The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1835.

estimate of the contingent expenses of the mission. He then,
stated that when these returns were laid before the House, it
MRS his intention to question the propriety of the course
adopted by the British Government with respect to the subject.
Mr. .C. FE RGUSSON said that the existence not alone of
the British rule in India, but also of the peace of Europe, de-
pended upon the obstacle which it opposed to the policy of
Russia in the Court of Persia. The only question which
eould arise on the subject of the mission in his opinion was
whether it was sufficiently provided for by the 20,0001.; which
he understood was apportioned for it. He thought ,that sum
insufficient, and he therefore implored his Majesty's Govern-
ment to increase it, if it were deemed in the slightest degree
necessary. He had much pleasure in stating that through
the admirable conduct of the individual at the head of the
mission, the English interest, heretofore little consulted at
the Persian Court, was now paramount even to that of Russia;
that by his mediation the present Khan was firmly established
on the throne of his father, and that through/the means of this
mission the power of Russia was likely to be greatly checked,
if not paralyzed, in that important quarter.
Mr. HUME said that one of the objects which he had in,
view in moving kr these papers was to question the policy
and principle of supplanting the former residents at that
Court, British officers long resident in the East, by individuals
who had-never been in that quarter during their lives.
Mr. SHE IL said that Mr. Ellice, the head of the mission,
had been a long while in India, and the East generally, and
filled various important stations there, He approved of the
selection because he thought that the questions to be dealt
with were rather of a civil than a military nature.
Motion agreed to.

MALT.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the number of quarteis
of Malt used in distillation in each kingdom, in each year,
from the 10th of October, 1832, to the 10th of October, 1834.
Also a return of the total quarters of Malt made, and total
duty charged thereon, in each kingdom, in the year ending the
10th of October, 1834.
Colonel SIBTHORP said—The Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex was the almauack as well as the omnibus of the House
—( Laughter)—for he bad no less than eighteen motions for
returns on the list of the night, many of which were of a very
extensive character. He hoped the Hon. Member's consti-
tuents would find no fault with his mode of economizing the
public, time and public money.—( Laughter.) As the question
alluded to Malt he (Colonel Sibthorp) should read two let-
ters to the House which he had received that morning from two
practical agriculturists—one paying 3,0001. a year rent—on
the subject. The first began, "My dear Colonel," and con-
gratulated the Hon. and Gallant Member on his vote with the
majority, expressing the belief of the writer that the Govern-
ment look the right course with reference to that tax. The
second was to the same general effect ;, but it alio added that
the Marquis of Chandos's speech was "great nonsense, and
all fudge."—(Much laughter.) The Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber concluded by.congratulating the House on the division it
had come, to on the subject of the Malt tax, and expressing a
hope that the Hon. Member for Middlesex would not oppose
the return he meant to move for, especially as he had eighteen
motions of his own on the paper.—( Laughter. )
Mr. HUME said that the Hon. and Gallant Member was
in one respect like Jack Falstaff—(laughter)—for he had ime-
tamorphosed his ()Mr. Hume's) .seven motions into cighteen.
He had only seven altogether.—( Laughter.) Two of these
seven motions were designed to prove that the Malt Tax might
be repealed without adding a single shilling, to the burd;ns of
the country. The Gallant Colonel had, he believed, pledged
himself to his constituents on the Malt. Tax ; therefore he
thought as lie lived in a glass house he should not throw stones.
. Colonel SIBTH ORP denied having given any pledge in
his life.

