The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-27 00:00:00

THE TARIFF.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented several peti-
tions from places in the county of Bucks, praying the
house to modify the proposed tariff.

THE CUSTOMS DUTIES (DRAWBACK) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee.
THE BEGGING LETTER.

Lord KINNAIRD rose in pursuance of a notice
which he gave on Tuesday last, to• move fOr a copy of
the Queen's begging letter. He could not but express
his surprise that, on that occasion, her Majesty's Minis-
ters should pretend not to know anything about it. The
letter was signed by one of the Ministers ; and, besides
that, it was quite notorious that such a letter had been
issued. He must say that it convinced him of the fact,
that the Government was carried on by only one indivi-
dual in the country—certainly one of great talent, and
one from whom he expected a great deal ; but he
really seemed to think that lie treated the other
members of the Government as mere cyphers. The
speeches of that individual were very liberal ; but he
(Lord Kinnaird) must say he thought that the tariff was
a precious piece of hutnbug.—(Laughter.) If one indi-
vidual could carry on the Government, it really could
not be such a difficult thing to conduct a Government as
some people imagined. A Premier - and half•a-dozen
clerks might do it. The Noble Lord was here inter-
rupted by

The LORD CHANCELLOR, who said the Confer.
once from the Commons, on the subject of an Inclosure
Bill, was at the bar. -
The Earl of Devon, the Bishop of Norwich, and other
Lords were then appointed to conduct the Conference
with the Commons.
Lord KINNAIRD then resumed. He read a letter
from the district of Lancashire, from which it appeared
that many of the labouring* population were
living on the trifling pittance of lid. a day. He had
many letters in his possession which he had received on
this subject. All of them confirmed the statement made
in the letter he had read to their Lordships. When he had
brought the subject under the consideration of their
Lordships last session, the Noble Duke (Wellington)
treated the subject with some levity. The state-
ments which he had read would show how much that
levity was called for. He should conclude by moving
that an humble address be presented to her Majesty,
praying that a copy of her letter addressed to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, for the purpose of calling on the
clergy to assist in collecting subscriptions for the relief
of the suffering poor, be laid on the table of the House.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that there could be
no objection to the production of the letter. The Noble
Lord had said truly, that he (the Duke of Wellington) had
suggested to the Noble Lord that he should ascertain that
such a letter had been written before-he moved for its
production. He (the Duke of Wellington) ought
to take to himself some shame, as a Member
of her Majesty's Privy Council, in not being
aware that this letter had been written. But he begged
to inform the Noble Lord that. he was present when the
subject was discussed in the Privy Council, but he had
been out of town, and when he answered the Noble
Lord he was not aware that the letter had been sent.
He had attended divine service last Sunday in the Chapel
Royal, or he would have known it. He had been
to a distant part of the Metropolis on Monday,
and he conversed with the clergyman of a parish,
and certainly, if he had received the letter at that
time, 'he would have informed hire of it. He would
say, that he had never mentioned the distress of the
country with levity. The Noble Lord,' at the time to
which he had alluded, said, that Parliament ought not to
-be prorogued, and that those who advised her Majesty
to prorogue Parliament took on themelves serious re-
sponsibility. He (the Duke of Wellington) on that
occasion said he did not think that there was any reason
to believe that there was likely to be a scarcity of
corn, and that if Parliament sat fur twelve months it
would not give the people the means of purchasing corn.
As he said before, there could be no objection to this
letter being produced.
Lord KINNAIRD explained that he wanted to know
why the letter should be issued just at this particular
time. He did nut think that it would do any permanent
good.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought it would be
very unfortunate if it should be imagined that this
letter had been issued as mere matters of form, and not
upon mature deliberation. The very circumstance of
making this a common proceeding was to de-
stroy its efficacy. All Governments should
consider well before adopting this. course, because
an objection would apply to it which applied
to Parliamentary grants, viz., that it had a tendency to
prevent local efforts and individual exertions, which,
after all, were the best means of alleviating the
distress.—(Hear, hear.) Ile trusted that the in-
vitation to come forward to relieve the distress of
a lung suffering peopie would not bo confined to the
Established Church alone, but would be extended to all
places of worship. Ile thought the measure had been
considered, and that it was one well calculated to meet
the exigencies of the times ; under those circumstances,
therefore, he must express his approval of the course
proposed.—(Hear, hear.)
Earl RIPON said, it was not until the distress through-
out the country became general that her Majesty's
Ministers took upon themselves to advise her Majesty
to make this appeal to the people. On Tuesday night,
however, he certainly was not aware that the letter had
been sent ; in the parish church which he attended on
Sunday last, it certainly was not read, and that was the
history of the ignorance which had been imputed to
the Government not being exactly aware of the precise
time when their advice had been carried out. This cer-
tainly was nut an appeal which ought to be often made,
bat it was one which he was sure would, on the present
occasion, be honourably responded to.
Earl MINTO said, on a former occasion, when the
country was in great distress, the Government had
ordered a great quantity of bonded corn to be released.
He wished to ask the Noble Duke opposite if such a
course had been adopted now ?

