The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS. •
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
The House re-assembled at Five o'clock.
Sir. C. BURRELL presented a petition from Sussex
in favour of protection to agriculture.
Mr. HARDY presented petitions against certainclauses
in the Insolvent Debtors' Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
inmates of 'Whitecross-street prison in favour of the
Insolvent Debtors' Bill.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented petitians from
Ireland in favour of a repeal of the union.
Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition from Wilts
against agricultural protection.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition from Uppingham
against certain clauses in the Insolvent Debtors Bill.
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL gave notice that, on going
into Committee on that Bill he would move several
amendments.
Mr. WYSE also gave notice that, on going into Com-
mittee on the same Bill, he should move a proviso re-
specting the visitors of the Roman Catholic College of
Maynooth.
FRENCH AGGRESSION AT OTAHEITE.
Sir C. NAPIER said he wished to put a question to
the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, of great importance
to the character and reputation of this country. He
had not given notice of his intention to put the
question, but it referred to a matter of such public
notoriety, that he hoped the Right Honourable Ba-
ronet would be able to give him an answer. The ques-
tion he had to put was, whether it was true that the
British Consul at Otaheite had been arrested under the
English flag by the French authorities; whether the
lights of the English residents were obliged to be put
out at eight o'clock in the evening by the oral's of the
French; whether the French had established strong for-
tifications there; and whether, in consequence of these
operations, Queen Pomare had been obliged to take
refuge on board a British ship ? He also wished to ask
whether, at the time these operations were going on,
there was a British force at the island, and if so, to what
extent ?

Sir R. PEEL said, though the Hon. and Gallant
Officer had not given me notice of the question, yet two
other Hon. Members, the Noble Lord the Member for
Dorsetshire, and the Hon. Member for Evesham, had
notified to him that it was their intention to put a ques-
tion of a similar nature to that of the Gallant Officer ;
they will perhaps excuse me if, as the Gallant
Officer had the precedence of them, though he has
not given notice of his question, I take the opportunity
of answering my Noble Friend and the Hon. Member
in the reply I give to the Gallant Officer. In doing so,
I must limit myself to the statement of those facts which
are of the most importance. Among these is the
removal of the British Consul. We bare received ac-
counts from Otaheite, and presuming on the accuracy of
these accounts, which I have no reason to call in ques-
tion, I do not hesitate to say that a gross outrage,
accompanied by a gross indignity, has been com-
mitted.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Her Ma-
jesty's Government received information to this ef-
fect on Monday last, and we have taken the, first
opportunity of making those communications to the
French Government which we considered the circum-
stances called for. The outrage was committed by a
person in temporary authority at Otaheite, and from
what we know of the facts it was not committed
in consequence of any authority given him by the
French Government. Presuming that the accounts are
accurate, I apprehend that the French Government will
at once make such a reparation as we think this country
has a right to require. I trust I shall not be pressed for
any further information on the subject.—(Hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER said there was one part of his
question which the Right Hon. Baronet had not an-
swered—whether a proper force was stationed at Ota•
heite at the time, and whether the French had esta-
blished fortifications on the island ?
Sir R. PEEL said he had given the Hon. and Gallant
Officer all the explanation necessary.
DROPPED ORDERS.
When the dropped Orders of yesterday were called
on, for the purpose of being disposed of,
Mr. WYSE expressed a wish to bring in the Art-
Unions Bill at once.
Sir R. PEEL hoped the Hon. Gentleman would give
precedence to the motion of his Noble Friend, on the
subject of Captain Warner's invention, which stood for
yesterday, and which had been put off at the re-
quest of the Government, as he understood that
there was a general feeling throughout the House
that it would be proper that his Noble Friend should be
afforded an opportunity of bringing forward his motion.
POOR-LAWS (SCO I'LAND)—LTNATICS IN THE
-ISLE OF ARRAN.
