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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 22, 1842.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 21.

Their Lordships met at the usual hour.
In the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the Earl
of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the woolsack.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

A message from the Commons brought up the
Controverted Elections Amendment Bill, the Wide
Streets (Dublin) Bill, the Perth Prisons Bill, the
Railways' Act Amendment Bill, and a few private
Bills, which were severally read a first time.
THE LUNACY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time, and passed.
MINES AND COLLIERIES BILL.

The fitike of SUTHERLAND presented a petition
from Huddersfield, against the employment of females
and young children in mines. His own opinion on
this subject was, that the youth employed in mines
should only work half time, while the remainder should
be devoted to instruction and healthful recreation.

those Bills,

It could scarcely be expected that children would
attend a night school after ten hours' hard labour

in a mine.
FISHERIES TREATY ACT CONTINUANCE
BILL.

This Bill went through Committee.
SLAVE TRADE TREATIES ACT CONTI-
NUANCE BILL.

This Bill also went through Committee.
The District Courts and Prisons Bill, the Militia
Ballot Suspension Bill, and the Turnpike Acts Con-
tinuance Bill likewise passed through Committee.
THE MILITARY SAVINGS BANK BILL.

This Bill was read a second time, and their Lord-
ships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 21.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.

Sir R. 11. INGLIS presented a petition from th►e Pro-
testant Operative Association of the Tower Hamlets,
against the grant to Maynooth College.
Mr. VILLIERS presented .three petitions from Dele-
gates assembled from different parts of the country, pray-
ing for the immediate and total repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from Putney, pray-
ing that the bridges in London might be thrown open
free of toll.

The SPEAKER informed the House that the Right

Hon. Sir G. Grey Mr. Wilson Patten, and Sir William
M. Somerville, had resigned their offices as Members of
the General Committee of Electi3ns, and that it was his
duty to appoint Members in their room. •
Mr. ALDHAM presented a petition from the West
Riding of Yorkshire, against the Bastardy and Appren-
tices clauses of the New Poor-law Amendment Bill.
BURYING IN TOWNS.

Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that he would, on
the 4th of August, move for leave to bring in a Bill to
prevent buriaals within the precincts of towns.—(Hear.)

POOR-LAWS.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD gave notice that, on the third
reading of the Poor-law Bill, he would move as an
amendment that the Bill be read that day three months.
Sir T. 1). ACKLAND gave notice that he would
move a clause in the 1'oor•law Amendment Bill, which
would enable the local guardians to provide for the
education of.poor persons.
Sir G. CLARKE gave notice that he would move for
leave to bring in a Bill to amend the 2d and 3d of Vic-
toria, called the Slave-trade Suppression Act.

STADE DUTIES.
Sir R. PEEL said, that seeing the Hon. Member fur
Gateshead had a motion on the paper relative to the
Stade Duties, he wished to inform him that it
would be out of his (Sir. P. Peel's) power to enter
into any discussion upon it. Negotiations were pending
e.n the subject, and he could not, without prejudice to
the public, go into any statement. He therefore hoped
the Hon. Gentleman would not press his motion in the
present state of the negotiations, which he had every
reason to believe would be brought to a final close.
Mr. HUTT was unwilling to bring forward any
motion that would lead to a discussion which would in-
terfere with the public interests ; but it was because he
understood the negotiations which were carrying on were
conducted on a basis which, so far as he could ascertain,
was likely to be prejudicial to' the interests and honour
of the country, he had taken the opportunity of bring-
ing the Matter under the consideration of that House.
He was desirous, therefore, that some expression on the
part of the House should be given, and he did not think
it would be consistent with his duty to withdraw the
motion.

Sir R. PEEL only trusted that the House would draw
no conclusion from the reserve he should maintain on
the subject.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. LAMBTON hoped the Hon. Gentlemen would
withdraw his motion.

