were several instances where the standing order,
111 A, had not been complied with.
Mr. GREENE gave a notice of motion to the effect,
that in all cases of private Bills no petitions should be
received unless they had been prepared and properly
signed by the parties themselves.
Mr. ENT WISLE said, that complaints had fre-
quently. been made of the operation of the standing
orders in reference to matters of a minor and very trivial
nature, and parties were often put to enormous expense
by being compelled to attend here, and then all
that was lost by reason of the Bill being
thrown out upon some matter of a very trifling
nature, and they were told that they had been defeated
by a non-compliance with the standing orders. With
regard to what the Hon. Member for Lancashire had
said, he would just make this observation, that the
number of petitions was so great that it )s as quite
impossible for this House to 'take cognizance of the con-
tents of the whole of them. It would be well, there•
fore, if some measure were introduced to prevent this
useless expenditure of thousands of pounds before a Bill
had passed the standing orders.
Mr. STRUTT said his observations did not apply to
the Standing Orders' Committee, but to the omissions
of this House.
Mr. E. ELLIS said that much inconvenience had
arisen by reason of the vague manner itt which the
standing orders required the notice of a Bill to be in-
serted in the '° first part" of the petition, without defining
the particular part.
Mr. GISBORNE said he could not at all understand
on what grounds his Hon. Friend had submitted his
motion to the House. The House itself had established
certain rules, and they were neither few or unimportant,
with which all public companies were compelled to
comply. He believed they amounted to about 120 or 130,
the slightest infringement of any one of which was suffi-
cient to cause the rejection of their petitions ; and
now there were petitions presented to them by parties
who had only two standing orders to comply with.
He thought it, therefore, extremely unreasonable
to ask for this indulgence in the House, with-
out any notice having been given of the intention
to present them, although they concerned property to a
very large amount, and when in fact the House knew
no more about them than if they had just dropped from
the clouds. He could see no reason for assenting
to the roposal of his Hon. Friend,and if his motion was
persistepd in, he should certainly divide the House against

