The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-13 00:00:00

in that House, it was for him to undertake the subject
himself ; if he would undertake the subject, and would
give them a distinct promise that in the interval
of two or three days, 'he would come down
to that House and propose on the authority
of the Government, a resolution on Standing Orders,
which would enable them to present petitions of that
description, then he for one would strongly recommend
to his Hon. Friend, the Member for Hertford, that
he should withdraw the petitions he had now offered
for presentation ; but he thought that anything
short of such a promise from the Right Hon. Baronet
would not be satisfactury to the country, or that. House.
He therefore begged to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
whether he was prepared to take the matter into his own
hands, and representing as he did her Majesty's Govern-
ment in that House, to propose such a resolution as
might have the effect of relieving the House froth the
embarrasstnent of its present position.
Sir R. PEEL said there were many occasions on
which long practice would justify the House in calling a
person in his (Sir R. Peel's) situation—he meant as
leader of the House of Commons, as it was generally
termed—to propose to it a certain course of proceeding ;
but he thought that there were occasions, and the pre-
sent seemed to him one of them, on which it would
be rather hard to impose upon a certain individual the
task of proposing the means of obviating difficulties, to
which lie• himself was opposed. Considering the opi-
nions which he (Sir R. Peel) had expressed on the mat-
ter, he thought that if he had volunteered such a reso-
lution as the Noble Lord suggested, he should have but
provoked opposition to it. He, therefore, was not
prepared to give the Noble Lord that assur-
ance which he had asked ; but he was prepared
to remit Ins own opinions in deference to those
of the House, and co-operate with those who
thought a course different from that which he had
pursued to be better. He was prepared to concur with
any Hon. Member who might think it a better course
to appoint a Committee to consider of the matter.—
(Oh, oh, from the Opposition.) He thought the matter
one of considerable importance, and he had shown
that he would not persist in his own opinion against that
of the House. If the Honourable Gentleman pre-
pared that resolution of which he had given notice,
he (Sir Robert Peel) would co-operate with him in
proposing it in such a shape as should be generally
acceptable to the House, but considering the opinion
that he had expressed upon the subject, the proposing of
the resolution had better be committed to other hands.
Mr. CUMMING BRUCE rose (amid loud cries of
" Divide, divide.") He said he had been just about to
make such a proposition as had just now fallen from
his Right Honourable Friend who had just sat
down. (The Honourable Member continued to ad-
dress the House for some time, but was inaudible
during the greater portion of his address, in con-
sequence of the noise in the body of the House arising
from the impatience of Hon. Members to divide.) He
was understood to say that the best course would be
the appointment of a Committee who would take the
matter into its consideration, and report upon it.
They owed it to their own dignity to inform themselves
ofi the subject.—(Loud cries of "Divide, divide," "ques-
tion.") The great object of Hon. Gentlemen opposite
seemed to be to induce the House to transfer deliberating
as to the propriety of imposing a tax for the calm consi-
deration of the representatives of the people to the body
of the people themselves.—(Cheers, and cries of " Divide,
divide.") He thought it would be better to refer the
subject to the consideration of a Committee.—(Divide.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought it would be of great
advantage if the Speaker would have the goodness to
state the exact difference between a Resolution of the
House and a Standing Order.
The SPEAKER said that the present rule; pro-
hibiting discussion on the presentation of petitions, was a j
resolution of the House, and was, therefore, binding only
on the present Parliament. The House had, du: ing the
present Session, confirmed that resolution, and therefore
during the present Session the rule founded upon that
resolution could not be questioned. In another Session,
however, that resolution might be questioned. If the rule
were made a Standing Order instead of being de-
pendant upon a resolution of the House, it would
not only be binding upon the present, but upon
all future Parliaments until it should be rescinded.
Lord MAHON, said, as one of the Members for Hert-
ford, and as one who had voted in the minority the pre-
vious night, he was anxious to make a few observations.
He thought that under the circumstances his Hon. Col-
league should not persist in his motion.—(llear.) His Hon.
Friend, the Member for North Lancashire had announced
his intention of bringing forward on Thursday next
a resolution upon the vote which he had given, and the
sentiments which he had expressed.—(Hear, hear.) lie
would put it to his Hon. Colleague whether the position
of the question was not materially changed.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) If that resolution were not sufficient,
he (Lord Mahon) would not shrink from the duty
of renewing the vote which he had felt it his duty to
give.—(Hear, hear.) He would therefore request his
lion. Friend to withdraw his petition. Should, how-
ever, the Honourable Gentleman perSist 'in his
motion, he would move as an amendment
that the debate be adjourned till Friday next, when they
would have an opportunity of deciding upon the res )Itt •
tion to which he had referred.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON said, it might,
perhaps, be convenient to all that he should read to
the House the notice which he bad given : "To
move resolutiotions : confirmatory of the practice
of this House, as laid down from the Chair
in 1839, with respect to the reception of petitions
and permitting the presentation to this house of peti-
tions against taxes to be imposed for the year ; the said
resolutions to be Standing Orders of the House."
Lord PALMERSTON said that he would recommend his
Hon. Friend to accede to the proposition of the Nob.e Lord
(Mahon), and adjourn the debate till Friday, provided the
Right Hun. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would state to the House
that he was prepared with that intlueace %Inch he possessed,
from his position, to support the proposition of the Noble Lord
(Lord F. Egerton.) If the House had that assurance from

