brought up the Report of the committee on the South Western Railway Bill.

rose to move, that certain clauses be added to the bill, the object of which was, to enable the Company to take possession of lands for the purpose of making repairs. The accidents which occurred rendered it quite necessary that such powers should be given. One instance had occurred, in which, if the landowner had refused permission, the railway must have been stopped. It was not refused by him; but other landowners had prevented the Company from coming upon their lands to make repairs. He had no intention, by taking this course, to infringe upon the Standing Orders of the House.

should feel it his duty to object to the introduction of these clauses, because, when the bill was originally introduced, no notice was given that such powers would be sought for. These clauses departed very materially from the bill of which notice had been given, and on behalf of the department to which he had the honour to belong, he should feel it his duty to resist them. He believed that an attempt had been made in committee to introduce clauses of a similar nature, but they had been objected to; and surely it was not upon bringing up the report of the bill, at a time when the parties had no notice whatever, that such clauses should be introduced.

would also resist the clauses. In his experience upon Railway Committees, he could state, that similar propositions had been frequently made, but, in every case, they had been resisted; and he believed such power had never been allowed in any railway bill.

thought some power ought to be given to the railway proprietors, to make repairs in cases of accident, but, at the same time, he could not say, that he entirely approved of these clauses. It should not, however, be supposed, that because they wished to prevent an attempt being made to obtain powers of an objectionable nature, they also wished to restrain the enterprise of the country.

wished to express his great objection to the introduction of such clauses as that now before the House. It had been attempted on former occasions, but the House had rejected them. When the bill was printed, and proposed in the first instance, it did not contain these objectionable clauses, and he believed parties in the vicinity of railways, were not aware of the intention to introduce them. He could not allow the opportunity to pass, without congratulating the House upon the appointment of his hon. Friend, as Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. They owed it to the vigilance of his hon. Friend, that this subject had been brought under the consideration of the House. He was sure that it was satisfactory to the public that it was so brought to light, and that attempts were resisted to introduce measures in committee, of which the public had not received ample notice. It was now known, that such attempts would be vigilantly watched, and that his hon. Friend would bring them before the House, and give the House an opportunity of examining them, and of rejecting them if deemed objectionable.

said, he was glad this matter was brought before the House. He was satisfied that the original evil of this proposition lay in the form in which the notices in the country newspapers were worded. The words were so comprehensive, that they would include almost anything. Persons interested could not be sufficiently apprised of clauses sought to be introduced in this manner. The bill as it stood before the House, was a bill to raise an additional capital. He thought the House should take into consideration the propriety of improving the form of notice. It should be reduced to a Standing Order, that the notices should be more distinct, if such a step was decided upon, the House could then order the petition to be referred to the committee on Standing Orders, it should stand on the same ground as the notice, and thus they would not be satisfied with vague and loose allegation, With respect to the clauses denominated modern clauses, doubts were entertained whether, in legal tendency, they were for perpetuity, or a limited space of years; and ii was on that account these clauses were introduced, to do away with any doubt as to the construction of the act.

said, that having acted in the committee, he concurred entirely in the opinion that had been expressed by his hon. Friend. He felt that a vast improvement had lately taken place in the manner in which unopposed bills were conducted, but, at the same time, he thought, on the present question, they were treating the Railway Company with some harshness. The clause which was now before the House, was one which was absolutely necessary for the purpose of enabling the Company to keep up the repair of the road. Without that power, it was quite clear, that the road must either be at the mercy of the landowners, or fall to decay. If they had come with the proper notice, there would be no difficulty, he apprehended, in passing the bill. It had been mentioned on the other side of the House, that that was an unheard-of clause. Now he believed, that the clause was introduced into every bill relative to the subject passed within the last one or two years. It was a clause which was established as a model clause, as he understood, and it appeared to him to be a clause essential to the maintenance of railways, and different in no degree from that attached to bills relating to turnpike roads. The reason of the promoters of the bill coming before the House, at that stage, was simply on account of the formation of a new read. He thought that it was rather hard that the Company should now be opposed, because parties said, they were taken by surprise. They came to the House with a clause arising out of circumstances which they could not foresee, which occurred since the first bill was printed—circumstances which involved them in law suits, and might involve them in great difficulty; even between the present time and next year, when they could come anew before the House, the Company might be essentially injured, and the public greatly inconvenienced. Under these circumstances, he was inclined to press the House to agree to the clause.

thought, that if the effect of the clause would be to adjudicate in favour of one party, and against the other, that was a sufficient reason against the granting of the clause. The Directors of the Southampton Railway were to have a power of taking 500 yards along the whole line of railway, without taking immediate possession of it, but always keeping- the powers thus vested in them hanging over the heads of the landed proprietors. So monstrous a power as that, in whatever shape it might be brought before the House, was, he thought, certain of being negatived.

after the opposition which he had met with from both sides of the House, would withdraw his proposed clauses.

