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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 7.
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.

PETITIONS.

The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition
from the Dissenters of Durham in favour of the substi-
tution of affirmations for oaths in 12gal proceedings.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE prewnted a petition in favour
of an alteration of the law of marriages.
The Bishop of OXFORD presented a petition from
Belfast against the introduction of Cuban and Brazilian
sugar; also several petitions against Post-office Sunday
labour.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a peti-
tion against Sunday trading.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a peti-
tion from some place in Down against Post-office Sunday
labour.

PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND) BILL;
On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE this B 1
was reported. -

FOREIGN CHAPLAINCIES BILL.
Earl NELSON postponed the second reading of this
Bill until after Whitsuntide.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would have been
better pleased had the Noble Earl postponed the second
reading of the Bill to that day six months—(Hear,
hear)—and whenever it might be brought forward, he
trusted that their Lordships would reject the measure.
Their Lordships then adjourned to Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

-The followingiiiilswerereadathird time and
passed :
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 amendeJ, were considered and
agreed to:—
Birkenhead Dock Trustees.
Great Northern Railway Deviations, Amendment of
Acts, Alteration of Tolls, and of East • Lincolnshire
Railway Tolls.
Waterford and Limerick Railway.
York and North Midland Railway.
- PETITIONS.
Petitions were prevented 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, sad 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 for 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 Marriago Bill.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the
county of Antrim in favour of tenant right.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from a
place in Cambridges'nire 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 Pubiic llelth Bill for Scotland,
and a petition from Great Yarmouth against church-
rates.

Captain PECFIELL presented several petitions from
Brighton against church-rates: also a petition from
the bakers of Brighton praying fir 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,
- Betbnal•green, and Dalston, in favour of the Extr.imural
Interments Bill.
Several petitions were presented against the adver-
- tiaement duty. •
• ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE DUTY.
Mr. BAIL,LIE wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Noble Lord (Lord Grosvenor) to extend
his Bill for the abolition 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-
- lions of the kingdom in the preposed measure.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from St.
Paul's, Whitechapel, in favour of the Intramural „Inter-
ments Bill.
TAX ON MERCHANT SHIPPING.
Mr. FORSTER gave notice that on an early day he
should bring under the consideration of the House the
subject of levying taxes on merchant shipping, with a
view to their reduction.
SLAVE•GROWN SUGAR.

Sir E. BUXTON said, hiving last night, at the re-
quest of the Noble Lord the First Minister, put off
his motion on the subject of slave-grown sugar, he had
..now to inform the House that the Noble Lord had' pro-
mised to give him an opportunity of bringing the notion
forward on Friday.—(Hear, hear.)
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Mr. PWART deferred his motion on the subject of
capital puniShment till the 30th inst.
•
MALT-TAX.
Mr. FREWEN, on behalf of Mr. Capley, 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 s
Commission .to proceed to India to inquire into the
obstacles which prevent the growth and increase of cotton
Lin the presidencies of Batnbay and Madras.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR. •
Mr. 11. BAILLIE asked the Secretary cf 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. GR,EY.said that within the last few weeks the
Lord Clicoc...llor had been suff,rina. from a severe fit of
indisposition; but he was happily ace much recovered
that, though he had been unable is attend court, he had
• been hearing cases of great importance at his private
residence f some days past, and had given judgment in
, some of them.—;Hear, hear.)
INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION OF 1851.