The Duke of WELLINGTON said be was not aware
that such a course had been pursued.

The Duke of RICHMOND wished to know
what good it would do, if such a course were
adopted ? The people wanted money and not corn ;
give them money and they would soon get bread.
The only effect of such a course would be to reduce the
agriculturists of this country to the same state of distress
as the manufacturers were at present in.—(Hear.)
Earl MINTO said he must say that he thought the
cheapening of food would considerably tend to alleviate
the distresses of the people.
Earl FITZWILLIAM apprehended that whatever
exertions might be made, the sum which would be raised
by this letter, would be perfectly trifling compared with
what would be required fur the object in view.—(Hear.)
They should inquire whether this letter was the result
of prudence and inquiry, as his Noble Friend (the Mar-
quis of Lansdowne) was inclined to think. He should like
to ask her Majesty's Government what proportion
the sum to be raised by this letter would bear
to the average wages received by the operatives
of thiS country ? He should like to know what would be
the annual wages of the operatives in -one of our large
manufacturing towns alone ? He should think it could
be certainly not less than 1,000,000/. of money. He doubted
whether they would not be trifling, with the distress of the
people, by proposing such a measure as this. Did Noble
Lords believe that this distress was temporary ? Did
they believe that it arose from-the fluctuations in the ma-
nufactures of the country, or (lid they believe, as he did,
that it was merely an exhibition of the permanent
declension of the manufacturers of this country ?
(Hear.) lie should like to hear the opinion of her
Majesty's Government upon that matter. If their opi-
nion were that the distress be of a permanent charac-
ter,. he thought it should only be considered as a step to
some other more permanent mode of administering
relief.—(Hear.)
Lord WHARNCLIFFE believed that the distress in
the manufacturing districts arose in a great measure, but
not totEtlly, from the state of America. When this letter
was agreed upon it was not expected that very much
relief would be the result, but still it would induce
persons who had it in their power to come forward, ando
it might for a short time be the means of alleviating a
portion of the distress. He hoped that the time was not
far distant when the present distress would cease.
_

The Bishop of LONDON said, that in 1826, when
great distress existed in the manufacturing districts, the
same measure was resorted to, in connexion with the
public subscription, and the result was such as to place
at the disposal of a number of Noble Lords and Gentle-
men a large sum—not so large, perhaps, as to wholly
alleviate the distress, but still it was sufficient to render
great assistance. They succeeded in obtaining an amount
of 150,0001. or 160,0001., which was not wholly expended
at thu time • but part had been reserved, to be applied
to the Mid:of the distressed people, from time to time,
as distress should arise. He could bear testimony to the
exemplary patience with which the poor people of
Spitalfields bore their sufferings. He thought, that if the
Government wanted a jUstification of their proceeding,
it was to be found in that of 1826.