having presented a petition, numerously signed by the merchants and ship-owners of the port of Hull, complaining of the duties levied by the Danish government upon ships passing Elsineur, proceeded to address the House to the following effect:—I am about to bring under the notice of this House the question of the Sound dues. I mean the nature and amount of the taxes which are now levied by the King of Denmark, on British commerce and navigation passing between the Cattegat and the Baltic Sea. The grievance which I come forward to complain of, is, as far as I am informed, wholly new to this House, at least on no former occasion have the Sound dues or their abuses occupied the attention of Parliament. Let no one, however, suppose, on that account, that the evils to which I wish to call your attention are of an ordinary character either to the manufactures, mercantile and shipping interests, or to the general welfare of the country. The real cause of that silence which has so long prevailed in Parliament respecting the Sound dues is, that it belongs to a class of subjects which, unless they can be made matters for party warfare, are never very favorite topics of discussion. Indeed, I must say, with respect to questions of trade generally—and the evidence taken in the course of the last Session on the import duties is a pretty convincing proof of the fact-—that questions of trade generally have not hitherto met with an adequate attention, either from the Legislature or the Govern- ment of this country. I cannot believe that if the administration of 1814 had been at all alive to the real importance of our commerce with the north of Europe, it would ever have gratuitously revived the antiquated and mischievous pretensions of the King of Denmark to obstruct its operations in the Baltic, by sanctioning the Sound tolls, The Sound toll is an institution at variance with every received maxim of international law—contrary to the universal practice of the civilized world—a direct contravention of those wise principles for regulating international communication authorised by the treaty of Vienna; and I need not state how pernicious to the best interests of our trade must be a power which enhances the prices of our productions in the foreign market, and of foreign productions in our own—which detains ships on their voyage, and exposes their crews to vexatious restrictions and penalties. Still, obnoxious as it may be, there the power is warranted and established by treaty, and so long as that treaty is faithfully observed by Denmark—the state interested in its maintenance—it must be respected by our own. On that point there can be no diversity of opinion. The King of Denmark has acquired a right to tax our commerce and obstruct our navigation so long as he confines himself to the limits of the treaty, on which his right to the Sound dues is founded. But, Sir, if it shall appear that the King of Denmark has violated that treaty, and has exercised authority over our trade which the treaty expressly prohibited—it may, I think, then become a fair subject of doubt and inquiry whether he has not abrogated the contract between us. At all events, if ii shall be proved to the satisfaction of this House that the King of Denmark has been in the habit of exacting tolls on our commerce much beyond what is permitted by the treaty between the two countries—if it shall be shown that he has had recourse to expedients for that purpose, not only not warranted by our contract, but expressly and emphatically forbidden by it—under such circumstances I think the House will not refuse to sanction the resolution I have given notice of, but will unanimously agree on this occasion, as it did last year in regard to the State dues, that these abuses must no longer continue. Now, Sir, I feel some confidence that I shall be able to establish to the satisfac- tion of the House the truth of the cases I have supposed. I shall not fatigue the patience of the House by going into any detailed history of the origin of the Sound dues. It is not necessary to recite it. It is quite sufficient that the Sound dues, having been arbitrarily and sometimes forcibly levied by the kings of Denmark from an early period, were formally recognised and sanctioned by Holland in the year 1645, by the treaty of Christianople. By this treaty, though the right of the king of Denmark to collect Sound tolls on ships and cargoes was admitted, the nature and extent of his tolls were carefully limited and defined, and a tariff or register of these tolls was drawn up with the sanction of the two states, and formally incorporated with the treaty. The tariff contained specific charges for most of the articles then known in commerce; but the treaty stipulated that all articles not named in the tariff should pay a toll of one per cent, on their value, as ascertained at the port of shipment. This treaty—the treaty of Christianople, has been the basis of all subsequent legislation respecting the Sound dues. In the year 1647, the King of Denmark became a party to another treaty with Holland respecting the Sound dues. In this treaty he undertook to maintain all the lights, buoys, and beacons, between the Cattegat and the Baltic, on receiving a stipulated payment from every passing vessel. In 1701 a third treaty was concluded on this subject between the same States, by which all the provisions of the Christianople treaty, together with the tariff, were confirmed, and the rights of the king of Denmark in regard to them more clearly defined and limited. It was ordered, that the treaty of Christianople should thereafter always be literally interpreted; that certain recited fees or perquisites should be paid by all foreign vessels to the Danish officers at Elsineur, that the officers should always be in attendance at certain stated hours, and that the king of Denmark should, on no account or pretext whatever, augment the charges for tolls or perquisites, either in number or amount. These treaties were extended to Great Britain at the time, and in the year 1814 they were all renewed, in all their provisions and in all their force, by the new treaty of Kiel. I now come down to the present time. The king of Denmark regained in the present century his old and antiquated power of levying the Sound tolls. But, Sir, when it is considered, that this power was gratuitously conceded to him—that you not only gave him the power to tax your commerce, but that you agreed also to pay the salaries of the Danish officers by whom this tax was to be collected, that you agreed to submit to many vexatious and humiliating restraints, in order to secure the King of Denmark in the fullest enjoyment of the benefits you had granted him, and further stipulated, that even the lightage and buoyage of the Danish seas should be provided for by dues, separate and apart from the Christianople sound tolls—I think, when you consider all these concessions which you made, at the grievous sacrifice of British commerce, it must be admitted, that you concluded a bargain with the king of Denmark with which he at least ought to have been content, and that the last object he should have attempted would be the extension of his extravagant right. Now, what is the fact? Ever since the treaty was signed has Denmark been engaged in violating the stipulation framed for the protection of commerce. The treaty of 1701 had carefully provided, that an account in great detail should be rendered to every ship passing the Sound of the dues exacted, in order that the merchant might see, that nothing more than the proper dues had been paid on every article of his merchandise. This regulation was carefully disregarded. Not only was not an account given of the dues exacted, but the whole system of charges has been a matter of secrecy and concealment. It was evident, that the legal tariff of 1645 was not in force, but what the scale of charges really was, no one knew, and Denmark took care that no one should learn. About the middle of the year 1839 the Swedish government, after some urgent applications, obtained a copy of the tariff in force, from the highest authority in Denmark. It then became manifest, that the Christianople treaty and tariff had been formally set aside, and one more fashioned to the taste and cupidity of Denmark substituted in its stead. Let me remind the House what the rate for the collection of the dues really was. I will not explain in my own words, or in any language which can be matter of dispute. I will take the expressions of the Crown of Denmark itself, as I find them in the fourth article of the treaty con- cluded between Denmark and Prussia in the year 1818.

"The Sound dues shall be paid according to the tariff of 1645, or as Denmark shall agree with the most favoured nations. With respect to the goods not enumerated in the tariff, Prussian subjects shall not pay more than one per cent., as is the case with the most favoured nations."

The tariff of 1645, then, or when not in operation, one per cent., says Denmark, in 1818, is the legal rate. I have examined the tariff extorted by Sweden in 1839, and I find that, instead of one per cent, on the unenumerated articles, five, six, and even eight per cent, have been habitually demanded—that fixed payments have been adopted where the per centage has been ordered, and the contrary, but all with a view to enhance the duty. I find, that "heat flour is taxed at 100 percent, above the rate ordered in the tariff. Hemp seed ditto. On all articles of wood there was a great exaggeration. Deals of Prussia were to pay thirty-three per cent, above the proper duty. Deals of Sweden and Norway, when above twenty-one feet in length, 1,500 per cent. Laths sometimes as much as 5,000 per cent, above the legal rate. So, again, in regard to cotton and woollen yarn. On sugar, on coffee, and other colonial produce, all the charges are enormously advanced; and this, the House will recollect, is not my statement; it is the statement of Denmark herself—her own admission, as exhibited in the tariff communicated to the Swedish government the year before last, a copy of which is no doubt in the Foreign Office, and at the Board of Trade. I will not trouble the House by remarking on all the other violations of the treaty. It will easily be believed, that when the more important provisions were disregarded, that lesser matters were not very scrupulously observed. In truth, after the bloodshed, and the struggles of centuries, to restrict the Sound tolls within fixed and intelligible limits, we seem to have reverted in the nineteenth century to something like the club-law of the dark ages. The king of Denmark levies the Sound tolls at his will and pleasure, and then, to complete the evil as far as possible, the king of Denmark, in defiance of the laws by which he is bound as one of the Germanic confederation, blocks up the road of communication between Hamburg and Lubeck, and thus forces every article of commerce proceeding to the Baltic into his law-trap at Elsineur. It is impossible to look on this contrivance against the trade and manufactures of this country, and not feel some indignation. Between eighty and 100,000l. annually is the king of Denmark to levy in the shape of Sound tolls and dues on our commerce, the taxes being, for the most part, laid upon the export of our manufactured goods into foreign markets, and the import of the raw material into our own—the most mischievous and oppressive of all taxes. But it would be idle to attempt to estimate the mischief sustained by our commerce in the Baltic by the amount of money which is thus extorted. What the king of Denmark receives may be easily computed—what we suffer by the Sound tolls no man can tell. Well, for six-and twenty years this system has been going on. After what I have stated, will any Member doubt it is a system wholly at variance with the faith of treaties, pernicious to our commercial interest, and discreditable to our national dignity? Well, how long is it to last? After the neglect of a quarter of a century, is it not time for Government to step in and insist at least on the faithful execution of treaties? Our trade has, for a long time, been declining with the north of Europe—shall we wait till our flag is altogether excluded from the Baltic? Are you prepared to see that trade, once so large and valuable, extinguished? Can yon afford to give it up? Well, but you must give it up, unless you will promptly and vigorously interfere in its behalf. The Sound dues should not only be reduced to their proper limits, they should be abolished altogether—abolished by friendly composition. For such a consummation every circumstance seems now prepared, not excepting the false position in which Denmark is placed by her violation of treaties, and the excessive amount of money she has wrested from our merchants. He knew that the subject was disagreeable to the House; but, though it was thought of little importance there, it was of great importance to his constituents. It merely required that the noble Lord should interpose his authority. And let me tell him that it will be no inconsiderable addition to any acts of his political life, for which he is honoured in our own day, and by which he will be remembered hereafter, if he should be the man to rescue British com- merce from ignominious and ruinous thraldom in the Danish seas. I will therefore move,