ments

him.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE begged to explain that the
resolution upon which the Committee had acted was
one which had been imposed by the House. It was not
founded upon any general apprehension of the standing
orders, but was a specific direction of the 111th clause.
Although many directions of the standing orders
were general in their character, yet, whenever any
particular rule of proceeding was to be observed, it was I
clearly laid down, as was the case in No. 9. The Com-
mittee, therefore, could not dispose of this case, and he
conceived the Hon. Member for Derby was perfectly
right in repeating it to the House, instead of disposing of
it summarily.
After a few observations from Sir GEORGE CLERK
and Mr. GISBORNE, which did not reach the gallery,
Mr. R. HODGSON said if the parties referred to had
made a mistake, they might petition the House to allow
them to rectify it. The case was precisely similar to one
which occurred in the House a few nights ago. The
27th order required that a list of the assents and dissents
to a Bill should be delivered to the Clerk for
Private Bills, who was desired to endorse the fact of
their receipt on the back of them. In the case
to which he referred, this endorsement had been
omitted. The parties petitioned the House to permit
them to rectify the mistake, which was granted. The
case was perfectly analagous, and the parties in this
case might adopt the same course.
The report was then ordered to lie on the table.
Sir JOHN YARDE BULLEII presented a petition
against the Birmingham and Leicester Railway Bill.
Mr. BARRY BALDWIN presented a petition against
the Direct Union Railway Bill.
Mr. VILLIERS gave notice, that he should, on
Wednesday next, move for a return of any direction of
the Poor-law Commissioners for the incorporation of the
parish of Farnham, in Surrey, with other parishes in
a poor-law union, and the copy of any memorial that
may be presented against it.
LORDS OF THE ADMIRALTY.
Mr. FEILRAND gave notice that he would, on Mon-
day next, put a question to. the Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of her Majesty's. Government, (if he should
then be in offiee)—(A lategh)—whether it was his inten-
tion to fill up two offices lately
.vacated—he alluded
to the offices of Lords esf the Admiralty—(Laughter)—
as, in the event of his not doing so, he (Mr. Ferrand)
should move that the offices be abolished as being quite
useless to the country.—(Renewed laughter.)
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice of his
intention to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet
the First Lord of the Treasury, as to whether it was the
intention of Government to propose any measure on the
subject of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
MERCHANT SEAUEN'S SOCIETY.
An HON. MEMBER inquired whether it was the inten•
tion of Government to bring froward any measure in
the present session in referetvie to the Merchant Sea-
men's Society, as the mater had been strongly recom-
mended to the considerition of the Legislature by two
Committees appointed ~m the subject?
Sir G. CLERIC 'Trilled that he bad been for some
time ail communicati4 with some of the most eminent
merchants on the question, end he hoped in a few days
to be able' to give a satisfactory answer to the question.
Mr. FOJ said he had no doubt the petition
spoke the sentiments of the Ship-owners' Society. He
must, boweve.r, prole st against these parties coming for-
ward in the wa,v they had done of late, and stating that
they spoke the sentia 'rents of the great body of ship-
owners. That; society had been invariably opposed
to relaxation.—(Che srs.) He was not, however,
opposed to discus sic ti on the subject of which
they complained, as the more they entered into the in-
vestigation they foul id. that they had no reason to com-
plain.
Mr. LIDDELL s: tid he was not desirous of bringing
on a discussion the a, but 'he could not allow the re-
marks of the II( inours,ble Member for Berwick
to pass without a repl T. It was his intention to make a sub-
stantive motion to the , silfact that the petition be printed, when
it would stand before th i Mouse on its own basis. The chair-
man of the General Society of Shipowners had signed the 1
peti!ion, and he believe rf h expressed the opinions of the whole
of the members of that t "body. It was a matter of little consc-
. queuee to him whether -Bon. Members said the petition was got
' up or not.— (II ear.) ;By printing it, it would be placed before
their observation. F ter :should take an early opportunity of re-
fen ing to the subject.
Mr. WALL said I Je lc is prepared to support the allegations
in the petition.
The petition w-
.O
then
o rdered to be printed.
It 'AILW AY DISTURBANCES.
Mr. JAI'
~. r 0 ABS asked the Right Hon. Bart. the Secre-
tory Pi •
444 t e, ;She had rece.lYed PY 9"16"911131 Qf li

savage affray which had taken place at Penrith, in the
county (.f Cumberland, between a number of Irish
labourers, who were armed with knives, sticks, and other
weapons; and to _such. an extent had this been carried,
that it had been difficult, with the assistance of the
.yeomanry cavalry, to preserve the peace of the district.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had received no official
information on the suLject.
Mr. EWART wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the President of the Board of Trade, whether he
had taken into his consideratir,n the necessity of obliging
railway companies to make some provision to prevent
the recurrence of such acts, and thus to protect the
public against the injuries likely to be sustained by
having some hundreds of these labourers scattered over
the country.
Sit G. CLERK made a remark across the table,
which was inaudible in the gallery.
WESTMINSTER- BRIDGE. _ _