. Mr. A RKWRIGHT asked the President of the Board
of Trade whether he intended to ask .Parliament to
interfere in any stay with respect -to the • Exhibition of
the Works of Industry in 1851, and whether he couklgive
. an assurance that no application for an advance of pablic
•money in aid of that Exhibition will, under any cir-
"inmstances, be sanctioned by her Majesty's Government?
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he certainly did not antici-
pate that it would he his duty to ask Parliament to in-
,terfere in an exhibition which he thought would entirely
depend on the voluntar ont 'butions of individuals.
The only way fin which Y c "
he might ask Parliament to in-
'tiifere mould i
tion of De i ein order to amend the Act of Regis!ra-
hwiitT the view of protecting from piracy
'Those artiblEn'-;
With regarbdf:tt,h)
etheo,o .trearnolzitieidt_ be shown at the exhibition.
to bti one question; having the honour
was further from: the inst7nn..6rsi' he h, lioved nothing
of the Commissioners
tria, to apply for any advance of public money, except it
tpx,eigehets..bo for some.. ordinary a d trivial incidental'ex-
: , INCUMBERED ESTATES COltMlSi° L ~rd NAAS asked the Secretary for Ireland, SwNhether
the notice appended to some of th:rasdverti.aetelts of the
Ineumbered Estates Commission ,st at ing .. that the
curb rnias ior ers will give the purchaser the option of
far lo,w fir the Present, half the purchase money, the,
emairo,
ng
moiety not to be repaired until Sir John Ro-
Trainv's Bill shall be disposed ot, ' has been issued with the
consent of her M4jesty's Government; whether a Parlia-
mentary title will, under such circumstances, be given by
Commissioners to the purchaser on the payment of the
the
and, if so, what security the Commis-
sionersfirst moiety ; 4. the • tofremaining
half.
payment the remaining
, will require fur
half.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said with respect to the first
question he
_1
was not aware that the consent of the Go-
vtre*Ernenns h t we ouacsnled givecessarn:O With regard to the other
q tioinfLorrn_atiy_y.nEon the subject.
GOVERNOR BARIii,
G. BERKELEY,
, . In reply to a question from Mr. CT .
Mr. LNBOUCHERE said the dispatch of Governor
Barkley from British Guiana was to be found in the
bluebook containing the various reports of tbe,%Gover-
nors•of Colonies to the Colonial- =lice. page 34'1
. CNYTURE OF A SLAVE FRIGATE.
In reply G BERKELEY,
t...) a qustion from Mr. G.
"Mr. HAWES said, he was able to state from in-
quiries made
.that morning
at the Admiralty, that in-
formation had been received at that department r,f the
capture
cept of a slave atoam-frig:ato on the coast of Brazil,
called the Previdenth,' and she was found to be empty.
PUBLIC PETITIONS,
In reply to MIT. H. lIERRE';`r
The
SPEAKER said that ii‘hei
.. .
attached
. pc petiti
ons ought to be signatures attached to
to the sheet on
which the petition was.
~ Lord CASTLEREAGR ;said
possesspietioont that informs-
.
he thought the
public ought to ba put in
tion, as he himself often received
tzu ,toanetl:efore pre-
p,..,r s' the signatures
tO which were on several slips of
tenting it he was obliged to paste
, Mr: NEWDEGATE inquired whether Ihe el.'
ad been
of alteration in the course taken by the rceohm•Wit7ene
of Public Petition!.
Mr. THORNELY said there had been no alteration
whatever. 110nourable Members were entirely unaware tcf-ttie %cry irregular manner in which the petitions
presented to the House were got up, bearing is many
caws signatures which might:be the signatures torn from
letters, and often many different signatures written in
the rams hand. Above 8,000 petitions had been pre-
lented to the Hens° during the present session, of which
800 had been printed.

Mr. HUME hoped it would be Ern i& known publicly
that no person had a right to sign the name of another
to a petition.
Mr. THORNELY said the Committee had referred
to it a petition from 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 coming from the foreman.
The matter then dropped.
EXTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
Lord DUDLEY STUART wished to put a question
to the Secretary fur the Home Department: with respect
to the Metropolitan Interments Bill. That Bill stood
on the paper for Friday next, 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 bring 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 the
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.

