The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-08 00:00:00

WEDNESD AY EVENING, MAY 8, 1850.

been under instruction during the year. Great diffi-
culty was experienced in obtaining the services of
qualified men ; 132 female teachers had been under
training during the year; 72 new schools for 7,000
children had been opened during the year ; 50 schools
had been supplied with temporary teachers ; 166 had
been permanently supplied. In the agency depart-
ment 339 towns and villages had been visited ; 41
public meetings had been held. The report concluded
with an earnest appeal for enlarged and liberal
support.
J. A. SMITH, Esq., M.P., moved tha adoption of the
report, which was seconded by the Rev. GEORGE
SMITH, and carried unanimously.
The ReT. Mr. PENNINGTON moved the second reso-
lution, which returned thanks to the Queen and
Prince Albert, and other members of the Royal
Family, for their continued support.
The Rev. W. CHALMERS secondad the resolution,
which was carried unanimously.
At this moment the Noble CHAIRMAN stated he
was compelled to leave the chair, having other en-
gagements to attend to.
Sir Thomas Edward Colebrooke, Bart., occupied the
chair in the absence of the Noble Earl.
On the motion of Mr. W. TOOK E, seconded by Dr.
BACH, of Wirtemburg, thanks were voted to the Earl
of Carlisle and Sir Thomas Colebrooke.
Sir T. E. COLIHROOKE returned thanks, and the
meeting separated.
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, May 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
passeThe
:
following Bills were react a third time and
d
Dundee and Perth and Aberdeen Railway Junction.
North Staffordshire Railway (Extension of Time for
Purchase of Lands, &c.)
South Staffordshire Railway.
The following Bills, as amended, were considered and
agreed to:—
Waterford and Limerick Railway.
York and North Midland Railway.
PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented against Sunday labour in the
Post-office by Mr. W. Patten, from Southampton; by
Mr. Duncuft, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Scholefield, Mr.
Henley, Mr. Ewart, and Lord Dudley Stuart, from the
Scotch Church, Regent's-square.
Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from the
Chamber of Commerce at Glasgow praying for the
adoption of measures fur the more effectual suppression
of the slave trade.
Mr. G. BERKELEY presented a petition from a
Place in Gloucestershire to the same effect, and pray-
ing that a higher duty might be imposed on slave-grown
sugar;
also a petition from Gloucestershire in favour of
international arbitration.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented several petitions against
the Marriage Bill.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD preseated a petition from the
county of Antrim in favour of tenant right.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from a
place
in Cambridgeshire against granting additional
licences to beer-shops.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presented a petition from
St. Brides, London, against the law of settlement.
Mr. CARDWELL presented a petition from Liver-
pool Praying that impressment in the navy might be
abolished.
Mr. BECKETT presented a petition in favour of the
Ten Hours Factory Bill.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from Bir-
mingham in favour of international arbitration, and a
petition from the same place in favour of a secular sys-
tem of education.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Abercorn in
favour of international arbitration; also a petition from
Arbroath against the Public Health Bill for Scotland,
and a petition from Great Yarmouth against church.
rates.

Captain PECHELL presented several petitions from
Brighton against church-rates; also a petition from
the bakers of Brighton praying for the appointment of a
Select Committee to inquire into the grievances of their
trade.

, Dr. POWER presented a petition from a place in the
county of Cork in favour of tenant right.
Sir DE LACY EVANS presented a petition from
bakers in Westminster praying for an inquiry into their
trade.
Mr. O'CONNOR presented a petition from Chester
against any alteration in the Factories' Act.
Mr. CLAY presented a petition from Hull against the
Highways Bill.
Sir E. BUXTON presented petitions from Hackney,
Bethnal-green, and Dalston, in favour of the Extramural
Interments Bill.
Several petitions were presented against the adver-
tisement duty.
ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE DUTY.
Mr. BAILLIE wished to know whether it was the
intention of th• Noble Lord (Lord Grosvenor) to extend
his Bill for the abolitio❑ of the attorneys' certificate duty
to Ireland and Scotland.
Lord GROSVENOR replied that owing to an error
in drawing up the Bill Ireland and Scotland were
omitted, but it was his intention to include those por-
tions of the kingdom in the proposed measure.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from St.
Paul's, Whitcchapel, in favour of the Intramural Inter-
ments Bill,
TAX ON MERCHANT SHIPPING.
Mr. FORSTER gave notice that on a❑ early day ho
should bring under the consideration cf the House the
4ubject of levying taxes on merchant shipping, with a
view to their reduction.
SLAVE•GROWN SUGAR.
Sir E. BUXTON said, having last night, at the re-
que,t of the Noble Lord the First Minirter, put off
his motion on the subject of slave-grow❑ sugar, he had
now to inform the House that the Noble Lord had pro-
mised to give him an opportunity of bringing the motio❑
forward on Friday.--(Hear. h•ar.)
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Mr. EWART deterred his motion on the subject of
capital punishment till the 30th inst.
MALT-TAX.
Mr. FREWEN, on behalf of Mr. Cayley, gave notice
that on the 30th of May he should move the repeal of
the malt-tax.

COTTON TRADE—INDIA.
Mr. BRIGHT gave notice that on this day week he
should move that an humble address be presented
to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to appoint a
Commission to proceed to India to inquire into the
obstacles which prevent the growth and increase of cotton
in the presidencies of Bombay and Madras.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
Mr. IL BAILLIE asked the Secretary if State for
the Home Department whether he was able to give the
country any intimation as to the probable period when
the Lord Chancellor might be expected to resume the
duties of his office?
Sir G. GREY said that within the last few weeks the
Lord Chancellor had been suffering from a severe fit of
indisposition; but he was happily so much recovered
that, though he had been unable to attend court, he had
been hearing cases of great importance at his private
residence for some days past, and had given judgment in
some of them.—(Hear, hear.)
INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION OF 1851.

Mr. ARKWRIGHT asked the President of the Board
whetherofteTrireardeeinanysiay he intended to ask Parliament to
in
with respect to the Exhibition of
the Works of Industry in 1851,
and whether he could give
an assurance that no application for an advance of public
money in aid of that Exhibition will, under any cir-
cumstances, be sanctioned by her Majesty's Government?
Mr. LABOUCEIERE said he certainly did not antici-
pate that it would be his dui to ask Parliament to in-
terfere in an exhibition which he thought would entirely
depend on the voluntary contributions of individuals.
The only way in which he might ask Parliament to in-
terfere would be in order to amend the Act of Registra-
tion of Designs, with the view of protecting from piracy
those articles which might be shown at the exhibition.
With regard to the second question, having the honour
to be one of the Commissioners, he believed nothing
was further from the intention of the Commissioners
than to apply for any advance of public money, except it
might be for some ordinary and trivial incidental ex-
penses.
remaining
INCUMBERED ESTATES COMMISSION.
Lord NAAS asked the Secretary for Ireland, whether
the notice appended to some of the advertisements of the
Incumbered Estates Commissioners, stating " that the
whether a Con?missioners will ive the purchaser the option of
consent of
ofur h
ethe
present,Majesty's
Government;hal
mill Y's Billmshottielltybenthepurcb?.se money, the
disposedot to be
o t,,
,h requiredas b
euntilen
issued
Sir
theo
Parlia-
mentary-
title will under such circumstances, be given by
the Commissioners to the purchaser on the payment of the
first moiety ; and, if so, what security the Commis-
sioners will require fur the payment of the remaining
half.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE said with respect to the first
question he was not aware that the consent of the Go-
vernment was necessary. With regard to the other
questions he could give no information on the subject.
GOVERNOR BARKLEY.
In reply to a question from Mr. G. BERKELEY,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the dispatch of Governor
Barkley from British Guiana was to be found in the
blue-book containing the various reports of the Gover-
nors of Colonies to the Colonial-office, page 343.
CAPTURE OF A SLAVE FRIGATE.
In reply
to a question from Mr. G. BERKELEY,
Mr. HAWES said, be was able to state from in-
quiries made that morning at the Admiralty, that in-
formation had been received at that department of the
capture of a slave steam-frigate on the coast of Brazil,
called the Providentia, and she was found to be empty.
PUBLIC PETITIONS.

In reply to Mr. H. HERBERT,
The
SPEAKER said that the signatures attached to
publicptitions ought to be attached to the sheet on
which the petition was.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said he thought the
public ought to be put in possession of that infortna-
ti°n, as he himself often received petitions, the signatures
to which were on several slips cif paper, and before pre-
senting it he was obliged to paste them together.
Mr. N'E WDEGATE inquired whether there had been
any alteration in the course taken by the Committee
of Public Petitions.
Mr. THORNELY said there had been no alteration
whatever. Honourable Dlrnibers were entirely unaware
of the very irregular manner in which the petitions
presented to the House were got up, bearing in many
cases signatures which naight;he the signatures torn from
letters, and often many different signatures written in
the same hand. Above 8,000 petitions had been pre-
sented to the House during the present session, of which
800 had been printed.

Mr. lIUME hoped it would be made known publicly
that no person had a r4ht to sign the name of another
to a petition,
Mr. TIIORNELY said the Committee had referred
to it a petition fry m a grand jury to which the names of
all the jury were affixed by the foreman in his own
handwriting, and the Committee had it printed as a
petition coining from the foreman.
The matter then dropped.
EXTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
Lord DUDLEY STUART wished to put a question
to the Secretary for the Home Department with respect
to the Nletropolitati Interments Bill. That Bill stood
on the paper for Friday n.:xt, and as it was one in
which the public took the greatest possible interest, it
would be a great convenience to Hon. Members if his
Right Hon. Friend would state whether he thought he
could really being on his Bill on that day or before the
Whitsun holidays.
Sir G. GREY replied that the Bill referred to could
not be brought on either on Friday or Monday, in con-
sequence of the pressure of other business; that tl e
recess would begin on Friday week, but he would fix it
for the Friday after Whitsuntide. The business for
Friday next would be the third reading of the Irish
Franchise Bill.
ROI3BERY AT DUBLIN CASTLE.
lier. HUME wished to know it the Government had
received any information that au official in Dublin
Castle had decamped with a considerable sum of public
money?—(A laugh.)
Sir W. SONIERVILLE—I would rather answer
the lion. Gentleman's question to morrow.—(Laughter.)
REPEAL OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DUTY.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented several petitions praying
fur the repeal of the advertisement duty.
Mr. EWART presented petitions to the same effect
from the Worcester Chronicle, the Wilts Independent, the
Edinburgh Weekly Register, the Newcastle Chro-
nicle, the Reifi-ewshire Advertiser, the Illustrated
London IVews, the /I;eics of the World, Bell's
Weekly Messcng r, the Atlas, Reynold's Miscel-
lany, the Farmer's Herald, the Derbyshire Advertiser,
the Sheffield Free Press, the Bath Journal, the Kent
Herald, the Nenagh Journal, the Nottingham Mercury,
and a.number of other metropolitan and provincial journals.
The petitions presented showed the deep interest that
was taken in this motion by the class to whom it re-
lated, but he brought it forward upon public grounds.
He considered this tax was one of the most objectionable
taxes which could possibly be imposed on the commu-
nity; it stood in the same predicament, though it had
stronger grounds for its abolition, as the auction duty,
which the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth repealed. The Right lion. Baronet repealed that
duty because he considered it was a duty on transactions.
He held with the Right Hon. Baronet that no duty
could be more objectionable in a political, moral, or com-
mercial point of view than a tax on transactions. He
held a duty on advertisements to be a tax on transactions
between man and man, and, therefore, strongly objec-
tionable. He objected to it on general grounds ntore
than he objected to the taxes on knowledge, which his
Right Honourable Friend the Member for Man-
chester brought forward the other day, though
he participated with him in his hostility to
those taxes; but this tax on advertisements was more
than a t.ex on knowledge, it was a tax on commerce, on
agriculture, on literature, and the wants of the commu-
nity. Could any one of them take up any commercial
newspaper without seeing how fettered were the inter-
communication between merchant and merchant—the
buyer and seller, by this very tax on advertise-
ments? Do not let Honourable Gentleman, who
made the agricultural interest their great care,
think that he advocated the repeal of this tax on
commercial grounds alone, for to-night he had had the
honour of presenting petitions, signed by the proprietors
and publishers of newspapers, which were almost con-
fined to the promotion of agriculture, in favour of this
motion, and therefore those Hon. Gentlemen who so
zealously supported the agricultural interest would do
well to suppers this proposal. This duty, moreover,
was a tax upon literature; indeed, Mr. M'Culloch
proved that the advertisement duty was the
heaviest of all taxes that pressed upon the lite-