Sir R. INGLIS said he had giveti.notice of his inten-
tion to put certain questions relative to Westminster-
bridge and the new Palace at Westminster. At the
close of the last session of Parliament he put several
questions upon these subjects. The Right Hon. Gentle •
man the First Lord of the Treasury then said he had
received certain communications on this subject. He now
wished to askw hether e communications comprised the
amount of money which had been expended in the repairs
of the bridge, if such a word could br applied to such
an object ; and whether the Government were prepared
to appoint a Committee, or object to the appointment of
a Committee, upon the subject?
Mr. CARDWELL said that the subject had been
carefully and fully considered by the Right Ilo•
nourable Gentleman at the head of her Majes-
ty's Government, and, after considering the report
of the Commissioners who had the care of Westmin-
ster-bridge, he did not think that there was sufficient
reason for building a new bridge. Instructions, however,
were given to the Commissioners to inquire into the
state of the bridge with respect to its security. The re-
port of the Commissioners did not recommend any alter-
ation in the bridge, nor did it recommend any further
steps to be t dun. Under these circumstances, seeing that
ample care had been taken with reference to the safety of
the public, he (Mr. Cardwell) hoped the Hon. Bart.
would not think it necessary to move for a Committee.
Sir R. H. INGLIS was not at liberty to say more
than that he thought the answer most unsatisfactory.
He would now, however, ask when it was likely that the
New Houses of Parliament would be ready to be occu-
pied ? He did not mean the room only in which
the Legislature was to meet, but the cOmmittee-rooms
and the other parts of the building. He wished
to know when they would be able to
have their accommodation in the new Houses
of Parliament—not merely into the room where they
were to sit, but also when the other apart-
w, uld be in a state of readiness ;

if the expectation which had been held out, that
the new Houses wonld be ready at the commence-
ment of the session of 1837, would not be realised? He
would also wish to know whether her Majesty's Govern-
ment would consent to appoint a Committee to ascertain
the cause of the delay?
Mr. CARDWELL—I have some reason to entertain
a doubt that the expectations with regard to the readi-
ness of the new Houses at the commencement of the
session of 1847 may possibly not be realised.—
(Laughter.) I am aware that some causes of delay
have occurred with regard to them, and in consequence
of those causes some postponement may take place, but
I can assure the Honourable Gentleman that every
exertion will be made to bring the works
to a completion without any unnecessary delay.
And I hope, in answer to the last part of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's question, that should the Houses not be in a
state of readiness at the expected time, be will not ap-
point the Committee to which he referred.
Mr. COLLETT begged to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
the Secretary of State for the ll3me Department if the
statements which had lately appeared in the public
papers in reference to an alleged loss which the revenue
had sustained by a flaw discovered in the recent Corn
Act were true, and if so, what course the Crown in-
tended to adopt in reference to the parties concerned ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that different constructions
had been put on the Act in question. The first decision
was in favour of the Crown. The parties afterwards
appealed from that decision, and by the judgment of
the Judges in the Court of Exchequer, that decision
was reverse d. Now, whether the case would proceed
further he was not prepared to say ; but the case, as
stated in the newspapers, was considerably exaggerated.
It was then agreed that the House at its rising,
should stand adjourned till Monday.
CORN-LAWS.

Lord MORPETH presented a petition, numerously
signed, in favour of a total and immediate repeal of the
corn-laws.
Mr. RAIKES. CURRIE presented a petition from
Northamptonshire in favour of a total and immediate
repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition against the
abolition of the corn-laws.
Mr. HUME presented several petitions from dif-
ferent places, one of which was from the linen ncann-
facturers of Reading, praying for a total and immediate
repeal of the corn-laws. The petitioners stated that
the Legislature afforded no protection to their trade,
and they, therefore, did not think it was just to protect
agriculture.
Mr. L A.BOUCHERE presented a petition to a similar

