The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-29 00:00:00

which had been expressed on this subject by the Right Hon.
the President of the Board of Trade. He should therefore
oppose the introductiou of the proposed 8111. He admitted
the great extent of distress which prevailed among the hand-
loom weavers, and their right to relief; but he would give
them relief, not in the mode proposed, but by a reduction of
taxation, by lowering the price of corn, and by the imliosi-
tion of a property tax.—( Hear, hear.) In looking over the
evidence taken before the Committee, it appeared that one
grand remedy was suggested for the relief of the weavers,
and that was an alteration of the currency ; and believing
the proposed Bill to be only a step towards such an altera-
tion, he should give the motion for its introduction his op-
position. If the proposed Bill were to pass, and a minimum
rate of wages to be established, capital would be driven
from the trade, and the existing misery would be immeasu-
rably increased. In fact, it would be perfectly useless for
the Legislature to establish a minimum of wages, unless it
was also prepared to pass an Act of Parliament to compel
the master to continue to employ his workmen.—(Hear.)
He repeated that he should vote against the present propo-
sition, conceiving it to be fraught with mischief to the com-
munity.
Mr. ROBINSON said he should give his support to the
proposed Bill, because all other modes of giving relief to the
distressed labourers of the country had been refused by Par-
liament. He was ready to admit that nothing could be more
absurd than to attempt to establish a minimum rate of wages;
but it should be recollected that at least an equal absurdity
was committed by the Legislature, when it established, by
means of the corn laws a minimum price of bread. Unless the
Government were prepared to say that they would relieve the
poorer classes of the country by a repeal of the corn-laws, or a
commutation of taxes, he should support the motion for the in-
troduction of the Bill.
Mr. BAINES said that if the House established a minimum
rate of wages for the hand-loom weavers, i t would be bound
to follow that measure up by establishing a minimum rate for
the agricultural labourers. He believed that the proposed
Bill would have a pernicious effect on all classes of manufac-
turers. There was one mode of relief which the hand-loom
weavers had in their own power—they ought not to depreciate
the price of their labour by bringing up their children to the
same trade.
Mr. FIELDEN supported the motion.
Mr. M. PHILIPS opposed it, on the ground that the Bill
which it was proposed to introduce would afford no remedy
for the distress under which the hand-loom weavers were
labouring.
After a few words in reply from Mr. MAXWELL, the House
divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —BB
TURNPIKE TRUSTS.
Mr. MACKINNON, in moving pursuant to notice for a
Select Committee to consolidate turnpike trusts, and to raise
some other revenue for the roads than by toll, and to consider
other matters relative to turnpike trusts, observed, there were
other ways of raising- this tax than by levying it on those ex-
clusively who travelled along the roads, and it would be far
better imposed on horses and carriages. It was objected that
those who used the roads ought to pay for their being kept in
good order, but the benefit of good roads was extended as
much to the persons who only travelled by the steam-packet
to Margate as to those whose business kept them constantly
running to and fro upon them—poor men especially, such as
costermongers and others, and the tax operated most unequally.
The general consolidation of the trusts would effectually put
an end to local jobs, and 500,0001. a year would be saved to
the nation, by which means a debt of 9,000,0001., with which
the turnpike trusts were encumbered, might be paid off. He
begged the Noble Lord would grant him the Committee for
which he sought, and which he had long asked for.
Mr. F. MAULE objected to any further investigation of
the subject, after the repeated inquiries that had been made
into it by both Houses of Parliament. He certainly thought
the principle of consolidation of great importance ; but as to
raising a revenue for the roads otherwise than by toll, he must
hand the Hon. Member over to his Right Hon. Friend (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer). It was the intention of Govern-
ment to bring in a Bill on the* subject in the commencement
of the next session, and he therefore hoped the Hon. Member
would withdraw his motion for the present, while at the same
time be begged to thank him for the many hints he had given,
and to which he would not fail to pay attention next session.
Mr. MACKINNON, as courtesy was the order of the
night, consented to withdraw his motion.
In answer to a question by Mr. HAWES,
Mr. F. MAULE said, that if the Bill concerning the
consolidation of turnpike trusts with which he was charged
passed in the next session, the Sussex mid Surrey roads would
certainly be consolidated with the metropolitan trusts. If the
trustees of the Surrey and Sussex roads chose to undergo the
expense of introducing a separate measure for their own ma-
nagement, of course they might do so, but he would give them
fair notice that they would be included in the general mea-
sure intended to be introduced by the Government.
Mr. S. RICE then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
consolidate the offices of Paymaster of the Army, Paymaster
of the Navy, Paymaster of Chelsea Hospital, and Treasurer of
the Ordnance. The House was aware, that on the formation
of the present Government he had given notice of his in-
tention to bring in a Bill for this purpose. His Right lion.
Friend ( Sir H. Parnell) now held the three offices of Pay-
master-General, Paymaster of the Navy, and Treasurer
of the Ordnance, under three separate appointments, and
the object of the Bill was to make one appointment suf-
fice for the three offices. They had found from experience
that the duties of these offices could be advantageously per-
formed by one person, and when this consolidation was effected
it would enable the Government to make further reductions in
the subordinate departments. In point of fact, there were not
three, but four offices, which would be consolidated, because
the office at Chelsea was connected with the Pay-office. The
Right Hon. Gentleman then read from some papers which he
held in his hand a comparative statement of the expense of sa-
laries paid to the heads of these departments in times past, of
the present charge under this head, and of the saving which
would be made by the proposed arrangement. He would only
further observe, that in carrying this arrangement into effect,
the Government would pay due regard to the claims of those
officers who had been employed in these departments, but
whose future services might not be required.
Mr. HUME was extremely happy that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had at last brought in this Bill. He hoped he would
simplify the mode in which this branch of the public business
was conducted.

