Stanford, John Stanford, Charles Stanford, W. | impressed with the importance of imKnee, and Thomas Gates."

CLITHEROE ELECTION.] Mr. Hogg, chairman of the committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Clitheroe, brought up the report of the said committee.

The committee reported,

proving the navigation of the Severn, still he thought that it was highly inexpedient that the navigation of the Birmingham and Worcester Canal should have any obstacle thrown in its way by the provisions of the bill then under consideration. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) was, he believed, most anxious for the improvement of the Severn navigation; but he wished that improvement to be so effected that others would not be injured by the plan. It was very proper that the navigation of the Severn should be improved, but in effecting that improvement some regard ought to be paid to the interests of another navigation, and care should be taken not to impede it. By reconsidering the bill SEVERN NAVIGATION.] Mr. Paking-in committee means might be found to ton moved the further consideration of the obviate the objections that had been report (with amendments) of the Severn raised. Navigation Bill.

"That Mr. Matthew Wilson, jun., is not duly elected a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Clitheroe. "That Mr. Edward Cardwell is duly elected and ought to have been returned a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Clitheroe."

Mr. Labouchere said, that though this subject came before them in the shape of a private bill, it involved public interests of the greatest possible importance, especially as connected with the great mining districts. He had, therefore, watched the

Mr. Muntz said, that in his opinion, if the committee had looked to the statements made by the surveyors, they would not have agreed to the bill in its present shape. Many of his constituents who were connected with the Birmingham and Wor-progress of the measure with considerable cester Canal would be injured by this measure, if it were passed as it now stood. They would have, under the provisions of this bill, to pay heavier tolls than those who would derive considerable benefit from it. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That this bill be recommitted."

Mr. Pakington said, this was a measure which, as it was intimately connected with the improvement of the river Severn, must be considered as one of great national, as well as of great local importance. By the system which at present prevailed, the navigation connected with the Severn was sometimes obstructed and impeded for three or four months at a time, and it was to prevent that evil in future that this measure was to be introduced. The subject had been thoroughly considered in committee, and he could see no good grounds for acceding to the proposition of the hon. Member. The opposition appeared to be raised by a particular party against a great national improvement, because, from their situation, they could not participate in all the advantages which it was calculated to produce.

Mr. M. Philips said, that in the course he was about to pursue, he was influenced by no motive but that of doing justice to all parties. Now, though he was fully

anxiety, and he was very glad to see it in a situation to receive the sanction of that House. