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

THE ►7 U N. 7 LONDON, TUESOAY

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
---
ROUSE OF COMMONS, April 15.

The SPEAKER took the chair at Four
Mr. GREENE brought up the report on the new
British Iron Company Bill, which was ordered to lie
on the table.

NEW WRITS.
On the motion of Sir TnomAs FREMAN-
F
LE,,a new writ was ordered to be issued for the
election of a burgess to serve in the present Parlia-
ment for the borough of Huntingdon, in the room of
Sir. Frederick Pollock,,.Knt., who had been appointed
to the office of Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer.
On the motion of Sir THOMAS FREMAN-
TLE, a new writ was ordered for the election of
a citizen to serve in the present Parliament for the
city .of Exeter, in the room of Sir William Follet,
who since his election, had accepted the office of her
Majesty's. Attorney- General.
Mr. SCIiOLEFIELD presented a petition from
Walsall proving for a reduction in the duty on tobacco.
Mr. MAC AUL AY presented a petition from Edin-
burgh against the Charitable Pawns Bill ; also a
petition from the Royal College of Surgeons in Edin-
burgh, praying for uniformity of medical education
in hospitals.
Mr. R. YORKE presented a petition from the
Yorkshire Law Society against any compensation
being given to certain officers in the Court of Chancery.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY presented petitions, from
North Wales, against the union of the sees of St.
Asaph and Bangor.
Mr. RICE TREVOR presented a petition from
Carmarthen, for the establishment of local courts.

ISLE OF MAN.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice that, to-morrow, he
would put a question to the Government, respecting
the regulation of the Import Duties in the Isle of
Man, and also respecting the Harbour Duties in that

viand.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Lord EBRINGTON gave notice that he would to-
morrow evening, on the Order of the Day for the
House going into ComrnitteePof Supply, move for re-
turns relating to the appointment of Stipendiary Ma-
gistrates in Ireland.
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. FITZROY KELLY gave notice that, on
Tuesday, the 23d inst., he would move for leave to
bring in a Bill for the establishment of a Court of
Appeal in Criminal Cases.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.
Upon Sir G. CLERK'S moving the Order of the
Day for the House going into a Committee of Supply,
- Mr. WYSE wished to ask the .Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Government, in pursuance of the
notice he had given, whether he would be disposed to
postpone the second reading of the Registration (Ire-
land) Bill for another fortnight? The ground on which
he asked the question, was that it was a Bill of the ut-
most importance to Ireland, involving the most serious
considerations to the liberties 'and franchises of the
people of that country, and on which must depend its
future representation. He would venture to appeal
to the Right Hon. Baronet on another ground, and
that was, that the Irish Members were not likely to
be established in sufficieritemmhers by the 19th. It
might be said that the second reading of a Bill in-
volved only the consideration of its principle, and
not of its details—that was all very true ; but he
thought that in a measure of such importance to the
people of Ireland, the Irish Members bad a right to
discuss even the principle of the Bill ; and he thought
the second reading, if it was pressed at the time fixed,
would not pass with that degree of tranquillity which
the Right Hon. Baronet seemed to expect on a former
occasiOn-. Another-ground upon which he called upon
the Right Hon. Baronet to postpone the second read-
ing of the Bill was, that it had not been printed and
distributed at a sufficiently early period for the con-
stituencies cf Ireland to communicate with their
representatives. In many parts of Ireland he be-
lieved the Bill had not yet appeared. Under these
circumstances the Bill could not be carried through
in a hurry, or without due consideration. Even if it
were passed immediately, it would be impossible to
bring the Bill into operation before the close of the
session, and under these considerations, therefore, it
was that he applied for the postponement of the second
reading for another fortnight.
Sir R. PEEL said he 'regretted that the Right
Hon. Gentleman had considered it necessary to make"
this Appeal. He (Sir R. Peel), in fixing Friday next
for the second reading, had consented to postpone it
from a day already .named, and in doing so he
considered he had made an arrangement gene-
rally acceptable. He objected to the appeal
on another ground. If there was an indisposition to
approach the discussion of public Bills at the early
period of the session, the consequence was that at the
latter part of it, about the months of June and July,
he should be asked the question he (Sir R. Peel)
used to put to the Noble Lord (John Russell), as to
what measures the Government intended to abandon.
This arose, not from any indisposition on the part of
her Majesty's Government, but from long discussions
being taken at this period of the session. He foresaw
that the present session would in this respect
resemble the former ones, in consequence of the
House not applying itself with earnestness to the
discussion of measures at a more early period ;
so that towards the months of April and May there
was a vast deal of business reserved for consideration
when the House was _not well attended, thus pre.
eluding the possibility of giving these measures a
proper degree of discussion. On these grounds he
must express his regret at the appeal of the Right
Hon. Gentleman ; on the other hand, he was bound
to say that the measure was of great importance, and
he fully admitted the claim of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, on the part of those immediately. affected by
it, to Inive a full opportunity of considering it.
The Right Hon. Gentleman said there Would not be
that attendance of Irish Members on the day fixed
for the second reading to secure a due discussion of
the principles of the Bill. He was always unwilling
to press anything forward for consideration pre-
maturely, and he must say that he felt this anxiety
on Irish questions quite as strongly as on English;
and if the Right Hon. Gentleman stated to him that
it was the wish of the Irish Members, on the ground
of not having an opportunity of fully considering the
measure, he would consent to postpone the secondread-
ing. He Would not at the present moment name any day
for the second reading,. but the principle on which
he gave way was a sufficient proof that he wished
the Bill to undergo a full consideration in an its
details. He would not, therefore, take the second
reading on Friday next ; and he would, endeavour to
state to the. Right Hon. Gentleman, the day on
which he should be enabled to bring it forward.
THE
In answer to a question put by Mr. F. T.
BARING,
Sir R. PEEL stated that the Budget would be
brought forward on' the 29th inst.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, in reference to the request
made for a postponement of the second reading of the
flrishrom Mr.raautii.oi
ono Bill, saidO'Cooo el he
writtenh ad r caetht, ehde ar e lleut terest
of several Irish. Members, urging strongly for delay.
The Bill had only been received in Dublin on the
11th inst., and therefore- there could not be fair time
for consideratidn. He was glad the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had conceded- the request for
delay.

