The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-22 00:00:00

Mr. LAW gave notice that, in Committee on the Maynooth
Bill, when the question was put as to whether the appropria-
tion should be made out of the Consolidated Fund, he would
move that the several sums payable for that purpose should not
be paid by the Commissioners of the Treasury out of the
Consolidated Fund.—( Hear, hear.)
FIELD GARDENS BILL—THE GAME LAWS.
Mr. BRIGHT said that when the Field Gardens Bill was
in Committee he would move a clause empowering the holders
of allotments to snare and destroy game.—(Laughter.)
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, in answer to a question
from Mr. Morris, said he would, on Thursday neat, move a
resolution respecting the Railway Act, which would quite meet
his views.
MAYNOOTH ENDOWMENT BILL.

On the motion that the order of the day for going into Com-
mittee on this Bill being read,
Sir ROBERT INGLIS rose and said—l trust I shall be
excused for calling the attention of the House to one or two
observations—( Cries of " Petitions, )—I am quite in order—the
question is that the order of the day be now read. I trust I may
be excused for calling the attention of the House to the clock.—
(Laughter.) I ask, whether it would be right or decorous
to commence so important a measure at the present hour.—
( Hear, hear.) The question at issue is whether the consoli-
dated fund is to bo charged in perpetuity with a considerable
amount for maintaining the College of Maynooth.—(Hear,
hear.) I certainly will resist the discussion being gone into
at the present hour, but hope I shall not be put to the neces-
sity of dividing the House, and that her Majesty's Ministers
will see the justice of what I propose.—(Cries of " Go on.")
It is now a quarter past ten o'clock, and is it, I ask again, a
proper time to go on with a Bill of so much magni-
tude, and upon which the House and the country feel
so deeply interested ? lie hoped the Ministry would
not, trusting to a mere numerical majority, object to the post-
ponement.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL rose amid loud cries of "Go on." I sin-
cerely regret that my Hon. Friend makes any objection to our
proceeding with this stage of the Bill to-n:ght.—( Hear, hear. )
I did not expect that,:beginning the discussion at so late an
hour, the House would come to any decision to-night. I cer-
tainly understood from the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Ward), that he would not bring forward the motion after ten
o'clock.—( Hear, hear.) I will not give my Hon. Friend the
Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) any ad-
vantage over me, by saying that I hurried or attempted to press
forward this measure. At the same time 1 repeat that con-
cerning the measure now introduced, and which has received
the sanction of the House in so decided a manner, I consider
it to be one of vital importance, and that nothing shall be
wanting on my'part to bring it to a successful issue.—(Cheers.)
It was a question of great importance to the public, and he
would throw no obstacle in the way of its speedy settlement.
He would, however, in the fufilment of a pledge given by him
to a Scottish deputation, proceed upon Friday to state the
measure which the Government intended to introduce with
respect to banking in Scotland. He now regretted having
given that pledge, but he trusted that the House would agree
in reserving any discussion upon it until a later period. This
question might be taken on Wednesday, but Government, at
the same time, had not the power of compelling Gentlemen
who had notices on the paper to postpone them for another
day. If they were, however, willing to waive their right to
precedence, he should be perfectly ready to allow the subject
to be at once brought forward, but if they were unwilling to
yield that right, he would bring it forward immediately after
the statement on Friday. He was most anxious, feeling the
great importance of the measure, to bring it to a speedy
conclusion.
Mr. HINDLEY thought the Hon. Member for Sheffield
would be injuring his own cause if he gave way on this
occasion. Those who opposed the Government on that ques-
tion had been charged with bigotry. He (Mr. Hindley)
thought they had an equal right to charge the other side with
robbery. —( Hear, hear, cheers, and laughter.) He was
obliged to support his own chapel and to endow his own college
—(Hear, hear)—and he asked what right the Government
had to put their hands into the pockets of the Dissenters of this
country. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of his Roman
Catholic fellow-subjects, and at all times, in that House, lie had
promoted with his influence, and by his vote, the cause of the
Irish people—the cause of the Roman Catholics. He meant
their civil rights, but he thought it extremely uncivil—
(Laughter)—when they wished in return to put their hands
into his pocket.