Mr. HUTT said, that he had no acrimonious or fac-

tious motives in bringing the. subject forward. It had
been entrusted to his hands, and he believed the nego-
tiations were conducted on such a basis as to be injurious
to the mercantile interests of the country.
Mr. HUME hoped, after what had fallen from the
Right Hon. Baronet, that the Hon. Gentleman would
not proceed with his motion.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that as the Right Hon.
Baronet had stated that it would not be consistent with
his duty to enter upon any statement upon that subject,
in consequence of the negotiations that were pending,
perhaps it would not be advisable to press that motion.
But on the other hand, as the matter was entrusted to his
Hon. Friend, and as he stated that he had every reason
to believe that in the negotiations that were going on
the present Government had abandoned claims which he
believed they. ought not to do; and as it was a ques-
tion of great interest to the commercial classes of the
country, it was advisable that 'the subject should be
discussed before the negotiations were concluded. If
his Hon. Friend waited until the negotiations were con-
cluded, he would then be too late.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he was precluded
from saying one word on the subject. Of course the
Hon. Member could exercise his own discretion whether
he would bring on the, motion or not; all he wished was,
that the House would not miscontrue his silence.
Mr. HUTT—Then perhaps the Right Hon. ,Baronet
would *say whether it was a fact that, on the present
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, succeeding his Noble
Friend (Lord Palmerston), he signified to the Hano-
verian Minister his (Lord Aberdeen's) determination to
adhere to the policy of his predecessors ?
Sir R. PEEL declined to make any communication
whatever on the subject.
Mr. HUTT said he certainly understood that the No-
ble Lord, the present Secretai y for Foreign Affairs, had
stated his determination to follow the policy of his pre-
decessors ; but the concessions which were since made
were at variance with the views of his Noble Friend,
and inconsistent wits the rights and interests of this
country. He therefore thOught that the House should
express some opinion on the subject before it was too
late. He understood that the question of the Stade
tolls were to be settled on the basis of a compromise,
involving large concession on the part of this country.
If that was the fact, he (Mr. Hutt) thought it right to
protest against any such proceeding. If any concession was
made, it was opposed to the views not only of his Noble
_Friend on the subject, but of every statesman in Europe;
and if her Majesty's Government had concluded any
treaty with Hanover, setting aside the Swedish treaty,
they had pursued a oourse inconsistent with their duty,
and one against which he most strongly protested.
Mr. C. BERKELEY said that the Hon. Member for Bath
had, on Tuesday, put a question to the Right Hon. Baro-
net the Secretary of State for the Home Department, re-
specting a person who had been improperly committed to
Cheltenham gaol, to which the Right Hon. Gentleman
replied that serious irregularities had occurred, and he
(Sir J. Graham) had expressed his opinion to that effect,
but he trusted that the Hon.. and Learned Member
for Bath, would not press for the correspondence.
The Right Hon. Baronet must be aware that, under the
provisions of the Constabulary Force Act, the
Magistrates had no . right to interfere with
Chief Constables appointed under that Act. The
Magistrates were desirous of having their characters
cleared, and he wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
if he had any objection-to produce the correspondence
which had taken place on the subject, and to have it
printed-?. _

Sir JAMES' GRAHAM was sorry any misappre-
hension shold have occurred in consequence of what had
fallea from him (Sir J. Graham). The Honourable
Gentleman had certainly quoted his (Sir James Gra-
ham's) expressions correctly. He had certainly said
that irregularities had been committed, but he had not
said that those irregularities had been committed by the
Magistrates. As the production of the correspondence
might prejudice the ends of justice he must refuse to
produce it for the present.
RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. HUME had intended in moving fir the papers re-
lating to the deposition of the late Raja. of Sattara,
to have gone at large into the subject, but, at
this advanced period of the session, he would
abstain from doing so, and content himself with
moving for the papers, to the production of which
he understood no opposition • would be offered.
He would, however, next session go into the whole ques-
tion of the deposition of the late Raja of Sattara. He
would therefore move for copies of the despatches from
the Bombay Government, dated the 31st day of October,
1841, and subsequent dates, respecting the affairs of
Sattara, with the inclosures therein referred to,
as laid before the Court of Proprietors at the
East India House, on the 13th day of May, 1842 ; also,
a copy of a letter from General Lodwick, C. 8., and late
Resident at Setters, dated the 13th day of June,
1842, to the Court of Directors of the East India
Company, respecting the proceedings at Sattara.
as laid before the Court of Proprietors at the
East India House ; also, copies of all letters
addressed to or from the deposed Raja of Sattara,
that have been intercepted by the Bombay Government,
by its Officers, and by the Resident at Sattara ; with
copies of the despatches transmitting the same to the
Governor-General of India, and to the Court of Direc-
tors ; also, copies of the orders issued, and any ob-
servations made by the Governor-General, and by the
Court of Directors thereon.—Agreed to.
INDIAN FINANCE—AFGHAN WAR.
Mr. HUME had a notice on the paper for the pro-
duction of the correspondence between the Board of Di-
rectors of the East India Company and the Government
on the subject of Indian finance, in reference to the
expenses of the Chinese and Affghan wars. The East
India Company thought that as the Affgh. an war had been
undertaken for British purposes, the nation ought to bear
the expense of it; and he believed the Directors had ad-
dressed the Government on the subject. The Right
Hon. Baronet, tor:, had, in bringing forward his Budget,
alluded to the subject of Indian finance, and therefore it
was of importance that the House should be in ponessiOn
of int4ruption (,11 the subj(,ct. Tic (Mr. IL) how,ver,
understood from the Board of Control that the corres-
pondence wa.a still going on,vaid that it wouldprejudice the

public service if it were produced at present. Under
these circumstances he would withdraw his motion.