rary man. It was a tax too upon religious communication,
and he had also preseatel petitions from the printers
and publishers of religious newspapers, and even their
circulation was affected by this prohibitory duty. It
was a tax also upon art, and such publications as the
Illustrated News and the Art Journal severely suffered
from the operation of this duty. It was a tax too upon
wit, since it affected such publications as Punch, but he
objected to it principally on general public grounds and
the unjust principle upon which it was levied: Why
should the poor author, who published a sixpenny
pamphlet, or a sempstress, pay the same advertisement
duty that was imposed on a wealthy man selling a,large
estate. In a word, the tax was objectionable
upon all grounds, no matter whether it had
reference to commerce, agriculture, or religion.
The advertisement duty was almost as bad as if they
were to tax people going to a corn or a stock-exchange;
it was the same thing in principle, though different in
degree. Not only was this tax so generally objection-
able, but it was one of great inequality. 11 was levied
only on advertisements in newspapers, and not on ad-
vertisements in books, or in Bradshaw, for instance, and
other works of that kind. There was another
hardship attending it that a newspaper pro-
prietor sometimes paid as much for one line
as he did for a column and a half. It gave rise to all
those advertising vans and that unfortunate class of in-
dividuals c Wed walking advertisements, whom they met
in the streets. Some years ago Mr. Poulett Thompson
stated in the House that whilst there were 10,000,000 of
advertisements in America there were only 1,000,000 in
England. In 1837 there were in England, Ireland, Scot-
land. Wales, and the Channel Islands 565 newspapers ;
In the same year there were 1,700 in America.
Before the 3s. duty was reduced in 1833 to Is. Gd.
the number of advertisements amounted to
about one million in the three kingdoms, and
since then they had increased to two millions.
The amount of the duty levied amounted to about
170,0001., and since the reduction the amount was
157,000/. So that it was pretty evident that the
amount would speedily mount up to the original
sum. He proposed the total repeal of this duty, and not
wishing to weary the patience of the House, ho
should conclude by denouncing this duty as one of the
worst ever imposed, and one of the first which
the Chancellor of tie Exchequer should have taken off,
as it was one which equally pressed upon all classes
of the community. The Hon. Gentleman then sat down,
after moving, in the words of his motion, that it is ex-
pedient that the advertisement duty should be repealed.
Mr. M. GIBSON seconded the motion.
Mr. TRELAW NY opposed the motion as being in-
consistent with a motion which he himself had upon the
paper relative to the national debt.
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER also op-
posed the motion. He could only repeat what he
had said on former occasions when this sub-
ject was brought before the House—that the question
was not whether the tax was a burden on the class who
had to pay it, but whether our whole system of taxation
unjustly was
imposed. Many objections might be urged
to particular taxes, which he should be happy to remit
if possible, but he had not arrived at that happy state,
nor had any of his predecessors in office, which would
enable him to carry on the government of the
country without money. The Government had made
all those remissions in taxation which they were enabled
to do, and which they thought advisable, and he should,
therefore, call upon the House to resist any further
attempts for the reduction of taxation.
Mr. HUME said the Right lion. Gentleman's ob-
servations amounted to an appeal to this effect—" I
have male up my mind, I won't listen to any change,
I consider what I have already done in the way of the
reduction of taxation the best, and therefore
I will not answer the particular objections
to this tax." Now, he (Mr. Hume) objected, in the first
instance, to the remissions which the Government had
made, as not being necessary, and he would remind the
Right Hon. Gentleman that it was the duty of
the Government to repeal those taxes which pressed
most heavily on the community.—(Hear, hear.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer having a surplus
ought to be told that he had made a wrong selection, and
this tax was the one that had the strongest claims
upon the House fur its repeal. But why could they
not reduce the expenditure so as to relieve the products
of the country from all those objectionable taxes? He
could see no reason why they should not pursue that
course, and he called on the House to adopt it.—(Hear.)
Mr. EWART replied, stating that he had brought
forward this motion because he objected to the tax on
principle, and all he now called upon the House to de
was to express an opinion that, on principle, the tax
was wrong.—(Hear, hear.):
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... •-• ..• 39
.Against it .., 2OB
Majority against the motion...-169
The motion was consequently lost.
SLAVE LABOUR.
Mr. G. BERKELEY postponed his motion respecting
the exclusion from our markets of the produce of slave
labour, to Friday, the 31st inst.