Motion agreed to.
Mr. HUME then moved for an account of the Advertise.
ment Duty, assessed monthly on each paper in Ireland, from
January 5, 1834, to January 5, 1835, of the sums paid monthly
by each paper, and of the total arrears due on each paper for
Advertisement Duty on January 5, 1835 ; for a return of the
name of each stamp distributor in Ireland, the balance of cash
acknowledged in their weekly and quarterly accounts, the
balance in their hands on inspection since July, the amount of
their receipts, and the amount of their salaries and emolu-
ments for the same year ; for an account of the establishment
of the Excise of the United Kingdom on the sth of January,
1831, so as to exhibit the particulars of the whole expendi_
ture of 1,212,1611. charged for it in that year, together with
an account of the reductions and alterations in the department
by which it was reduced in 1833 to 1,078,6021. ; and for h re-
turn of the salary, fees, and emoluments of the Master of the
Faculties, Principal and Deputy Registrars, and Vicar:•General
in Doctors' Commons, from the Ist of January, 1834, to the
Ist of January, 1835, together with the date and nature Of the
appointments of the Principal and Deputy Registrars, and
their duties.—All of which were agreed to.
Mr. HUME then moved for a return of the gross amount
of taxes repealed in 1833 and 1834.
(TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. GOULBURN, in the absence of his Hon. and Gat:
lant Friend Sir H. Hardinge, moved that so much of his
Majesty's Speech as related to the adjustment of tithes in Ire-
land should be taken into consideration on the sitting of the
House to-morrow (this day). ---
Mr. HUME inquired whether the plan of Reform in the
Irish Church would be entered into at the same time ?.

Mr. GOULBURN replied in the affirmative. The sub-
ject would take precedence of all other public business, and be
brought on as soon after five o'clock as possible.
EMIGRATION TO NORTH AMERICA. •
Mr. GL AD STONE moved for leave to bring in a Bill ko
repeal the Act of 9 Geo. IV., chap. 21, for regulating the
carriage of passengers in merchant vessels to the Continent
and islands of North America, and t- make further provisiim
for regulating the same. The Bill he proposed-to introduce
asserted no new principle, and merely modified 'the provisions
of the one to be repealed by it. The quettion involved' was
one of no small importance to the community. In 1831 the
number of emigrants from this country to the Canadas and
the Islands was 51,000. He needed not, therefore, impress
upon the House that anything which affected the comforts of
such a yearly average number was worthy of its attention,
especially when it was borne in mind that- they were of the
poorest condition in the community. In 1828, when the Emi-
gration Bill was before the House, it was notorious that the
Honourable Member for Middlesex, along with other Ho-
nourable Members, had opposed it ; he trusted, however,
that the beneficial results which had arisen from the measure
would have the effect of disarming all opposition to the
amendment, which was the purpose of his (Mr. Gladstone's)
Bill. The provisions of his Bill were comparatively few, and
he would give a brief outline of them to die House. In' the
first instance, it was found that under the present system the
emigrants, during the voyage, and on their-Arrival, were sub-
jected to a variety -of restrictions and expenses, which, as
they generally possessed but small means, were, in most
cases, destructive to their future prospects. This was one of
the' abuses which his Bill proposed to remedy. The next pro-
vision of the Bill would make it compulsory on owners an&
masters of vessels to retain emigrants; •at their 4ption, forty-
eight hours on board after their arrival. The reason of this
provision was to be found in the expense and inconvenience
which these poor people experienced on being thrust out like'
the beasts of the field into a strange place without lodging or
shelter. It was, therefore, most desirable that they should
have the privilege of remaining on board the vessel for a pe-
riod after their arrival, and this period he thought should in
no case be less than forty-eight hours. The third provision
of the Bill proposed to alter the rates of passengers, permit-
ted in proportion to the tonnage of a- vessel. By the exist.
ent Act, for every five tons register a vessel was permitted to
carry four passengers; and for every four tons, three. The'
Bill he proposed to introduce would only give three passen-
gers for every five tons, a number the result of a medium
struck between the extreme terms of opposite statements. A
ship registered 300 tons was, by the law as it now stood, em-
powered to carry 225 passengers ; the Bill proposed to limit
the number to 208, that being the mean .between the num-
bers suggested by Mr. Bonham, our Consul in America, and
the London Shipowners' Society. The Bill next proposed to
increase the quantity of provisions. Vessels were compelled
to carry from fifty pounds of bread per man to seventy pounds..
It also proposed to prohibit all wines and spirits, except for
medicinal purposes, to the sailors on board these vessels. He
then proposed that every ship carrying over one hundred pas-
sengers should be provided with a surgeon, and that every craft
carrying under that number should be provided with a medi-
cine chest. Next, that the master should be responsible for
the contracts entered into with emigrants by the accredited
agents of owners, for the reason that much misery had re-
cently resulted from a non-fulfilment of these contracts by '
agents in some of the outposts. It was but • justice to
these poor people that the owners should be responsible for
the acts of their agents, and the master would be the indivi-
dual most accessible in a foreign country, or even at home. It
finally proposed to make the penalties inflicted by the Bill re-
coverable by summary process before two magistrates in this
country, or any of his Majesty's colonies., These were the
main features of the Bill, and he hoped the House would per-
mit hint to bring it in. He should not refer to any documents
of which he possessed an abundance, to prove the necessity of
ttpthohoteesailAtmi
aocemnta so(; uuirbBneut2,
t 843
a rpt ousritpnhocesee rteohtfeu rdpni
ass
spsroi
disproving
vgit
nhogef
as)f het lebshould shouldemigrationrepme
aallrsnees
dul
ey,mafeochr alludeitthy
eewould meet with no op-
e
the arguments then generally adduced against all. legislative
interference with the subject :