effect.
Mr. B. SMITH presented a petition from the city o
Norwich to the same effect.
Sir J. M'TAGGART presented a petition to the
same effect.
An Hem MEMBER presented twelve petitions from
Hampshire in favour of protection to agriculture.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE presented a petition, pray-
ing for total and immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a numerously signed pe-
tition from the inhabitants of Cockermoutb, in which
the petitioners stated that, although the proposal of Go
vernment was in many respects defective, yet as
a whole they looked upon it as a good measure, and they
thereore prayed the House to pass it into a law. Ile
had also another petition from the inhabitants of Egre-
mont, in Cumberland, praying for a total and immediate
repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. E. BARRINGTON presented a petition in favour
of agricultural protection.
Mr. G. BANKES said he had a petition to present
from the inhabitants of the county of Dorset. That
petition was agreed to at a public meeting of that
county, regularly convened after a long notice, and the
meeting was of so extensive a nature, that no hall in the
county-town, or street in that county-town, was capable
to contain the number of those who attended.—(Minis-
terial cheers.) The consequence was, that they ad-
journed to a plain without the town, and at that meet-
ing the petition which he was about to present was
agreed to.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE presented several petitions
in favour of a total repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. B. ESCOTT presented several petitions from
Suffolk in support of the Government measure, with the
exception that they prayed the repeal of the corn-laws
might be immediate.
Sir A. BROOKE presented a petition from *Lanark in
favour of a repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. PHILIP MILES presented a petition from the
county of Devon against the commercial policy of the
Government, and stating that the present corn-laws had
entirely answered the end for which they were pro-
posed, and praying that no alteration be made in them.
Mr. BRIGHT presented petitions from the county of
Durham and Wiltshire in favour of a repeal of the
corn-laws.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition in favour of the
Government measure, from Sunninghill ; also one from
Fifeshire, for a total repeal of the corn-laws.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for the adjourned Debate
being read,
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said that he was sure
the Right Honourable Gentleman at the head of her
Majesty's Government would understand his objec-
tion to the measure now before the House. It
was his intention to vote against the measure
for the purpose of protecting agriculture. The present
combination of parties was a significant circumstance.
He had uniformly voted against a repeal of the corn-
laws in the House, and he (Sir Howard Douglas) had no
r, ason to regret his having done so, although lie had
re-considered all he had said and heard stated on that
measure. He had nothing to regret, except that he could
only imperfectly speak his sentiments on that subject, to
hich he had given his most dispassionate considera-
tion. He could not, in consequence, concur in the
measure of the Right Hon. Baronet, on which he would
take leave to make a few observations. It VV as true
there was a stop put to the exportation of
British and Irish produce in the year 1844.
The period which the Right Hon. Baronet had taken
was that of the lowest depression, he meant the year
1842. It was very material to inquire what were the
causes of that depression. He believed that the solution
sesypsetcetni extension
twoh
ctlht
eprevailed in their
wouldpmanufactures,ower b; e
bfouut nintdh the
rt
he
l as cwhsa n i
the
el
of
fornm-
Right Hon. Baronet had himself admitted that no
alteration of the corn-laws would remedy evils in-
separable from the commercial system he had already
referred to. Thus, he admitted that the corn-
laws were not the cause of the depression. In
1844 the exportation to foreign countries was not
so great as in many years. With respect, for
instance, to Russia, it was greater in 1837, and
as regarded France, the case was nearly similar.
Ile should be sorry to attempt the repeal of protection,
or the relaxation of restrictive duties. When he first
appeared in Liverpool, and avowed the principle of pro-
tection, he admitted his readiness to alter and
modify it so as to make it of advantage to the
general interest, and as little hurtful as pcs-
sible to individual rights; but he was now called
upon not to modify or surrender protection, but abso-
lutely to extinguish it. Protection had never been de-
voted to the interests of any particular class of persons,
and far less had it been devoted to the interest of
any class which he had the honour to represent.
It was his principle to protect all classes of
artizans without distinction—to protect labour when
the labour market was in that state of severe de-
pression which it so frequently experienced. When
he perceived the Government about to rush into
a measure by which native industry, unprotected,
was made to compete with the protected industetrci:
of
foreign states, without even much capital ttol r_
171 e was
he felt it necessary to enter his protea indeed any
s
s
not going to discuss the relation—if qlethrcew
r.
relation—between the price of food and
he wopuldice leaveoflabour the
He would not take up nnlehtlmwea's
erfectl
py convinced
question in abler hands, but he
1 w would the roduc-
that a repeal of the cormnal- a .
nufactures din lace p
every market
tions of British
in the world to whichthe British merchant had access.
1 another remarkable deduction from the paper
He fount
which lie bad referred, and that was an unlimittd
to
irporstion 9f corn did not by any megus