The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-19 00:00:00

THE LORD PRESIDENT HOPE.

Mr. WAKLEY said he had received a letter from this
distinguished individual, which he would read to the
House:—" Edinburgh, Feb. 14, 1842.—Sir,—As you ap-
pear to me to act in Parliament quite independently of
party feelings—(Laughter and cheers)—and as many
may have drawn the same inference which you kayo
from the motion for returns made by Mr. Fox Maule
being refused, on good Parliamentary grounds no
doubt, I am sure you will be glad to state to
the House on a: proper Opportunity, that during eleven
years since the trying the civil causes by jury by the
Court of Session devolved on me, I have been absent only
on three cases. With those exceptions I attended every
one. I was absent from one of the-three on account of the
possible interest of a near relative in the case, and
from the other two in consequence of casual
indisposition which did not hold for three days.
If Mr. Maule'e motion had been granted, and if it in-
cluded all the trials down to . August, for it did not go
beyond July, -it would be seen that there was only one
case upon which any other Judge sat.—C. liorE.' —He
Mr. Wakley) had great pleasure in reading the letter, and
he would assure the. House that the part he took in this case
was only on public grounds.—(Hear, hear.) It would now
be seen, that this whole case had originated in misap-
prehension.
Sir R. PEEL said he wished • to make an observation
in reference to this subject. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man, opposite (Mr. Fox Maule) .would probably re-
collect that he had asked him (Sir R. Peel), on a
previous night, whether that, during the period when
be held office in 1834 and 1235, the. Lord President had
not signified to him his intention. to resign office. He
had then stated that he had no recollection of such a
circumstance, but he had since received a communi-
cation from the Lord President, stating that he had
never made any such proposal, and that he might
therefore give the most peremptory. contradiction to the
••
statement.

Mr. F. MAULE said, what had just fallen from the
Right Hon. Baronet was rather an answer to a question
which he had put in debate, than a contradiction of any-
thing which he had stated.' He (Mr. Fox Maule) was
as much pleased with the result of the debate
as any friend of the Lord President could possibly be,
setting at rest, as it did, a report which had been
widely circulated in Scotland. No one now was
more convinced than he was of the misrepresentation
which had taken place, and no- one accepted the
refutation with greater satisfaction. lie was ex-
tremely gratified by the letter which had been read
by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and in the absence
or 01 official information, whatever might have been his
opinion with reference to the conduct of the retired
Judge in remaining in office, as he had thought,
after his powers had failed, he should be the last
man either in that House or out of doors to ques-
tion anything which came from such a source.
He had no hesitation in stating now, as be had before
done, that he had been led by wrong information into an
error which he sincerely regretted. He was extremely •
sorry that. the subject had ever been mooted, and he
trusted that it would now be set at rest.—(Hear, hear)
CHANNEL FISHERIES.

regulation of the fishing
tahteceunfry and of Great Bri-
Captain PECHELL wished to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment. The Right Honourable Baronet was aware
that a treaty had . been concluded with France,
whichtrack
ohna t
the
b feo r
coast its object b jo ef c
that
h
Gallant_ Officer had stated
appointed
tain. Commissioners had been for managing
the fisheries of the two countries, and to prevent corn-
conclud2d in 1839 between
sions. He wished to know in what position the matter
at present stood, and also what steps the Hon. Baronet
which the rights
intended to pursue ?
should be tip_
slvsiitohnienr s
correctly
this Sir
countryit. itiFa7t aaLn thedtsraeiladiy•atill:caveta,s to regulate the oyster and
other fisheries off the coasts of the two countries. The
of each should be restricted, and
pointedtreat3, provided
specify t that C
limits t.iiiui i
teh-lake regulations for
carrying the regulations prescribed by the treaty into
effect. The Commissioners had been appointed. They
had met and had agreed upon the regulations ;
but there
had been discussions as to the mode in which the regu-
lations should be carried into effect. But he believed
that the difference was confined to one point,
and that was not . one of - any difficulty ; so
1 that he hoped that before the fishing opened in April the
whole matter would be settled. The right to the fishing
on the part of this country was confined to three miles
from low water-mark. But there was a discussion as to
the French boats being allowed to come within the three
miles, not to fish, but to restrior the night. He repeated
that he certainly did hope the matter would be speedily
adjusted. .
Captain PECHELL said an Act was passed last year
to enable the Privy Council to carry out such regula-
tions as might be agreed upon by treaty between the two
countries. Now, he wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet, was it his intention to aly for a renewal of
that Act, which had expired?•
Sir R. PEEL would consider it.
MANCHESTER PETITION.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask whether it
was convenient for him to present a petition or rather
an address to that House, which he had just received
from his constituents in Manchester ? (1,•
Of course it,was
not for him (Mr. Gibson) to refuse an address from
his constituents, and be wished the refusal, if there
was to be one, should proceed from that House. He felt
it his duty to take the earliest opportunity, as ; .t related to
. the subject under debate, Wcoipnunicate the fact t 9 00