"That, in the opinion of this House, the tariff of Sound dues now levied at Elsineur is not a tariff which the king of Denmark is entitled to maintain; and that the Sound dues require such a revision as will facilitate the commercial relations of this country with the Baltic ports."

said, that his hon. Friend need make no excuse to the House for drawing the attention of the House or of the country to this question, because it was a subject of great interest, and nothing could be more fitting or dispassionate than the mode in which the hon. Gentleman had introduced it. He was not going to dispute any of the propositions put forth by his hon. Friend. He could do no better than say, that his hon. Friend's statement, as to the Sound dues, was almost the case of the British Government against the government of Denmark. It was far from his intention to weaken any of the positions which the hon. Gentleman had sought to establish. He could assure the House, that this subject was not now for the first time brought under the consideration of the Government. Indeed, the ground on which he should request his hon. Friend, as a matter of discretion, either to withdraw his motion, or not to resist the motion of the previous question, was, that the subject which had for some time past occupied the serious attention of Government, and that they were at this moment in negotiation with the government of Denmark upon the matter, and that consequently any expression of opinion on the part of the House, such as was then proposed, would be an unfitting and an inexpedient interposition of Parliament in a negotiation pending between the British crown and the crown of Denmark; and more especially when he considered the disparity of strength of the two countries, he conceived that the interference of Parliament would be not only inexpedient, but that it would have the appearance of being somewhat ungracious. Government did some time ago make a communication to the government of Denmark on this point, through the Minister at Copenhagen. The result of this communication had been, that the Danish minister in this country, who was then away on leave of absence, had returned specially for the purpose of carrying on a negotiation upon the subject and he felt it due to the go- vernment of Denmark to say, that in the communication which they had made upon the subject, they had evinced a fair and candid disposition to enter into the question with a view to the arrival at a satisfactory termination of the question. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that they could not justly dispute the payment of any duty which could be shown to be legally exacted under a tariff, but they contended that the great proportion of the dues levied in the Sound were not properly levyable under the treaty. In one point he could not agree with what had fallen from his hon. Friend; he meant in thinking that whatever might be the oppressive nature of the duties, they had in fact diminished the commerce of Great Britain with the Baltic. It was certain, that they had tended much to divert the channel of that commerce; but a statement which had appeared in a pamphlet, the authority of which his hon. Friend, he thought, would be the last to question, showed that not only had not the amount of tonnage leaving Great Britain for the Baltic during the last few years diminished, but that it had actually increased. But it was certain that the channel of commerce was changed; that a great deal of that which should have gone through the Sound, had passed through other sources; and this was a point which should weigh materially with the Danish government, because it should show them that the maintenance of this duty did not add to their revenue, and that by reducing the amount of the tolls which they demanded, so as to bring back the commerce of the country to its natural channel, in truth the revenue of Denmark would sustain no important diminution, if, indeed, it sustained any diminution at all. Having stated thus much, and having expressed his hope that the negotiation which was already on foot would be brought to a conclusion, not only long before the period anticipated by his hon. Friend, not only before a quarter of a century had elapsed, but before a quarter of a year had passed away, he begged to state his desire, that his hon. Friend would either withdraw his motion, or would abstain from taking the sense of the House on an amendment for the previous question.

said, that if there were any real intention to bring the subject to a satisfactory conclusion, the hon. Member for Hull could have no difficulty in withdrawing his motion. But the noble Lord had said, that this was a pending negotiation. If for years a foreign power refused to do that which it was just it should do, he thought that could hardly be taken to involve a pending negotiation. For several years a claim had been made by Great Britain that Denmark should restrain herself to the stipulations of her treaty. The noble Lord admitted, that the duties were not in conformity with the treaty. Who was to interfere then? No one wished to resort to violence; but if the Crown could not procure redress, and years passed away, and it was admitted, on the part of the Crown, that the solemn representations which had been made had had no effect, he thought that the time had arrived when the House of Commons should come forward, and in temperate language fortify the Crown in the proceedings which it had taken. The noble Lord had stated that which appeared to him to be perfectly fallacious. He said, that there had been no diminution of the commerce of Great Britain with the Baltic, but that was no test. Duties were exacted which ought not to be paid, and if there was fair ground to suppose that an increase was prevented by that means, that was the mischief which was complained of. The question of whether there had been a diminution in the trade or not was not a fair question. First of all, if the stipulation of the treaty gave us a right to a moderate duty only being imposed, we had a right to pay no more than that duty, notwithstanding any supposed effect which might be produced of increase or diminution. But further, if the effect of the imposition of the duty had been to divert the commerce of the country from its proper channel, that was also a great ground of complaint. Every one wished that the prerogative of the Crown as to foreign negotiations should be kept as free as possible, and the less the House interfered the more they increased the probability of a settlement being arrived at under ordinary circumstances. But if there was a long-continued pertinacious refusal to come to an understanding, that was a ground upon which the House of Commons might interfere. He hoped that the manifestation of opinion on both sides of the House as to the claim of this country, urged not in an angry tone, would have its proper effect, and that so may existing reasons for the mainte- nance of a proper understanding would be shown as to induce a fit termination to the present negotiations. If the hon. Member for Hull withdrew his motion, he could not help thinking that the general opinion which had been manifested on the part of the House would have the effect which was desired, and would dispose the Government of Denmark to do that which was right. But if the hon. Member found that this course failed in producing its proper effect, he would still have the power of again bringing forward the present motion, and he (Sir R. Peel) for one should be prepared to support it.

