The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-09 00:00:00

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF L I? D S March 8.
le FEES
TO
CLERKS IN PEI TY SESSIONS.
T
Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved for certain
returns relating to fees paid to clerks in petty sessions.
iel_grievance he said, was more heavy upon the poorer
they of the country than the demands made upon
eftl in the shape of fees. The result was, that there
Vs_ almost an absolute denial of justice to a great num-
vfof persons who happened to be in a state of poverty.
r • The returns were then ordered.
CORN-LAWS.
fro he Earl of lIADDINGTON presented two petitions
t.vftl laddington and other places, praying for protec-
t t31)•0 the agricultural interest) in doing so, he said
to a meeting had been got up by about twenty persons
----•fit"ur of the Anti-Corn-law League movement ;
ct
from them a petition had emanated purporting to be
Item the agriculturists of the country, and, in eonse-
' 1211 c. several meetings were held of those, who were all
7raons composed of landowners, farmers, and agricul-
-1 servant s, from which the petitions he had pre-
, aeated emanated.
re7he Marquis of NORMANBY moved for certain
urns with respect to the Charitable Donation Funds
la Ireland.
COURT OF PRIVY m
i COUNCIL.
Lord BROUGHAM said he shed to make some
°cuoservations with respect to the jurisdiction of the
to tut of Privy Council. Important questions relating
.colonial and Indian matters were decided by the
erivY Council, and therefore it was a3solutely necessary
kt every possible assistance should be given to that
talirt• If it was such an important Court with
havec, t to our distant possessions, how much more
Portant must it be to our British subjects at home ?
trtfelt confident in asserting, and he as sure he would
eo °rile out in that assertion the more that matter was
h_ftsidered,- that nothing could be more unfair, or more
i'ratisfactory than the present law of divorce, and that
joeY were also bound not only to act upon their own
th'groent and reflection, but that they also should avail
a:pelves of the experience of other countries to try
t, devise some mode of amending those laws. This
his °fte of the reasons inducing him to bring forward
measure, and he trusted it would meet with the
raent of their Lordships. The expense of a divorce
poadoul eit a remedy only to be obtained by the rich. A
ftlan never could avail himself of the remedy of
ta,„ftree under the existing state of the law. Was there
thif example for this state of the law? No, we were
°ftlY Protestant country in which such a state of the
Iv"; elhted. Even in Scotland the law was different to
of tt it was in this country with respect to the remedy
divorce. But this difficulty and partiality of the law
( it at present stood would be obviated by providing
k! Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with the
Wer of disposing of applications for divorces. In
asrlAnd the cost of procuring a divorce was from 30/. to
while in England to obtain a Divorce Bill—unop-
,the cost was from 500/. to 600/. ; if the Bill
1,01,71 be opposed it would amount to from 1,0001. to
14-71 No one could say that this was a proper state of
.111,1`,"7. By the present law too, a person proceeding
Consistorial Court on account of adultery by his
had to pay both his own costs in prosecuting his
and the costs to which his wife might be put, in
;;,loeuting her defence. Persons were frequently
Cfted by proceedings in the Consistorial Court, even be-
•thr they could be in a position to apply to their n
Lord-
fts' House r a divorce. This the was he stte
Litre law on this important subject. If at mana of
ted means went to the expense of getting a verdict
