The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-17 00:00:00

CORN-LAWS.

Mr. RENNIE presented a petition from Kidder-
minster, agreed to at a public meeting, complaining of the
distress prevailing in the country, and praying for a re-
peal of the Corn•laws and Universal Suffrage.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Yorkshire
' against the Corn-laws. The Hon. Member also presented
a great number of petitions to the same effect from a
variety of places, but he read the names of the places in
so low atone of voice, and there was so much noise in
the House, that they did not reach the gallery.
Mr. TOWNLEY presented a petition against the
Corn-laws, as we understood.
• Mr. GIBSON CRAIG presented petitions from Man-
chester, and the, Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh,
praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. EWART presented a petition against the Corn-
laws, but we were unable to learn fronwhat place.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL gave notice that to-morrow
he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate
the sale of property.
Sir C. NAPIER gave notice that to-morrow he would
ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether it was true, as he
had read in the Morning Chronicle-=-(Great laughter
from the Ministerial Benches)—that the Emir Bechir
had arrived at Constantinople, and that the Torte would
not allow him to resume the government of his tribes.
He was extremely sorry to be under the necessity of
giving the Right. Hon. Baronet so much trouble ;
but having served in that country, he con-
sidered it his duty to raise his voice on behalf of
the unfortunate inhabitants of Syria.—(Hear, hear.),
The Hon. Member then delivered some papers to the
Right Hon. Baronet, who intimated that he would give
his attention to the subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave
notice that, being anxious, for the sake of public con-
venience, to have the resolutions on the Corn-laws de-
cided befog his motion, of which he had given intima-
tion, came. on, he would postpone that motion until
Tuesday. _

LOCAL COURTS.

Mr. EVANS begged leave to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department,whether
it was the intention of the Government, during the pre-
sent session, to introduce a Bill for the establishment of
Local Courts for the recovery of small debts ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said it was not the intention of her
Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill for what, per-
haps, the Hon. Gentleman might term local Courts,
but it was their intention to provide for the re-
covery of debts amounting to 151., by local tribunals ;
and in cases of small debts, to afford greater
facilities for their recovery. As he was on his legs, he
would take the opportunity of stating that a measure
would be introduced to continue the expiring Small
Debts Act, by which the recovery of debts by local tri-
bunals would he rendered more easy.
ABOLITION OF CORPORAL PUNISH NT IN

THE ARMY.
An HON. MEMIIER, on the Oppoidtion side of the
House, begged to inquire of the Clerk of the Ordnance
whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill for the
—,ion to
abolition of corporal punishment in her Majesty's army ?
Captain BOLDERO said it was not his mtc-0
introduce
rai:gy Bibilrl%oanrdtheansuybZ, but if ---
subject, he (Captain mot.ero '"aure of his own on the
always done. ..) should vote, as he had

14.:LECTION PETITIONS,
l'erferocnallißedritidllinrt,b3l7ltahre-
Member
Speaker to form a General Committee of selection, for
n:ne following Hon.
the purpose of trying contested election petitions, and
were sworn in for the purpose Lord G. Somerset,
Sir G. Grey, Mr. Loch, Mr. J. IV. Patten, and sir. w.
Somerville.
,Several petitions, including those_
wich, and Sudbury, were then referred to the Committee.
INTERFERENCE OF PEERS IN ELECTIONS.
Mr.TIIESIGER then rose to bring forward the motion
of whieh he had Oven notice, with respect to the right of
Peers to interfere in the election of Members of Parlia-
ment. The question involvod Points of great interest to
the privileges of that Honset It was whether it was com-
petent to a Peer et Jew-lien:WM to interfere vi ith elec-
tions, by heconArAg 4 petitioner against the return of
34(44,g. a that House. The question arose 'upon
two, pOitiona presented against the late return for Bel-
fast. ON of those petitions_ was presented by Lord
Innishowen, and the other h? Arobibald Hamilton,
one of the electors of ileiPast, but the Noble
Lord was the oAtty, pe6oli who had entered into
recognizanem 1110 circumstances of the ease were
new .3 he lAA not been able to find, upon inquiry, o
it e it,
by his own research, anything k Cases of the pre•• r
sent kind were to be decided by principles which
were familiar to them, and no doubt could be enter-
tained as to the NATS'a it was necessary to pur-
sue. At the ktio election for Belfast, a Com-
"KIWI\ Pil acin of a peer, was unsucecv.sful. There
was no doubt it was competent. to
the Noble
Lord to come to the House mild petition against the
return. But in the present Wtanee, immediately after
the return, antl. h,eiore any petition was presented, the
Noble Ind
wascalled to t e How e of Peers by the title of
Baron Innishowen and Carrickfergus,
It was clear,
that when the Earl of Belfast was called to the Upper
House, he was entirely disqualified *out being an elector,
and he could have no personal interest in elections
and any interference \imam be a breach of the privi-
leges. They were all familiar with the sessional orders
which we4* 134sw 1 every Session, and which were

