The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-03 00:00:00

MENTS.

Mr. WOODHOUSE moved the consideration of the
Lords' Amendments in the Ormsby Inelosure 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 deemedparcel 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
job 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 was treated as they were in other
instances.. He was sorry that the promote's of the Bill in
this case were two clergymen of the Church of England,
and 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clause, but that was withdrawn, and another bf a totally
different character was introduced into the Bill.
He shonid, 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 coud be supported in that House.
Mr. WODEHOUSE said that there was no objection
made to the clause alluded to by the Right
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 LordsvAmendment having been 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 Clare 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 a poor man take a piece of waste land, and took
no notice of it, or accepted of a nominal rent from the poor
man, after the poor man had expended 101. or 20/. 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 Honourabte 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 mot 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 , eught to have
the power of setting it aside.
Mr. HUME said that the Bill had been sent up
to the Lords, that it had been 'attended 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. ESTCOTT 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-
lion took place, Mr..Waxi.Ev'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 Lord's Amendment, and to state those rea-
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 Ellismere 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 13i11,
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 moved.

Mr. Alderman hUMPHREYS presented a petition
from John Truston, a prisoner of Newgate, stating that
he was now very penitent, and praying that he may be
released from prison; also a petition from 250 inhabitants
of Ips%ich to the same effect.
ATHLONE ELECTION PETITION,

The SPEAKER informed the House, that he had re-
ceived a petition from George Dowd, one of the peti-
tioners, against the return of 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
petition was tampered wi.h, and that there were others
who would carry on the petition.—(Chiers.)
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 foreig,n
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.
Mr. FRENCH gave notice that on the third reading
of the Income Bill (as we understood) he should move
that all dividends pa} able in June be exempt from the
payment of the tax.•
Mr. HUME gave notice that in Committee on the
Railway Regulation Bill; he should move the insertion
of a clause to prevent Sunday. travelling.
Mr. THORNELY Moved for leave of absence 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.
Sir U. GREY moved that the names of Mr. Green,
Mr. Bernal, Mr. Eastcourt, and Mr. Sturt be added to
the Select Committee on Election Committee Witnesses.

In reply to a question from an Hon. Member,
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Lord Channellor had, in
the other House of Parliament, introduced a Bill for the
amendinent of the Bankruptcy Law.
Mr. HUME said, in consequence of the news from
America, by the last two mails, he begged to ask the
Right on. Baronet at the, head of the Government
whether Captain Elliot was now Consul-General of the
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 the
Texas, and when ?

Sfr PEP.T... y;tir'l UP :in Elliot is Consul to Tem" ;
he 4 at present it 741(10t; Ale is not in the receipt 01
pay. and will not: be the receipt of pay until
he takes his depakure ; he is perfectly ready to take his
.departure ; he is.. onlyAetained at the instance of the
Treasury, who are receiving explanations from him with
respect to certain expenses in Hong-Kong.—(Hear.)
Mi. HUME said he should, on an early day, - submit
whether Captain Elliot, under present circumstances,
was 'a proper yersen to be seit Out.--(014: ob .) • •
In 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. purpose
of obtaining a settlement of . their claims and
they had every reason to believe that means would be
taken for their adjustment. Whatever 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
,te consider. Iles 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.
(LEFT SPEAKING.) " :

MERCHANTMEN IiNDYIEN OF
WAR. •

The following are extracts from a letter addressed to a friend
by Captain Brownless. commander of the George the Fourth
schooner, complaining of the conduct of an officer in the British
may towards him in the Chinese Seas
" Nov. IB.—Thank God I am spared to address you once
more, for two nights ago 1 had but little hopes-- fer m 3 self,• all
hands, and ship. But I must give you a sketch of what happened
previous to my departure from Macao. On the-Sunday week
preceding my departure from there, one of my seamen asked
me for leave of absence, which I refused, on account of his
previous bad conduct ; he however left the ship while I and
my first mate were below. During his stay on shore he
got into a row, and was put into gaol. The weather proving"
boisterous the three following days, I did not go on shore, con-
sequently the man was kept in confinement until the Thimiday,
on which day I got him released; but he-refused to come on
board. I left him on shore, and considered him a deserter, as •
my articles particularly state, that in case of any man being
absent 24 hours without leave, it is considered desertion, for
which he forfeits all his pay and clothes. On the Saturday
this man entered on board ii.M. ship Sulphur, Capt. Licher,
On the Sunday, a lieutenant was sent on board- of. us. for his
cloths and pay ; the latter I peremPtorily refused to give, as.
the man had deserted from me. On ' the Monday, the same
oe cer (this officer I was intimately acquainted with when last
I was in China—he was then a midshipman • in the Caliope,
28), came in full uniform, with a cutter's crew, armed, to stop
further work until I paid the man his wages. I still refused
his pay. but gave up charge of the ship, went on shore and con-
sulted Mr. Burn. (my consignee's) advice upon the matter,
upon which he took the affair into his own hands, but Captain
Belcher said that he had nothing to say to-him, as I was the corn-
manrier of the vessel, and that if I. dared to get under-
weigh without his permission, hi would fire. a ,broadside
into me, and he actually warped his ship- abeam •of us for
that purpose, and for the three succeeding days- one of his
officers came constantly on board to induce my men to
leave my ship and enter their service, -which caused my men
to becomeso mutinous that, upon my refusing to give them an
advance of 2/. 10s., they swore they would enter her Majesty's
service, which three of them soon afterwards did. The loss of
these men so completely crippled my ship that, for fear of losing
more and detaining my ship, I was induced to comply with
their request; but from that day till the day of my sailing,
there was never a man forward sober I I went .on board the
Sulphur, and- paid the man. When first- I-called upon Captain
Belcher I stated the whole case to him, upon which he behaved
not in the most-civil manner possible, and wanted to know if I
was aware that he-was there • for the purpose .of protecting
British seamen. 1• asked him, was be not there for the pur-
pose also of protecting masters of British • merchantmen and.
their ships,-to which he would not deign to answer. • '
" 23d ovember.—We are now in latitude 10 11-, and two-
thirds down, the China sea, sadly crippled for want of canvass.
I sailed from Macao Roads on Friday, the 12th instant; the
whole of the day had been dirk and gloomy, with hard Otsts of
wind i and had ‘ not been with a view =to avoid all further-
trouble With my men I most certainly would- not have gone-to
sea that night.' .• • • •
The letter . goes on- to enumerate the difficulties Captain
13rownless encountered through- want of men, until he reached
the straits otAnjers. • -