.•
the Right Iron. Baronet, that he would give his assistance to
carry the Standing Order for the purpose of permitting the
presentation of petition?, he hoped his Hoo. Friend would con-
sent to the adjournment.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Noble Lord assumed
that he (Sir Robert Peel) was acting in concert with
the Noble Lord (Francis Egerton) but such was not the
fact. He was not aware of the resolution the Noble Lord
had to move, and therefore it was impossible for him to give
any positive pledge to support his resolution.—(Hear,
hear.) At the same time he would say, that from what he
had heard, he was prepared to agree generally in it. He would
reserve himself upon the point of the Standing Order. If the
House thought it advisable to present petitions on the subject
of a tax, it was desirable that the intentions of the House should
be known with respect to the debates upon them. As he had
not seen the resolution, he could not give any positive pledge to
support it ; but upon the general objects of the resolution he
would promise the Noble Lord that he would give it his cordial
support.—( Hear. )
Air. WAKLEY regretted the proposition of the Noble
Lord opposite, and he regretted still more that it received any
concurrence on his side of the House. Although they were
not conquerors on last night, the nature of the contest showed
who would be the victors on a future occasion.—(Criss of
"Divide, divide.") He had long thought that the practice of
petitioning was useless whip the practice of debating petitions
was entirely prohibited. The great questions of the abolition
of the Slave Trade, Catholic Emancipation, and the Reform
Bill, were all carried by debating petitions. But now pe-
titions were simply presented to this House and disregarded.
He thought it had .teen shown that they could gain their ob-
ject without any compromise. It was clear from the consti-
tution of the House, and the regulations that now prevailed,
that they could succeed in presenting the petitions of the
people against taxes under consi aeration without any compromise
or stipulation: Why should they make that which was now
objectionable still more odious, in order to obtain a privilege
nhich they could secure without it ? Common sense told him
that no such proposition should be acceded to. See what they
had gained by the present discussion. They had debated the
petitions, and by the debate they we. e likely to get rid of one
of the most unconstitutional practices that ever obtained in
Parliament. Ought they, then, to be parties to gagging
themselves? Ought they not rather to try and obtain more
freedom of speech when they came before the House in be-
half of their constituents? Nothing could be more reason-
able than the petition which had been forwarded to the Hon.
Member for Hertford. Nothing could be more objec-
tionable than that the people should not have an oppor-
tunity -of expressing their opinions. ( Hear, hear.)
They had now an opportunity of discussing petitions, but the
proposal was that that opportunity should be now cut off. Is
was better to enter into no compromise at all, but to take the
division on the question whether the petition be received or
not, leaving her Majesty's Government to bring forward any
measure they might think proper.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, as he understood the Noble
Lord opposite, nothing approaching to a compromise had been
proposed. A resolution already existed, binding on this Par-
1i went, preventing them from receiving petitions; and the
Noble Lord proposed to move a resolution merely repeating
that. He confessed he did not we the use of such a resolution,
bu', assuming that they adopted it, they gave up no right
they at present possessed. The concession, in which the Right
Hun. Gentleman stated he was prepared to concur, would
open the door of the House to the people against taxes, with-
out in the slightest degree giving up any right that Members
at Iresentp?s_sessed.

