The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-14 00:00:00

informed him that she preferred murderers and thieves.
(Laughter.) Most of the murders were committed
from j,al,mmy and the objects of their jealousy being re-
moved she found them excellent domestic servants.

Mr. MANGLES hoped no change would be made
without consulting the East India Company, and espe-
cially the Governor-General of Ind a. If after that her
Majesty's Government considered it desirable to make a
change the East India Company would offer no objec-
tion.

STADE DUES.
Mr. JOHN LEWIS RICARDO moved that an
humble address be presented to her Maje,ty, respect-
fully representing the injury to British Commerce in-
flicted by the tax levied by Hanover on merchandise and
shipping ascending the river Elbe, under the denomina-
tion of the Stade Dues, and praying that her Majesty
will be pleased to give directions to her Ministers to
give notice the termination of the Treaty between
the Un ted Kingdom and Hanover, of the 22nd day of
July, 1841. according to the terms of the Bth article of
that Treaty. These dues were a serious impediment to
the commerce of this country. They had been e,tahlished
800 years ago, under a state of things which had long
passei away. They were paid to Hanover for permis-
sion to navigate the Eloe to Hamburg, for which Ha-
never performed no service whatever. The collection of
the dues compelled vessels to carry two sets of papers,
and amounted, on some kind of goods, to nearly the
cost of the freight, and on other kinds to much more.
Ho urged the Government to give notice of the abroga-
tion of the treaty under which this iniquitous tax was
leuied, which was a disgrace to the present state of civi-
lisation in the world. •
Mr. B. MOORE seconded the motion, rho dues ought
not any longer to be submitted to by this country.
Mr. HENLEY would be very glad to see the toll pro-
perly got rid of, but before notice was given of 'putting an
end to the treaty, the subject should be considered—as the
Sound dues had been —by a committee of that house. The
inquiry would not take very long.
Lord PALMERSTUN denied the analogy of these dues
with the Sound dues. It was a question how far the
Stade dues were legal. This was not a question for a com-
mittee, but for the Executive Government, acting under
the advice of their law officers. On the other hand, we
.

_..... ._ ,
should carefully see what would be the effect of abrogating
the present law, before we gave notice to terminate it.
He thought that the Government ought serioudy to con-
sider the question.
Mr. CLAY said that at present much of the trade of
Hamburg with this country was now diverted to Stettin,
a much lees convenient locality, in consequence of this tax.
The matter was urgent, and should be dealt with at once.
The evil lay not only in the money payment, but in the
delay and inconvenience caused by their collection. He
believe i that the dues might be bought for 200,0J0/.
Mr. HUTT inveighed against the impolicy and injus-
tice of the toll. Hanover did nothing for the navigation
of the Elbe, which was entirely defrayed by the city of
Hamburg. The only mode of getting rid of the toll was
by buying it up.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON contended that before any
proper conclusion could be arrived at a committee of in-
quiry was necessary. He hoped that the offer of the Go-
vernment would bo accepted. The dues on cotton from
Hull to Hamburg amounted to 128 per cent. upon the
freight.
Mr. BRISCOE thought that the legality of the tolls

should be first ascertained.
Lord ASHLEY thought that the only way of getting
rid of these objectionable dues was by purchase. The
great evil lay in the delay and annoyance.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that there was no disposi-
tion on the part of the Government to delay bringing
the question to a satisfactory conclusion. Not only on
account of the amount, but of other circumstances, it was
desirable that the tax should be speedily put an end to.
He contended that there were many questions connected
with this subject besides that of legality, and that these
could only be properly decided by a committee.
Lord HOTS 1M likewise advocated reference to a com-
mittee as the only way of forming a just conclusion.
Mr. J. L. RICARDO, in reply, said that he had not
much confidence in a committee. His facts had not been
refuted, and therefore his motion ought to have been
agreed to. Still, under the circumstances he had no
alternative except to accept the committee, before which
he should prove all the facts he had advanced.
After a few words in explanation from Lord PALMER-
STON,
Mr. COWPER asked what would be the precise ques-
tion submitted to the committee?
Mr. HENLEY said that all the facts of the case would
first be ascertained, after which the opinion of the law
offieersof the Crown would be ascertained.
The motion was withdrawn, after an assurance from
Mr. HENLEY that the Government would propose a corn
mittee,

DESPATCH FROM INDIA.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Since the
house has been sitting this evening the Secretary of State
has received an important telegram from India, which per-
haps it may be agreeable to the house that I should read.
It is dated Malta, April 13th, and is addressed to Lord
Malmesbury from Consul-General Read. (The right hon.
gentleman here read the despatch announcing the capture
of Lucknow amidst loud cheers, which appears at length
in another column.)
RE WARDS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir J. TRELAWNY, in submitting the resolution of
which he had given notice, viz.: " That the receipt of any
species of reward by a member, in consideration of the ex-
ercise of his, influence in that capacity, is calculated to
lower the dignity and authority of this house, and is a high
breach of the privilege of Parliament," said that th )ugh
the motion was unquestionably founded upon certain cir-
cumstances which bad recently formed the subject of an
investigation before a select committee of the house, and
the evidence adduced in the course of that inquiry, he did
not propose in any way to impugn the decision to which
that committee had come. He felt that a reform in Par-
liament was necessary as a reform of Parliament. Any pre-
cedent set in that house would be followed by other bodies
in the kingdom.