JOURNEYMEN BAKERS.
Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Edinburgh;
Lord D. STUART and Mr. B. OSBORNE presented other
petitions from other places in favour of a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the sanitary condition of the jour-
neymen bakers.

Lord R. GRO SVENOR said his motion was not for
relief from taxation, or an appeal to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, but was an appeal to the heart and feel-
ings of the House, and therefore be trusted it would re-
ceive due consideration. He bad on a former occasion

stated the evils under which the journeymen bakers
laboured, and he could not bring himself to believe that
any serious objection would be made to the motion be-
fore the House. A previous motion for a Select Com-
mittee made by him had been met by the Right Hon.
Secretary of State for the Home Department with this
reply:—" What necessity can there be for inquiry, when
the e hole case is so well known from papers that have
been ino‘ed lor and laid upon the table of the House."
Afterwards he had moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to limit the hours of working in

- -
bakehouses ; but in this be had alio Igen.
unsuccessful. He was told at the time that the

remedies he proposed would not meet the evils they
were intended to cure, and all sorts of dismters were

prophesied from the working of such a Bill, should it
becomo law. fie had a petition in his hand, most re-

spectfully worded, which prayed the House t consent to
an inquiry, as the petitioners were satisfied that the ad-
mitted evils would then demand from that House a Bill

SI
to reform them. He considerei thpse poor p. nons had
great reason to complain of the manner in which their
grievances had hitherto been met. He thought they had
a right to claim the attention of the House on sanitary
grounds. But in addition to this and other arguments,'
he thought the House ought to grant the required Com-
mittee, if it were enly because the journeyman bakers