kiaft action for trim. con., he would not have suf-
a .1,4 'Deans to apply to the Ecclesiasttcal Court to get
4„riree afterwards. He thought that it would be be-
Jueial if this tribunal were to take cognisance in con-
• nation with the Consistorial Judges of those matters.
tis conclusion, the Noble Lord said he should support
it,,,second reading of the Bill.
bi,'he LORD CHANCELLOR said he had always ex-
4e,s,sed, himself strongly of opinion that there ought to
fixed President of the Judicial Committee of the
to be Council, and therefore he thought this Bill ought
m4E7 allowed to be read a second time, and afterwards
ired
to a Committee up stairs. He would, however,
authority ; for, if they did so, he could assure them
at their political authority would soon follow.
14 N
ord COTTENHAM said his Hon. and Learned
.I,rki (Lord Brougham) had not adverted to one clause
'eh,' if it became law, would refer all matters
• e judicial nature from that House to the
• o,(,ftilmittee of the Privy Council. He alluded to
e 9th clause, which provided that any matter or thing
eel' be referred from that House to the Privy Conn-
' -There was no limit to this clause. If that clause
Are to become law it would strip that House of all
authority. He (Lord Cottenham) was of opinion,
Nl;tt the law with respect to divorce was very unsatis-
Z; but he did not believe that the proposition of his
exZe Friend would furnish any redress at all. The
nsesjn such matters were of course referred to as
Athe chief grievance. Why there were heavy expenses
11,7'4-cases tried before the Judieial Committee of the
kt,..1%7 Council. There were the expenses of counsel,
and witnesses, the same as in proceedings before
""` 41 °use. It was true, that there were fees to be
Patti
tft cases heard before that House, but those fees were
into a fund, called the Fee Fund, and were the pro-
-410? of the public. Now if these fees so much increased
• it."Penses in cases to be heard before that House
jaa obvious that the proper course to be pursued
• old be to abolish those fees rather than refer all such
qtlea to another, and, perhaps, equally expensive tri-
, 110441. He thought it would be better if some jurisdic-
ha were to be established by which this remedy would
~,,11._Ivailable generally. He also approved of that portion
1j the Bill which related to laws of divorce and of patent
145;444 although there were other
_points in it which he
it:c!ht ought to be considered in Committee.
Itil„t1, CAMPBELL said the question before them was,
tlirs:,uor this law was to be administered by the Legisla-
. 144ii.0r by a judicial tribunal. It was also proposed that
but lament was to have a control over the Committee ;
tag l 0 was that to be effected unless all the evidence
ret-dLlftd before them. He should support the second
t'ug, but, at the same time, he should, when the Bill
tag
I'l4 Committee, propose many alterations in it.
he Bishop of EXETER complained that the rights
bye privileges of the Church would be materially affected
his Rill, because, in many cases, there might be an ap-
Iviil„trool the Court of Arches brought before them, in
. the rights of the dignitaries of the Church would
041tftjolved And it was well known that some of those
of tr Established
might be persons not of the communion
of me -mstablished Church. He found fault with many
~c 1.0,0 principles involved in that portion of the Bill
rola related to the subject of divorce.
rd BROUGHAM, in reply, said that the Right
on thPrelate had no just cause for the fears he expressed
The
part of the Church.
"e Bishop of EXETER explained.
4,4'4e LORD CHANCELLOR thought his Noble and
attfted Friend had better divide the Bill into two parts,
igthat part relating to thelaw of divorce a separate
•