thought, that the right hon. Baronet had entirely misunderstood the statement of the noble lord, if he was under an impression that he had not expressed an opinion that these duties, as they now existed, were a heavy burden upon the country, and that it was the duty of the Government to urge on the government of Denmark with as little delay as possible the justice and propriety of putting them upon a proper footing. When the noble Lord had alluded to the circumstance of there having been no actual decrease of trade, he had done so for the purpose of correcting an inaccuracy in the statement of the hon. Member for Hull, and not at all meaning to say, that on that account it was less the duty of the Government to press this case on the attention of the Government of Denmark. The right hon. Baronet had said, that when there was no redress afforded on a matter so long standing, they should go out of that course which was allowed to be the most desirable. There would be much weight in the argument of the right hon. Baronet if it were the fact that the application made to the Government of Denmark had been neglected and refused; but, in justice to that Government, it was fair that he should remind the House, that only lately, indeed for the first time last year, had any such application been made. He did not think, that the present Government, or that which preceded it, was to be blamed for the present state of things. The noble Lord had stated, that negotiations were now going on between the English and the Danish governments, and that Denmark had met those negotiations by avowing at once that it was necessary that these dues should be thoroughly revised with as little delay as possible; and there was every reason to believe, that a satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at. He thought the more dignified and proper course would be, to allow time for the purpose of ascertaining whether the anticipations of the Government were or were not fulfilled, before Parliament interposed by expressing any opinion on the subject. The importance of a final settlement of the question had been impressed upon the attention of the government of Denmark, before the navigation of the Baltic was re-opened, and they had expressed their willingness to accede to this proposition so far as it was possible, but as the question was one of long standing, it was found impossible to come at once to any conclusive arrangement; but, in order to prove their good will, they expressed themselves willing to make concessions on some of the points which were the subject-matter of the negotiation. These concessions were no doubt inadequate to the just expectations of the country, but they were not made with a view to delay, and they had been accepted. He hoped, after the statements which had been made, the hon. Member would withdraw his motion, more especially as he found the Government disposed to do all that was fit to be done in the case.

thought, that the hon. Member for Hull was entitled to the thanks of the shipping interest for bringing forward this motion to the attention of the House, but as the noble Lord had staled that negotiations were in progress for the purpose of having the duties put upon a proper footing, he thought, that it would be better for his hon. Friend to withdraw his motion, and accede to the proposition which had been thrown out.

was happy to hear that the subject had already fallen under the consideration of the Government; it was a matter of material importance to those individuals whom he had the honour to represent, and he sincerely trusted, that measures would be taken by which the entire abrogation of the duties would be secured. He had been surprised to hear it stated, that the subject had been recently for the first time brought under the notice of the Government, because undoubtedly in 1836 it was a matter of discussion in the public newspapers, and some correspondence had beeen published, amongst which were some letters written by the noble Lord, who was now the Governor of Canada. He joined with those hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him in recommending the withdrawal of the present motion.

presumed his hon. Friend would allow the previous question to be carried, leaving his resolution on record; but he hoped he would not now lose sight of his original object. It seemed doubtful, from what had been said, whether concessions that would be considered satisfactory would be made by Denmark, though his hon. Friend had only insisted upon the obligations of a treaty being fulfilled; but be joined with the hon. Member for Durham in urging upon his hon. Friend to persevere until he should obtain the total abolition of these obnoxious dues. They were, in these days, a scandalous interruption to the commerce of the world; and not only England, but every state trafficking with the Baltic complained alike of them, and were, in fact, watching the move against them being made in this country. They were, in truth, imposed with no more justice than if this country at any time chose to levy tolls on the trade in the British Channel. The same plea might be urged, and the same injury to foreigners inflicted. The country was obliged to his hon. Friend for bringing the subject forward, and he thought the House encouraged him to persevere.

replied. He had reason to be gratified with the explanation which had been given by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that the satisfaction which he felt was in no degree diminished by the guarantee given by the right hon. Baronet opposite, that he believed the question was one which was worthy the consideration of the House. He adopted the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, that these duties should be altogether abolished. The prospect which now presented itself to him was most agreeable to him, and he had no hesitation, after the manifestation of opinion on the part of the House, to allow his motion to be negatived, and the previous question carried.

begged to move that the petition of William Baines now a prisoner in the county gaol of Leicester for non-payment of Church-rates presented on the 2d of February, be printed and circulated with the votes. He could scarcely imagine, that in a case in which the personal liberty of one of her Majesty's subjects and the religious feelings of a very large class of persons were concerned, there could be any opposition to the motion.

said, that the petition having been presented so long ago as the 2d of February, he thought it probable that it would have been referred to the committee on public petitions.

said, that it was his intention to submit a motion to the House on Thursday next upon the subject of the petition, and he thought that it should be in the hands of hon. Members, in order that they might be aware of its contents.

