The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-04 00:00:00

MENTS.

Mr. WODEHOUSE moved the consideration of the
Lords' amendments in the Ormsby Inclosure Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY was understood to oppose the princi-
ple of the amendments, and proceeded to say that the
Bill as it stood was perfectly satisfactory. But the 55th
clause, which had been introduced into the Bill, was ex-
punged in the other House of Parliament, and another
was substituted in its place, enacting that all encroach-
ments and enclosures which should be made from and after
the passing of this Act, should be deemed parcel of the land
to be inclosed, and should be divided and enclosed accord-
ingly, provided that it should be lawful to and for the
several persons in possession of these encroachments and
enclosures, to take down and remove all such fences as
shall be thereon, and convert them to their own use.
Would the House then agree to the proposition of the
Honourable Gentleman ? and if it were to be
sanctioned, they would be supported in every trick and
b before the Committees. The very promoters of the
Bill might have got rid of the clause upon the pretence
that they would agree to it, whereas when it came be-
fore the other House they would get it removed. In this
instance the poor were treated as they were in other
instances. He was sorry that the promoters of the Bill in
this case were two clergymen of the Church of England.
The clergymen of the Church would never gain re-
spect while they acted in that manner ; and if these poor
people were to be deprived of their dwellings, where
were they to go to, except, he supposed, to the Union
Workhouse ? The House was aware that the Bill was
supported in consequence of the introduction of the 55th
clause but that was withdrawn, and another of a totally
different character was introduced into the Bill.
He should, therefore move, that the House do not agree
to the amendment of the Lords, and he hoped the
House would send back the Bill, declaring that no such
amendment could be supported in that House.
Mr. WODEHOUSE said that there was no ob-
jection made to the clause alluded to by the
Honourable Member, but it was quite clear that if
it were embodied in the Bill it would 'be made a
precedent in other cases, and he believed the admission
of it was dangerous.
The Lords' amendment havingbeen read,

Mr. GODSON said that the rejected clause was simi-
lar to the one which he had endeavoured to induce the
House to insert in the King's Cl re Inclosure, and the
principle on which he supported the clause was
this : He thought that if a Lord of a Manor or his
agent saw apoorman take a piece of waste land, and took
no notice of it, or accepted of a nominal rent from the poor
man, after be had expendedlo/. or 201. in building
a cottage on it, the Lord of the Manor had no right to
pull down that cottage afterwards, and it was but
Justice to the poor man that he should have the opportu-
nity of purchasing the land if he thought proper. There
was no imputation on any of the parties concerned in the
promotion of this Bill. The clause had been brought in
by agreement between all the parties concerned.
The Honourable Gentleman had talked about
their setting a precedent. How could they be
setting any precedent when there had been
an agreement between the parties ? It surely was not a
precedent for the House of Commons to set, to enforce
an agreement fairly entered into between the parties.
Why could not that agreement be carried into effect ?
He understood it was because a very amiable Nobleman,
in another place, would not agree to it. The question
was, if all the parties to a Bill had entered into an agree-
ment, whether any Nobleman ought to have the power
of setting that agreement aside ? If the bargain were a
fair one, he thought that no gentleman ought to have
the power of setting it aside.
Mr. HUMS said that the Bill had been sent up
to the Lords ; that it had been amended in Com-
mittee there ; and that the amendments had been ap-
proved of by those who promoted the Bill. For
19 or 20 years these poor cottagers had been for-
gotten ; ana it would be very hard if they were now to
be deprived of their property.
Mr. ESCOTT said the question was, whether the
contract with the poor people was to be kept or not.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no divi-
sion took place, Mr. WAKLEY'S motion having been
agreed to.
Mr. WAKLEY then moved that a Committee be ap-
pointed to draw up the reasons why the House did not
agree to the Lords' amendment, and to state those rea-
-1 sons in a conference to their Lordships.
After a few words from Sir Edward Knatchbull, Mr.
Wakley and Lord Sandon, the motion was put and
agreed to.
The Ellesmere and Chester Canal Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. WODEHOUSE moved the further consideration
of the Report of the Darlington and Newcastle Junction
Railway Bill, •
Mr. FIELDEN, who spoke in a very indistinct tone,
was understood to object to the powers granted by the
Bill.

