The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-12 00:00:00

bitnin4 Attf

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1844.

The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition from the
county of Somerset, praying for the removal of all du
ties on the necessaries of life, and a revision of the
whole system of taxation. A few remarks, which the
Noble Earl made on presenting the petition, led to a
little discussion, in which Lord I'oRTMAN said he was an
amphibious animal, and had taken part neither with the
League nor the Anti-League. ne was, however, op-
posed to a total repeal of the corn-laws, but did not ap-
prove of the sliding scale, and tru,ted that the contend-
ing parties would be disposed to meet upon his view of
the question. After a few remarks from the Duke of

WELLINGTON, the Duke of RicE:IoND denounced the
proceedings of the League in strong terms. Some other
Lords spoke on the subject, but as there was no motion
before the House, the discussion led to no result.

On the motion of Lord BROUGMAM, the Privy Counci,
Appellate Jurisdiction Bill was referred to a Select
Committee.

A brief conversation ensued, relative to the new
Houses of Parliament, from which it appeared that it
would not be possible to fit up the houses with perma-
nent fittirgs by next session.
In answer to a question from Lord LILFORD, relative
to the Rev. Mr. .M.Litsx,
The Bishop of PETERBOROUGH (Dr. Davys) said the
Church Discipline Act prevented him from punishing
any offence committed two years before, or out of the
diocese. (What a humane act !) The reverend offender,
however, had been prohibited from performing any ser-
vice in the diocese.
The House adjourned at Half-past Seven.

In the House of Commons, Mr. O'CONNELL gave no-
tice that, on an early day after the recess, he should move
for leave to bring in aßill to define the law of conspiracy.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice that, on the
second reading of the Commons' Inclosure Bill, he should
move that it be read a second time on that day six
months.

In answer to a question from Mr. Escorr, Mr. Con-
DEN said he would bring on his motion relative to the
effects of protective duties this day.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
the Report on the Three-and• a-Half per Cents. Annui-
ties Acts was brought up, and the resolutions were
agreed to.

On the Report of the Committee of Supply being
brought up, Capt. BERNAL moved for a copy of any letter
or correspondence which had taken place between
the Secretary-at-War and the widow of Colonel Few-
CETT, relative to the withholding of her pension. After
giving a brief history of duelling, and mentioning some
great names who had set the example to Colonel Few-
CETT, he expressed a hope that the Right Hon. Gentle
man would reverse his decision, and not visit the sins of
the husband upon his widow. Sir HENRY HARDINGE,
in reply, pointed out one or two cases in which pensions
bad been refused under similar circumstances. The
papers, however, would be produced ; but he could not
kohl out any hopes that the pension would be granted,
as there were many reasons for not acceding to it, which
might not exist in other cases. Other Members fol-
lowed, and among them Sir CHARLES NAPIER, who
made a good and amusing speech on the subject.
The only remedy, he said, was to legalise
duelling, and pass a law that all duels should
be fought across a table ; that one pistol only should be
loaded, and that the survivor should be hanged. The
resolution was ultimately withdrawn.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EzellEquin,
the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Reduction Bill was
ordered to be read a second time this day, and the
House adjourned at Nine o'clock.

A desultory conversation took place in the House of
Lords, last night, on the subject of au anti-corn-law peti-
tion from the county of Somerset, in the course of which
the Duke of WELLINGTON, anxious—as in the memorable
ease of Mr.Husaisson's forced retirement from office—that
there ‘‘ should be no mistake," took the opportunity of
repeating his opinions on the subject of the present corn-
laws. As his language on this occasion was singularly
emphatic and explicit, we quote his own words, as we
Slid them in our Parliamentary report, for we foresee
that they will give rise to much stringent comment at
y
the next meeting of the League :—All I can say is,"
observed the Noble and Gallant Duke, " I have not,
at 10 changed my opinion on the subject of the petition
which has this night been brought under consideration.
I voted for the existing corn-law, and I earnestly recom-
mend your Lordships to leave it as it is.—(Cheers.)
That is what I recommend to your Lordships, and to
maintain the.system which it is the object of that corn-
law to carry into execution." Just in the same spirit in
which his Grace here expresses himself respecting the
bread-tax, he expressed himself in the memorable year
1830 respecting Reform. He entreated their Lordships
to allow of no alteration in the constitution of the House
of Commons ; the representation was as perfect as it
could possibly be ; and therefore lie " earnestly re-
amended" that it should be left in this state of
(rivalled perfection. And what was the con-
nue ce of his Grace's " earnest" entreaty ? Why
this—that not four months afterwards a clamour

.-~+'lAf

SVP‘nt

~,~~ n'

:~~~~!

1C:1
4C/1" - - 'arliamentary Reform rose from one end of the
.c e.'
,-,., ..
~. :dom
,t,o thet other;e athnd,HnotwithsftaLndindg the Duke's
s were com-
-4- a illaktd,earnest
to consent to the Bill that deprived them for ever
of ,their unconstitutional influence over the Commons !
Is it not just possible that his Grace's " earnest " en-
troatiLl respecting the corn-laws may be attended with