thought, that the hon. Member had not made out a sufficient case to entitle him to call upon the House to print this petition. It would be in the recollection of the House, that the committee of which he had had the honour to be chairman, and which was appointed for the purpose of considering the general subject of printing petitions, had made strong representations to the House that petitions should not be printed with the votes, unless in those cases where the subject was not only brought under consideration, or where the matter was of pressing and urgent importance. The hon. Member for Leicester said, that this petition had not been ordered to be printed, and for anything that had been stated, it might be inferred that the committee on public petitions were not aware that this petition had been brought forward, for if they had been aware of it, there was no reason to doubt that they would have ordered it to be printed; or, if they had not done so, that they had taken that course on the ground that it contained something improper, in the shape of some reflection on the private character of individuals. He did not mean to say, that this was the case, but he said, that it was not impossible that that was the motive by which the committee had been actuated. It appeared to him, therefore, that the hon. Member had not shown that there was anything so urgent in the case as to justify a departure from the rule which had been established. It must be obvious, from the number of similar notices which were placed upon the paper, that if they did not set their faces against the adoption of the course now proposed, they must give up the general rule which had been laid down. Each hon. Member would think his own case the most important—the affairs of his own constituents those which should be first attended to, and thus, little by little they should break down the rule which had been hitherto found to work extremely well for the purposes of that House and of the public business. For these reasons, he felt himself called upon to give his opposition to the motion, suggesting to the hon. Member that he should bring the matter under the attention of the committee on public petitions, by whom, he had little doubt, it would be printed.

had thought that there could be no possible objection to the printing of the petition under the circumstance of his having given notice that he intended on Thursday to make it the subject of a motion in the House. He begged to state that there was nothing contained in the petition that could reasonably raise the doubts and objections which had been referred to by the noble Lord. He had not imagined that he should be usefully employing the time of the House in stating the grounds on which he thought that it was desirable that this petition should be printed. In the first place, it was impossible, upon a careful perusal of the petition, to say, that there was any objection to it of the class that had been suggested, it was a mere statement of the circumstances of the case, which had led to the confinement of the petitioner. It stated the time during which he had been confined, and the reasons which had led him to suffer this imprisonment rather than comply with the demand made upon him; and it then went on to pray that the House would adopt such measures as to them should seem meet to procure his release. It was to be remarked, that this was a case similar in its nature to those in which the House had, on two former occasions, pronounced an opinion that the cause, from which the individuals who had petitioned were imprisoned, should be removed. It was a case in which, by a resolution of the House, it had been declared that such a process of the ecclesiastical courts ought not to be put in force. If he understood the object of the noble Lord rightly, it was to prevent the printing of the petition, which it was desired should be printed in order that the subject might be brought before the House, with a view to some practical relief being afforded. Believing-, as he did, that no valid objection existed to his motion, and feeling that there would be a great deal of hardship in saying to the petitioner, "your petition shall not reach the hands of all the Members of the House," he was induced, and he hoped not improperly, to press that the petition should be printed.

hoped that the House would accede to the motion of his hon. Friend, because he thought that the case was strictly within the rule which had been laid down with regard to the printing of petitions. The rule was, that a petition might be printed when, within a reasonable time of its presentation, the petition itself was to be the subject of a motion, and, therefore, first of all, the proposition of his hon. Friend came within the rule which was prescribed. But even supposing that it was not so, exceptions might be made in cases where the individual petitioning was actually in prison. But there was a third ground, also, upon which he should support the motion. By the regulations which had been made, the House had already so narrowed the opportunities which any hon. Member of the House had of hearing a debate on the merits of a petition, compared with the old practice which prevailed, that he should be exceedingly jealous of restraining any further the already circumscribed right which existed upon this subject. He, therefore, hoped, that the petition would be allowed to be printed, and laid on the Table of the House before the day on which the motion of his hon. Friend was fixed to come on.

said, that it seemed to him doubtful whether the House should acquiesce in the motion of the lion. Member for Leicester, because this was a case in which the printing or not printing of the petition had not come under the consideration of the committee, to whom in ordinary cases the question of printing petitions was referred. It was not the case of a petition which had been presented within a short time. It had been presented to the House on the 2nd February, and within a few days, therefore, of the commencement of the Session, by reason of which the attention of the committee would almost certainly have been directed to it; and it was to be observed, that to this time that committee had not ordered the petition to be printed, although they had printed others of more recent date. The inference was, that in the petition itself some ground existed which led them purposely to abstain from printing it; and if that were really the case, undoubtedly this would be a strong ground for refusing to accede to the motion. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Leicester, in order to avoid the inconvenience that had been pointed out by the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, would assent that the House should direct that the petition should be printed with the votes, for the use of Members only.

would have no objection. As he understood the hon. Member to have no objection to having the petition printed with the votes for the use of Members only, he hoped that the House would agree to the printing of the petition with the votes.