The question was then put, and agreed to.
COPYRIGHT BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to call the at-
tention of their Lordships to the Copyright Bill. He
wished shortly to *state the :reasons wby he supported
,this Bill. He anticipated that there would be no •op-
position to. this Bill in their Lordships' House. He had

I ?resented petitions from some of the most eminent
literary men, publishers of the metropolis, and from some
of the first stationers, all praying the House to pass this
Bill. He thought, therefore, he was confirmed in the
opinion he had formed, but he confessed he had greatly
been disappointed, for he found that it was to be op-
posed from a quarter he did not anticipate. He passed
to the Act of 1709, when the Copyright Bill was passed,
upon which this question mainly rested. The object of
that Bill was to promote literature, but unfortunately
some expressions were allowed to remain in the Bill which
caused it to be construed otherwise. In thirty years after the
passing of this Bill the question came under the consideration
of the Courts. A person of the name of Millar, purchased
the copyright of " Thompson's Seasons." Subsequently a
person of the name of Taylor, published an edition of
the work, and Millar brought an action against him. The
question was most elaborately argued in the Court of Queen's
Bench, and the Judges, with Lord Mansfield at their head, de-
livered their judgment, that by the law of the land an author
had a perpetual interest in his copyright. (Hear. )
He found then, by the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench, that copyright was a common law right, or in other
words that an author had a perpetual right in his copy. An
action was subsequently brought by Heckert against Donaldson,
which came before their Lordships' House. Eleven Judges
from the Court of Queen's Bench were summoned—Lord
Mansfield was not summoned, as it came before their Lordships
in consequerce of a writ of error from his judgment. They
were asked whether :here was a common law right vested
in the author ? that was answered in 'the affirmative by a
majority of eight to three ; the other question put to them
was, whether the statute of Anne took away the common law
right, or merely added additional benefits ; the Judges, by a
majority of six to five, decided that it did take away the common
law right. The law of the country was then, that the copy
was the property of the author for perpetuity, but that the
right was abridged by an Act of Parliament—which was in-
tended for a very different purpose,—to a period of 14 years.
Sir S. Romilly said that the Bill was not one calculated to
encourage literature, but that it tended rather to protect the
crude productions of youth than the more mature productions
of age and experience. The 54th Geo. 111. extended the
copyright to the life of the author. The 13111 fir which they
asked now was not to restore the common law right, but only
to extend the period for seven years more. He appealed now
to the justice of their Lordships ; on that broad footing he
placed it; he did not appeal to their sympathies on behalf of
men who had exerted their talents in their behalf, tett on their
justice only he relied. Seven years was all they asked. Were
they to be outdone in liberality by other countries? The law
of France gave the copyright to the author during life, and al-
lowed it to the widow for twenty years afterwards. Another
country, distinguished in many respects for its literary pro-
ductions—he meant Prussia—was still more liberal in its law ;
it gave thirty years after the death of the author. Russia
gave twenty-five years after the death of the author, and ten
years more under particular circumstances. The only country
in which the law was the same as in England was Austria, and
that country—it was a strange fact—had produced fewer works
of genius and literary merit, compared with its size and popu-
lation, than any other civilised country in the world. If they
went to Spain, where the literature was so charming, they
would find that the copyright was perpetual ; so it was in Den-
mark, in Norway, and in Sweden. 'file more encouragement
they gave to the productions of genius, the more likely
they were to have them increased. But they were
met with the argument, " Would you encourage me-
nopoly?" He did not understand such monopoly as this. If
a man possessed a house it was a monopoly, and that was the
kind of monopoly that an author's right in his book constituted.
If it were monopoly it would have all its advantages, but none
of its evils. The law at present was precisely the same thing
as a law would be which gave to a rabble the power of rushing
into a house directly the owner died, destroying his property,
and turning out his wife and family ; and who would say that
it would be unjust to repeal such a law as that? Another ob-
jection which had been raised to this proposed alteration in the
law was, that it would raise the price of books ; he (the Lord
Chancellor) did not believe that such would be the case ; he