Sir. WALLACE rose amid loud cries of " divide." . He
thought if they did not go to a decision on that question, a
great occasion would be lost to the people. Besides this
nothing would induce him to forget his duty, whirli was to
obtain the right of debating petitions. In the next session of
Parliament he would take care that the rule should be again
tested, that the constituents might know who the men were
who were willing to let their petitions be debated.
Mr. CURTIS thought the House and the country were
much indebted to the lion. Member for Finsbury fur the way
in which he had taken up the question. He thought the Hon.
Member for Finsbury ought to be joined with the Noble Lord
in bringing forward the resolution.—( Cheers.) It would not
be fair to the Hon. Member for Finsbury, if, after all his ex-
ertions, the Noble Lord should alone hare the credit of bring-
ing forward the resolution.—( Cheers. )
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know if there was any ques-
tion of adjournment before the House.
The SPEAKER said there was not.
Mr. O'CONNELL could nut see how they could lose any
thing by adjourning the debate until after the day when the
Noble Lord would bi ing forward his resolutions. There would
be no compromise in consenting to such a proposition. They
were all still of the same opinion that they had been, and by
consenting to the adjournment they might perhaps get rid of
all difficulty. He would therefore move that the debate be
adjourned to Friday next.
Mr. COWPER would willingly have pressed his motion to
a division at once, but as he did riot see any great inconve-
nience from the adjournment, he v ould consent to it, although
he must say that he thought the simplest way of settlii:g the
question would be to• receive the petition, inasmuch as it ap-
peared tha`, the objection to receiving it rested solely on a point
of practice; and in his (Mr. Cowper's) opinion, the simplest
way of reversing a practice was at once to introduce a con-
trary practice. He could nut sit down without complimenting
the Hight Hon. Baronet on the manner in which he had given
way to the feeling of the House. He would not object to the
debate being adjourned to Friday.'
The debate was then adjourned to FridaßlLLy.
tta ARK .
The Vie'.oria Pvicr
ark Bil o P
l was read'a second time.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. WALLACE gave notice that, in the event of. the in-
come tax being earrkd, h should move, on putting the main
question, that the words Great Britain be omitted, and the
word England only be substituted.—( A laugh. )
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice of his intention to move for

a committee to inquire into the spiritual destitution of the
Catholic soldiers in India.
AFFGHANISTAN-

Mr. ESTCOURT wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
the late President of the Board of Control, whether cer-
tain papers, which had been laid on the table of the House in
the years 1839 and 1840, relative to Indian affairs, contained
anyjustification of the Government of which the Right Hon.
Gentleman was a member, for the expedition to Affghanista-.
Sir JOHN C. 11011 HOUSE said that the Hon. Gentle-
man who put the question to him would of course permit him
(Sir J. C. Hobhouse) to remind him of what had occurred
with reference to the circumstance. Her Majesty, in the
speech which she had addressed to both Houses of Parliament,
on the opening of the session of 1839, had informed them of
this expedition having been undertaken. In the course of the
session of that year the Right Hon. Baronet opposite expressed
a hope that every information would be given respecting that
proceeding. Subsequently, in both Houses of Parliament,
the production lof papers on the subject was repeatedly asked
for. Those 1 apers were produced. No less than seven sets of
papers were produced, of which four referred to correspond-
ence which had been engaged in between the Governor-Ge-
neral of India and his councillors. The late Government
considered that those papers would give to the Houses of Par-
liament au opportunity of forming a fair judgment upon the
matter.—( Hear, hear.) What that judgment was, if it was
true that si ence gave consent, they had a right
to form a pretty correct idea of ; for the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, the present Secretary of State for the flame Department,
having fixed a motion for the 2d of April, 1839, with respect
to Indian affairs generally, no more was heard II the motion
after the product on of the papers. Besides, those papers, he
could inform the Hon. Gentlemen that the Governor-General
of India published a proclamation in which the matter was ex-
plained. He could only say, in conclusion, that those volumi•
nous papers had been prepared with the greatest care.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE wished to put a question to the Right
Hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, with respect
to the amended copy of the tariff. He wished to know whether
the Right Hon. Baronet would have any objection to insert
the amount of existing duty opposite to each article, and also
the amount of revenue actually received last year ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he would take the suggestion
into his consideration. With respect to a great number of
articles it would be easy to adopt the suggestion. The only
difficulty was that the specification of many of the articles had
been altered. _ _

Mr. LABOUCHERE had understood that it was done in
the first tariff.

After a few words from Mr. GLADSTONE, Lord Joi.; Bus-
gam., and Sir R. PEEL, the papers were laid on the table.
CHURCH PROPERTY.

Mr. LAMBTON begged to know f.om the Right Hon.
Baronet, in pursuance of the motion of which he had given
notice " whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to propose any legidation this Session on the subject of
the enfranchisement of Church leasehold property." He
thought the subject was too iniportant to be entrusted into any
other hands but those of the Government.

Sir R. PEEL said he could not hold out any expectations
that her Majesty's Government would propose any legislation
on the subject.

THE TARIFF.