Mr. P. BOWJ'IIWICK swished to put a question, in-
volving a matter of much importance to the metropolis,
to the Right lion. Baronet the Secretary for the Home
Department. It related to the lighting of the ap-
proaches to London. dip to a very recent pekiod these
approaches had been lighted by means of. money col-
lected at tolls. But the• present winter, ie•oonsequence
'or the increase of communication by railVvay, the tolls
had so 'much diiiiinished that. the, parlsheo could no
tketle roads, tibod• had in fact•Tl.4,ied to light
conscapauxte&muraxist-persens pasairg.to and
from the metropolis by night were exposed to much
danger. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, had he any measure now in contemplation for
the purpose of securing the safety of persons travaing
by th, se_ roads, by compelling the parishes, or some other
authorities, to light them?
' . Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the various parishes
had poekr. by law to make rates for. the lighting of the
roads, it' they should think fit to do so but the ExecntiVe
had no pbwer to compel them to do so. Ile had been applied
to by some of the inhabitants of the parish of Kensing-
ton on the subject, and he had recommended that a ves-
try meeting of the rate-payers should be called, and that
the propriety of levying a rate for the purpose of light-
ing the roads should be submitted to them. The vestry
meeting was called, and he regretted to say that a
large majority decided against levying any rate for that
purpose:. It was a' question entirely for the deeisim f
the ratepayers of the • erent parishes, the -
cutive bad t r s t •
PRIVILEG EL ;'A. E ON PETITION.
On the Order the Day for tio resuming
the the
debate the petition of Lord Irm-
show* complaining of an-undue return for Belfast,
Mr. CHARLES WOOD said:That in his opinion
House had no alternative but to refer the petition to the
Committee.—(Hear, hear.) He felt, that in coining
to that conclusion the House would attain that object
which the Right Honourable Baronet had declared
to be one of immense importance, that the House ought
not to be called upon to decide on questions connected
with *tested elections: • The Right Hon. Gentleman
had stated that ever since the period of the Grenville
Ait, it had beent the policy of the House to leave
the determination of questions connected with elec-
tion petitions to some tribunal chosen by the House,
rather than to take upon itself to determine them.
He confessed he could see no'reason for refusing to refer
this petition to the Committee in the usual manner, and
he considered that by so doing, they would be acting in
strict conformity with law and precedent. He could see
no ground for refusing to refer it to the Committee. There
could be no doubt but that it was an election petition.
The 3d section of the Act, 5 Victoria, defined
what constituted an election petition. (The Honourable
Member here read the section referred to.)
This petition complaining of undue election should be
deemed an election petition. He (Mr. C. Wood) appre-
hended' that no person would dispute that this was a pe-
tition presented within the required time, complaining of
an undue return—" No election petition shall be received
by the:House, unless. at the time it is presented it shall
be subscribed by a person claiming therein to have been
a candidate at the election." • He (Mr. C. Wood)
apprehended that no person would deny that the peti-
tion was at the time of presentation signed by a person
alleging himself to have been a candidate. If that were
the case, then it must be apparent that this comes under
the definition of an election petition ; further, that it had
been received by the House, it had been sent to the ex-
aminers, who reported upon it, and he . (Mr. C. Wood)
'did not know what other act was necessary to
constitute the reception of a petition by that House. He
-fronid ovtote'rettel it-part - of-tive-IM-silittion- of the sth-. V
ic-
toria'-" And be it enacted, that all election petition
which shall be received by the House shall be referred
to the Committee for tryieg the petitions." It
seemed to him (Mr. C. Wood) that if these points
were granted, this must be • deemed an election
petition, and that the third section imperatively required
that all petitions received by the House should be re-
ferred to the Committee. He apprehended, therefore,
that there was no alternative but to refer this petition to
the Committee. The only ground on which this could
be doubted was, that It was signed by a Peer of Parlia-
ment. He (Mr. C. Wood), however, did not think it was
competent to any one now to argue, that the petition had
not been received. Ile did not wish to inquire what
the decision of the Committee might be. Under the
79th section of the Act they might report, in conse-
quence of Lord innishowen being a Peer, that they
would not go into it ; but he (Mr. Wood) appre-
hended that it was incumbent on the House to refer
this petition to the Committee. Mr. Wood concluded
by reiterating that the House had 'no alternative what •
ever but to refer the petition to the Committee.

