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

summer assizes in the years 1843, 1844, 1845, and
1846 respectively, giving the names of the parties ac-
cused, the nature of the crime with which they were
charged, and the proceedings in each case, i. e.,
whether the bill of indictment was found a true
bill or ignored ; whether the party accused
was tried, and at what time ; and the result
of the trial, whether in conviction, or acquittal, or the
disagreement of the jury; a return of all memorials or
applications for the aid of the civil or military power in
each ccunty in Ireland for the same period, specifying
the dates thereof respectively, and the names of the me-
morialists in each case ; also a return of the number of sti-
pendiary magistrates and constabulary appointed to any
district in Ireland, within the said period, in consequence
of such applications or memorials.—Agreed to.
MII)DLETON POOR-LAW UNION.

Mr. O'CONNELL moved " That the petition from
the Middleton Poor-law Union (presented 23d February),
be printed with the votes."—Agreed to.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped that, although the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment had intimated very properly that he intended
to proceed with the Corn Bill in the first instance,
to the exclusion of other articles in the tariff,
there was one which he trusted would be
excepted from this general rule—that was Indian maize.
This was an article of very great importance, and likely
to contribute very largely to the support of the poorer
classes or the community. He trusted, therefore, the
Right Hon. Baronet would not include this in the same
category with the other articles of the tariff.
Sir R. PEEL to this inquiry made no reply.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

