The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-16 00:00:00

Sir J. GRAHAM gave notice that he shciuld, on
Friday, move that the Orders fixed for that day should
be taken in their rotation.
CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.
Mr. BELLEW wished to ask the Noble Lord, the
Secretary of State for Ireland, whether the Govern-
ment was prepared to give any explanation as to the
case of a person who, having been confined seven
months upon a charge of publishing seditious ballads,
was discharged without being brought to trial ? He
was informed that the accused person had been com-
mitted to prison upon the evidence of two policemen,
who obtained ballads in the disguise of itinerant bal-
lad-singers.
Lord ELIOT said that the attention of the Go-
vernment had been turned to the subject, which was
now under investigation.

SUPPLY.
The House then went into Committee of Supply.
A vote of 4,1641. for the improvement of Holy-
head Harbour, was agreed to without discussion.
On the motion that 50,0001. be granted for the
Caledonian Canal,
Mr. WILLIAMS expressed his strongest objec-
tions to the vote, upon which, however, he would not
divide the Committee. He considered the whole
affair as the " job of jobs."
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote for 26,8711. for defraying the expenses
of public works in Ireland,
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know why the sum of
5,0001. and upwards was to be voted for the Phcenix
Park in Dublin ? This park had been a great cost
to this 'country, as a large sum had been annually
expended upon it. The time had now arrived when
the House ought not to endure the expenditure of the
Woods and Forests. During the last five years
upwards of 503,9001. had been expended by the
Woods and Forests without the authority of the House.
A check ought to be placed on the management of
the public property by the Commissioners.
Sir G. CLERk said the Hon. Gentleman made a
similar statement with respect to the public parks
just before the recess, when the Noble Lord the Chief
Commissioner made a statement in reply, that, he be-
lieved, was considered very satisfactory. He ex-
plained that the item of 5,0001. for the Phcenix Park
was expended in repairs of the Vice-Regal residence
and the residence of the Secretary.
After a few words from Mr. BELLEW and Lord
ELIOT, the vote was agreed to.
The next vote was 8,0001. for the repairs of Kings-
town Harbour, which was agreed to without discussion.
The next vote was 59,3501. for salaries and other
expenses of the officers of the two Houses of Pailia-
ment. On this being moved--
Mr. WILLIAMS said when this vote was before
the House last session, his Hon. Friend the Member
for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had objected to voting so
large an amount of money without the items being
given. As that House assumed the right of holding
the purse-strings of the nation, he (Mr. Williams) did
not see why the House of Lords should not give
in an estimate for such sum as they might want,
the same as every other establishment did. Out of
common respect to the House of Commons this ought
to be done.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said this was one of
the objections annually made, a.nd annually refuted.
Up to the year 1805, at the end of the session, each
House presented an address to the Crown, praying
that expenses incurred by it might be paid. Since
then the better arrangement had been arrived
at, of taking a direct vote from that
jouse. This had been found both expedient

and satisfactory, except perhaps to a very few
whom it was difficult at any time to satisfy. He
(Sir George Clerk) thought it would be most unwise
in that House to involve itself with the other on a
question of privilege ; and his opinion was strength-
ened in this by a knowledge of the fact,
that the House of Lords was quite as economical in
its views, habits, and expenditure, as the House of
Commons.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that all he wanted was
a statement of the items. The House of Commons
furnished every item, and why should not the House
of Lords ? The statement was very suspicious. A
large amount, no less than 15,0001., had been received
in fees, and yet they came to that House for a sum of
money in addition to fees. They ought to give some
account of the items.