Mr. C. W. WYNN-, who was very indistinctly heard
in the gallery, said that he quite agreed with the Hon.
Member for Halifax. It was certainly a qUestion of
some importance, but if the petition had been referred
a preliminary objection might be taken, and it was quite
competent for the Committee to determine that objection
before the case was gone into. The objection in the pre-
sent case was that the House ought not to receive
the petition of a person, which showed on the face
of it that it was presented by one who, by his own de-
scription of himself, had no right to interfere or ad-
dress the House at all on matters connected with elec-

tious. Then it was said that every petition which came
before the House should be referred to the Committee.
That appeared to him (Mr. Wynn) to be the duty of the
nouse ; and if the petition in question was received-ty
the House, they were bound, in his opinion. to refer it.
The only doubt he had was as to the question whether the
petition had been received or not. It had been pre-
sented, but no order had been made upon it. The doubt
was, what was the point upon which it was to be said
that a petition had been received. If the petition had
been received, the House was bound by the
words of the Act to refer it to the General
Committee, and that Committee would report upon it ;
but if it had not been received then the House was at
liberty to use a discretion upott it. He wished to
know whether if the question had been put
upon the petition it was to be considered that

the Houses had in any respect entertained it ;
if they had, then it must be considered as having been
received ; if it bad not, then he thought the House could
exercise a discretion upon it.
Mr. C. WOOD said that everything in the Act was
dir,,ct enough till they came to the 30th section, which
declared " that every petition which was received
should be referred to the General Committee," which
necessarily meant tbot the petition should be refer-ed to
the Committee.
After a few words from Sir G. GREY, and
The SPEAKER having read the motion,
Sir WILLIAM FOLLET r said he agreed with the
Hon. Gentleman, that the 30th section having declared
that every petition which was received should be referred
to the General Committee, they could not do otherwise
now than receive it. He certainly came to the same'
conclusion with the Hon. Gentleman opposite, but he
should not be understood as giving his assent to the
principle, for it appeared to him not to be right, that
Peers should in the least interfere with election peti-
tions. He trusted, therefore, that his Hon: Friend
would not press his motion.
Sir R. PEEL said that he agreed with the Hon. Gen •
tleman Opposite, and that the terms of the law made it
imperative on them to refer the petition to the General
Committee.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time he must
confess that they were only postponing the question.
After a few words from Sir GEORGE GREY,
Sir H..HARDINGE said the error was committed
in the first instance by the Member who took charge
of the petition. Every Member who took charge of a
petition-which involved the privileges. of the House, was
bound to make a statement of it before he presented. it.
It would then come under the cognisance, and would be
sure to be brought under the notice, of the House.
Mr. THESIGER said it would be quite impossi-
ble for him to oppose the reference of this petition
to a General Committee. They were under con-
siderable difficulty from having advanced so far.
He was strongly of opinion that the General Committee
could have no power to make • a report in this matter.
Having been brought before the. House they must refer
it to a Select Committee, but even when brought before
them, he doubted whether the objection could be taken.
He apprehended they had no power to decide it, but
would try the merits of the petition. Whatever might be
the result on this consideration, it might be useful to put on
record that such a petition as thrsivlTs llot presented and
received without discussion. It was an important ques-•
tion as to their privileges, and it ought not to be said that
it was received without any objection;
• Mr. AGLIONBY said that this ought not to go forth
as a point of law. If ever it should become a mattefin
issue before the House, he should hold that they could
not prevent any person from petitioning. The only
point was, whether at the time of presenting the
petition it was signed by a person alleging
himself to have been a candidate at the election.
It was rather hard to cast a reflection upon the Gentle-
man who had presented the petition, when it was possible
that a doubt had existed in his mind upon the subject.
He ventured to submit that they were compelled both to
receive the petition tine to take the usual steps relative
to it.