MAN C HESTER PO BT-OFFICE.
Mr. M. GIBSON said just before the adjourn-
ment for the holidays he had presented a petition
upon the subject of the Post-office arrangements in
connection with Manchester, and had intimated his
intention of inviting the attention of the House to
them. That petition had enumerated several griev-
ances. Many of them, however, and these not the
least important of them, had been redressed during
the past week. The complaints as to the Yorkshire
mail had been remedied ; and he was also happy to
say that between Manchester and the south
there had been an acceleration of speed of one hour.
In consequence of the Post office employing the Grand
Junction Railway in conveying letters the post-office
at Manchester was closed one hour sooner than .was
necessary. This was a serious grievance in a pldee,of
business like Manchester. He wished to know ?rem.
the Right lion. Gentleman, the Secretary .tO 'the
Treasury, why the Post-office continued ea 'serial
letters by the Grand Junction Railway, instead de
sending them by the Manchester aad Birmingham
railway ? A long correspondence had taken place an'
the subject. The Post-office had agreed to the pro-
posal of the Manchester and Birmingham Railway
Company, but just as the agreement was on the
point of being carried into effect, some objections had
been started on the part of the Post-office; these ob-
jections had been renewed on two or three occasions,
and the correspondence had lasted eighteen or twenty
months—the' Post-office being always the party to
break the agreement. The inhabitants of Man-
chester felt that they were in disfavour either
with. the Post-office or the Treasury, they could
not tell which ; for when they made application
to the Post-office on the subject they were told
that the matter was under the consideration of the
Treasury, and when they applied to the Treasury the
answer was that the subject had been referred to the
Post-office. Under these circumstances he thought
the petitioners had done wisely in applying to the
House, and he therefore moved that the petition of the
Town-Council of Manchester, relating to the Post-
office arrangements in that borough, be taken into
consideration.
Sir G. CLERK said, he was happy to find from
the statement of the Hon. Gentleman, that the greater
part of the complaints made by the Commissioners
had been removed in consequence of the arrangements
carried into effect by the Post-office authorities in the
course of last week. With regard to the other point
referred to by the Hon. Gentleman—namely, the
delay which was occasioned to the transmission of
Manchester letters, in consequence of the mode by

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
made against changing the line by the inhabitants
of Macclesfield. and Congleton, and other. place:=
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. BOW RING 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. He 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 Id not object to carry
the Macclesfield and Congleton bap, provided they
were paid for it; but the Post-office bad wished them
to do so for nothing. . .
ASSESSMENT FOR TITHES.
Sir R. IL 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 pO6r-la,w. 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 in 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 ton question from Mr. B. HAWES,
Sir J. GRAIIAII sail the County Coroners' Bill
would be postponed until Friday next.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir J. GRAHAM gave notice that he should, 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 .editious 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 they 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 4,164/ for the improvement of Holy.
head Harbour, was agreed to without discussion.
On the motion that 50,000/. 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. lie considered the whole
affair as the " job of jobs."
The vote was then agreed-to.
On the vote for 26,8711. for defraying the exaenses
of public works in Ireland,
• Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know why the sum of
5,0001. and upwards was to be voted for the Phoenix
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 Phoenix Park
was expended in repairs of the Vice-Regal residence
and the residence of the Secretary.
After a • few words from Mr. BBLLLW and Lord
ELIOT, the vote was agreed to.
The next vote was 8000/. 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 Parlia-
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 se
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, and 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
House. 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 leas than 15,000/., had been received
in fees, and vet 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 15,000/. a year in fees. Now:
they wanted 15,000/. 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. He 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
Don :se .of Lords chose to content themselves
:with their own fees he should'not object to it, but if
-cow' to that House for a vote of money, he
'l°"rt=like to see an account of the items.
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made
a..fe,iv'obseryations, 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 House of Lords ?
Sir G: CLERK said, the House of Lords had al-
'ways poSsessed the right of voting an address t) the
Crown for whatever sums of money they required to
defray the expenses of the salaries of the officers of
that Douse over and above the amount of fees.
Dr. BOWRlNG•thought the question of his lion.
Friend was a very important one. A sum of 15,0001.
was asked. The very important
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.