rrquetited it, and they surely were the best judges of their
own condition and grievances. He begged to move for
a Select Committee to inquire whether any measures can
be taken to improve the sanitary c ndiiiun of the jour-
neymen bakers.
Sir G. GREY would gladly agree to the motion, if he
believed it would lead to the pra3tical results the Noble
Lord expected. But the reasons he had urged two years
ago against a similar measure were still unchanged.
It was impossible not to feel the force of the
argument used on two former Occasions, that it was in-
expedient to grant a Committee of Inquiry founded on
petitions such as that presented by the Nobl. Lord, if
no clear idea was given at the same time of the legisla-
tive measures intended to be founded on the report. On
the former occasion the remedy for existing grievances
proposed by the Noble Lord was rejected by a large
majority, because it violated the principles of political
economy, and would not effect its purpose. Ag,in, if
this Committee were granted, the Noble Lord could not
ensure the House frAn being called upon by other trades
to have similar Committees to it quire into their condi-
tion and to suggest alterations. He believed that ar-
rangements might be made between the bakers and their
employers to remedy the evils of which they complained;
but by looking to Parliament for relief they were divert-
ing their attention from the remedy which lay open to
them.—(Hear, hear.) Believing that no good would re-
sult from the appointment of the Committee, and that it
would only end in disappointment, he felt bound to op
pose the metien.—(hear, hear.)
Mr. A. STAFFORD said when the petitioners found
that so skilful a debater as the Right Hon. Baronet
could bting forward no better arguments than those
which he had adduced, they would conceive that their
case had to; br en fairly met, and that he hafd trusted to
the advocates of political economy and to Ministerial
influence rather than to argument. It had bean said
that it this motion should be agreed to, other trades
would bring forward their claims. But if the claims of
the working classes were to be met by a refusal to in
quire into their grievances he could prophesy that they
would not be frequently preferred. But he could not
congratulate the House on the alternative that would he
adopted by the working classes. Neither did he think
the experience of what had taken place in other coun-
tries ought to make them indifferent to turn a deaf ear
to those who exhibited such a perfect unanimity in their
object and the mode in which they proposed to obtain
it.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman intimated
that any sanitary regulations ought to be proposed in
the shape of a Bill. But, supposing that to be the
proper course, would it not be better, in the first in-
stance, to hear from the bakers themselves a statement
of their grievances ?
Sir G. GREY intimated that the evidence was already
on the table.
Mr. STAFFORD—When the Noble Lord came for-
ward with a Bill, the Right Hon. Gentleman objected to
it; and when the Noble Lord propertied a Committee,
the Right Hon. Getleman said, " Why do you not bring
in a Bill?"—(Hear.) The bakers could draw but one
conclusion, namely, that Parliament was unable to miti-
gate their grievances, and refused to inquire into them.
Such a mode of proceeding was not likely to attach the
working classes to the institutions of the country, and
when they saw a refusal to legislate for them, they
might think it necessary to do a good deal more for
themselves, and the result would be an increase of the
dissatisfaction and ill-feeling which now prevailed—an
exhibition of which would not conduce to the prosperity
of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House take
care how they rejected the claims brought forward by a
body of men whose good conduct entitled them to the
attention, sympathy, and solicitude of the House. They
would consider that the Noble Lord had done his duty
towards them, but their feeling would be very different
towards the Right Hon. Baronet. Considering this a
fair subject for inquiry, as affecting the lives of his fel-
low-subjects, he should support the motion of the Noble
Lord.—(Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said the Noble Lord had expressed
some dissatisfaction at a remark made by the Hon. Mem-
ber for the West Riding—that the objects occasionally
brought forward by him bad a tendency towards the
doctrines of Socialism, especially with reference to the
course taken by him in the case of the bakers. If the
Noble Lord was not one of that celebrated order of men,
he was at least, their advocate. lie proposed an inquiry
into their condition, which extended to the places of their
work and their hours of labour, and he spoke of their
horrid dens and their dirtiness. Now, he (Mr. B.) could
not understand how Parliament could proceed to alter the
arrangement of the buildings and bakehouses; nor did
be understand how they could interfere with the labour
of adult men, who were perfectly able to advocate their
own cause, as might be seen in a publication entitled the
Bahers' Gazette and General Trades' Advocate—a pub-
lication which did Lot bear the impress of the stamp
authorities. He did not believe there was anything in
the projects of Robert Owen, or in the plans of the So-
cialists of France, which savoured more of Communism
than some of the articles in that paper. The clients of
the Noble Lord were men, and not ordinary men, but
Scotchmen.—(A laugh.) If there was one class of men
on the face of the earth better able to take care of them-
selves than any other, there could be no doubt that the
class consisted of Scotchmen.—(Laughter.) It their
situation in this country as bakers was so horrible, he
took it for granted they must have fled from something
still more horrible in their own country.—(A laugh.)
He (Mr. Bright) should feel ashamed of standing up as
the advocate of hundreds and thousands of stalwart
Scotchmen, who, having found their way from their own
country, and being employed in the useful occupation
of baking, should publish a gazette, and write articles
of considerable literary merit, and then appeal to the
House to remedy their grievances, instead of acting for
themselves. If they could not protect themselves, there
was no power in the House which could do so.—(Hear.)
Lord D. STUART did not see why the publication of
a gazette by a party should interfere with the redress
of their grievances. He always considered publication
the best way of making grievances known.—(Hear.)
The House, in refusing inquiry, would not make itself
more respected by the public at large; and as he bad
seen nothing to justify the refusal of the Committee, he
should support the motion.—(Hear.)
Mr. G. THOMPSON said, if the views:of political
economy entertained by the Hon. Member for Manches-
ter (Mr. Bright) could be supported by no better argu-
ments than those which he had adduced, he (Mr. Thomp-
son) would instantly separate himself from them.—
(Hear.) He believed that more evidence on the subject
was wanting, if not for purposes of legislation, at least
for the purpose of influencing public opinion out of
dcors; and be was of opinion that the appointment of a
Committee would have a salutary effect, and that it
would tend to the reformation of a trade which was
ruining the health of a large portion of the industrious
population.—(Rita r.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said the House ought not to
turn a deaf ear to the complaints brought bef.ire it, and
he considered it his duty to support the motion.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion —46
DUBLIN AND HOLYHEAD MAILS.
Sir R. BULKELEY, in bringing forward the motion
of which he had given notice on this subject, said he
should very briefly state the points which he thought
called for the appointment of a Committee. After re-
ferring to the offers made, in the first instance, for car-
rying the mails by the Chester and Holyhead Company,
the Hon. Baronet said that the Admiralty offered the
contract for public competition. The Chester and Holy-
head Company, finding that there was a strong feeling
against them at the Admiralty, did not make a tender,
but, nevertheless, gave the Admiralty to understand
that they were ready to contract for carrying the
Dublin and Holyhead mail for 30,0001. Information
of this was given to the Dublin Steam-packet
Company, and the result was, that the Ad-
miralty closed with them for 25,000/. The effect
of this would be, that seventeen or eighteen hours
would elapse before a person could reach Dublin from
London. The contract having been given to the Dub-
lin Steam-packet Company, the Chester and Holyhead
Railway Company would be compelled by circumstances
to cease running their express trains in connexion with
their express steamers, and the consequence would be
that as much time would be required for the journey be-
tween London and Dublin as was required ten years
ago. He deeply lamented that any department of the
Government should have so far impeded private enter-
prise, and hoped the House would support the motion as
one of great importance to both England and Ireland.
He begged to move fur a Select Committee to investi-
gate and report upon all matters connected with the
contract for the conveyance of the mails between Kings-
town and Holyhead. Also, how far the engagements en-
tered into by the Admiralty with the City of Dublin
Steam-packet Company tend to develupe or otherwise
the full advantages of the direct and continuous line of
communication between London and Dublin, which the
Chester and Holyhead Railway Company are, under the
provisions of their Act of Parliament, now labouring to
effect.