ltaTrd BROUGHAM said he would move that it be
tivo"ftstrction to the Committee to divide the Bill into
,t partus if they should think fit.
be he Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
referred
to a Select Committee.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, March 8.
0'(145k SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
fir. ne.
tUSFEILD presented a petition from Malton
ist the Scarborough Railway Bill.
foi,.°lnnel WYNDHAM presented a petition from Bed-
-R. against the Shoreham and Chichester Railway Bill.
tio:,,CUARLES BURRELL presented similar peti-
iroin different parts of Sussex.
ATHLONE ELECTION.
b„ ',Chalmers, the Clerk of the Election Committees,
tie right up the evidence taken before the Athlone Elec-
-I:i‘Aniunittee.
kas C. ROUND brought in the Northern and
• to ht:rnßailway Bill, which was read a first, and ordered
• . st read a second time on Monday.
hen:. JOHN YARDE BULLER presented a petition
theT Persons residing on the Beach of Dawlish, stating
Itkititheir property would be injured by the South Devon
litiv.WaY bill, and praying that it might not pass into a
• rinl
11 presented a petition from the Rev.
'Sir• 1,,41e, against the Guildford Junction Railway Bill:
their•uWAßD DOUGL AS presented a petition from
Birkeayor and Town Council of Liverpool, against the
• Cnhead Improvement Bill.
fro WILLIAM HEATHCOTE presented a petition
stoic inchester in favour of the railway from Basing-
e•,,, t°
thNewbury.
sad e 'notion of Sir W. HEATHCOTE, the Newbury
.1/:r„ingstoke Railway Bill was read a second time.
..nIELD, ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, AND
ofM•
MANCHESTER RAILWAY.
of Mr. WI LSON PATTEN moved the second reading
Bill
sh. •
*ere ESTCOURT would just mention that there
had "170 Bills before the House, and that an application
tha Coen Inside to the Committee of Selection to appoint
' eationmunittee on one of those Bills. Upon that appli-
for th b'ing made he immediately sent to the agent
s, ',other Bill, to know if he was
forayrey. His reply
coils that he should not be ready ome time—the
C
„tlinencewas, that a great hardship was inflicted upon
• CoarZtittties who were ready at once to go before the
ee*
1)04 GLADSTONE said, that if parties, for the pur-
tage.-°f creating delay, should be found to take advan-
nthe rule of thatj House, which provided that
to 2 enn3Peting railway lines should be referred to
,411 e COmmittee, he thought some measure ought
.47fta:Pted to Prevent such a course being taken.
tune_' Sport discuSsion, the Bill was read a second
•
)4r. ty Is
rea ITd
TEWPORT DOCKS BILL.
w-latT brought in the Newport Docks Bill,
r, as a first .
%OMMITTEEStime ON RAILWAY BILLS.
tiott. 'IniDLEY rose to move the
.following resolu-
ter*--"That any per ested Member, whose constituents are locally
e
u • milted `'_:_ally competing lines of railway, may.b
wtti their slt upon the Committee appointed to decide
Theell to rvespective merits, though without being
tit; %use, ire;11)011 any question arising thereon."
• . °the,
e__Y the resolution to which they had come
'"oin • 'ening, on the subject of the constitution
rev inittees . .
kitresentatio Railway Bills, had, in fact, given up the
of their constituents altogether. He ad-
hadknti that 41
• cho personal as perfectly right that the Members who
from
tt interest in private Bills should be ex-
% r4ntativene Committees ; but with regard to the
40?ry (Leo_
its of local interests, their case rested upon
k for t footing. To whom would the country
baAt° tiler defence of their local interests, ex-
t.__ ! respective representatives ? The House
wat. that :Itatultiar itself by the resolutions it had come to
represie._ L Did they mean to say that a Member
*sitnq kcal interests, had 110 sufficient "CI"

