The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-29 00:00:00

THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK•

Mr. HENLEY, seeing the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr.
I'. Duncombe) in his place, wished to know whether it was his
intention to make the motion of which he had given notice for
to-night with respect to his Highness the Duke of Brunswick ?
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that it had been his intention
to bring forward the motion to-night, hut, in consequence of
it being arranged that the debate on the Sugar Duties
Bill should take precedence of notices of motion, he was
afraid he should not be able to do se. He regretted this ex-
tremely, as the subject was one of great importance, and he
should be unable to bring it forward before this day fortnight,
on which day he was afraid the House would be little ►nclined to
appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations con-
tained in the petition of his Highness the Duke of Brunswick ;
he had therefore no alternative but to postpone his motion to
the earliest stay he could bring it forward next session.
OUTRAGE ON BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Thomas
Brodigan, Esq., Milton llouse, County Meath, a magistrate of
that county, complaining of the outrage which took place at
Jerusalem on Good Friday last, and of the personal danger to
which he, in conjunction with other British subjects, was then
exposed (fully detailed in the correspondence which appeared
in the Second Edition of The Sun of the 341 instant), and
praying that effectual measuris might be adopted by the
Government here which will occasion the Sublime Porte to
direct its attention to the repression of such outrages, and thus
protect British travellers in the East.
ARMY ESTIMATES.
- -

Captain LAYARD, seeing the Secretary at War in his
place, was desirous of knowing when it was his intention to
bring forward the army estimates?
Mr. FOX MAULE said if nothing unforseen occurred, it
was his intention to bring them on neat Monday.
Mr. GEORGE BANKES gave notice that on the third
reading of the Poor-law Removal Bill he should propose to add
clawie.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN seeing the President of the
Board of Trade in his place, wished to ask him whether he
should continue to devote as much attention to agricultural
statistics in office as he did out?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. M. GIBSON said, in answer to the question of the
Hon. Member behind him, he begged to say that he had reason to
believe from papers he had seen at the Board of Trade that the
subject of agriculture had undergone considerable attention in
that department, and so far as himself was concerned he should
be most happy to continue his attention to this subject.
COLONIAL LAND SALES. _ .

- -
Mr. DIVETT wished to ask the Ur.der Secretary for the
Colonies whether it was or was not the intention of the
Colonial Office to sanction the regulation made on the 3d day
of March last, by the Governor of South Australia, respecting
future land sales in that colony, which, according to the last
report of the Colonisation Commissioners, would seem to have
been drawn up under the direction of Lord Stanley, and in
contravention of the decision of this House upon the Land Bill
introduced by order of that Noble Lord ?

Mr. HAWES was understood to say that dispatches having
reference to the subject had not yet arrived at the Colonial
Office, and he could not inform the Honourable Gentle-
man what would be done until they arrived.
Mr. HOPE said, he might be irregular, but he felt inclined
to make one or two observations on the question which had
been asked ; and first, on the terms in which the notice had
been given. He found no fault with the first part of
that notice, but when it proceeded, " which, accorting to the
last report of the Colonisation Commissioners, would seem I o have
been drawn up under the direction of Lord Stanley, and in
contravention of the decision of this House upon the Land
Bill introduced by that Noble Lord." Now this, he thought,
was simply a speech put into the notices, and a speech with-
out an opportunity of answering. He submitted that this was
a most improper exercise of the privilege of giving notice.
But he had to find fault with the question in the substance of
it, for it was not founded in fact.
Mr. DIVETT begged merely to say that whether he had
acted discreetly or not, the question, in fact, was founded
strictly in fact.