ROBBERY AT DUBLIN CASTLE.
Mr. HUME wished to know if the Government had
received any information that an official in Dublin
Castle had decamped with a considerable SUM of public
money?—(A laugh.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—I would rather answer
the Hon. Gentleman's question tceraorrow.—(Laughter.)
REPEAL OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DUTY.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented several petitions praying
for 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 Renfrewshire Advertiser, the Illustrated
London News, the News of the World, Bell's
Weekly Messenger, 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.
Ile 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 Hon. 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 more
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
thane tax 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-
ment,3? 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 bad 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 these 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 uf all taxes that pressed upon the lite-
rary man. It was a tax too upon religious communication,
and he had also preeeetel petitions from the printers
and publishers of religious newspapers, and even their
circulation wai 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
I rom the operation of this duty. It was a tax too upon
wit, since it affected such publications as Panel:, 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. It was levied
only on advertisements in newspapers, and not on ad-
vertisements in books, or in Bradshaw, for instance, mall
other works of that kind. There was another
hardship attending it that a newspaper prd-
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 celled 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
ndvertisements in America there were only 1,000,000 iti
England. In 1837 there were in England, Ireland, Scotr
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. 6d,
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
157,0001. 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, he
should conclude by denouncing this duty as one of the
worst ever imposed, and one of the first which
the Chancellor of the 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, ii 4 tee words of his motion, that it is ex-
pedient tharthe advertisement duty should be repealed.;
Mr. /4-GIBSON seconded the motion.
Mr. TRELAWNY 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. Ile could only repeat what ha
heed 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
was, unjustly imposed. Many objections might be urged
to particular taxes, a hich 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 thq,,fleuses to resist any,further
tatterapts for the reduction of taxation.
Mr. HUME said the Right Hon. Gentleman's ob-
sorvatiens amounted to au appeal to this effect—" I
have made 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. flume) 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 suede 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 do
W 5 to express an opinion that, on principle, the tax
was wroeg.--(Hea,r, hear.);
The House then 'divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ..- ••• ''' 39
Against it ...
... .., ... 208
Majority against the unction... 169
Mr. G.
The motion was consequently lost.
BERKESTIVE LAt3OUR.
the exclusion from our
labour, to Friday, the 31stairnsetts of
the
Mr. COWAN presented
r:
markets of
his motion respecting
produce of slave
petition from Edinburgh;
said aiveomurotoiolna
JOURNEYMEN BAKERS.
Lord D. STUART and Mr.
petitions from other places in
Com-
mittee to inquire into the sanitaryneymen.bakers.
Lord R. GROSVENOR h*
Bfuomix. presented other
WSaeglecntotfor
condition of the jour-
the Exchequer, but was an appeal to tlLehe
relief from taxation, or an appeal to h
hags of the House, and therefore he trusted
re-
ceive due consideration. He had on a ferm
Chancellor of
wouldcask
occasion
teirtt and feel-
stated the evils under which the .journey
laboured, and he could not bring himself tQ believe thats
any serious objection would be made to the motion be-
fore the House. A. previous motion for a Select Com.
mater made by him had been met by the Right Hon.
Secretary of State for the Home Department with this
reely:—" What necessity can there be for inquiry, when
the Thole case is so well known from papers that have
been moved for and laid upon the table of the House."
Afterwards be had moved for leave to bring
the hours of working in
hadalso
tobultirniin this ho beau
told at the time that the
proposed would not meet the evils they
remedies he
(ure,
and all sorts of disasters were
nib nii%l c ue aell c°eUsß3s efi .Bill
h; He was
were intended to ;
petition in his hand, most vet
become law. He had
prophesied from the eyoarking of such a Bill, should it
to consent to
were satisfied that the
an inquiry, as the petitioners
spectfully worded, which pprayed the House
these poor persons had
to reform them. He considered t
ad-
mitted evils would then demand from that House a Bill
groat reason to complain of the matinee in which their
grievances had hitherto been met. He toug they had
a right to claim the attention of the House on sanitary
gt''unds. But in addition to this and other arguments,
he thought the
Com-
mittee, if it ought
ourneyman bakers were only because the j
House togrant the required