the same now as at the time of the Act of
William. That order, after stating that no Peer of the
realm has a right to vote at any election except thole for
Irish Peers, went on to state that it was a high infringeinent
of the liberties of the Commons for any Lord of Parlia-
ment to concern himself in the election ()Members to serve
in Parliament, except only as Irish Peers. There night
be some doubt as to the correct interpretation of that older;
whether it referred merely to the period of election.
But if the Honourable Members would look td the
circumstances of the present case, they would
see that the order applied to it ; for it was plain
that if a party applied to that House for the purpose
of voiding an election, what did he but interfere in that
election ? Lord Belfast having been a candidate
could, no doubt have petitioned against the return
before he became a Peer. But no doubt what3ever
that lie could not petition now that he had become
a Peer, for it would be an infringement of
their privileges. The moment he was made a Pee ' the
i
ground was cut from under him. This appeare to
him to be a matter of importance to the H use,
and it was necessary that it should be detered.
He thought it right to say, that the decision of the Huse
could make no difference whatever with respect tol the
inquiry, because there was another petition presented
from the electors, which was a good petition, and the
rejection of Lord Innishowen's would not prevent the in-
vestigation. He had devoted much attention to I the
rules and privileges of the House, and he could
not help thinking this question worthy of their
consideration; but he did not desire to press, the
subject more than the House- might think the case
required. The House could not be too jealous of its
privileges which were granted, not for the benefit of the
Members themselves, but for that of the country. . He
concluded by moving that the two petitions from Lord
Innishowen and Archibald Hamilton should not be re- i
furred to a Committee.
Mr. RIGBY WASON knew a ease which went pari
passu with the case alluded to by the Honinfrable and
Learned Member. In that case the petitioners had
entered into recognizances, and had paid witnesses. for
their attendance. He_ considered it would be extremely
inconvenient if the House were to take cognizance of
these cases. The proper place for considering them was
in Committee, and he considered it would be extremely
irregular for the House to interfere in the pre-
sent instance.—(Hear,. hear.) If the petition were
referred to the Committee, and that Committee found
that the petitioner was not qualified to present a petition,
the Committee would report that there was no valid'pe-
tition against the return, and the sitting Members would
be declared duly elected.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL suggested that the proper
course to be pursued was to refer the petition to , the
Committee.
Sir G. CLERK said that the present was perfectly
a novel case. He believed that in a reference to the
journals, no case could be found in which !an
unsuccessful candidate at an election, who had
presented a petition against the return to the House,
had been called up to the House of Peers in the interim
between the presentation and the trial cf the petition.
But there were several instances of the qualifications of
candidates having been under' the consideration of the.
House and the Committee, which, though not exactly
the same, bore a strong analogy to the present case. In
the Honiton case, the election having been declared
void, and no special report having been made to the Hotise,
the candidate returned at the previous election went clOwn
to the second election and was defeated ; he then became
a petitioner. There was nothing on the face of the
petition which would - disqualify him from being a
petitioner. ; but the House inquired whether he
was''-disqualified or no. In the same way in an-
other election, notice was given that the qualifi-
cation - should be the question, and the Com-
mittee went into the merits of the case, before they
allowed him to go before the House. That applied to
cases where nothing appeared on the face of
the petition. In the Carmarthen election in 1803,
there were three petitioners, stated to be freeholders
in the county of Carmarthen, but it did not appear
on the face of the petition that they were entitled
to vote ; the House had, however, referred the petition
to the Committee ; and in other cases the House consi-
dered whether the qualification of the electors was suf-
ficient, showing that the character of the petitioner should
be declared by the House. Could there be any doubt
that George hemble Chichester, Baron Innishowen, had
been a candidate for the representation of Belfast,
being then a commoner ? Was it possible that Lord
Innishowen could appear before the House in the
character of a petitioner ? He would ask the House
what course it would adopt when a person had petitioned
against a Peer. Would the House allow that Peer to go
before them and defend himself ? ' Certainly not.
If the person petitioned against is called to the other
House, he was not allowed to appear before the Com-
mittee ; and if this objection appears on the face of
the petition itself, it was clear that it could not be
referred to the Committee. If there was no other
petition, except that signed by the Noble Lord and
the elector, it could only be taken as the petition
of that individual elector himself. He therefore
thought that this was an entirely new case, and that
the House would be establishing a very dangerous
precedent, if it, for the' first time, referred to the
Committee a petition that bore on the face
of it, that it was signed by, and was the petition of
a Member of the other House of Parliament. He
should certainly vote for the motion of his lion. and
Learned Friend, that the petition be not referred to the
Committee.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to have the words of the pe-
tition read, that they might see how the fact appeared
on it. No one in that House knew that Lord Innishowen
was a Member of the other House of Parliament.
The Clerk read the petition, from the wording of
which it appeared to be the petition of " George K.
Chichester, Baron of Innishowen, Carrickfergus, being
then a Commoner."