Mr. MILES supported the Bill.
Mr. FIELDEN gave notice that on the third reading
he should introduce a clause by way of amendment in
the Bill,:—The Report was then received. . .

Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY presented a petition
from John Thurston, a prisoaer in Newgate, stating that
he was now very penitent, and praying that he might be
released from prison; also a petition from 250 inhabitants
of Ipswich to the same effect.
ATHLONE ELECTION PETITION.

The SPEAKER informed the House that he had re-
ceived a petition from George Dowd, ono of the peti-
tioners against the return for the borough of Athlone,
stating that it was not his intention to proceed with the
petition.
Mr. F. FRENCH said he had been informed that the
petitioner had been tampered with, and that there were
others who would carry on the petition.—(Cheers.)
On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET, the petition
was ordered to be printed with the Votes.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Lord HOWICK gave notice that on going into Com-
mittee on the tariff, he should move no difference should
be made in the duty on articles imported from foreign
countries, from those from the colonies ; and where such
difference now exists, in those cases he should also move
that such difference should not be increased. He should
also move at the same time that a duty of 7d. should be
imposed on foreign coffee instead of Bd.
thfatth aielln
Mr. FRENCH gave notice that on the third reading
o
dividendseom e Bill
payable(as weiunnyuernsetoboed)exheemsphtoufrlodlrLe
payment of the tax.
Mr. HUME gave notice that in Committee on the
Railways Regulation Bill, he should move the insertion
of a clause to prevent Sunday travelling.
Ur. THORNELY moved for leav e of ab sence to Mr.
Ewart for" a month, on account of serious illness.—
Agreed to.
Mr. PAKINGTON gave notice
that to-morrow he
should move that John Thurston be discharged from
her Majesty's gaol of Newgate. rola
Sir G. GREY moved that the names of Mr. Green,
Mr. Bernal, Mr. Estcourt, and Mr. Sturt be added to,
th e Select Committee on Election Committee Witnesses.
in- reply to a question from an Hon. Member, es.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Lord Chancellor had, in
the .other House of Parliament, introduced a Bill for the
amendment of the Bankruptcy Law.
Mr. H,TJME said, in consequence of the news from
America, by the last two mails, he begged to ask the
• ht Mon. Baronet at the head of the Government
whether Captain Elliot was now Consul-General in
Texas---where he was--(Laughter)--whether he was
now receiving pay from the Government—whether it
was the intention of the Government to send him to
Texas, and when ?
Sir R. PEEL stua—Captain Elliot is Consul to Texas;
he is at present in London ; he is not in the receipt of
pa and will not be in the receipt of pay until
he takes his departure ; he is perfectly ready to take his
departure ; 119 is only detained at the instance of the

Treasury, who are receiving explanations from him with
respect to certain expenses in Hong Kong.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME said he should, on an early day, submit
whether Captain Elliot, under present circumstances,
was a proper person to be sent out.—(oh, oh.)
In reply to a question from Mr. FRENCH, with re-
spect to the Commission appointed to investigate the
Portuguese claims,
Sir R. PEEL said a Commission was appointed by
the Noble Lord, the late Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs for the purpose of receiving and deciding upon
the claims of soldiers who had been in the Portuguese
service. That Commission had been receiving claims
since the 10th July, of last year ; 2,065 claims had
been received by that Commission, of which
one thousand had been adjudicated upon
In 693 cases there had been an admission that a cer-
tain sum was due. 50,0001. was admitted to be
due. A strong representation had been made
to the Portuguese Government for the purpose
of obtaining a settlement of their claims, and
they had every reason to believe that means would be
taken for their adjustment. At the time the ad-
justment was about to be made, the Charter
was proclaimed, and a change of Government took place.
The new Government, like other new Governments, had
required time to consider. He urged the necessity of
coming to some speedy arrangement, and as far as as-
surances could go he had every reason to hope that they
would soon come to some satisfactory settlement.
He indulged a confident hope that the Portuguese Go-
vernment, whatever difference of opinion might exist, in
the country, that the new Government of Portugal, as
well as the old one, would admit the justice of those
claims on which awards had already taken place, and he
could assure the House that no exertions should be
spared on the part of the Government of this country to
procure redress for the claimants.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS BILL. _

Lord G. goIIERSET moved that the Order of the
Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on
the Lunatic Asylums Bill, which had stood for to-mor-
row, should be read, in order that it might be postponed.
In consequence of the decision to which the House had
come the other evening he had felt it his duty to con-
sult his Right Hon. Friend on the subject of the Bill,
and they had agreed that, in consequence of that deci-
sion it would be necessary to make very extensive al
terations in its provisions. Those alterations it was his
intention to propose, and he would request the Hon.
Gentleman opposite who had a notice on the paper on
the subject of this Bill, to put off the discussion on it
until he (Lord G. Somerset) should have proposed the
alterations. .

