The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-10 00:00:00

POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord E.LIOT presented a petition, praying for cer-
tain alterations in this Bill.

Mr. S. WORTLEY presented six petitions from 'lnd:
derstield and its neighbourhood, signed by 364 indivi-
duals, against thislLL_

TEN HOURS BILL,

The Ho.i. Mt:mum presented several petitions from
places in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in favoui• of
this Bill.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

'Mr. J. BAILEY presented a petition from the Guar-
dians of the parish'-of Ross, in the county of Hereford,
against the introduction of the -Poor Law Commissioners
into that parish.

TEMPERANCE PROCESSIONS IN IRELAND.

Col. ACTON wished to ask the Noble Lord, the Se-
cretary for Ireland, whether he proposed to adopt any
measure for the restriction of the parades of vast bodies
of men, called temperance men, dressed in blue beefs and
ribands, who were in the habit of promenading in va-
rionS parts of Ireland.
Lord ELIOT said it Was not the intention of her Ma-
jesty to introduce any measure fur the restriction of the
Temperauce parades.—(Hear, hear.) He believed the
societies referred to were very beneficial to the lower
orders; nor. did be believe that outrages to the public
peace resulted from such processions. At the saint, time,
he was aware that vast assemblages did meet, and if any
improper consequences should 'result, he should not
shrink from repressing those processions. r .
Mr. O'CONNELL said that th6se- processions had
been in the habit of Marching for the last three years;• he
wished to know if any representations had'heen made to
the Noble Lord of a breach of the law in consequence.
Lord ELIOT aas not awareithat any such repre-
sentation bad been made to him.
IRISH MAGISTRACY.

Mr. FOX MAELE wished to pnt a question to the
Noble Lord, the Secretary of Ireland, relative te% eome-
thing that he had seen in the public prints, It
appeared that Mr. St. George had been remove
from the COmmission of the Peace ie Ireland, in a onse-
pence of a letter which he had addressed to the late
Secretary of State fur the Home Department hen be
held the office of Vice-Regent of 'relent]. An attempt
was shortly after made to restore Mr. St. George to the
position he had previously held, and a representation to
that effect was made to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland,
whose answer was, that if the letter was withdrawn, or
an apology were made, he - skeuld have no objection to
restore his name to the Comeission.• :The statement
which he (Mr. Fox Manic) hod recejvvd eves that Mr.
St. George had heen restored. without apoheizing, or
coneenting to witlidi-ew the letter. He wished to ask
the Noble Lord, first, whether Me. St. George had been
restored to the Commission, and, secondly, whether he
had apelogieed, or withdrawn the letter in queAion ?
Lord ELIOT said,. shortly after the Lord Chancellor
of Ireland was appointed to that place in the Govern-
ment, a representation was made to him of Mr. St.
George's case, and he was so strongly impressed with the
impropriety of the letter already referrt d to, that he de-
termined not to consent to his restoration to the Commis-
sion of the Peace, CH a satisfactory explanation was
made by Mr. St. George, such explanation had been
made to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor, and he
had therefore re-instated Mr. St George,
Mr. F. MAULE was afraid the Noble Lord had not
quite understood his question. His question was.
whether the letter had been withdrawn, or an apology
made. He might also ask the Nob!e Lord whether he
had any objection to lay the letter with the other cor-
respondence on the table. _ _