quested it, and they surely were the beet judges of their
own condition and grievances. He begged to move for
a Select Cormniito3 to inquire whether an; v.ures ran
be taken to improve the sanitary condition of the jour-
neymen bakers.
Sir G. GREY would gladly agree to the motion, if he
believed it would lead to the practical results the Noble
Lord expected. But the reasons ho bad urged two years
ego 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 Noble 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. Again, 'if
this Committee were granted, the Noble Lord could not
ensure the House from being called upon by other trades
to have similar Committees to inquire 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 Sbeir 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 motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. STAFFORD said when the petitioners found
that so skilful a debater as the Right Hon. Baronet
could bring forward no better arguments than those
which he had adduced, they would conceive that their
case had not been fairly met, and that he had trusted to
the advocates of political economy and to Ministerial
influence rather than to argument. It had been said
that if 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 be
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 proposed 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 hal 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 had 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. He 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
he 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
Bakers' Gazette and General Trades' Advocate—a pub-
lication which did not 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 had
seen nothing to justify the refusal of the Committee, he
should support the motion.—(Hear.)
Mr. G. THOMPSON said,' if the views:of
economy entertained by the Hon. Member for Manches-
ter (Mr. Bright) could be supported by no better argue
meats than those which he had adduced, he (Mr. Thompe
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
fur the purpose of influencing public opinion out of
dcors; and he 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.—(Hear.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said the House ought not to
turn a deaf ear to the complaints brought before it,, and
he considered it his duty to support the motion.
The House divided, when there appeared--
, For the motion
Against it
90
Majority against the motion
DUBLIN AND HOLYHEAD MAILS.
Sir R. BULKELEY, iu bringing forward the motion
of which he had given notice on this subject, said ho
should very briefly state the points which ho thou ;ht
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 30,0004 leformation
of this was given to the Dublin Steam-packet
Company, and the result was, that the Ad-
miralty closed with them for 25,0001. 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
Gdvernment should have so far impeded private enter-
prise, and hoped the House would support the motion us
one of great importance to both England and Ireland.
Re begged to move for 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 develops or otherwise
the lull 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
effec°

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. . _ _

Vv
Sir F. T. BARING said, that thinking at first that
this was a mere squabble between two companies, he was
disposed t oppose the motion; but as a charge bad 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-
.. .

miffing the correctness of the statement made by the
muver 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. Afte:-
wards came the report of the Committee, and in accord-
ance with it the contract was offered for public com-
petition. The Chester and Holyhead Company did not
send in an offer. Only one tender was sent in, and com-
manic Wens were entered into with the parties making it,
with the view of ascertaining whether they would not
accept lower terms. 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 had no other
course to pursue. In granting the Committee he re-
garded the complaint as one 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 differences of parties.
Mr. S. HERBERT was rejoiced that the Right Hon.
Baronet had given the explanation they had just heard,
for he had been informed that with respect to the first
tender the communications between the Government and