On the motion that the order of the day should be read
for the resumption of the adjourned dtb"ate,
Mr. ROEBUCK said that before the order of the
day was read for the resumption of the adjourned
debate, he begged to ask of the Honourable Gentle-
man opposite what time this debate was likely to
be brought to a conclusion; and the reason for his put-
ting this question was, because he had found that an
Hon. Gentleman had consumed two hours and a half the
other night of valuable time of the House in a
disquisition which had to do with anything
and every thing but the subject of the de-
bate. He thought that this was not the way
in which the valuable time of the House ought to be
wasted. Certainly it was not the way in which to pro-
mote the character of the House for decency, order, or
anything that was great. For two mortal hours and a
half had the Hon. Gentleman gone on to rake up by-
gone speeches of Members upon the Treasury bench from
newspapers and all the other receptacles of public mattere,
in order to establish a point, which, after all, had no-
thing in the world to do with the subject of the debate.
He trusted that the party represented by the Gentlemen
on the Opposition benches were not reduced to the ex-
tremity of using language which was at the same time
inappropriate and abusive, and that they would not sub-
stitute for argument that which, however it might
tend to intimidate, could Lever convince, and which
was equally unworthy of their cause, and of the respect
which was due to that House. He (Mr. Roebuck) felt
himself reduced to the use of periphrases by the rules of
the House, instead of using those expressions with which
he felt it right to characterise this proceeding ; but the
difficulty was not created by him, but by that person on
the other side of the House, by whom it had
been adoptedo—(Cries of " Order, order," and con-
fusion on the protection benches) Do you cry order,
said the Hon. Member for Bath, when such conduct is
reprobated, why did not you cry order when the violence
was committed ? He feared that the cause which was to
be belstered up by such fanatical catering was but badly
based on facts. For two mortal hours and a half that
individual had consumed the time of the House in
a tirade, which was, only after all, an expression
of his own opinion. And what was that opinion worth ?
He would take the rule of his own profession, and ask
what any man in the country would give for that opi-
nion ? 11 hy, rot a guinea, nor half-a-guinea, nor half-a-
croe n, nor a shilling ; not a penny, nor half-a-farthing.
And yet this was the way that Honourable Gentlemen
presumed to trifle with the time of the House. He thought
that this was not the way in which to conduct the debate on
a great question, or likely to increase the character of the
House in the country. He did hope that the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite would have something better than
this to propose ; and if the division were not to be
taken to night, that they, would lay before the House
matter worthy of consideration, and substitute something
like argument in the place of vulgar hatred, expressed in
violent and vulgar language.—(Opposition cheers.)
Sir R. INGLIS felt that the observations of the Hon.
Member for Bath had been both injudicious and uncalled
for. He accused him of erroneous representations—he
accused him of unnecessary opprobrium—he accused
him of instituting a most inconvenient prece-
dent ; and, still more, of having taken advantage of
the ab,ence of the Honourable Member to whom he
referred, which were equally inapplicable and improper.
fie (Sir R Inglis) only rose for the purpose of protest-
ing against the use of personalities, which frequently
were indulged in to too great an extent ; and he hoped
that when the lion. Gentleman next addressed the
House he would be more guarded in the use of his ob-
servations.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT agreed with the Hon. Baronet that
the present was not the time for entering into a discus
sion on the ground of personality ; but, at the same
time, he was anxious to say a few words as regarded the
attack made by .the Hon. Member for Knaresborough on
a friend of his, Mr. George Wilson, chairman of the
Anti-Corn-law League.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member for Knaresborough had asserted that what he
put forward as fact was true, and what he stated as in-
ference might be relied on; but his statements and his
inferences might all be taken as utterly untrue.—
(Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.) Mr. Wilson had never called
a meeting of the starch manufacturers: he never presided
at a meeting of the kind, nor was he a party in a de-
putation that waited on the Government to obtain
protection for their manufacture. The starch manu-
facturers wanted no protection ; and Mr. Wilson
would be the last man to associate him-
self with any deputation for such a purpose.
He could tell the Hon. Member for Knaresborough that
there was one misfortune against which he ever had to
contend, and that was, that his statements were never
susceptible of proof.—(hear, hear.)
Mr. COLQUHOUN said he felt certain that if the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough happened to be in his
place, he doubted not he would not shrink from the proof
of his assertions : and he should say that he did not
think it fair to attack that Honourable Gentleman in his
absence, as he doubted not he could defend every state-
ment and assertion made by him.—(Cries of " Oh, oh,"
from the Opposition Members.)
a;leemwbaeyrs at that side of the
Lord MORPETH and Dr. BOWRtloNtcheiolasteteart, twhheosasamhei
formereilasoo g
nnto complain of the course pur-
suedmber for Knaresborough in this
heeH moment,
mu conceived
seHouse
yt
had
abtduh teg the
he that
Hon.great
r m e
debate. Some very serious charges had been made by
that Hon. Member against a gentleman, who was re-
markable alike for the kindness of his heart, and the
benevolence of his disposition. He meant his friend, Mr.
Henry Ashworth—(Hear, hear)—who had been desig-
nated by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, as a
person capable of acts of cold-blooded atrocity, and as
such he hail been processionised before this House.—
(l
ie
ar. ) 0
fNkonwo
knowing
g( Disrirß.
Ashworth,oring) had hadand
mi
of
thesomeoppor-
tunities
state
things that existed in the vicinity of Bolton a few years
ago, upon which he a ouldwish to make a few observes
lions ; but previous to doing so, he had written noter
to the Noble Lord the Member for Newark, and another
Lion. Member, in order to ascertain from themselve
whether they were prepared to make any charges
against his friend. They were not here at presentj
but be begged to say that the charges of
the Honourable Member for Knaresborough were
altogether untrue ; and he begged to add, that if any
Member of that House should, more than another, be
scrupulous about making statements in this House, m ith-
out proofs to sustain them, it was the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough—(Hear, hear)—and it would be well for
him if his assertions were characterised by less boldness.
Captain VIVIAN said he rose for the purpose not of
prolonging this discussion, but of closing it until to-mor-
row night, when he hoped to see the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough in his place.
Lord MORPETH said that in the discussion that had
taken place with reference to the statement made by
the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—viz. that
the operatives were compelled by their masters
to sign petitions in favour of the repeal of
the corn-laws—he felt it necessary to say a
few words. At the time that this statement was made,
he had in his pocket a letter from the workmen of a
factory called the Union Mill, which letter had bees
written in consequence of some reports, of a similar
tendency with the assertion of the Honourable Member,
having been circulated in the House. The letter stated
that not only were the workmen under no compulsion
of the kind, but they were even more anxi▪
ous than their
employers for the repeal of the corn-laws. He had also
received other letters of a similar tendency.
An Hole. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn)
moved for a new writ for the borough of Bridport in
room of Mr. Bailey Cochrane, who had accepted the
Chiltern Hundreds.
Mr. BRIGHT presented several petitions from Staley-
bridge, and other places, in favour of the repeal of the
corn-laws.
Mr. ROSS rose to speak, but in consequence of
the confusion occasioned by Honourable i Members leav-
ing the House he was inaudible n the gallery.
He would for one moment allude to the speech of the
Hon. Member for Northamptonshire. That speech was
characterised by strength and elegance of
diction, but the arguments it contained were
fallacious. The cardinal proposition of that speech was
that the labourer was entitled to protecti▪
on. The Hon.
Member said that property was entitled to protection, and
as the labour of the labourer was his property, ergo, he
was entitled to protection. That was a perfect
fallacy, for how could they, for one moment, com-
pare property in lands and houses to the property
of the labourer, which was his labour only ?
If then this argument would not avail as regarded the luxuries
of life, of what avail can such an argument bewith reference
o the most important article of human subsistence—bread?
Reference had been made to the wisdom of.our ancest?rs, and
pr.otection had existed in
we have been told that a system of
, this country for upwards a' two centuries. The Hon. Member
then read an extract from a work which had been written two
hundred years, to the effect that trade tended to increase the
food of the people, and it was necessary therefore to give as much
freedom to trade as possible. There
_re also at
.that
time many kindred minds n !hwee same suhiect.
Ile was not there to defend the measures in order to
obta
iin hts
seat, but he was selected at the period of the last dissolution in
consequence of the opinions which lie had alw.ys expressed.d
,
and he did
consider • which had been forced upon him byreflection,
consider that it would be better for all parties,
for the labourers,
country gentlemen, and artizans, that, if it were possible, the
corn-laws should be got rid of by
a gradual repeal.—(llcar. )
In the opening speech of the Right Honourable Bapaet, an
i
article was referred to which afforded a good illustration of his
argument. He alluded to the article of flax,
and h e felt con-
vinced that if the protective duty had remained on it the trade ,
would not Aoarith at it now did. In the county of Armagh