Lord HoTHA 3I said that in the opinion of the public
such acts as those referred to iu the resolution had been
committed in that house, and it was necessary to put an
end to that opinion. It was believed that lawye:s who
were members of that house received on that account for
ordinary business larger fees than they would otherwise
receive. It was this imputation which he desired to see
destroyed. Ile thought that no member should be allowed
to interfere in that house in any matter in which he was
personally interested.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not think that any new resolution
on the subject was requisite. Their present rules were
sufficient, although things were often done which came
close to their violation. But the publicity of the transac-
tion would 1)3 a check on any flagrant abuse. Many mem-
bers of that house had been avowedly paid agents of the
colonies ; but as this was well known, no ill consequences
ensued. He feared that a new resolution would receive
wrong construction from the public, and hoped that the
present discussion would effect the purpose required.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD recommenled that the mat-
ter should be left as it was, seeing the difficulty of framing
new resolutions _

Mr. MELLOR said that there was no difficulty in dis-
tinguishing between what was right in the offer male to
lawyers in that house, and what was proposed with a false
and fraudulent intention. He hoped the house would be
satisfied with the discussion. Still if the motion was
pressed he should vete for it.
Mr. R. MANGLES thought that the sauce and opinion
of the house ought to be expressed in a manner which
could not be mistaken. Nothing short of this would pre-
vent natives of India from believing that members were
open to bribes.
Mr. W. J. FOX said that not only lawyers but members
interested in railways, and even in constituencies, suffered
their private interests to interfere with their conduct in
that house, Ho considered that the resolution would be
of great service.
Mr. BRIGHT said that former resolutions had been
passed after a member has been found guilty. By passing
the resolution they would only bo laying traps for them-
selves without doing any service to the purity of the
house. He opposed new resolutions made without specific

reasons.
Mr. WALPOLE said they should entirely separate. the
consideration of the particular subject which had been re- I
ferred to the late couatnitteo from the resolution before
them. If the hon. baronet intend: dbyit to impeach the
conduct of the hon. member for Youghal, he ought to have
specifically mentioned hiln. They could not refer to the pro-
ceeding before the committee as having probably induced
this motion. The hon. baronet ought to tell them clearl y
whether his object was to confirm an old or to establise
now rule; if the latter was the object he (Mr. Walpole)
thought no such rule was necessary. If Lhe object was to
confirm the old rule he would say the old rule of parlia-
ment was much bettor left in the breast of the house.
(Hear.) Any attempt to tie it up by new words would
only hamper their future course, and bring under it objects
to which it was never intended to apply. The discussion
had turned a good deal on the rules applicable to members
of the long robe—some rules applied to them, others to all
members. The rule applicable to members of the long robe
was very old—the resolution of 1663 was perfectly well
known. No member belonging to the legal profession
could be interested in any business pending in parliament,
or likely to be pending. So far was this carried that the
hon. member for Sheffield had been obliged to ask per-
mission to conduct the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill be-
fore the other house. Permission was granted, as it was
a public bill. Mr. Charles applied for permission to con-
duct a private bill, but was refused. The late Speaker
laid down the rule that such a permission might be granted
in ease of a public bill but not of a private one. Again,
the rule with regard to parliamentary agents had been
clearly laid down iu the ease of Mr. Daniel Whittle
Harvey. It was decided he could not transact any busi-
um., or take any share in that of his partner. The rule
was perfectly clear as regarded professional men, and any
person transgressing it was amenable to the house. He
might be reprimanded, censured, or, in a grave case ex-
pelled. 'There was no necessity for a new rule with regard
to the legal profession ; and if the resolution was intended
to apply to them they should have been specially men
tioned. With regard to the grave question as affecting
members in general, whether belonging to the legal pro-
fession or not, whether they were or were not now re-
strained by the clear regulation of parliamentfrnm receiving
any reward of any sort or kind to influence the exercise of
their parliamentary duties. There was such a rule, and
there was exception to it. from the oldest time down to
the present moment. In 1695 the house learned that
certain member., tho Speaker amongst them, had
received a largo sum of money for their services in
conducting the City of London Orphan Bill. The
house took no notice of the facts, expelled the Speaker,
Sir John Trevor (a gentleman of the long robe he was
so: ry to say), and Mr. Hunt, and reprimanded Mr. Guy.
What was their conduct with regard to the renewal of the
E set India Company's charter ? It was ascertained that
10i,000/. had been distributed by the East India Company,
and that a large portion of it had come into the hands of
members. The house did not wait for a resolution, but
settled the matter by expelling some and censuring others,
and directed the impeachment of the Duke of Leeds. The
resolution of 1695, which was then adopted, did not apply.
and was no• inten led to apply, to members, it was directed
agaiesi, theme who were bie end the house; it drew a dis-
tinction between the offer au.l the acceetence of the money.
The house knew it could deal with. its own n embers.
There was no necessity for this resolution if it was intended
merely to confirm the old rule ; if it was to intreduce a
new one it would only hamper and fetter tho house in the
exercise of its discretion on future occasions. It would be
much better to let the house be its own interpreter, and
deal with each particular case on its merits, rather than
hamper themselves with a set of wo-ds which would
give rise to a quibble whether any particular c,rse came
within them or not. lie entet teine.l a strong opinion
each particular else should be dealt with by holt'. That
could be done much more effectually and more readily by
the house when it arose, than by the adoption of a resolu-
tion which might or might not meet the particular case.
It would be safer for the house to act on its known. law