The question having been put,
Mr. FRENCH did not think the Chester and Holy-
head Railway Company. had the slightest cause of com-
plaint, for it never sent in an offer, but at the last mo-
ment, for the purpose of thwarting the Dublin Steam-
packet Company, gave the Government to understand
that it would carry the mails at a lower rate. The
Government had offered the contract to public
competition, but nothing could be fairer than their
conduct.

Sir F. T. BARING said, that thinking at first that
this was a mere squabble between two companies, he was
disposed to oppose the motion; but as a charge had been
made against the Government for the course they had
taken, it was their duty rather to court than to shrink
from inquiry.— (Hear.) In acceding to the motion he
wished it to be understood, that he was far from ad-
mitting the correctness of the statement made by the
mover of it. He believed there had been negotiations
with the company who now complained, and
that they had offered to the Treasury to carry
the mails, but as the Admiralty thought they,
asked too much, their offer was not accepted. After-
wards came the report of the Committee, and in accord-
tmw with it the contract was offered for public com-
petition. The Chester and Holyhead Company did not
send in an offer. Duly one tender was sent in, and com-
munications were entered into with the parties making it,
with the view of ascertaining whether they would not
accept rower term:. The Chester and Holyhead Com-
pany then offered to contract for a less sum, but as that
seemed an unfair way of doing business, the contract
was again offered to public competition and the other
company obtained it. The Government Lad no other
course to pursue. In granting toe Committee he re-
garded the complaint as ono against the Government.
They had entered into an agreement with a company—
the faith of the Government was pledged and must be
observed whatever might be the different:tar of parties.
Mr. S. HELISERT was rejoiced that the Right Hon.
Baronet had given the explanation they had ju.t heard,
for he had been informed that with respect to the first
tender the communications between the Government and