the Dublin Steam Company had been of a private nature.
He thought it desirable that a Committee should be ap-
po;: ted, for he klieihted -ellethe: the Company
would be able to effect the service required. The sum
stated by the other company was absurdly low. The
railway company hal spent enormous sums in
making that gigantic work over the Menai, and in com-
pleting the harbour at Holyhead, and had, in his opinion,
the first claim on the Government. He apprehended
that what would happen would be this:—the Dublin
Company being obliged to contract to carry the mail
across the Channel, the railway company would send a
light engine with the mails only, end the:Dublin Com-
pany would be obliged to carry them across the Chan-
nel without the passengers, who would be conveyed a
little later by one of the railway companies' boats. The
result would probably be disadvantageous to both com-
panies and to the public service.
Mr. OSBORNE said, this was an important question
and would probably be referred to in the fourtecoming
motion for the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy in Ire
land. Considering the great inducements held out to
the railway company to expend money on a line in
which great national interests were concerned, he
thought the impression in the country would be that
they had not been dealt with in a way their merits de-
manded. They had become responsible for 200,0001.
for the improvement of Holyhead harbour, and had con-
structed the tubular bridge over the Menai—one of the
greatest works of modern times. He thought the Hon.
Member for Anglesea deserved the thanks of the
Members for Ireland for having brought the subject
theforward. c eh
Mr.
Chester MANGLES
thataadnoisyahideadßailway iitwayas not as a director of
spt auokmoeh
-atphboesouhcroedndi
yt
the
ha
Iceatrpgraeot;p
03b85ua,t10. Oi On
Tt ,
ht
hebeuAi
rt
say a word or two on the motion. They had offered to
Admiralty
he wished to
hwierna lAdmiraltyestimatethought
hadthey
e
made no allewance fir the prime cost of the vessel, nor
for wear and tear, nor for insurance. The railroad com-
pany did not seek to mike profit by their offer. The
deputation that had waited on the Chancellor of the
Exchequer entreated him to look at the question as a
national one, and then to consider whether the railroad
company's offer would not be the cheapest. Their offer
had been over and over again rejected by the Admi-
ralty. The Government was plurals; itself on a
saving of 5,0001. on the contract, but they ought
to recollect it was saved by retarding the commu-
nication between London and Dublin. The Govern-
ment had taken advantage of the mania in the rail-
road world, to press severely on the Chester and
Ilolyhead Railway. They had frankly told the Go-
vernment that they would not commence certain
works unless they obtained an assurance of conveying
the mails between Dublin and Holyhead. But the Go-
vernment had taken advantage of the position of the
company then having a Bill before Parliament to screw
them down to the sum of 30,000/. The next thing was
in the affair of the Britannia-bridge. Mr. Stephenson,
the engineer, had at first proposed to cross the strait by
means of an arched bridge, but the Admiralty stepped
in, and said, " Oh, we won't allow you to interfere with
the navigation in this way; you must cross it on a level,
or not at all." This was then believed to be impossible,
but the erection of a tubular bridge was then determined
on, at an estimated expense of 250,000/. Instead of
that sum, however, he believed it would cost 700,000/.
The company had said, over and over again, that
they did not want to make any profit by car-
rying the mail; all they wanted was to be allowed to
do it for the bare cost. Their desire and anxiety had
been all along to make the communication between
London and Dublin in the most rapid way possible, and
in furtherance of that object they bad built boats which
were now doing their work in a way which a few years
ago it would have been thought impossible. The next
thing the Government had said was, that they should
undertake to Jay out 200,000/. in constructing a harbour
of refuge at Ilolyhead. When the correspondence re-
lative to that harbour came before the Committee it
would be found that that which was supposed to be an
invitation was much more—a sort of compulsion. Ile
was not accusing the Government of doing anything
that was unjust ; but be thought it had not held out a
helping hand to the company is that great national
undertaking, which, as had been observed, would,
otie oftheet
gpreoruhnapds;foirri daoinfegw
Ireland.—(Hear.) down as
Lord-Lieutenancy
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he
awdaayyswibteh ltahide
thought it would be more convenient for the House to
postpone a good deal t f what had been said on that dis-
cussion until they went into the proposed Committee.—
(Hear.) He would only trespass on the House for a
sentence or two. A great part of these transactions
which had been referred to had taken place five years
ago. The whole of the arrangements with the Post-
office had been made, not during the existence of the
present Government, but the former one.—(Hear, hear.)
Would it not be far better, then, that that inquiry
should be entered into baere the Committee, and that
the present Government should not be obliged to enter
into explanations of matters with which they were not
acquainted.—(Hear.) He would appeal to his Hon.
Friend, when he said that nothing had been done by the
present Government, whether he was not aware that so
far as any transactions between himself (Sir C. Wood)
and the company in question were concerned, that he
had paid the company, which he might have declined
doing (as the Right Hon. Baronet was understood)—and
abstained from asking them for money, which he might
have demanded.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it more
advisable, however, that these statements and counter-
statements should be reserved for the Committee, when
the whole question could be fully gone into.
Mr. H. HERBERT begged, as an Irish Member, to
tender his best thanks to the Hon. Baronet opposite fur
having brought forward a subject which was of such
great importance to Ireland.
Sir R. BULKELEY, in briefly replying, observed
that he had moved, before Easter, for certain papers iu
connexion with the present question, which he had been
told would not take five minutes to prepare, and yet they
had not been furnished up to that moment.
Mr. COWPER said the papers were in the hands of
the printer, and would be on the table very soon. If the
Hon. Baronet had seen them, he would have been saved
making some of the observations which he had done.
The motion was then formally put from the chair, and
agreed to.