Mr. BOLTVERIE asked whether it was the intention
of the Government to introduce any measure during the
next session of Parliament founded on the report of the
Commissioners of Poor-laws for Scotland ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM had not had time to read the
voluminous evidence attached to that report, and there-
fore could not pledge himself as to the course of conduct
which he might think it right to pursue until he had
had an opportunity of giving that evidence mature
consideration. He would avail himself of that opportunity
to offer to the House an explanation on a subject which
had been adverted to during the discussion on the mo-
tion of his Noble Friend, the Member for Dorsetshire,
on the subject of pauper lunatics. The Hon. Member for
Lambeth had, during that debate, quoted a passage from
the report which had been alluded to by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Kilmarnock, describing, in most feeling terms,
the state of the pauper lunatics in the Isle of Arran. He
had immediately called the attention of the Lord
Advocate to the subject, and he had great
pleasure in stating to the House that nine
months ago active measures had been taken to redress
some of these evils. The pauper lunatics had been re-
moved from Arran to the Glasgow asylum. Steps bud
been taken to bring to justice the offending parties ; in
fact, criminal proceedings were in progress against
them, and precautions bad been taken to prevent a re-
currence of the evil.

SLAUGHTERING HORSES BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the third reading of this
Bill being read,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the Bill had undergone
considerable alterations in Committee. He had made
various inquiries of several parties connected with the
business of slaughtering horses, and the House would be
glad to hear that the statements of the cruelties which
they had heard on the last discussion were unfounded.
Those statements had been quoted from a pamphlet
published by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals ; but there was a rival society in existence,
called the " National Animals' Friend Society," and it
was owing to the rivalry of these societies that these
exaggerated statements had gone forth to the public.
He objected to the 4th clause, because it gave power to
the police to call upon the inspector to accompany them
to these knackers' yards whenever they pleased ; and he
equally objected to the 6th clause, which imposed a
penalty on the inspector of 401. if he refused
to do so. He thought it was uncalled for
and unjust that the inspector should be at the beck and
call of the pace without any fee or reward. He should
move the striking out of the objectionable words of the
clause.
Mr. COWPER defended the clauses as they at pre,
sent stood.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the amendment ..
Against it
Majority for the amendment —27
The clause wtts then agreed to.
On the motion that the Bill do pass,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that those who bad the
management of this Bill did not know anything about
it. Where cruelty took place was not in the licensed
yards in the City, but in those places outside the town,
where the horses were kept before they were slaughtered:
The Bill then passed.
CAPT. WARNER'S INVENTION.
Lord INGESTRE said be could assure the House
that he rose with the utmost reluctance to bring forward
the question of which he had given notice. He felt very
considerable reluctance on two grounds. The first was,
his own inability to do justice to the question ; and the
next was, that he had always held the opinion that that
House was the last place in which questions of that
nature ought to be discussed. The question of these in-
ventions had been more or less befure the country for a
period of ten years. It was about five years ago that
he first became acquainted with the nature of Captain
Warner's invention At that period he brought it under
the consideration of the late Government, and he had also
on a subsequent occasion brought it under the considera-
tion of her Majesty's present Government, in order that
the invention might be investigated, and if approved of
secured to the country. These inventions were, in his
opinion, of permanent advantage to the country. He bad
always thought so, and in consequence he had been as-
sailed with every species of ridicule. Notwithstanding that
ridicule, notwithstanding the talentwhich might be brought
against him in debate, the obstacles which might be thrown
in his way, he felt it his duty to bring forward this subject
for the consideration of the House. He trusted the
House would give him credit for the motives by which
he was actuated. Perhaps it would be convenient to the
House if he shortly traced the history of this matter.
His attention had first been called to the subject by a
paragraph which appearedin a newspaper in the year 1839.
In consequence of this information he was ultimately
introduced to Captain Warner, the inventor of these
projectiles. He then inquired a little into the history
of the invention, and endeavoured to trate it to the best
of his ability. He was bound to say, having taken
the utmost pains in the investigation, that there was
great reason for further inquiry. For that reason he
had determined never to lose a single opportunity of ad-
vocating the cause, till it was proved to bo either of the
greatest possible importance to them as a maritime and
one of these
commercial country, or a gross imposition ;