Lord ELIOT said the letter had not been withdrawn,
but such explanation had been given to the Lord Chan-
cellor as was satisfactory to him, he having before re-
fused to reinstate Mr. St. George without an exploit, tiun.
—The matter then dropped. -
The dropped Orders were then disposed of. •
iiUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said that from the state of pub-
lic business, and the period of the session at which they
were arrived, and there not being many petitions fur pre-
sentation, nor any great amount of private business, he
thought it 'would. be tor the'gcneral convenience, if the
House should, from Monday next, begin the pub-
lic business at half-past four o'clock.--(Hear, hear.)
He should also move on Monday next that Orders of the
Day have precedence on Tuesdays,—(Hear. he ar.)
Mr. HumE hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would
move that the Orders of the Day have- precedence on
Thursdays also, as for the last two Thursdays there had
been no business done whatever.—(Hear, hear.)
BLOCKADE OF THE EAST COAST OF MEXICO.
"Mr. D'ISRAFLI said he wished to ask a question on
a subject of tle most urgent interest to the interests or
the commerce of this country. In more than one of the
shipping ports of this country a considerable num-
ber of consignments had been made to the East
Coast .of Mexico, and the greatest. depression had been
caused by the intelligence of the blockade of that coast
by the Government of Texas. A week since, by the
sanction of- the Noble Earl the Secretary of State, a
proclamation appeared in the London Gazette, from a
person styling himself the President of the Re-
public of Texas', stating that a blockade of the
Eastern Coast of Mexico had been instituted
by that Government. Of this proclamation, that had
been so inserted in the Gazette, no official communica-
tion had been received by the Secretary of State, from
the .pe:'son pretending to be under the authority-of the
,President of Texas. The proclamation • had occa-
sion great perplexity and alarm, especially • among
t3.e . merchants trading to the coast of Mexico.
The citL stiun he wished to a,k was, whether it was in-
tended by the proclamation to ,anction that blockade, or-
if not, what was the intention of inserting it in the
" London Gazette ?"

. . _
fir ROBERT PEEL said he apprehended that
the proclamation was inserted in the - " Gazette,"
according to the usual practice in similar .Cases.
The. notification of the blockade stated that a block-
ada was said to be instituted, and that exures.•
sion was used bt cause the Government had-no Official
information from the Texas. that such a b!ockade had
been instituted. But they had received a notification,
on Which they had every reason to rely, from her Ma-
jesty's Minister at Mexico, who had stint the document
containing the notiee: of the blockade, and Ito stated
that this blockade had been regularly issued. By the
notification of the blockade, the Government did nut in-
t, nd to infer that it was a legal one ; all that it stated
was, that of two belligerent powers cne had determintd
on forming a blockade, nor did the Governinent give its
sanction to it. llie might add, that he was exceedingly
sorry that the Government of Texas had 'resorted to a
measure so inconvenient to commerce.
LIGIIT SOVEREIGNS.

Mr. CHILDERS wished to put . a question with
regard to a proclamation that had been issued a
few days back, rerfering to sovereigns which were under
the standard. weight. This proclamation had- caused.
the greatest inconvenience, and, indeed, had deranged all
commercial proceedings. He begged to ask whether
this proclamation had reference to any ulterior measures;
also with respect to the conduct of the'Bank, who, when
a soveroign -was taken there, weighed it, and if under
weight, it was cut in two, and the person was told to
sell the gold wherever:he could, which left people to find
.
.out dealers in gold, they were thus left to those respect-
able gentlemen, the Jews., to buy it at what price they
pleased.
•

,The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER' said be
should confine himself to the question put as to
the proclamation; it. was, a repetition of proclama
tions that had been issued, though not very recently,
from time to time, • to'. warn the public of .the rate
at which gold was .not the current coin ui the
- Great complaints had been made of a
portion of the gold coin being below the proper
weight, and it therefore had been thought neces-
sary to call the public attenticn to the weight at which
gold coin was current, and to make arrangements with
the Bank, by which they agreed to receive it at the.
Mint price of 3/.los. 7111 per ounce fur all light gold coin.
Mr. BERNAL wished to know from the Right Hun.
Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what
'should be done with sovereigns which accumulated from
time to time in the hands of small tradesmen.

Mr. GOULBUUN said they should deposit them with
their private banker, fur the purpose of having them
exchanged. •
Mr. S. O'BRIEN asked whether similar facilities
would be,given fur the exchange of gold coin in other
parts of the country.
Mr. GOT:LEWIN said the circumstances there were
different, and the evils had not been stated.,
Mr. G. PALMER said such discredit had been thrown
upon the gold coin of this country; that hardly any poor
person dare touch it.—(Laughter.) Ile wished to aik
whether her njesly's Government would take into con-
sideration the inconvenience which every person through-
out the ,country was now suffering front the discredit
thrown on the gokl coin.
SCOTCH CHURCH.