M OTIONS.
The SPEAKER called on several Hon. Members by
name who had notices on the paper, but none of those
mentioned answered.
There seemed to be an understanding on all sides of
the House to avoid entering upon any business which
might lead to a prolonged discussion.

ORDERS.
The orders of the day were then called on.
The Committee on the Wood used in Ship-building
Bill was postponed.

The Benefices in Plurality Bill as amended, was con-
sidered, read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
The -Committee on the Elections (Ireland) Bill was
understood to be postponed until te-inorrow (this day).
The House then adjourned, amid some cheering, at
near Half-past Eight o'ch,ek.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRY AND
CAPITAL.

A general meeting of the delegates from all parts of
he country was held at the Crown and Anchor Tavern,
'Steil:id, yesterday, the Duke of Richmond in the
chair, to consider the present condition of agriculture
and other interests.
Upon the platform we observed Mr. Bennet, M.P.,
Colonel Sibthorp, m.p.. M.P., the
Mr. Christopher,
Marquis of Downshire, Earl Stanhope, Earl of Malmes-
bury, Mr. Wort:ey, M.P., Sir John Trollop,
M.P., Mr.
Packe, M.P., Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, M.P., the Earl of
M.P., Eglinton, Sir Charles Burrell, M.P the Earl Talbot,
Mr. G. F. Young, &c. &c.
The room was crowded to excess in every part.
The Duke of BICOMOND, who took the chair amidst
loud cheers, said he would take the liberty of addressing
a few observations to the meeting, as there were perhaps
p
few who were better aware than ho was of the necessity
of imposing moderate impex eriment, and that they
ort duties. It was said they
were trying a great
should gives sufficient time to test its applica-
bility to the circumstances of this country. Now
he contended that the experiment had been tried,
and that it had signally failed, and if continued the result
would be the ruin of landlords and tenants. They had
assembled. there that day to hear an account of the pre-
sent state of agriculture from deputies from different
parts of the country. There could be no doubt
that distress was prevalent, but still he hoped,
by the perseverance of the farmers, redress and justice
would sooner or later bo obtained. Lie hoped the ex-
pressions which would be made use of to-day would
show that they were all loyal to the Crown, and strongly
attached to the constitution of the country.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BOOKER then came forward to propose the first
resolution:—
" That the difficulty and intolerable distress pervading
the agricultural, and other great interests of the country,
and the state of deprivation and suffering to which large
masses of the industrial population are reduced, are, in
the opinion of this meeting,
fraught with consequences
the most disastrous to the public welfare, and, if not
speedily remedied, must prove fatal to the maintenance
of public credit, will endanger the public peace, and may
even pled in peril the sa'etY
of the state.
Every one would agree that Great Britain and Ireland,
and our dependencies, were in a most unsatisfactory con-
dition, and therefore it was no wonder that discontent
should generally prevail. He would assume three pro-
"
positions—first, that the agricultural interest was
the most
important interest in the state; secondly,
that it was in a state of great anti greatly increasing
depreciation; and, thirdly, teat the depression was occa-
sioned and aggravated by the adoption and continuance
of the altered policy of the country which now pre_
he hoped they were all
agreed.—(aear hear , and cheers.) No one present
vailed. The two first propositions would be conceded
everywhere, and as to the third,
would- venture, to deny that the disasters, troubles,
and difficulties of their position were to be attributed
to that
(Loud cheers.) It had been said that a symptom of
vile 'and suicidal policy called free trade.—
prosperity was cheapness of the necessaries of life and
cheapness of the skill and labour of men, but how came
it
_that with cheapness, di.aress now existed. Wh
My,
• Hnskisson who was the great autho-
rity of the Fres-traders said that nothing could
cent.
be more delusive than to suppose that cheapness
of food was always a beaefit, but, on the contrary, when
unaccompanied kith a demand for labour, it was a sign
of distress. Then it was said that free trade had not
whatthos e
had'eou countrieshadin
thebe effectalmost
freer u i tradenruined?—(Cheers.)
a( C
Ireland?he.) • Why,Alid