ledge or public spirit to give an honest vote ? The real
secret was that certain lion. Members had not the moral
courage, while they saw two parties among their con-
stituents, to offend either of the parties, and therefore
they were exceedingly glad to shirk their duty.
The presence o!' the local Member on a Committee •••• ould
tend to check some of the back-stairs influence that now
prevailed, and that Member would act under the control
of public opinion. He thought they had departed from
the open English principle in the resolution they held
adopted. If the constituents did not approve of his
conduct they had the remedy in their own hands.
He thought it would be right that the local interest of par-
tictVar places should be consulted in such matters, and
that Committees should not be deprived of the advan-
tages of hearing the arguments of those well acquainted
with the details of the matter.

Mr. P. BORTH WICK having seconded the motion,
Mr. GLADSTONE said he thought the resolution now
introduced by the Hon Gentleman was superfluous. He
thought the grounds taken in support of his position by the
Hon. G entleman opposite were quite useless, and he would
even say almost invidious; for in Committees, upon any
other subject, no such power* were ever called for. If
such a power was allowed to exist in the present instance,
a great deal of in';onvenience would arise, 13, cause a
great many of those gentlemen who now proposed
to have the right of attending those Committees
would be actuated by different and discordant interests.
He trusted that the House would feel no hesitation in
negativing the motion.
Mr. W. PATTEN was extremely glad to hear
what had fallen from his Right Honourable
Friend. There had been a great difference of
opinion in Committees as to whether Members
were to be allowed to attend and represent the inte-
rests of their constituents. He thought that if it had
been known at the time when the measure was introduced
that Members would have the power of stating the case
of their constituents who were not able to appear by
counsel, many who supported the measure would have
voted against it on that express ground.
Mr. LABOUCHERE agreed in substance with what
had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman. He was
not aware, however, that any Member of Parliament had
a right to address the Committee on behalf of his con-
stituents. His impression had hitherto been that the
right extended only to attending the Committee, and
there was the greatest risk of inconvenience through
protracting the proceedings of the Committee unneces-
sarily, if any other principle were adopted. Perhaps the
Speaker would be good enough to state to the House
what was the practice of Parliament in reference to this
matter.

Mr. GLADSTONE said he had not meant to state
that any Member.had an absolute right to address the
Committee; all he had meant to say was, that practically
no objection -was felt to the making of a statement.
The SPEAKER wished to observe, in reply to the
question of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that no Member
who was not a Member of the Committee had any right
to interfere with the proceedings. He had no right to
examine witnesses though he might be present in the room.
Dr. BOWRING said that regulation which prevented
Members from interfering with the proceedings of Select
Committees on Railroads, upon which they were
not appointed, had given great satisfaction, and he
thought it was desirable to extend tho rule to all other
Select Committees as well as Railway Committees.
After a few words from Mr. H. HINDE,
Mr. HINDLEY withdrew his motion, observing that
if any measure affecting the interests of his constituents
were referred to a Select Committee, he should apply
to that Committee, as a matter of courtesy, to receive
his suggestions.
The Newbury and Great Western Railway Bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
Mr. R. PALMER presented a petition from the
landowners on the line, against the Newbury and Great
Western Railway Bill.
The Slamannan Junction Railway Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY.
Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition in favour of
the North British Railway Bill, which was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed.
NOTICES OF MOTION.—ATHLONE ELECTION.
Mr. W. O. STANLEY gave notice that when the
Committee on the Athlone election presented their
Report, he should move for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the whole circumstances attending the election
for that borough.
SLAVE TRADE.

Sir J. HANMER gave notice that, when the Noble
Lord the Member for Tiverton brought forward. his
motion, he should move, as an amendment, that the
House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole
House, for taking into consideration the treaties relating
to the slave trade.
TOBACCO DUTIES.

Dr. BOWRING, on the part of the lion. Member for
Montrose, posponed the motion of which that Hon.
Member had given notice on the subject of the tobacco
duties until Monday next.
LAW OF DIVORCE.

Mr. ELPHINSTONE moved for a return of the
number of matrimonial suits instituted in each metropo-
litan Diocesan Court in England, Wales, and Ireland, in
1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843, also a similar return from
Courts having consistorial jurisdiction in Scotland in
1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843; also, number of matrimonial
suits in Judicial Committee of Privy Council or House
of Lords, on appeal, in 1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843 ;
also, return of number of Divorce Acts passed by the
Legislature in 1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843 ; also the
average expense of such suits, in 1840, 1841, 1842, and
1843, as far as the same can be stated by the officers of
the above- mentioned Courts.—Agreed to.
COPPER, TIN, AND LEAD TRADE.
Sir C. LEMON moved for returns of the import and
export of copper, lead, and tin, and of copper ore into
the United Kingdom, during the year ending Jan. 5,
1844, distinguishing the copper and copper ore ex-
ported from the ports of Liverpool, and the per eentage
of copper contained in the copper ore exported.
Dr. BOWRING begged to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
when the report of the Commission to inquire into
Welsh grievances would be communicated to the House.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had received the
Report to which the Hon. Gentleman referred, only
yesterday; he expected to receive the evidence on Mon-
day. In the early part of next week he would lay both
the report and the evidence on the table of the House.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES—IRELAND.
Lord EBRINGTON begged to ask the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Ireland, when the returns which had
been moved for on a former evening, respecting the Sti-
pendiary Magistrates in Ireland, would be laid before the
House ?