Mr. HUME suggested that the best way to get
at the items was to stop the allowance until an ac-
count of the items should be furnished. The House
of Lords received 15,0001. a year in fees. Now
they wanted 15,0001. in addition ; so that there was
an expenditure of of 30,0001. for the House of Lords,
and not a single item was given. It was not quite
clear to him that the affairs of the House of Lords
were economically' conducted; if so, why did they
refuse the items ? It was said that estimates were
_ _

•
laid before the Treasury. Ile would ask, what was the
nature of those estimates; and what was the amount
for fees received by the House of Lords ? This was
the only instance in which the subject was taxed, and
in• which the House had no account of it. If the
House of Lords chose to content themselves
with their own fees he should not object to it, but if
they came to that House for a vote of money, he
should like to see an account of the items.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made
a few observations, which were quite inaudible in the
gallery.
Mr. HUME was at a loss to understand how the
Right Hon. Gentleman could have misunderstood him
(Mr. Hume). The Right Hon. Gentleman had not
answered his questions. He would therefore repeat
them. What was the nature of the estimate laid
before the Treasury ? and what was the amount of
fees received by the base of Lords ?
Sir G. CLERIC said, the House of Lords had al-
ways possessed the right of voting an address to the
Crown for whatever sums of money they required to
defray the expenses of the salaries of the officers of
that House over and above the amount of fees.
Dr. BOWRING thought the question of his Hon.
Friend was a very important one. A sum of 15,000/.
was asked. The Hon. Baronet said that the Treasury
had the accounts, which showed that the items were
reasonable. Now, what objection could there be to
have them produced ? He wished to know whether the
House of Lords had the power of obtaining a grant
of money, without the concurrence of the House of
Commons ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said that the House of Lords had the right up to
1815 of moving for an address to the Crown to ob-
tain money from the Civil List. When that was taken
away it was on the understanding that the expenses
of that House should be defrayed.
After a few words from Mr. W. WILLIAMS,
Mr. HUME moved that the vote •be reduced by
15,0001., thereby reducing the vote to 44,3001. •

which they were sent, he believed that those letters
were not delayed longer than half an hour or at most
three-quarters. Very strong representations were
male against changing the line by the inhabitants
of Macclesfield. and Congleton, and other places,
who would suffer what the petitioner complained of,
if the mails were sent by the Manchester and Bir-
mingham line, instead of the Grand Junction. He
trusted that ere long the Manchester and Birming-
ham Company would assent to the proposal which had
been made to them, as there was every disposition on
' the part of the Post-office authorities to extend Post-
office communications.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS thought the explanation of the
Hon. Gentleman was anything but satisfactory.
' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said the Government were anxious to give every pos-
sible accommodation to the people of Manchester.
Dr. BOWRING complained.that letters were not
delivered in Bolton until two hours after the delivery
in Manchester.
Sir R. PEEL also stated the willingness of the
Government to afford every facility to those towns.
the only check upon their desire in this respect was,
that they subjected the public to great expense by
making terms with railways. Railway proprietors
would, he believed, best consult their own interest,
and promote their receipts by passengers, if they ob-
served a disposition to facilitate communication by
letters.
Mr. WILLIAMS, on the part of his constituents,
complained of the conduct of the Railway Companies
as capricious and unjust. Ile thought her Majesty's
Government ought to exercise their power so as to
secure the conveyance of letters to every part of the
country ; and if the railway companies would not
give facilities for that purpose, they ought to be com-
pelled to do so by law.
Mr. M. GIBSON said th Manchester and Bir-
mingham Railway Company dal not object to carry
the Macclesfield and Congleton bags, provided they
were paid for it; but the Post-office had wished them
to do so for nothing.
ASSESSMENT FOR TITHES.
Sir R. H. INGLIS wished to know from his
Right Hon. Friend near him (Sir J. Graham), whe-
ther it was his intention to propose any revision of
the laws relating to parochial assessment for tithes ?
It was a subject which had been for the last four
years under the consideration of the House, and he
hoped his Right Hon. Friend would state that the
question was one likely to be soon settled.
Sir J. GRAHAM acknowledged that the matter
had been already frequently mooted. If he had the
honour of occupying the situation which he then held,
he proposed to ask for leave to bring in a
Bill which would effect very extensive altera-
tions in the poor-law. It was impossible to overrate
the importance of this subject. In the Bill for al-
tering the present_ poor-law he intended making ex-
tensive alterations la that part which affected the laws
of settlement and assessment, and till that time his
Hon. Friend had better postpone the subject.
COUNTY CORONERS' BILL.
In reply to a question from Mr. B. HAWES,
Sir J. GRAHAM said the County Coroners' Bill
would be postponed until Friday next.
BUSINESS OF THE ROUSE.