Mr. ROEBUCK would put' it to his Hon. and Learned
Friend who had brought forward the motion, whether
there was anything in the words of that peti-
tion which ought not to go before the Com-
mittee. He wanted to know what there was in that
petition to show that the petitioner was a Peer of the
rialm. It was stated in the petition that he was
a Commoner, but there was nothing in the petition to
show that he was not a Commoner still. But as there

was no evidence of that kind there was no reason yet
shown why the petition should not be referred to the
Committee.

Sir G. CLERK said that that House was cognizant
of the Journals of the House of Lords, and of the Gmet&z,
both of which showed that Lord Innishono had been
called to the Peerage.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that' in that case the proper
course would be to adjourn the discussion until the Jour-
nals of the House of Lords or the Gazette had been'
consulted.

An Hos. MEMBER on the Opposition benches wikshekl
to put it to the Speaker whether the point eit issue
might not be acceded by the Committee,
The SPEAKER said the question was, whether the
petition of Lord lunishowen was such a breach of the
privileges of the House as might be referred to an Elec-
tion Committee. In his opinion as the ,question related
to the privileges of the House, the House itself should
take it into its consideration, and should not refer it to, a
Committee.

Mr. WATSON said as this was a mammy requiring
the most serinuA considerativo the House, they
ought to soktre4 far VecVletOsi before they came • .
deeision—,(Year.) Tit Were two kind. - to a
who had aright to petition the House. t)- or persons
defesatied at an election, who htici ...e one, candidates
and who cipoiareci that.-A"-- a, right to be candidates,
turned t the otN— ..iey had a right to be re-
had not T ' the electors. The question
wh— —ord Innishowen a right to be a candidate
he was one, and had he not subsequently
a right within the meaning of the Act to petition the
House, and ought not Lord Innishowen to be heard by
counsel at the bar?—(Hear, hear.) At all events, they
ought first of all to search for precedents.
Sir R. PEEL apprehended that no decision the House
could now come to would be satisfactory. He could not
vote with satisfaction on the question with his pre-
sent knowledge of it. Indeed, the great object of the
election law was to keep such questions out of the House.
As this was the first •ziuestion since the passing of the
Act, he (Sir Robert Peel) hoped that his Hon. Friend
would postpone it.—(Hear.)
Mr. VERNON SMITH suggested the postponement
of the question, for in point of fact there was no
notice of it given. So little was known about it,
that even one of the Hon. Gentlemen who was to have
been sworn on the Committee had not known himself
that it was intended he should be on it until a few mo-
ments before he was called upon to be sworn ;
it was quite impossible that the House could
come to a just conclusion ; at present, therefore, it op
peared to him (Mr. Smith) that no person except the
Learned Member, who had brought forward the question,
and the Secretary to the Treasury with whom no doubt
there was communication upon the subject, had brought
forward precedents with respect to it.
Mr. THESIGER had not the_ least objection that