Mr. WATSON said the question had been raised with
respect to the counties of Middlesex, Huntingdon, and
Carmarthen, and several' other cases, and had al-
ways been decided in favour of the petitioners,
Tee case of Middlesex was brought 'forward .by
Mr. Fox ; and, although the objection then was
that the petitioner had been convicted of a seditious libel,
'his right to petition was established.
CORN-LAWS.
On the motion for the Order of the Day. being read
for the House resolving itself in a Committee of the
whole House on the Corn and Provision-laws,
Mr. I)UNCOMBE presented a petition from St.
Lithe's, Middlesex, praying for the total repeal of the
Corn-laws,• and for an extension of the Suffrage. . '
BONDED CORN.
Mr. F. T. BARING, on the motion that the Speaker
do leave the Chair, said he did not mean to enter into
.the general Corn-law question at present, but he (Mr. B.).
wished to direct the attention of the Government to the
necessity of making some provision to relieve indivi-
-oetals who suffer great hardship from the loss 'attending
bonded corn. When other commodities were bonded
the Treasury was in the habit of taking off certain
amounts of duty for wastage. No such allowance was
made in the case of bonded corn, because the Treasury
alleged it was unwilling to interfere with the present Corn-
laws, by bringing in a Bill to remedy this grievance. The
Board of Customs, however, wm not hostile to some
such allgarance, as might li—le47ll by the Righ Hon.
`Baronet on reference to paper:3 not' in . his offiee.
But now, however, as' the Corn-laws were about
to be changed, it I. as very desirable thrt some
Provision should be made to relieve the holders
of corn. . So great had been the hardship upon
holders, that some had. destroyed their stock
sooner than pay the duty on it after the waste it
had sustained, and if some remedy were not introduced
holders of corn would be obliged to bond in Rotterdam
and other places, and even then this country would be
made dependent for supplies on other countries
in spite of the great wish- of the Right Hon. Baronet to
make this country independent. Of course it could not
be made so independent without importing and bonding
from time to time great quantities of corn. He hoped
the Right Hon. Baronet would consider this point
between the present time and the time for bringing
in his Bill. In the meantime, he (Mr. Baring)
orould collect all the information he could, and bring it
efore the House himself, if the Right Hon. Baronet
would not do so. It was absolutely necessary to adopt
some metiurt• to prevent the public from being caught
inlitig scale.
PRWAKER then left the Chair, and the House went
into ' ommittee ; Mr. GREENE in the Chair.
k o
.*"' 4:,e d .' saihth he wished to make
a ew .ti :, at
.1 the Right Hon.
Gent an opposit (Mr. B r ng). He (Sir Robert
Pee 4 .ehi • consi ation to the subject, although
he wou cII d e • -iself to any pagicular course.
He d' I see how the s a inconvenien 'ght not.
~ . •
ail. uty Sup-
posing corn was ant uce under a fixed duty, it might
still be bonded, and of course liable to waste.
Mr. BARING said, that he did not mean to introduce
on that occasion any discussion upon the sliding-scale.
The Right Hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying
that parties would be subject to the inconvenience to
which he (Mr. Baring) had alluded, under a fixed duty,
provided they kept in their corn for as long a
period under such duty as under a sliding scale.
It was not, however, likely that that would take. place
under the operation of the sliding scale ; parties who
had purchased corn when the duty was low might find
that by the time it had arrived that prices had fallen, the
duty had risen, and they might thus be compelled to
bond their corn, perhaps, for years.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN. which did
not reach the Gallery, Mr. BARING said that the incon-
venience had no doubt been allowed to continue long in
existepce but that arose from the fact that the Corn ques-
tion was one of great importance, and which successive
Governments felt re reluctant to touch.