Mr. WAKLEY had no objection to postpone his
motion, provided he should not lose a stage by so
doing—if the Noble Lord would assure him that he
(Mr. Wakley) would occupy the same position with
regard to the Bill that he did at present. He felt bound
to repeat his opinion that it was impossible to legislate
satisfactorily on this subject unless a Commission of In-
quiry were first issued.
The Order of the Day was then read and postponed to
the 23d of May.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION (IRELAND).
Colonel VERNER wished to ask the Hon. and
Learned Member for Cork, when it was his intention to
move that the petition presented from Armagh, com-
plaining of the administration of the Criminal Law in
Ireland be printed.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that as the Committee ap-
pointed to try the merits of the Cork Election petition
would be sworn that day week, it was impossible for
him to name any day for bringing forward the motion.
NATIONAL PETITION.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that in submitting to the
House the motion of which he had given notice, he
should ill do justice to the petition, he should be ill dis-
charging his duty both to the House, and to those whose
cause he appeared there to advocate, did he not in the
first place, expiess on their behalf his thanks for the
kind and respectful manner in which the House had
received the petition which he had had the honour of
presenting on their behalf yesterday. But he must now
call upon the House to increase that obligation by
lending him their patient hearing, whilst he stated and
advocated to the best of his ability the interests that were
at stake in this matter. The individuals on whose behalf
he now appeared—at least the persons who signed that
petition, which had been presented yesterday—amounted
to nearly three-and-a-half millions of the industrious
classes of this country. Those three-and-a-half million
signatures were not the signatures of the male adult po-
pulation of this country ! They were the signatures of
a considerable portion of the wives of the members of the
industrious classes. It contained also the signatures of
what he would call the industrious youth of the country.
But he was prepared to say, and to prove if necessary,
that there were at least above a million and a half of the
families of the industrious classes who had subscribed
that petition. They had seen, on a late occasion, two
petitions presented to that House by Gentlemen on the
opposite side in favour of what was called the financial
scheme of her Majesty's Ministers, one proceeding from
Manchester, signed by 24,000 of the operative and mer-
cantile classes of that town, presented by the Noble Lord
the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) ; the
other presented by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham), and laid on the table of
the House with great solemnity, proceeding from the
town of Carlisle, and signed by 3,000 operatives. He
(Mr. Duncombe) did not wish, in the slightest degree, to
detract from the importance of those petitions, but if
they were entitled to consideration or regard on the
part of that House, assuredly that petition, proceed-
ing from above three millions of the indus-
trious classes, which had been yesterday, he
would not say presented by himself, but brought
down to the House in a most respectful, peaceable
and orderly manner by a large body of the people—that
petition was, he was sure he might say, worthy of the
attention of the House. It was to that petition and to
what it contained, that he begged to call the generous
attention of the House. He hoped, therefore, that they
would give him a patient hearing, not on his own ac -
count, but on account of his being the advocate of those
industrious millions whose cause he was there to plead.
He found, in conversation with Hon. Members, that
there was great objection to agreeing to the prayer of
the petition. It was asked, was there any precedent for
hearing those parties at the Bar of the House in support
of the allegations contained in their petition ? He (Mr.
D.) wished that that was the only objection. For he
was ready to prove that there were precedents for
hearing those parties at the bar of the House.
In the first place, he would call the attention of the
House to what had occurred in the year 1785, when a
petition was presented from the clergy, landowners, mer-
chants, manufacturers, and others in Lancashire, against
the duty upon cotton stuffs. The petitioners prayed to
be heard at the Bar upon the subject, and that prayer
was granted. He should observe, that was not a tax
under the consideration of the House, but a tax actually
in being. The House, on that occasion, resolved itself