said, it was absolutely necessary that the House should act upon some general principle, unless a particular instance requiring an exception arose. With regard to the present petition, as it had been said, that there might be something objectionable in it, he felt bound to say, that having read it through, he found that it was impossible that any petition could be more properly worded, or less objectionable on that score to be printed, should the House think fit on other grounds to do so. The difficulty he felt, however, was this—that it was the rule of the House that no petition should be printed unless it had immediate reference to some motion which some hon. Member intended to found upon it; and he would, therefore, be very much disposed to determine his vote according to the answer which the hon. Member for Leicester might give to the question, whether or not he meant to confine his motion on Thursday to the particular grievance complained of by the petitioner, or whether he meant to enter into the other general questions which were referred to at the commencement of the petition. Here was a petition, in which the petitioner stated, that he was in prison, suffering from the existing state of the law. If the motion of his hon. Friend contemplated the release of the petitioner from prison, then he certainly thought that the petition ought to be printed; but if the motion of the hon. Member was in- tended to be a general motion on the subject of church-rates, then, he apprehended, the House could not print the petition without infringing the rule on that subject. It might be thought he was, under the circumstances, attaching too much importance to this rule, but equality in their course to all petitioners he considered essential. If, therefore, the hon. Member stated that his motion would have a retrospective effect, with a view to the relief of the petitioner from the grievance under which he now complained to be suffering, then he (Mr. Lubouchere) would have no objection whatever to vote for the printing of the petition.

said, it was the rule of the committee never to print petitions from individuals unless they complained of personal injury; but had the hon. Member for Leicester stated to the committee what His wishes and intentions were, he did not think there would have been any objection to the printing of the petition.

said, his hon. Friend had put the question upon an intelligible ground, when he said, that if the petition related to personal grievance it would be printed as a matter of course. Now, if being in prison, for the non-payment of church-rates was not a grievance, he did not know what could be held to be one. The fact was, that this petition was general, but the grievance was personal. There seemed to be some objection still entertained by the noble Viscount (Viscount Howick), but he thought the grounds of that objection were now very much narrowed.

said, the right hon. President of the Board of Trade had said, that as the rule had been laid down it ought to be adhered to. On that very, ground he maintained that this petition ought to be printed. The rule of the 9th February, 1839, was, that all petitions on which hon. Members wished to found motions should be printed, the hon. Members giving notice of their motions. That was the rule; and it had never been questioned until, in the early part of the Session, the noble Lord opposite had very properly called the attention of the House to the subject, and had suggested that the petitions so printed should be confined to the use of Members themselves, in case they should contain libels or matter that would be disagreeable to individuals. On that pro- position, which he thought very reasonable, the House came to no result; but he would be ready to vote for it, should the noble Lord press it at any future time. What was the stale of the case at present? The hon. Member for Leicester, seeing that the printed papers' committee had not printed this petition on which the hon. Member had given notice of a motion on Thursday, came down and called upon the House to print the petition two days before that motion would come on. The objection to the printing of the petition was, that it would be an infringement of the rule, but he maintained that, in this case, the rule had been strictly adhered to; and therefore, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, the House ought to accede to the printing of this petition. There were, also, other reasons why he thought it would be advisable on their part to print the petition. There already existed out of doors a very strong feeling, that the right of petitioning was narrowed and limited more and more every day—that the House were constantly encroaching upon the right of petitioning. If the printing of such a petition as this was refused, it would go to confirm the public in the belief, that their right of petitioning that House was becoming a mere mockery; in fact, it would be adding insult to the delusion which they already believed to be practised upon them.

did not think the question which had been put to the hon. Member for Leicester by his right hon. Friend was an unreasonable one, and he could not help thinking, that their means of coming to a decision would be very much increased if the hon. Member would answer it. If the construction to be put upon the rule of that House with regard to the printing petitions was to be that which had been put on it by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he could not but think, that the rule would be utterly valueless, and that the sooner it was rescinded the better. If the hon. Member for Leicester would state, that he really did mean to found a motion on the petition—if he would state, that he did not mean to bring on the general question of church-rates, but merely to attempt to redress the grievances of the individual petition—then he would at once vote for printing the petition.

did not think the rule that had been just laid down by the right hon. Baronet was at all conformable to the usual practice, which was, that on presenting a petition the hon. Member, if he wished to have it printed, was required to state, that within fourteen days he should make a motion upon it. When he remembered the manner in which petitions of the people were dealt with by that House, and that in fact they only could be debated upon such notices as that which the hon. Member for Leicester had given, he really did think it would be most unbecoming if, on any score of inconvenience or economy, which he understood to be the objection of the noble Viscount, they refused to print a petition after the strict rules of the House had been complied with, as in the case of this petition.

understood, that the objection to printing petitions from individuals was, that, under the character of petitions, they were often in the habit of presenting certain pamphlets of their own; and that, therefore, unless the individual complained of some grievance to himself, the rule was not to print the petition except under the circumstances that had been specified. He confessed, he thought the present was a case in which the petition ought to be printed, but at the same time it depended entirely upon the answer which the hon. Member for Leicester might give to the question that had been put to him by his right hon. Friend. He did not see what mystery there was to prevent the hon. Member from making this statement. If the hon. Member intended to confine himself to the individual grievance, and not to enter into the general question of Church-rates, he did not see what objection there could be to the printing of the petition.