did not think it would have any effect of the kind, but that it
would rather tend to lower the price of books. Nothing was a
greater monopoly than the Bible, and yet how cheap were
copies of the Bible. He had said before he did not like to
anticipate arguments. He had touched upon these lightly.
and there were many others that he might go into. He thought
this was a measure of justice.—( Hear, hear.) He had
attempted to present to their Lordships the correct view of
the subject, and of the law on the subject.
Lord BROUGHAM had not been changed in the opinion
he had formed on this subject by what had fallen from the
Noble and Learned Lord. He went to the full length of all
the sentiments of veneration and respect to the authors of this
country as the Noble and Learned Lord did himself. What
increased his anxiety was the latter part of his Noble and
Learned Friend's observation, for he found that they were
called upon to give their consent to a measure which prospec-
tively would alter the law on this subject, but which weuldretro-
spectively alter the law of their rights, and many other rights.
If they rejected or altered this Bill, and the result of that alte•
ration was its rejection elsewhere, then let them introduce a
measure to satisfy both. To those parts of the Bill which con-
sulted the interests of literary men he had no objection what-
ever, on the contrary, he thought they were most salutary.
That it was the opinion of the Queen's Bench, that at
common law of this country there existed a law of copy-
right, be had no doubt. A question was brought
before the House, and the majority were of opi-
nion that copyright at common law had ceased to
exist. That was the law of the land as declared by
the highest authority. If seventy years and a majority of the
Judges were not sufficient to settle a dry point of law, then it
was in vain to talk of rights and privileges at all, because, upon
higher ground none could rest, or show a. more unimpeachable
title. His Noble Friend then referred to the Act of the 54th
George 111., which he thought was introduced in favour of
authors; and he stated the opinion of Sir Samuel Romilly on
that Act; that Act, arose, however, out of a complaint made
by the University of Oxford, that copies of the works published
were not sent to them, and that the Act of Anne was not suffi-
ciently Stringent to make publishers deliver the copies of their
works.to the Universities ; an Act to enforce this was passed,
and as a kind of compensation to the publishers the Act of 54
Geo. 111. was passed. -At that time, however, great com-
plaints were made that they were compelled to send eleven
copies of their works to the libraries, and they stated that the
Act of George 111. did not nearly compensate them for the
, burden thus imposed upon them. It was, generally speaking,
quite unimportant what became of the copyright after four or
' five years, and certainly one never looked beyond fourteen years.
But, they might ask, " Would you not, as a publisher, give
i an author more for a valuable work, if the copyright
which would be vested in you were perpetual, instead of only
of fourteen years duration ?" The answer they would receive
would be universally, " No, we would give no more for it."
Of that part of the Act which related to protection from pi-
racy, he highly approved. The great evils under which the
publisher and the author now laboured, were—lst, The great
defect of the law with regard to valuable works; and, 2d, The
piracies which were made, both by printers at home and abroad.
By way of example of the present state of the law, look at a
most useful work, which had been publishing during the last
twenty-five years, " The Encyclopaedia Edinensis," edited by
Sir David Brewster, than which no work ever presented a com-
pilation of what was more useful, or exhibited more genius.
If ever there were a book which ought to be encouraged, it
was this. But such was the state of the law, that neither the
authors themselves had any right in their copy, nor had the
owners and publishers any legal redress against a pirate. Of
course, the size of the work protected itself; no one would
think of publishing twenty-five quarto volumes in a piratical
way. But any single treatise—the valuable treatises of Pro-
fessor Stewart, of Professor Mayfair, the papers of M. Arago,
&c.—might be dishonestly pirated, without any redress being
allowed to the publisher. It would be most desirable that such a
state of things should be put a stop to. He now came to the
other part of the measure, which extended the copyright from
twenty-eight to forty-two years. Suppose an author took his
manuscript to the publisher, and wished to part with it,
the question would be• on what terms he could dis-
pose of it • and the question would be between the
present value of • twenty-eight and forty-two years.
Suppose ,it would bring in a clear yearly gain of
1001., after paying eanvnlei
krayonl
yne,:aple
unhappily,n s e
income,for t hbteuh
tattehremawn
oyouf
elvdfortysuppose
p-potovues• oer