Sir R. PEEL hoped that no discussion would be raised upon
a question not before the House.
Lord HOWICK expressed his sorrow that the question
would not then be taken.--( Hear, hear.) He would suggest
one thing to the Right Hon. Baronet. The Right Hon.
Baronet had informed the House that he meant to begin and
end upon Friday his exposition of the Scotch banking measure.
He ( Lord Howiek) could not help suggesting to the Right
Hon. Baronet that the gentlemen of Scotland would be willing
to relieve him of any necessity for bringing the measure for-
ward—( Hear, hear)--and if he postponed it till another ses-
sion, it would not disagreeably disappoint them.—( Hear, hear. )
He could not help thinking that the measure might, with great
benefit, be considered next, session, after the House had had a
little experience of the acting of the Right Hon. Baronet's
measure in England. Such a course would, he was convinced,
facilitate the passing of the measures with respect to Scotland
and Ireland. They all knew that when Gentlemen in that
House began to speak of paper-money, it was very difficult to
limit the discussion—(Laughter)—and looking at the subject
of Maynooth, and other questions which it was absolutely ne-
cessary to have disposed of in the present session, he would
urge on the Right lion. Baronet the adoption of his suggestion.
Mr. HUME joined with the Noble Lord in recommending
to the Right Hon. Baronet a postponement of his Scotch
banking measure till another session. The Right Hon.
Baronet should allow well to remain well. Jf he took till next
year to introduce his measure, he would be better able to judge
how far he might go on this question. The Scotch Members
and the commercial men of Scotland were opposed to his
system of currency, and it might save trouble if the Right
Hon. Baronet would allow his banking measure to stand over.
Sir R. PEEL hoped that Hon. Members would give no
opinion on this measure of Government until they knew what
it really was. The measure was intended not to apply to
Scotland alone, but to Ireland also. It would be advantageous
to give Government an• opportunity of stating the details of the
intended measure.

Mr. WARD said that he had stated to the Right Hon.
Baronet that he was willing to bring forward his motion at
any reasonable hour, but he thought half alter ten too late to
enter upon the discussion, and would, therefore, rather post-
pone it till Wedesday as suggested by the Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. COWPER thought the question one on which it was
advisable to have the opinion of the House as soon as possible,
and he should be very happy to give way with his motion upon
Wednesday.
Lord ASHLEY had a motion on the paper relative to calico
print-works, but he also would be glad to give way, and allow
the Mayncoth question precedence.
Mr. DIINCOMBE had a notice far that day on the subject
lLe rfe oon f .
the MemberHon . Memberer Sheffield.
for
The LORD ADVOCATE said that he should feel it his
duty Finsbury.
of arrestment of wages in Scotland. If there were no epposi-
tion he would press the second reading, but, if it were opposed,
he should give way
e tal
expressed his willingness to postpone a
motion of his on the paper for that day.
The Committee of Supply on the Maynooth grant was then
Air t.o opposewltTstobeN measure
postponed till Wednesday.
Mr. WARD presented petitions praying that the sums of
money for defraying the Government grant to Mavnooth be
taken out of the revenues of the Irish Church, instead of out of
the consolidated fund of the country.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from Belfast, signed by
the most influential inhabitants of that town, magistrates,
bankers, and merchants in favour of the grant to Maynooth.
Also similar petitions from Antrim, Hartlepool, and Dublin.
Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Hume, Mr. Law, Mr. Banker, Mr.
Dundas, and other Hon. Members, presented petitions against

the grant.
Mr. 13. ESCOTT presented a petition from Bridgwater in
favour of the Government measure. The petitioners believed
chat the measure was calculated to promote the peace and
haveitiess of Ireland.
" CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
third reading of the Custams Duties Bill, and said, that as
the principle of the Bill had been already agreed to, he hoped
there would be no dispute about the Bill.
Mr. HUTT said that he had received many representations
from merchants in Australia respecting the duties ui on word,
and he had to state that they deeply regretted that sufficient
difference was not made between home and colonial and foreign
wool
Mr. HUME wished to know on what principle the Govern-
ment allowed the present remission of duty on sugar and denied
it upon staves.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Government made no
difference between small interests and great, as the Hon. Mem-
1-,er for Montrose had supposed ; but it should be recollected
that the duty on sugar was an annual grant, while the remission
of the duty on staves was intended to be a permanent mea-
sure
M.
r. KEMBLE, in presenting petitions for the remission
of the duty on staves at present in the Queen's bond ware-
houses, stated that the dealers in that article were not anxious
to relieve themselves from the claim which the Government had
hitherto made upon them, but they thought that in the re-
mission of the duties on sugar there was a certain rule
laid down, and that the same reasons which had induced the
remission on sugar would apply to them. The petition parti-
cularly expressed a peculiar principle which the wholesale
dealers conceived affected their interests. It was this :—They
were always obliged to keep a much larger stock on hard than
any other dealers, and as the loss to the revenue was incon-
siderable to the Government, he trusted their case would be
taken into consideration.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the House would recollect, that when he had introduced the
measure respecting the Sugar Duties, he had stated that he
anticipated many persons, in different lines of business, would
make similar claims to this.
Mr. HAWES said that he should not have said a word on
the subject, but that he thought it was due to the sugar dealers
to say that the lowness of the duty upon staves in no way
affected their position, arid he thought that the objection was
entirely met by the clause in the Bill.
Mr. HUAIE said it had been the custom to remit all duties
upon goods when any large measure was passed. He thought
the customs' duties a large measure, and he trusted the Govern-
ment would not forsake their character in such a measure as
this.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it had
been the custom never to demand the increase of duty when
the duty had been raised, and that it was therefore unreason-
able to expect that the duties should be remitted on the stocks
in hand wheu it had been reduced.
Mr. HUME denied this statement, and said that, for forty
years, it had been the custom to impose these duties.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied the
assertion, in which he was supported by Sir Robert Peel.
Mr. GLADSTONE conceived that the Hon. Member for
Montrose hail entirely misconceived the question, and that
there was no analogy between the present topic and that to
which he referred. In the case of former years, the parties
who had obtained a remission of the duties, were individuals
who had been led to suppose that the duty would be continued.
They had consequently accumulated stocks in bond, upon which
the duties were chargeable, and which impost the Legislature
had remitted when those duties were removed.
After a few words from Mr. HAWES and Mr. HUTT,
Sir ROBERT PEEL remarked, that if the importers of
foreign commodities would not accept the increased trade
which would result from the removal of duties on particular
articles, as a compensation for any slight loss they might sus-
tain from having goods in bond, there would be great in-
justice done to the public revenue. Ho hoped, therefore,
Parliament would always have a right to deaf with customs
duties without being shackled with the claims of
parties who held goods in. bond. True, in the case
of sugar, they allowed a drawback, but the House
must remember that the duties on that commodity were regu-
lated annually, and parties who held quantities of that article
in bond at the time of the change were entitled to the draw-
back, because the Government proposal took them by sur-
prise, inasmuch as it was submitted to Parliament some time
before the annual duties had expired. Now, the duty on
staves had been permanent, and the same right to a drawback
did not, therefore, apply to them as it did to sugar.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought up
the following clause :—" And whereas it is expedient that cor-
rect accounts may continue to be taken of the value of the im-
ports of certain goods upon which duty has hitherto been
charged according to the value thereof, but upon which goods
the duties have been repealed by this Act; be it further en-
acted, that, upon the entry inwards of any such goods, the
value thereof shall be stated in the entry, and shallte affirmed