Mr. F. MAULF, wished to usk the Bight Hon. Gen-
tleman whether the Government had made up :heir
mind to take into their own hands the suhiect of the dif-
ference which existed in the Scotch Church, or whether
they intended to permit the discussion upon the Bill
of the lion. Member for Knaresborough to preceid on
Wednesday.

Sir JAM'ES GRAII.AM said the House wonld re-
member th.zt at the commencement of the Session
the question was put to him whether, on the
part of her Maksty's Government, there was any
-intention to bring fcrward a legislative me:isure, in the
hope of healing the unhappy differences ►which now dis-
tracted Scotland, with reference to ecclesiastical affairs.
To that question he answered, that upon the most care-
ful review orall circumstances of the case, it was not the
intention of her Majesty's Government to bring-forward any
measure. So matters stood until hiS Hun. Friend, the
IVlember for the county of Argyle, moved, for leave to
bring in a pm. The uoverriment did not oppose the in.
troduction of that measure, but a discussion took place,
In which it was pretty plainly intimated that to its prin-
ciple lien .31vjest).'s Comment were oppv4ed,

would

'and that, at a future stage, they
consider it their duty to oppose its enactment.
The consequence of that was, that. communications were.
made to the Government from Sco:land, which. led the
present Government to entertain a hope, not very con-
fident, as he had s ated at the- thue, but still such as to
encourage a hope that iej/lative nieesur,s, landed on
such principles as the Cove/ .:neat would be
_able
to support, might conduce to the p,ace of Scot-
land, and to the settlement of the disputed points. He
had steted to the House that, as matters stood at the
time, he could not 1 lAge himself to the introduction
of such a measure, but that it would be the duty of Go-
vernment very carefully to consider the represen-
tations made to them on the subject before they
finally decided. That -was on the eve of the Ge-
n/era! AsseMbly of Scotland. That Assembly embodied
the views of the general Church of Set:4l/Ind. Proceedings
took place which were known to the House and which he
might be permitted to say he eeeply deplored, but at
the same time, it did not.become him at the present time
to characterise those proceedings by any harsh terms.
Yet, still after a careful deliberation of those proceedings,
he was bound to state to the House that the hope he had
or iginally entertained on the subject; had perished,
and that Government stood in the same position with
respect to the question as at the commencement of the
session, and that he could not hold out any expectation
on the part of the Government to introduce any
measure which would produce those eff,:cts which
were desirable, and which would alone justify
their interference in the matter." Under these eireum •
stances, it was compote:it to the Hen: Member for Ar-
gyleshire to move the second reading of his Bill on Wed-
nesday next, when an opportunity would ba afforded
for further discussion and reasoning on the subject:
He therefore thought it would bit - inexpedient particu-
larly, as the question which had been put to him hail
been so caretully limited, to enter on the present oaca•
sion upon anything like argument on the subject.

... _
. ~
ilowever, he ihight be :lowed to be explicit,
upon another point, namely, that it was not the inlet',
tion of Go-:ernment to oppose the second reading of the
Bill.

Sir A. L. HAY wished to ask the Right
Honourable Baronet, whether he had any ob-
jection to a motion requesting, .that House
Ala.;esty wculd be graciously pleased to lay the paper ha
hail referred to upon the table of the House.

Sir JAMES CIRAHAM said that he was not then.
prepared to answer the question of the lion. and- Gal--
tant Member, as no notice had been given that such
question would. have been put. He would throw out
suggestion that the House should meet to-morrow, when
the question might be discussed.
Mr. FOX MAULE wished to ask the Hon.-Meinber
for Argyleshire (Mr. Campbell) to bring forward the
second reading of his Bill on the Scottish Church ques-
tion on Wednesday, next. - - • .
Mr. CAMPBELL said that he felt himself_ placed .in
a position of exceeding difficulty. -He could never have
•expected such an answer would have been by the Right
Hun. Baronet as they had heard ihat night. It was Lis
intention to proceed with his Bill on Wednesday next,
and'he trusted that Hon. Members would attend that
• evening.-=-(Hear.)