iyctoe,aulfrodsr—tpihtreodwupacsuervposeursycehuof stating the argument as strongly as
possible against himself. Suppose, also, that the bookseller
knew this—that the work was to succeed, how much more
would the publisher give for forty-two years instead of
twenty-eight ? for that was the question. He had taken the
trouble to c.alcluvlaaste,otihniest.hinT,,hleitediffio!rie.neeltiviassefolrt.
,atthteenpupber.
more,w
awas
s '2lld any,t something
was
yfaosrhad appointed, forty-two
evidence s
aeneetiins,
:suriigtahnne t: 7.:
teshneot
ex-
amined. it
cent., which was a low profit, 'ndee I; and if 0-se took fifteen
signed the petition his
afwi:insirhtineenaredscus.esmbwmeihintytge,eetxioiaeftnini:gresudoin:ysbuwth-othhaadt was not the case in 1814,
rp
iegrh cent., e ngave
years.
littlei t i
it
Noble and Learned Friend bad presented, had given evidence
before that Committee; and they then,said that the addition
of fourteen years could not operate to the encouragement of
mlitaenrarayndmeilnir. Murray, l individuals were Mr. Long-
man of these
and yet now they presented a
petition in favour of this Bill. His Noble Friend had
argued this
dth is questionßut
h i
this
wasa though it
case,st
stood as g
as
rietatwaaslte leftr
a
in i.
tions had been made since. At that time authors were
subject to Irish piracies, but an Act had been since passed to
extend the copyright law all over the United Kingdom. It
was, therefore, not correct to say that things remained in the
same state as in the Act of 54 George 111. He should have
less objection to extending the interest to seven years after
the death of the author, than to extend the period fourteen
years. The great proportion of works that were published
were net interested in this question, because few works sur-
vived beyond the year of publication. He could not agree
with his Noble and Learned Friend, that hooks would be
-cheaper than at present under. the system of what he called
monopoly. That was one of the most extraordinary proposi-
tions which he ever heard. His Noble Friend referred to the
Bible in proof of hi 3 assertion-- That was an exception ; hut
the reason was, that there was no desire for profit in the sale
of the Bible; on the contrary, there were great bodies of the
community who were interested in the circulation and dissemi-
nation of the Bible. Works like the Bible and others, which
were very popular and had a great run, would, 'no doubt,
under any system, be published at a cheap rate. But they
might depend upon it that the extension of the period of copy
right from twenty-eight to forty-two years, would have the
effect of Preventing a great many valuable works from being
published at a low eve. Now, upon the last point to which
bringingwo uld
his Noble and Learned Friend adverted, he thought that there
could be no doubt—he meant the retrospective effect which
beout those editions
the law would have. The retrospective effect, he believed,
which men had made preparations
to prevent men, who had been waiting
for the last two or three years, to bring out cheap editions
of works in which the copyright was about to expire, from
on a certain day, and had expended large rums of money to that
effect, rntastianneweosrkins
and if they were to be prevented from doing that, ruin
a t al
tl
0. b
rHi
neg konnetwoei
to them might ensue. Was such a law as this ever heard of.'
stepping in between a man's expended capital, which he had ex-
pended under the law, and the authors, arid saying to them,
" Be ruined, because you have acted without your
host in this House." There were poets of great transcendent
talent, whose productions almost dazzled the imagination of
common men, and to them this Bill might be of service ; and
sorry was he to say anything which should tend to deprive them
of any protection which they ought or could have ; he looked
upon them as the conservators of public virtue ; he would go as
far as any Man in their praise; he would laud them, nay, he
could almost venerate them,
and them he would be proud to
protect; but he would turn for a moment from these men, to h
him and men like
eim, who, by their inventions, had added
more to our strength than if he had added cubits to our stature,
who had taught us to stem the waves, almost to chain the
winds, making what was formerly but a saying to become a
literal fact, that not an axe fell to break the silence of an Indian
forest, that was not echoed by the anvils which had assisted to
forge the shuttles of Lancashire and Warwick—he alluded to
the Worcesters, the Newcombes, and last of all, greatest
of all, Watt—what reward had they? No one thought
to alter the law which concerned them ; but they had
greater honours than any Courts could confer—imperish-
able renown. To Watt, a monument had been erected
in memory of his genius and his talents, and proud was
he (Lord Brougham)
to have assisted in its erection. What
other honours had they? Their dust was allowed to mingle with
the ashes of the great, but the great less illustrious than them-
selves. But, be asked, what good had been done for them du-