Sir R. PEEL, in allusion to what had fallen from the
Hon. Gentleman relative to (Sir R. Peel's) speech
on bringing forward the Budgs, begged to observe that
although on that occasion h had said that the state
of Indian finance was additional reason for an effort

being made to maintain public credit, yet he had by no
means admitted that the East India Government had

any claim upon the English Treasury on account of the

expenses of the Affghaii war.
Mr. HUME did not mean to say there was a claim,
but the Court of Directors thought they had one.

LAW REFORM. -
Mr. PARKER wished to know whether it was the

--------__ _
intention of the Government to proceed with the Law
Bills that had lately been introduced into the other

House of Parliament?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it certainly
was the intention of the Government to proceed with

An HON. MEMBER wished to know whether it was
the intention of the Government to postpone the Parish

Constables Bill till another session? -
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was the intention of
the Government to persevere with that Bill.
CASE OF MRS. FORBES.
Captain PECIIELL rose to call the attention of the
House to the petition of Mrs. Charlotte Forbes, pre-
sented on the sth of July last. Mrs. Forbes was
the wife of Lieutenant Forbes, now a lunatic in
Haslar Hospital. It appeared that a portion of
the lunatic's pay had been stopped for the purpose
of defraying his expenses in the Hospital. The peti-
tioner complained that this was contrary to the general
usage in the service, and prayed that the pay which
had thus been stopped might be paid over to her.
The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman concluded by moving
for a return of the number of Officers on half-pay in

the Lunatic. Asylum at Haslar, the deductions from
their half-pay made fir their maintenance there, and the
correspondence between the Government and the relatives
of such Offi.;ers.
Sir G. COCKBURN said it was a matter of indul-
gence that Lieut. Forbes was received •at all into the
Asylum. He was received in consequence of the applica-
tions of his friends, who were aware of the existence of
the regulations.
Sir C. NAPIER said, that as it appeared that the Go-
vernment bad taken too much in the first instance for
the maintenance of this officer in' Haslar Hospital,
and had subsequently reduced the amount deducted,
he thought that the Government was bound
to refund the money which had been so improperly de-
ducted ; and he thought that a similar refunding ought
to take place in every instance in which money had
been deducted unjustly.
Mr. HUME thought it was a pity such a case should
have been permitted to be brought forward. He
thought as a matter of justice, and of humanity, that
the money ought to be refunded to Mrs. Forbes. Great
credit was due to the Government for providing for
lunatic officers in Haslar Hospital, but still the
families of officers ought not to be deprived- of
their rights. As a matter of justice they were entitled
to the half-pay.after the bare maintenance of the indi-
vidual, which it appeared amounted to Is. 6d., a day
should have been deducted.
Mr. S. HERBERT said that in this case they could
not allow their feelings to interfere with the rules and
regulations which had been made. That course had been
followed in the present case, and he saw no reason, why
they should be departed from in the present instance. He
must, therefore, oppose the present motion.
Captain PECHELL replied..
Tbe motion was then agreed to.
SLAVE TRADE.

Captain PECHELL deferred the motion of which he
had given notice, to call the attention of the House to the
operation of the Act, 2d and 3d Vic., c. 73, for the sup-
pression of the slave trade till this day week (Thursday).
DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY.

Mr. T. DITh COMBL said that, iu 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 to re-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 framed
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 consideration of 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 of 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 experienced
since their accession to office —(Hear, hear, hear.)
How many a factious motion. he would ask,
had been brought for Ward 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 aie 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 ‘A as
the apathy of that House as to the sufferings 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 Uf 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 forward 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-laws, 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 things 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 were surrounded
by the victims of the Right Hon. Baronet's legislation,
what 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 con-
trary, 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 ? He did not see the Secretary of War
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.
He had given them his trumpery Corn Bill, the Income-
tax, and the Taliff. What was the consequence of the
Income-tax ? Already was the country rife with com-
plaints against the Commissioners, who were going
about like locusts. The filthy creatures were at their dirty
work. The Tariff did nut 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
acceded to with equal readiness. An early and abund-
ant harvest was looked forward 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 measures that had been passed,
and the tribute of the Right Hon. Baronet to the forti-
tude of the pk?ople might be renewed. But he heiievi,d
the t the fortitude and peaceable demarn,ur of tin: people
could not be attributed altogether to their disposition,
but to the hope that somethiug effectual would be done