The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met at Fire o'clock.
Messengers from the House of COMMORS brought up
the Southampton Improvement Bill, the Glasgow Rail-
way Extension Bill, and another private Bill.
SCHOOLMASTERS OF SCOTLAND.
_ _

Lord MINTO, in presenting a petition from the paro-
chial schoolmasters of Scotland, complained that the dis-
cussion which took place when he formerly put some
question upon the subject to her Majesty's Government
had been misreported in the provincial newspapers.
It had not been said in that House that her Majesty's,
Ministers had washed their hands of the subject. That
was the very contrary of what occurred ; for his Noble
Friend opposite had said that the Government were
willing to give the subject a favourable consideration,
but were unable to take it up at present. The petition
which he now presented originated in a mistake of his
Noble Friend's answer, in consequence of the imperfect
manner in which it had been reported.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that his Noble
Friend had rightly understood the answer of the
Government.
DETACHED PARTS OF COUNTIES BILL.
Lord HATHERTON moved the second reading of
this Bill, which, he said, was intended to remedy the
inconveniences to which some counties were subjected
by having parts of other counties embedded in them and
completely detached.
After a few words from the Marquis of SALISBURY
and the Duke of RICHMOND, the Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.
AGRICULTURE.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented 120 petitions in
favour of agricultural protection, some of which included
a prayer against the Anti-Corn-law League.
THE RACE-COURSE GAMING BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL presented the petition of which
he had given notice, from Charles Henry Russell, to be
heard at the bar, by himself or counsel, against the
Actions for Gaming Discontinuance Bill. lie thought
the petitioner was entitled to be so heard—an indulgence
fur which there were many precedents—amongst others,
a case in which his Noble Friend Lord Brougham held
a brief shortly after he was called to the bar. The
Noble Lord on the cross bench (the Duke of Richmond)
had said that there was some doubt whether Russell had
a right to be heard, as it was supposed that he was only
the nominal plaintiff. But the fact was, that. Russell
would be liable to the eosts of the whole proceeding,
if he should lose his actions, and he was therefore im-
mediately interested. He (Lord Campbell) therefore
hoped the House would grant an application such as
never had been refused.
After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND,
the petition was laid on the table.
Lord CAMPBELL then moved that the petitioner be
heard at the bar, by himself or counsel, on the reading of
the 0.-der of the day that the Bill be committed.
SALMON FISHERIES BILL (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of RADNOR in presenting a petition
against this Bill, said he understood it could
not proceed further without her Majesty's con-
sent being previously, given, as was the case
with another Bill recently abandoned on that ground.
But he hoped, whether that objection applied to this Bill
or not, their Lordships would reject the Bill.—(Hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the object of
the Bill was a very fair one ; but he would not object,
if opposition were persevered in, to postpone the Bill till
another session.