ring their lift-time? It was asked now to give more pecu. •
niary profits to the author; and could he then shut his
eyes to the state of the inventor, to whom the law said " Four-
teen years and no longer shall you derive any benefit from
your great and important discoveries." To the inventor of
the steam-engine, aid to the inventor of printing, if they were
now alive, no more than fourteen years would be allowed to
compensate for the expenses which they had incurred and the
time which they hal employed in producing such mag&ficent
results. Some time ago ho ( Lord Brougham) wished to im-
press upon their Lordships the necessity of allowing to inventors
an extension of seven years to the right they then possessed, but,
that was not allowed. Let there be some equality in the
treatment of these great men, and let them not be too hasty in
passing this measure on a mere statement, without comparing
their position with that of other classes of the community.
He ventured to say that no man 'X ould attempt to propose an
extension of the term of patented rights. He apologised for having
so long trespassed upon their Lordship? time. Doubtless, he
had expressed that which would run counter to the feelings of
many in that House, but he felt it to be his duty to go into the
subject as he had done.
Lord L YTTELTON would have prefe-red a Bill founded on
the basis of the present one, as first proposed to the House of
Commons. The principle upon which he supported this gill
was, that it was a compromise between the author and the
public, and this he thought was the opinion of Mr. Sergeant
Taltourd and Mr. Christie, and their supporters, amongst
whom, he thought, he might rank the Noble and Learned Lord
on the Woolsack. He agreed with the Noble and Learned
Lord (Brougham), when he said he did not see any difference
in time, between patents and copyrights, but he thought the
time given to each was not long enough. He did not think an
extension of copyright would enhance the price of books, nor
did he thinkperpetual copyright would have that effect : on these
grounds he would support the Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON said, for some time he was
staggered by the argument of the Noble and Learned Lord
I (Brougham) with respect to the analogy of copyright of in-
ventions and the copyright of literary works, but he considered
this argument a fallacy, fur the invention was that which was
of general and household use, and therefore the invention was
amply remunerated in fourteen years. But a quarter of a
century might elapse before the works of a literary man be-
came known and appreciated by the public. With regard to
the argument of the Noble Lord with respect to copyright
about to expire, and in which the publishers might have ex-
pended two or three thousand pounds on the work, this fact
was a reason why the author should be further protected.
This was one of the best reasons for an extension of the copy-
right, fir by this outlay it proved that the work was just be-
coming valuable. It was a just remuneration to the man who
had devoted the whole of his life to the benefit of his
species. It was, as the Noble Lord had said, for the great
authors that this measure was sought.
Lord COTTENgAM thought this question, like all others,
should be discussed, not with respect to private or individual
interests, but the interests of the public. In what way would
the benefit of authors be best consulted? He thought it was
the general opinion that the addition of 14 years to the ex-
sting period of protection, would be of service to the authors,
and as he thought the interests of the public were so mixed up
with the interests of the author, that what was good for one must
be good for the other, he certainly should not oppose it ; he was
not prepared to say that the extension of the period to 42 years
would have the desired effect ; but as he did not see that it
would effect the public interests, he should not offer any oppo-
sition. The Noble and Learned Lord then commented upon
the various clauses of the Bill, and the 4th, 18th, and 25th,
were clauses which he thought ought not to remain part of the
Bill ; if they were struck out, he should be quite prepared to
give it his support.
Lord CAMPBELL would give this Bill his most cordial support;
and he mustsay, notwithstanding the ingenious arguments of the
Noble Lord who sat beside him (Lord Brougham), he did not
think that the arguments made use of by his Noble and Learned
Friend on the Woolsack had been answered. The. principle
feature of the Bill was to allow an extension of the period of
protection to authors, and that he thonght was a most desir-
able object. We had obtained considerable eminence in the
paths of literature, but we could not claim any particular pre-
eminence over the French, nor was our judgment superior to
theirs, in the amount of protection which authors should receive.
He approved entirely of the principle of granting the extended
copyright to those authors whose works were already published.
He did not see why such men as Mr. Wordsworth or Mr.
Campbell, for instance, should not be entitled to participate in
its benefits. He did not see why the advantages of the pro-
longed term should not he extended to the works of the author
of " Waverley." On the whole, he approved of the Bill, and
he trusted that in all its main provisions it would receive the
sanction of their Lordships.
The Bill then went through Committee, with the under-
standing that the discussion on the clauses objected to should
be taken on the bringing up of the Report.
The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to be
brought up on Thursday next.
The Turnpike Trusts (Ireland) Bill went through Committee.
Their Lordships then Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 26.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
TYNE FISHERIES BILL.
The Tyne Fisheries Bill was read a third time, and
passed. .