time should be taken to consider the question, as

it was one of considerable importance. -Honourable
Gentlemen stated that the House was taken by
surprise; but he (Mr. Thesiger) had given notice dis-
tinctly on Monday last that he would call attention to
the subject.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said there was no mention of
the matter in the Votes of the House this morning.
After a desultory conversation, in which the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. ROEBUCK, and some
other Members took part, the further consideration of the
question was postponed to Friday next.
The SPEAKER informed the House that the exa-
miner of recognisances had reported to him that the
sureties entered into for the Prosecution of the petition
against the return of Mr. Gregory for the county of
the City of Dublin, were unexceptionable.
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE CORN-LAWS.
On the Order of the Day being read for resuming the
debate on the Corn-laws,
Mr. E. BULLER rose to address the House. The
Hon. Member stated that Hon. Gentlemen opposite had

taken credit for advocating the sliding scale solely on
public grounds. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Aylesbury went still further. He stated that even
if his opinion were that the sliding scale
now proposed by the Right Honourable Bart. would
have the effect of reducing the value of agricultural
capital one-fifth, or 20 per cent.,, yet, such was his
attachment to the Right Hon. Baronet that, with some-
thing like Roman virtue, he would support the sliding scale
at this enormous cost. He altogether repudiated the
Roman virtue of the Hon. Member for Aylesbury. He
had no hesitation in declaring that were any measure to
emanate from either side of that House, whether from
the Right Hopourable Baronet, or the Noble Lord
(Lord John Russell), if, in his conscience, he believed
the effect of that measure would be to reduce the value
of agricultural capital one-fifth, no considerations of
party, no personal predilections, would prevent him
from giving the measure his decided opposition.
He disclaimed for himself all that disinterestedness of
which Hon. Members on the other side so loudly
vaunted. In every ,speech he made, and in every vote
he gave on the subject of the Corn-laws, he looked
to his own interest as a landed proprietor, and
as an occupier of land.—(Hear.) But he thought his own
interest was in the prosperity of the country, the wel-
fare of the labouring classes, and the increase in num-
ber and wealth of the nation, all of which he thought
would result from the abolition of the Corn-laws. It
was his conviction that tde interests of agriculture would
not suffer by the abolition of these laws.—(Hear, hear.)
Looking at the infornaation which had bean laid upon the
table of the House respecting the places from which sup-
plies of corn could be had for this country, he was greatly
surprised at the concession of Tamboff.—(Hear, hear.)
It was calculated that 26,000,000 of quarters was the
necessary supply for the 26 millions which he
fleind to be the population of this country, and
of these twenty-six millions, one million quarters had
been imported. But the population of this country went
on increasinc, at the rate of 300,000 or 400,000
per annum, and in ten years there would be an increase
of between three millions and four millions of inhabitants,
and how, he would ask, could the home production be made
to satisfy the wants of the whole population ? He had
said that he took that volume of information laid
upon the • table for the name of Tamboff,
but he threw it down again in despair. It would be
in the recollection of the House, that the Noble
Lord, the Member for North Lancashire,
had scared all England from its propriety, by
declaring that thirty-eight millions of quarters,
the production of a single province of Russia,
were loading in the port of St. Petersburgh to meet
the wants of the people of this country, But what
were the facts ? The population of that place was only
1,700,000, and the whole amount of wheat produced
amounted, instead of 38,000,000, to something
between 21,000 and 35,600 quarters.—(Hear, hear.)
Instead of being twice the annual consumption, it
dwindled down to something like six hours' con-
sumption.—(Hear, hear.) He did not adopt the
opinions or sentiments of the gentlemen occupying
the opposite benches, neither did he admit much
that had been said on that side of the House.
He did not admit that the Corn-laws were