Lord EBINGTON said he wished to ask a question of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade.
He observed that iu the proposed new tariff, the duty on cider
had been mach reduced, whilst that on hops remained as it
was. He wished to know if the Right Hon. Gentleman would
allow the duty on hops to be re considered.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the rates of duties on these
articles had been adjusted with due consideration ; at the same
time that he said that, he should add that they were anxious
to give an opportunity to all pet sons to be heard; the subject
was still open, and still subject to consideration.
Mr. R. WASON rose to call the attention of the House to
the practice adopted by Counsel before its Committees, with
the view. of. providing a remedy, having for its object the ad-
vantage of the suitors, and upholding the dignity of the judi-
cial tribunals of this House. The Hon. Member spoke in so
low a tone of voice, and amidst considerable noise in the
House; that we could scarcely hear a word of the
Honourable Gentleman's speech.. He was understood to
say, that the motion was for the purpose of applying a
remedy to the evil which existed of employing three
Counsel before Committees, by which great expense was thrown
unnecessarily on the suitors. In alter ing this practice, he did
not wish at all to affect the interest of the Counsel, or to reduce
their fees, for he hoped that his motion would have the eff et of
relieving the suitor without at all affecting the Counsel It had
been said that the public had a remedy in their own hands, but
he (Mr. Wasen) could not agree with such a supposition. The
greatest injustice and inconvenience was likely to arise from
the very expensive nature of proceedings as now conducted
to fore Committees. In the year 1832, he remembered that
the Noble Lord, then Member for Dorchester, and now Mem-
ber for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley), having a petition
presented against his return, rose, and said in his
place with characteristic manliness, that he had no
doubt as to the validity et his return, but that he was
not prepared to undergo the enormous expense of defending his
seat before an Election Committee. The constituents of the
Noble Lord came to his assistance on that occasion, and he was
declared to have been duly returned. That was, however, an
instar,ce of the great evils of the present system ; and it was
manifestly desirable that that system should be remedied. It
was a notorious fact, that the petition was presented against
that Hon. Gentleman, merely for the purpose of putting him
to extraordinary expense. The- consequence was, that many
gentlemtn, thi,ugh differing from him in politics, subscribed
many th usands for the purpose of defending his seat. Was
it not notorious, that they could neither attack nor defend a
seat, without an expense of many thousand pounds ? Cases
that would be decided in the Courts of Law for a few hundreds,
before that House cost as many thou,ands. In the longest case
that ever occupied them, the Commi.te were obliged to adjourn
on one Saturday, because they could not get Counsel to attend.
The expense of that adjournment was enormous to the parties.
Ile remembered a story that was told him of Mr. Harrison by
a Member of this House; the Ilan. Member being in the
Court of Exchequer, found Mr. Harrison warming himself at
the fire, when he said to him, .‘ Why, Mr. Harrison, there are
at least a score of Members calling out for you in the House
of Commons."—" I should wonder if there were nut," said
Mr. Harrison ; " for I am engaged in twelve election petitions,
and as I cannot attend all of them, I think I am diTensing
perfect justice by attending to none."--( Hear, hear, and
Isughter. ) Ile thought it was not right t s limit the number
of Counsel who should appear before those Committees.
They ought to leave it to the judgment of the suitors
how many Counsel they would employ. The reso-
lution on their books vies evaded every day—it was
mere waste paper, ant it ought to be rescinded, and
if he eou'd get the House to adopt the resolutions that he was
about to propose, and which he thought would meet, and barely
meet, the exigencies of the case, he would himself propose
that the present resolution be rescinded. The resolutions
which he was ab.iut to propose to the House were—first, that
parties attending before a Committee of the House, and hay..
mg liberty to be heard by Counsel, shall, at the first sitting,
deliver to the Chairman the names of the Counsel retained
by them ; and, secondly, that on no account sl:ould any Coun-
sel appear before two Committees on the same day, unless one
of them should have closed its proceedings. What objection
should there be to those resolutions? the only interests that
could possibly be affected by it would be the interests
of some few Counsel, but he even doubted if ulti-
mately it would not be for the benefit of Counsel themselves.
He would not have the least objection to postpone the o.)era-
tion of these resolutions until the close of the present Session ;
but every one must see the necessity for an alteration. He
called upon them to take care that they did not allow parties
out of that House to shake their purses in the faces of Hon.
Members, inducing them to submit to compromise to avoid
expense; and, on the other hand, not to let Hon. Members,
who unjustly retained their seats, to shake their purses in the
faces of honest and bona fide petitioners, and defy them to
proceed on the same ground. The Hon. Member concluded '1
by moving the resolutions.
Mr. W ALLACE seconded the motion.