110LYWELL ROAD BILL.
The Holywell Road Bill was read a third time, and
passed.

LEEDS IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr. BECKETT presented a petition from Leeds,
against the Leeds Improvement Bill.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the millers of
Cork against certain clauses in the Fisheries (Ireland)
Bill.

INCOME-TAX.

Mr. WALKER presented a petition from the attor-
neys of Londonderry, praying to be exempt from the
operation of the Income-tax,

CAPT. MANBY'S INVENTION.

Sir C. NAPIER presented a petition from Captain
Manby, who stated that he had invented a machine for
the purpose of removing sand banks from the mouths of
rivers and harbours. The petitioner wished fur a Select
Committee to inquire into the merits of the invention. He
(Sir C. Napier) would give notice at the proper time, of
his intention to move that the petition be printed.
SUNDAY TRAVELLING.

Mr. PLUMPTItE presented a petition from Glasgow,
praying that a clause be introduced into the Railways Bill,
for the purpose of preventing Sunday travelling ; also
a petition against any further grant to the College of
Maynooth ; also a petition fur the exclusion of Roman
Catholics from Parliament.
POOR-LAW BILL.

Mr. GIIIMSDITCH presented a petition from the
Poor-law Guardians of the Chorley Union, Lancashire,
praying for an alteration in the Poor-law Amendment
Bill.

Mr. LITTON presented a petition from the Irish
Society against the Irish Drainage Bill, and praying
that the petitioners might be heard at the bar ot the
House by their counsel against the Bill ; also a petition
from Longford against th National System of Education
in Ireland.
Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from the Poor-
law Guardians of the parish of Keithley, in the. West
Riding of the county of York, agreed to by a majority of
10 to 3 against the Poor-law Amendment Act, as being
wholly unfitted for the purposes for which it was passed ;
the petitioners prayed the House, therefbre, that that
Act might be repealed, or so far altered as that relief to
the poor might be administered under the sanction of
the rate-payers ; and that the Poor-law Commissioners
might be relieved from the further administration of
their functions.
COMMUNICATION WITH BELGIUM.

Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the
English residents of Bruges, complaimmg that the corn=
munieation betwern this country and Belgium was not
sufficient fur tho purposes of trade►. Vessels only went
four times a week from London to Bruges, and great in-
convenience arose from not having a daily communica-
tion, as there was with France.
CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the Ca-
tholics of Stattl,rd, complaining of the religious grievances
under which they laboured, especially in the Army and
Navy, the poor-liouses, and the prisons.
' REPEAL OF THE UNION.

The RIGHT HON. MEMBER also presented several pe-
titions for the repeal of the Legislative Union.
CORN LAWS.
The RIGHT 'ION. MEMBER also presented a petition
from Dublin, praying for a total and immediate repeal of
the Corn-laws.

REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.
The Motu HON. MEMBER also presented a petition
from five leaseholders, praying for a further reform in
Parliament.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord BERNARD presented a petition from some
place in Cork, in favour of this Bill.

SUDBURY ELECTION.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from cer-
tain electors of -Sudbury, signed by three Dissenting
Ministers, one Magistrate, and 152 electors, highly ap-
proving of the decision of the Commissioners appointed
by the House, whereby they found that bribery had
existed in the borough of Sudbury to a great ex-
tent. The petitioners stated that they regarded the
suffrage as the right of -every Englishman, and they
prayed for Universal Suffrage and the Vote by Ballot.
The lion. Member also presented a petition from an in-
dividual at Birmingham, praying for the dissolution of
the present Parliament, and that one might be elected
according to the ancient custom of the realm.