into a Committee of the whole House, and the peti-
tioners were heard at the Bar. Aain, in the year 1789,
Mr. Wilberforce presented a petition from a large class
in this country, who took a very strong interest in the
abolition of the slave-trade. Those petitioners were
heard at the Bar of the House. But that was considered
an inconvenient mode of proceeding ; and, in the fol-
lowing year, the subject was referred to a Committee up
stairs. Then again, in the year 1812, a petition was
presented from various parts of Lancashire. and the ma-
nufacturing districts, against the Orders in Council. On
that occasion the then Lord Stanley moved that the pe-
titioners should be heard at the Bar on their behalf.
That motion was supported by several members of the
Ministerial party of that day. The first person who op-
posed it was Mr. Rose, but he subsequently gave way,
saying that he thought the House should take into its
consideration the petition, and that he should not
therefore oppose the motion of the Noble Lord.
Mr. Baring also supported the motion, and observed that
the voice of the nation had spoken loudly against the
Orders in Council then complained of. Lord Castle-
reigh said that he should consent to this motion without
making any admission as to the merits of the question,
but he was ready to yield to the wishes of the country
to go into some inquiry into the subject. The motion
was then agreed to, and it was ordered that the Com-
mittee on the Orders in Council should sit daily. Wit-
nesses were summoned to attend, and were examined,
from Sheffield, Manchester, and other places, on the
motion of Lord Brougham. Now he thought that the
petition he had presented yesterday was no less entitled
to the consideration of the House. It proceeded from
every part of the empire, and was in every way deserv-
ing of the attention of the House. He should not ask
them to decide that night on the merits of the petition,
but consent to listen to the grievances which those in-
dividuals would state in detail at the bar of the House.
They would show that the country was now suffering
from deep distress ; they would also prove, to the satis-
faction of every one, that those grievances arose from the
neglect and misrepresentation of their interest within
the walls of the House. They would also state what
they looked upon as the proper remedy for their griev-
ances, upon which the House would have to decide.
Now, it might be rather tedious, but it would be neces-
sary for him to carry the House through it, to watch the
progress of this question of reform during the last fifty
or sixty years ; and though they might call the Chartists
wild and visionary persons, as if the points on which
they laid so much stress with regard to reforming that
House were now, for the first time, thought of by
them, he should prove to the House, that many gen-
tlemen, both in that and the other House of Parliament,
had adopted exactly the some principles. The first time
this country took up what was then called " Radical Re-
form" was in the year 1777, and the House would please
to observe that this subject had undergone all
_sorts of
names. In 1777 Major Cartwright was the active leader
of a party called " Radicals." In 1798, when the
Whigs took it up, they were c aged " Reformers," and
they went on calling it " Reform" till the Reform Bill
was passed ; and now these same Radicals were called
Chartists.", But if Hon. Members would examine the
principles they advocated, it would be found that these
Chartists were the Radicals of former days.—(Hear.)
In 1777 Major Cartwright made the first movement in fa-
vour of what was now called, in point of fact, " the Char-
ter." In 1780 a large meeting was held in Westminster, in
favour of Radical Reform, and from that meeting a Com-
mittee was appointed, called " The Westminster Reform
Association ;" that Committee resolved upon what were
now.called " the six points of the Charter—viz., annual
Parliaments, universal suffrage, &c.After this a Society was
formed for what was called ",Constitutional Information;"
at the head of this society were the Duke of Richmond,
thetootarrhpomep::ei
rnxti
am,paettoonti
took
i momentte of
npf ol ria
cinthke, and
Charter.this Association ocl7iBa3t ong r circulatedeat
enthu-
siasmthe Earls of Derby, Surrey, Mountnorris, and many
place
allb
confidence
ntfiedecoalition,nene Lord
unhappilyndNorthbe ma fornedn mrw theas.
F lost;Ro Re-
formers, -.
the people did not know theythnerew,ythhofeoratmqu
existed in favour, of "Radical. Reform." What
e lookedeived them.t o th e s
len Wl7h9i2g ,
haonwde to look to ; they
ct
ekteyn„ uwp a
5, anesdta whatblish established.
Correspondingcmalrle.dr`eryfl:neowdr
question
idtoi thato
Grey,
theyraesywsde
was