L);d ELIOT said he believed the returns would be
prepared by Monday neNicimA.

Mr. MACAULAY had a, question to put to the
Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, and
in doing so he wished to correct a misunderstanding
which had gone abroad respecting what he had said the
other night, as to the late proceedings at Gwalior.
He was represented to say that those proceedings were
in accordance with and in pursuance of a treaty which
was entered into in 1805. On the contrary, what he did
say was, that the proceedings were founded upon a treaty
which was notoriously annulled in 1805. Was the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) now prepared to answer the
question lie put to him yesterday ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the India mail had
arrived, and in the course of the day the Govern-
ment had received their dispatches. He had every
reason to suppose that the proclamation alluded to had
been sent officially with them. In the Government
dispatch, however, there were no less than 97 inclo-
sures, and of course he had not yet had time at present
to go carefully through them. He assumed the procla-
mation was there ; no doubt it was. The Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) had declared on his own
authority that the treaty of 1804 was notoriously
annulled in 1805. There had been hardly
time since last evening to search into the matter,
but so far as he (Sir R. Peel) remembered, there were
three treaties between the Maharajah of Sindia, and the
Government of India. There was the treaty of 1803,
the treaty of 1804, and the treaty of 1805. The first,
that of 1803, was a general treaty for peace ;
that of 1804, was a treaty of alliance offen-
sive and defensive, and stipulated that Sindia,
in case of necessity, should be entitled to call on
the Anglo-Indian Government for assistance ; and the
treaty of 1805 was made to correct some defects in the
treaty of 1803, and had no reference to that of 1804.
The question, therefore, arose whether the treaty of
1804 was overruled by that of 1805.
Mr. MACAULAY had no wish under the circum-
stances to prolong the discussion. The Right Hon.
Gentleman would lay the proclamation before them, and,
of course, was not in a position at that moment to give a
distinct opinion on the question just put to him.
FACTORIES BILL.

- _
Sir J. GRAHAM postponed the second reading of
this Bill until Friday next, when he would positively
proceed with it.
SUGAR DUTIES.
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in reference to a
statement made by him last night in the debate on the
sugar duties. He (Mr. Gibson) had understood him to
state that the consumption of sugar in this country for
the year ending January, 1844, was greater than had
ever taken place in any former year.—(Cries of "No, no.")
He understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to state that the
consumption of sugar in the year ending in January,
1844, was greater than any that had taken place in any
former year, except one. Now, he (Mr. M. Gibson) had
taken some trouble te. look into the Parliamentary papers,
and make calculations upon proper authority with refer-
ence to the amount taken into consumption during past
years, and he found, from the calculations he had made, that
in the years 1830, 1831, 1835, and 1837, the quantity of
sugar consumed in this country was greater than the
quantity•consumed in the year ending January, 1844.
Now he wanted to know whether the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet meant to state it as a fact, that the consumption
was greater in 1844 than any preceding year, with the
exception of one ?
Sir R. PEEL said that the statements he had made
were from documents that he hadin his possession, and if
he was incorrect it was competent for the Hon. Gentle-
man to correct him by moving for the documents.
What he had stated was, that the consumption in the
last year was greater than the consumption of any
year, with but one exception, and that was the
year 1842. In that year the consumption
was 4,550,000 cwts., while last year it was
4,450,000 cwts. If he had made any mistake in the
matter he was sorry for it, but it was perfectly competent
for the Hon. Member to correct it by adopting the course
that he had suggested.
Mr. BELLEW put a question to the Secretary for Ire-
land (Lord Eliot) with respect to the manner in which, on
a jury in arecent criminal case, every Catholic had been
struck off. _ _ _ _ .

Lord ELIOT declined answering until he had received
further infvrination cm the subject. •