an impious prevention of the designs of Providence.
He did not admit that the Corn-laws were the cause of
the whole distresses of the country, but he believed
they were the cause of increasing that distress.
Ile believed that in times of prosperity they
injured -the country and aggravated the distress.
For his own part he was satisfied that the combining
causes of the distress of the country arose from the
monetary system in America, ' our want of trade
with China, and other causes. Giving the Right
Honourable Baronet credit for the fullest intention
of relieving the distresses of the country, still
he could not but think that the present was the
smallest measure of relief ever given by a
great Minister to a starving people. Though he gave
gave him credit for his motives, he could not but lament
his straightened circumstances,:which precluded him
from carrying out a more enlarged plan. In the few
observations which he intended to snake, he would
state as correctly as he could the value of the plan
the Right Honourable Baronet intended to produce.
He could not help remarking the great discrepancy
between the speech of the Right Honourable
Baronet and the scale which he had laid before the
House. The Right Hon. Baronet said that if prices
could range between 545. and 585., the duty would be an
admirable protection to the farmer, and calculated to
benefit the other interests of the country. He (M- e. E.
Buller) confessed he could not. understand 7".'ny, with
;..s scale on the
these views, the Right Hon. Baronet laid b
felt satisfied
table of the House, when he (Mr. E. B.:;:ier)
`tided that its effect
that the framer of that scale intend
should be to raise prices to OOP,. ; and he (Mr. Buller) felt
convinced that it would lave the effect of raising
the price as high h., 735. He (Mr. E. Buller)
could not help remarking another discrepancy be-
tween the speech and the scale. The Right Honour-
able Baronetwas decidedly an advocate of the sliding-
tfiroai nsi
oe
fd
stuhpapt
osrctai
nl eg di (el nsoctaiee.vennte'riiiemlieevi tednt•hitaht
htlisse
oinbjteenct-
scale, en he Mr. R. Buller) looked at the scale
laid upon the table of the House, he must say, whoever
was a fixed duty, but of an enormous amount. Now he be-
lieved the parties who had framed that scale expected that
a very large portion of the future importations of
corn to this country would be entered when the price
was 665., and the, duty 6s. per quarter. He believed that
if this scale should be carried the Right Honourable the
Vice-President of the Board of Trade, would, in a
very few years, come down to the house, and repeat
his language of a former evening.--(Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. E. Buller) waa sure that if this proposal was
carried, it would ho attended with all the evils which the
Vice-PresideAt of the Board of Trade acknowledged
were attondant upon the present scale. The great ob-
jection to the present scale equally applied to the pro-
posed plan. There was an inherent defect in the sliding
scale which nothing could wash out ; viz., that it held out
to the persons who had in their possession a quan-
tity of corn all inducement to keep that corn back.
Now the V,* itroposed by the Right Hon. Baronet was
open to that objection on that score. It was true the
Right lion. Baronet had endeavoured to reduce the
amount of inducement to the holders of corn to withhold
their corn from bond; but the inducement still remained
when the price of' eon was rising and the duty we falling ;_ and all that he (Mr. Buller) could say of the
Right licknonraide Baronet's measure was, that it was a
palliakixo and not a cure ; that it was at best only a
mitigated misfortune. No one could look at the returns
which had been laid upon the table of the House, but
must admit that the existing scale was to prevent the
admission of foreign corn, nnless it had reached the
maximum of price and the minimum of duty. His Hon. Friend tAait Member for Malton had shown the extremely :
%apt quantity of corn which had been admitted when the
Klee was falling and the duty rising, at, the dude: of
lOs, ad., 6s. Bd., and 2s. Bd. They
might say
*'plat the
objection contained in that states est to 0):
before the House, applied to the DM scale now
was a great inducemoot when thel, ant law; there
4s. of duty, and m la.
was a difference of
ilky .
came to the price. When they
v,Oee of zaa.,t)'
duty" d d there was 2s. 8., an ere
was A. 4141163emeitt -.e
of foreign corn to
Awlopid, from the holders
of. Is., in ,t market when there was a difference