said, it should be borne in mind, that since the rule was adopted that had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman, a committee had been appointed to consider the question of the whole privileges of that House, particularly with reference to the printing of papers. That committee, of which, if he was not mistaken, the hon. Members for Leicester and Bridport were Members, considering the injustice that might be done by printing libels on private character, and the embarrassments in which the House had been involved in consequence of the general practice, came almost unanimously to a resolution, recommending that all such papers should be referred to the commit- tee on printed petitions, unless incases where the subject would not admit of that delay. He was bound to admit, however, that this recommendation had not yet been adopted by the House, but he thought, that the House would be disposed to attach considerable weight to that recommendation, and to adhere to some established principle. The terms of the general notice on the journals was, that all petitions on which any hon. Member meant to call the attention of the House should be printed with the votes, the hon. Member giving notice of the day on which he meant to bring forward the motion. Now, when the hon. Member presented the petition, did he give notice of the day on which he meant to bring forward a motion founded upon the petition? The hon. Member gave notice of a general motion on the subject of church-rates, which he afterwards postponed till after Easter. He then, long after the presentation of the petition, gave notice of another motion connected with that petition. He then moved, that the petition should be printed in order to meet the motion and did not make his motion in order to meet the petition. He called on the House to print the petition, although it had been presented so long previously. He put altogether out of the question the nature of the petition. It would be most unfair to refuse to print the petition because it related to Church-rates, while it would be equally unfair to give that petition a preference over every other. It was absolutely necessary, that the House should act upon some general rule as regarded all petitions, because if they did not, the result would be most invidious, as every man of course thought his own petition of the utmost importance. The hon. Member in this respect had not adhered to the rule of 1839; and, unless he signified his intention to bring forward a motion, not on the subject of Church-rates generally, but on the particular grievance detailed in the petition, he certainly had no ground for exemption from the operation of the general rule. He thought, also, that if the hon. Member acceded to the request made of him, and the result was, that he meant a specific motion, and, therefore, that the petition was printed, then that it should be printed with the votes for the use of Members according to the suggestion of his noble Friend. But at all events, he thought the hon. Member was bound to state whether his motion would be of a general nature, or apply to the specific grievance complained of by the petitioners.

had already stated, and stated in perfect good faith, that he did intend on Thursday to submit a motion to the House, grounded on this petition; and he now stated, with equal sincerity, that he had no intention to enter on, but a determination to abstain from the discussion of the general question of Church-rates. This led him to remark upon what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite, that he ought, when he presented that petition to have stated to the House, that it was in his contemplation to give an early notice of some measure on the subject. When he presented that petition, he had it in contemplation to give an early notice for some measure connected with the general subject of Church-rates, which would also have included the consideration of the grievance complained of in this petition. Since he had given notice of that motion, however, it had been urged upon him by the parties connected with the general question to delay that motion till a more advanced period of the Session. At the same time that he acceded to this request, he felt that he ought not to delay bringing under the notice of the House the specific grievance of this petitioner, with a view to assisting in obtaining his release from prison. His object, therefore, on Thursday would be to submit a motion to the House to further that purpose, and not for the purpose of engaging them in a full and general discussion on the question of Church-rates. With regard to his motion for the priming of the petition, he avowed, that having a motion on the orders to take that petition into consideration, he did feel it a matter of course that as the committee on printing had not printed the petition, it ought to be printed, in order that hon. Members might have recourse to it in the discussion which would arise upon it on that day. Indeed, he could not help thinking, that had he entered into a discussion on that petition on Thursday next, without having previously moved that it be printed, in order that it might be in the hands of every individual Member, it would have been matter of just complaint against him that the petition was not sufficiently known, and that, therefore, the House were not in a position to take it into consideration. And he confessed, he laboured under no ordinary degree of surprise, that in a case where an individual was suffering the infliction of imprisonment, and a large and populous locality was under the deepest feeling of excitement, the House should be disposed to interpose any technical forms or slight objections, or should do others wise than give the kindest and fullest attention to the grievance complained of, with a view to its redress. He hoped, that he had made his purpose and his sentiments intelligible to the House, and he hoped also, that it would be felt that never, while he held a seat in that House, would he attempt in any unfair manner to bring on any discussion. He repeated, that on Thursday it was not his intention to bring on the general question of Church-rates, but to apply himself exclusively and entirely to the subject of the grievance complained of by the petitioner.

hoped the House would now be nearly unanimous in ordering the petition to be printed. No doubt the hon. Member for Leicester had not strictly followed the order pf the House, as he ought, at the time of presenting the petition, to have stated when he meant to bring the subject before the House. He had now stated, however, that the motion would relate to the personal grievance of the petitioner, and he, therefore, did not see, what farther objection there could be to the printing of the petition.

would not offer any further opposition, but, at the same time, he felt bound to say, that the hon. Member for Leicester would have done better had he made, in the first instance, that communication to the committee which they had the authority of the hon. Member for Salford for assuming would have led to the petition being printed.

Did the hon. Member object to the circulation, of the petition being limited to Members of that House?

did not

concurred in the propriety of the limitation to Members of that House, because, having been invested with the unlimited power of printing, they ought to use it with the utmost caution.