The SPEAKER then put the question.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to know whether it was
competent for the Hon. and Learned Member to propose his
resolutions till he had rescinded the Standing Order.
The SPEAKER said he thought that the Standing Order
ought to be rescinded first.
Mr. WASON said he did not interfere with the Standing
Order. He only sought to add the two resolutions to the
Standing Order.
The SPEAKER said he understood the Hon. Member to
confine Counsel to one Committee.
Mr. WASON said he did not care if the number of Counsel
were unlimitted.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he understood the inten-
tion of the Hon. and Learned Member to be to restrict the
number of Counsel, He had not himself much experience on
the subject of Election Committees, but he had frequently
attended them, and his experience would lead him to say,
notwithstanding that some inconvenience did arise from emi-
nent Counsel being employed in more than one case, that the
business was conducted with great ability, and if the Hon.
Gentleman's resolutions were carried, it might deprive parties
in many cases from engaging eminent Counsel. The substitu-
tion the Hon. Gentleman proposed was, to confine Counsel to
some particular province in his profession. He ( Sir James
Graham) felt bound, for the sake of others, to oppose the pro.
position. Nothing, in his opinion, would be more unjust than
to restrict parties in the selection of the Counsel they wished to
employ, especially when the parties themselves were
cognizant of thjs circumstances in which the lawyer was placed.
Up n the whole, he must say that he d d not see any incon-
venience from the practice now prevailing of employing men of
eminent talents and great experience, and the business, he
thought, was satisfactorily conducted. He was not aware that
suitors had any reason of complaint. The Honourable Gentle-
man was likely to be engaged in an election Committee shortly,
and he would then be able to judge for himself of the utility
or otherwise of the present practice. He would certainly oppose
the resolutions of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. WYNN said that the existing rule was never intended
to prevent the employment of any number of Counsel,
but in order to save the time of the House, it pre •
vented more than two being heard before the Committee.
H. recollected that an Election Committee, of which a friend
of his was a member—he meant the Middlesex Election Com-
mittee—sat a much greater number sof hours than the House
of Lords had for seven years during the celebrated trial of
Warren Hastings. If the propositions of the Hon. Member
were carried into effect, they would have to retain one gentle-
man for then hole Session, because who could tell when any parti-
cular election petition would be heard? Every one was anxious to
engage the best practitioners they could, and they would have
to oe employed for the whole Session, during the whole of which
time they were to receive no other retainer. The Hon. Mem-
ber here lowered his voice so much, that he was quite inaudible
in the gallery; he was understood to say in conclusion, that he
did not see how the proposal of the Hon. Member could prac-
tically be carried out. _

31r4. WALLACE said, he was sure that every one
must have felt much indebted to the Hon. Member who had
just sat down, and who had devoted so much of his valuable
time to the practices ofElection Committees, for the expression
of his opinions on this question, and he (Mr. Wallace) was
quite certain that the opinions he had expressed would sink
into the minds of those who were opposed to them.—( Hear. )
The expo n,e of Election Committees was a grievous evil—it
was a grievou. and gro ring evil—and he hoped to see some
remedy. One gnat objection to the present system was that
Counsel ran fri m place to place, and frJm Committee to Corn-
mittee.—(Hear, hear.) He did nut know whether this
was a Joe Miller story or not, but it was notoriously
nue. The late eminent Counsel, Mr. Harrison, had
said, or if he had not actually said it he might have
said it, that he was engaged on so is any cases, that it would
be no more than justice to the- parties to keep his fees in his
pocket without speaking a word. If the Counsel could not do
their duty, was it just tor them to take their fees? He (Mr.
Wallace) could not understand how gentlemen, knowing that
they could not be in more places than one at one time—he
could not understand how their friends in that House could de- '
fend them in taking money without giving value for it.—( Hear,
hear, and laughter.) Lord Denman had set an example to the
House. He would not allow himself to be imposed upon, and
he at once adjourned the Court, considering he had been in-
sulted. He (Mr. Wallace) believed that the first Counsel at
the bar—the first official Member of that House, was one upon
whom that visitation was made. He believed Sir Wm. Follett
was one upon whom Lord Denman shut his Court. He hoped
to see this principle followed in the present case. But he '
rvefrey family of any note in England
—that it was almost ssion
ryas afraid there was too much prof,sional interest
comprised thatiselldomuseem—baesrsaohnf ct,hse po
t e
impos-
sible to find a favourable consideration in that House for the
purpose of mitigating this great evil. There was also another