Mr. B. BOY was afraid, that whatever was saved in expense
by this consolidation would be lost in efficiency.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. .
Mr. HUME moved for several returns.—Agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. GOULB URN wished to know from the Noble Lord
opposite, if it was his intention to proceed with the Irish
Church Bill to-morrow, or if he then meant to introduce the
Irish Corporation Bill ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said he should propose that the Order
of the Day should be read for going on with the Irish Church
Bill in the first place.
The Orders of the Day wore then disposed of.
POOR LAW COMMISSION.
Mr. \VALUE Y was desirous of asking when the report of
the Poor Law Commissioners would be on the table?
Mr. F. MA ULE said that he had received a note the other
day from the head of that Commission, stating that a report
would be ready in a very short time, which as soon as it was
ready should be laid on the table.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the House do now ad-
journ.—Adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

ROUSE OF LORDS, JULY
The Eari of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Woolsack at
ten minutes to five o'clock.
Lord D YNE VOR presented a petition from Carmarthen,
against certain clauses in the Municipal Corporation Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM, and other Members of the House of Com-
mons, brought up the Merchant Seamen's Registration Bill,
with the amendments of their Lordships, to which the House
of Commons had agreed.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL.
Petitions against the Municipal Corporation Bill were pre-
sented from th© borough of Boston by Lord Brownlow ; from
Clifden by the Earl of Devon ; from the borough of Hereford
and from the town of Grantham by the Duke of Cumberland;
and from other places by Lord Falmouth and several other
Peers.

Petitions in favour of the Bill were presented by the Earl
of RADNOR from the Isle of Ely, Wisbeach, tic.
The Earl of FALMOUTH complained of a misrepresen-
tation that had appeared in the Morning Papers relative to a
petition presented by him yesterday from Melcombe Regis and
Weymouth, against the Municipal Corporation Bill. It was
stated that he (Lord Falmouth) had asserted that the
borough had the management of charitable funds to the
amount of thirty thousand pounds, but he had not stated
any such thing, and he was surprised that such an inaccuracy
could have occurred. The Noble Earl then presented a peti-
tion from the borough of Truro against the Municipal Corpo-
rations Bill, and denied the statements made in the report
of the Municipal Commissioners relative to mismanage-
ment of the charitable funds of which the Corpo-
ration of Truro were trustees. That report he had
no hesitation in saying, contained a great deal of trash. The
Noble Earl then entered into some details relative to the funds
of which the Corporation of towns had the management, and
gave notice that he should move that the petitioners be heard
by counsel at the bar against the Bill.
Petitions were then presented against the Municipal Corpo-
rations Bill by. Lord Prudhoe, from A lnwick ; by the Marquis of
Salisbury, from Runford, by Lord Skelmersdale from a place,
the name of which we did not catch.
Viscount STRA NG FOR D presented the petition of which
he had given notice, from the Mayor and Burgesses of
Coventry, praying to be heard by Counsel at the Bar,
against the Municipal Corporations Bill. The petitioners were
possessed of very large property acquired by purchase, and
they were also trustees of considerable property. The object
of the Bill was to do away with the rights and privileges which
had been guaranteed to the petitioners, in violation of that
principle which laid down that no persons should be
deprived of any honour or privilege without previous pro-
cess, founded upon enquiry in some of his Majesty's superior
courts of law. There was another class which this Bill
would materially injure. Upwards of 2,000 young men who
at the expiration of the term of their apprenticeship would be
otherwise entitled to vote as electors, would, by this Bill, be
deprived of their franchise, and the electors would be reduced
from 6,000 to about 14 or 1,500, which was contrary to the
spirit and intention of the Reform Bill.--( Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM did not know whether the Noble '
Viscount intended to press his motion to a division, but if he
did, he would beg of him to look at the 67th section, which
did not prevent the petitioners from being heard by Counsel