The Earl of RADNOR complained that no notice had
been, given in the orders of the second reading. If any
such notice were printed in the orders, he was very much
mistaken, and he had paid great attention to the progress
of the motion, as he looked with some suspicion on the
appearance of anew Salmon Bill for Scotland or Ireland
every year —(A laugh.)
The Duke of RICHMOND ultimately agreed to put
off the Committee on this Bill (which stood on the
paper for to-night) till Monday fortnight, in order that
he might make himself master of the subject in the mean-
time ; for he must confess that he knew nothing
about it when he moved the second reading.
THE ALIENS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM begged to draw the attention of
their Lordships to the subject of a Bill which had
come up from the other House, and which
stood for the second reading. As the law now stood,
aliens were subject to great disadvantages in this
country. They could not hold office, nor inherit free-
hold property, nor possess leasehold property ; neither
could they own a share in any ship. The law would ope-
rate with great severity in cases of persons born of
marriages in which one or other was a foreigner.
lie knew a most eminent lady who held an
English and Scotch peerage in her own right.
But she had married a French nobleman ; and if she
had a son born in France, that son could not inherit her
titles or her estates in the kingdom. The law of Eng-
land was the most illiberal of any nation in the world.
In France, the nation of any country was allowed to
buy or inherit land or any kind of property,
and to hold office, just as if he were a native of France.
In respect to Ireland, however, the legislation of that
country had been as liberal to foreigners as that of
France, for aliens could purchase property, hold
office, or even sit in Parliament, as freely
as a native, until the 36th of George the Third.
The object of introducing into the Act of settlement the"
disqualification of foreigners from holding office, was to
revent the foreign favourites of the King from being
preferred to Englishmen.—(Hear, and a laugh.) But
the Spitalfi, Ids weavers—or such as were foreigners—
were disqualified even from holding the office of parish
constables in their own parish. Now the cost of an Act
of naturalisation could not be less than 1001. But were
there not many foreign artisans whose skill would
be of great valise to this country, if they were not dis-
qualified in such a way, and could not get over the
disqualification, except at such an enormous, and,
to them, insuperable expense ? The report of the
Committee of the House of Commons was a most
just one, but in some respects he did not altogether con-
cur in its recommendation. In the Bill which he was
now about to call their Lordsbips' attention to more par-
ticularly—the Bill to which be alluded in setting out—
he proposed to add a clause, that the wives of British
subjects should be naturalised by the fact of' their marri-
age; and that in all Acts of naturalisation the clause
prohibiting a naturalised person to sit in Parliament, or
hold office under the Crown, should be omitted. It was
a strange anomaly that the naturalised foreigner could
not hold the humblest office under the Crown for fear
he should betray the country to foreigners, whereas if
he were chosen as the husband of the Sovereign, the
Act of Settlement would be so far suspended, and he
would be endowed with all British privileges.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
POOR-LAWS.
(Continued froth our Afternoon Edition.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM had two objections to the
amendment. It would be quite inconsistent with the
provision agreed to by the House yesterday, and in the
second place he believed the control of the Commis-
sioners was as much required in parishes managed under
a local Act as in any others.
Mr. SPOONER supported the amendment of his
Hon. Colleague (Mr. Muntz). The Right Bon. Baronet
objected that it would undo what had been done yester-
day. That was exactly what he wished to effect. He
hoped the Committee would pause before it interfered
with a system that had worked so well for so long a
period. The guardians would be the protectors of the '
poor, and would be faithful to their trust to the rate-
payers, but they would not be the tools of the Poor-law
Commissioners. The local Act had worked well, and
had given general satisfaction in Birmingham; but the
guardians would not be interfered with. He objected to
the principle of the poor-law, and thought it proper,
while they were on the details, to attempt to ameliorate
it. He should support the proposition of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. WAKLEY said they were all indebted to the
Hon. Gentleman for his speech, but somebody had evi-
dently made a mistake,—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber spoke strongly in favour of the Birmingham local
Act, because under it the guardians were elected tri-
ennially—(Hear, hear)—the vote was by ballot—(Hear,
hear)—and the suffrage was universal.—(Hear, hear.)
Was this the Birmingham Tory?—(Hear, hear, and
cheers.) If it was, he heartily hoped they would have
more like him in time.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber was returned as a gond Tory, but he would find
there was a reforming party even on those benches.
With respect to the amendment itself, it was totally in-
applicable to the law as it now existed, and he should
vote against it.

Cokinel SIBTHORP congratulated Birmingham on
having returned to its senses, and stated that he should
support the amendment.

in 1800 we might have laid our grasp upon Sicily and a
great part of Egypt—though in 1816 we might have
effected a lodgment in Algeria—though in 1840 we
had the whole of Syria, to say nothing of the facility
with which we might at almost any moment during
the war possess ourselves of the Balearic Islands, or
any of them ; notwithstanding all these opportuni-
ties, England contents herself with half-a-dozen islands
of the smallest size and the rock of Gibraltar, and these
she finds amply sufficient for the protection of her com-
merce. Be our opinion respecting the permanence of the
large French settlement in Algiers, however, correct or
incorrect, it is surely unjust to ascribe that opinion to
envy or ill- will.