The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-22 00:00:00

All' CASTLE-UNDER-LYME ELECTION.

Lord ASHLEY reported that the Committee on the
petiticn complaining of an undue return for the borough
of Newcastle-under-Lyme, had come to the following
resolution :—" That J. Q. Barris, Esq., was not duly
elected to serve as a burgess at the last election fur
Newcastle-under-Lyme, and ought not to have been
returned ; and that J. C. Colquhoun, Esq., was duly
elected, and ought to have been returned."
REPEAL OF THE UNION.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Leeds,
numerously signed, praying for a repeal of the Legisla-
tive Union.

N OTICES OF MOTION-NOTTINGHAM
ELECTION.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD gave notice that he should, on
Thursday next, move, in pursuance of a petition which
he had presented from a number of electors, that a new
writ do forthwith issue for Nottingham.
JOINT-STOCK BANKING COMPANIES BILL.
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, this Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the first reading of a Bill,
which had just come from the Lords, but we did not hear
its title.
Mr. C. BULLER wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Government to proceed in that House
with all these Bills which were coming down from the
Lords. Some of those Bflls, the County Courts Bill and
the Bankruptcy Bill more particularly, were of very
great importance. He wished. :o know of the Right
Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department,
whether it was intended to proceed with such Bills
as those at a time like the present, when so many
Members were absent, and almost all the Members of
the legal profession were out of town.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said' the Honourable Mein-
ber must be aware that the County Courts Bill
had been discussed in various sessions of Parliament. It
was the intention of Government to subinit the measures
referred to to the House this present session ; and if any
objection should arise, which he did not anticipate, per-
haps, that they would not proceed with them.
Mr. W. PATTEN said he should be glad to'know
when the County Courts' Bill would come on ?
Mr. V. SMITH wished to know why these Bills had
not come down before ?

Sir J. GRAHAM said they had not come down from
the Lords.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Sir J. GRAHAM proposed the third reading of
this Bill.
FIELDEN was not aware of the contents of the
proposed Your-laW Bill. He trusted, therefore, they
would not proceed further with the measure this evening.

Mr. R. YORKE was surprised at the course that had ,
been pursued by the Government. He trusted that the 1
Bill would not be proceeded with further.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE'believed that all the bad clauses
in the Bill were retained. '
• At the suggestion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the fur-
ther consideration of the Bill was postponed till the un-
opposed Orders" of the Day were disposed of.
BRIBERY BILL.
Mr. C. BULLER wished to know whether it was the
intention of the GovernMent to proceed with the
Bribery Bill,
Sir ROBERT PEEL did not see any reason why they
should not.
The Customs Act Amendment Bill was read a thini
time and passed.
EXCHEQUER BILL.
The Exchequer-bills Preparation Bill was read it third
time and passed.
Sir R. INGLIS wished to ask. the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman when they might expect. to receive the report of
the Exchequer-bills Commissioners.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
expecteu that the Report would be on the table of the
House in the course of next week.
Mr: C. BULLER wished to can the attention
of the Right Honourable Gentleman to an inequality
in the punishments provided by this Bill. In the 10th
clause the punishment provided for the forgery of ex-
. chhquer bills was seven yerrs transportation, or trans-
' portation for life, while some other minor forgeries
punished with transportation for fourteen years and
upwards.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would consider the point.
COLONIAL PASSENGERS BILL.
• Lord STANLEY postponed the third reading of this
Bill to Tuesday nee t, on which day he gave the Hon.
Gontleman opposite (Mr. Hawes) notice that it would
take precedence of other motions.
• POOR-LAWS.` _ -

On the motion for the third reading of the Poor-law
Bill,
Lord PALMERSTON wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet if he would allow him to take that opportunity
relating to his intentions with regard to the vacation,
Some time ago the President of the Council presented
a petition to the other House of Parliament from
the classes at Exerr-liall, and accompanied the presenta
tion of that petition by a speech of liberality of sentiment
and enlightened views, which did credit to himself and the
Go, ernment to which he belonged. In the course of that
speech he stated that he thought it the duty of the Go-
vernment to increase -the annual grant for the purpoies
of education, and of course the general impression
created by that sentiment was, that it was the intention
of her Majesty's Government, of which he was so promi-
nent a Member, to increase that grant by proposing an
additional estimate for that purpose. The Committee
of supply was drawing to a close, and he (Lord Palmer-
ston) would ask she Right Hon:Baronet whether it was
the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose
an additional grant for that purpose, he (Lord Palmer-
ston) at the same time would say, that if such were the
case, he would give it his, full support.
I . Sir ROBERT PEEL said it so happened that he was
to have met the President of the Council this day on the
subject, but he had not done so ; and therefore he could
not undertake to give an assurance with respect to an
additional grant, but he would give the Noble Lord an
answer to-morrow.
Mr. FIELDEN then proposed, as an amendment to
the Poor-law Bill, that it be re-committed and printed.
'Mr. S. CRAWFORD wished to know if he could pro-
pose the amendment of which he had given notice.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

IMPERiAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF CPMMOAS, July 21.
DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that, in rising to submit
the motion to the House, of which he had given notice,
he wished to explain, in the first place, the reason why
his notice appeared in a different form to that which he
originally gave. The original notice that he gave was to
this effect, to limit the supplies to a period of three
months. The object of that notice of motion was, if
possible, to compel her Majesty's Ministers tore-assemble
that house at the end of October next, in the event of
no decisive amelioration taking place in the condition of
the people, or, at all events, their wants being relieved.
When going into supply, the Right Hon. Baronet wished
him (Mr. T. Duncombe) to submit his motion on a dif-
ferent occasion, and in a different form. In compliance
with the wish of the Right Hon. Baronet, he had trained
his motion in the form in which it now. appeared. He
should say, however, that he owed no thanks to her
Majesty's Ministers for having an opportunity of bring-
ing the subject under the considerationof the House that
evening.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon Baronet, the
Member for. Kent, and four other Members of his
party, were the only gentlemen on that (the
Ministerial) side of the House, who were pre-
sent at four o'clock, although the question which he
had to bring forward related to the public dis-
tress. He should say that the charge of delaying the
public business brought against his side of the House
was most unfounded, and that if there was any error'on
their part, it was an error on the side of forbearance
What. he would ask were -the opinions of the people out
of doors, of the people of Liverpool, of Manchester, of
Paisley, of Coventry, and other large towns, relative to
the course which it was now the duty of their representa-
tives to pursue. It was the wish 0.. f the inhabitants of
these towns that their representatives should delay the
course of the Government as much as possible, until the
state of the country had been fully considered. He was
justified, therefore in saying that if there was any
error on the part of the Members on his side,
it was an error on the side of forbearance.
He should observe that the party now in power had of-
fered tenfold greater opposition to the proceedings of
the late Ministry than they had .themselves experiencid
since their accession to office—(Hear, hear, hear.)
How many a factious motion, he would ask,
had been brought forward by the Opposition in
preceding sessions, and discussed night after -night ? It
could not be forgotten that they brought forward a mo-
tion against the proposal of the late Government, rela-
tive to sugar, which had lasted eight nights ; and
during that discussion the steadfast advocates of negro
slavery had put themselves forward as the opponents of
the slave trade. There had also been a vote of want of
confidence brought forward by the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth, with which the House had
been occupied for five nights, and yet great complaints
had been made by the present, Ministers that the mo-
tion of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Greenock, had
been in discussion for three nights, although that mo-
tion was a national motion—a motion to consider the dis-
tress of the people.—(Hear.) In bringing on the present
motion, it was not his intention to enter into any heart
rending details as to the distressed condition of the coun-
try ; neither would he discuss that question of the Corn-
laws, which had been already so frequently and so ably
discussed during the present session. His chief object
was to warn that House, to warn her Majesty's Govern-
ment, and, more particularly, to warn country gentle-
men, Members of that House, of the danger to which
they and their properties were at the present moment
exposed. He believed that if there were an evil greater
than another, in the present state of the country, it aas
the apathy of that House as to the sufferingi of the people.
The social system was on the point of dissolu-
tion—the peace and property of the country were
not worth twenty hours' purchase—(Hear, hear)—
and yet that House was about to separate without taking
any measures for the relief of the distress. At the
opening of Parliament they were told in the Queen's
speech that the sufferings of the people were great, and
'that their patience was exemplary. Those sufferings
were greatly on the increase, and what had Parliament
done to alleviate them ? His Hon. Friend, the Member
for Greenock, brought fora ard a motion on the subject,
and the Ministers quibbled and special-pleaded upon the
terms of the motion; and when he (Mr. Wallace) pro-
posed to alter the wording to suit their.taste, they would
make no advance to meet him. His Hon. Friend, the
Member for Wolverhampton, brought forward the
question of the Corn-Tan s, and was defeated by' a large
majority. What had the Government done? Absolutely
nothing.—(Hear.) Why, when they were told last year
of the distress that then existed, and of the certainty
that it would increase, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that the best remedy was to leave tbines as they
were.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The whole of the
distress was owing to the party to, which the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite belonged the party called
Tories—(Hear, and a laugh)—and if they had allowed
the late Government to adopt liberal measures, a great
deal of the present distress would have been prevented.
But now, when the representatives of the manufacturing
districts returned to their homes, and w ere surrounded
by the victims of the Right Hon. Baronet's legislation,
w hat consolation, what hopes, could they give ?
(Hear, hear.) He knew well that the agricultural
Members had a good answer to give their constituents
when they went back to them. They would say that
they had passed the Corn Bill, which, as the Hon.
Member for Berkshire told his constituents, it would be
a delusion to suppose would diminish the protec..
tion to the agricultural interest, but would, on the eon-
Limey, perpetuate that injustice and extortion. They
would go back, and they might, perhaps, be thanked by
their constituents for their services, because they had done
nothing to alleviate the distress of the people, ' He
wanted to know from each of the Cabinet Ministers
what was the remedy they proposed ? He wondered
whether the Hon. Member for Kent's remedy was the
Poor-law which he vilified so much last year. What
was the remedy of the Secretary of- State for the Home
Department ? Was 'it in the rural police, or would he
call out the yeomanry, or did he. rely upon a posse of
Magistrates ? Be did not see the Secretary of War in
his place ; what would his remedy be ? Would he
silence the people at the point of the bayonet, and
drown their cries in the roar of artillery ? The Chan
cellor of the Exchequer would, in all probability, leave
things alone. They knew what were the remedies which
had been proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury.
Ile had given them his trumpery Corn Bill, the Income-
tax, and the Tai iff. W lim% as the consequence of the
Income-tax ? Already was the country rife with com-
plaints against the Commissioners, ho were going
about like locusts. '1 he filthy creatures were at their dirty
work. The Tariff did not cheapen the articles of great
consumption. Sugar and timber were left untouched. The
Member for the University of Oxford had been promised
Church Extension as a remedy for the starvation of the
people He wished the demands of the people might be
seceded to with equal readiness. An early and abund-
ant harvest was looked fore and to, as if that would per-
manently relieve the distress of the people. He supposed,
too, they should have another Queen's Speech again
shortly, praising again the measurt s that had been passed,
and the tribute of the Right Eon. Baronet to the ford-
, tude of the people might be rt.rit;a ed. But 1w believed
that the fortitude and peaceable demettneueof the people
could not be attributed altogether to their disposition,
but to the hope that something effectual would be done