1828
1829
1830
In 1833 and 1834 there was rather a diminution,- but 'that was
entirely attributable to the, improved state of the country.
These numbers proved that the liaising of the Act had not
decreased, as it was asserted it would, emigration from this
country ; but, on the contrary, materially increased it.
Mr. HUME said that it was true he had opposed the Bill
of 1828, because he believed that all minute legislative inter-
ference on such subjects were vicious as well as unneces;ary,
He thought that there were three duties which it was impera-
tive upon the Government to perform. The first was to see
that the vessels carrying emigrants were trust-worthy, and not
what was commonly called coffin ships; the second was to see
that the emigrants were protected from imposition by fair con-
tracts with those that conveyed them ; and the third was to
take care that the vessels had on board adequate provisions to
the length of the voyage and to the number ofpassengers.
i Mr. BARING thought that interferenee 'n such matters
was,not desirable except where, from peculiar circumstances,
it became indispensable. The principle.of the grievances to
be remedied by legislation was the disproportion between the
number of passengers and the space of accommodation. Last
year seventeen vessels had been wrecked, and seven hundred
lives of emigrants had been sacrificed, and the accidents had
almost all arisen from improvidence and mismanagement. He
thought it the duty of the House to interfere in behalf of those
that were so helpless. He knew ,that. it was the habit of the
captains of these ships to keep a gin shop'on board, so that if I

the ship were not-lost by accident arising from intoxication,
prop-e'rty of the emigrants was sure to be exhausted
before they. arrived at the place of destination. The Right
Hon. Member proceeded to describe the wretched state of the
Irish emigrants who embarked in these vessels, and concluded
by saying that the better way would be to bring in the Bill,
and to let the House consider its provisions.
Mr. RUTHVEN warmly protested against the descrip-
tion which the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade
had given of the wretched condition of the Irish emigrants.
Lord SANDON defended the Right Hon. Gentleman op-
. posite from the unwarrantable attack of the Hon. Member for
Dublin.

Sir. R. BATE SON corroborated the statement made by
the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade as to the
condition of the Irish emigrants, and on the part of the poor
of Ireland he returned most corcial thanks to the Hon. Meth
ber for introducing the Bill.
Mr. P. STEWART thought that the Bill would be use-
ful in all its branches. He thought the sea-worthiness of the
ships ought to be ascertained by Government officers on their
responsibility.
Mr. BARNARD concurred with the observation of the
Hon. Member who had just sat down.

Mr. E WART wished that Government could make some
arrangement for the reception of the emigrants when they ar •
rived at the place of destination.
After a few observations from Mr. O'DWYER leave was
given to bring in the Bill.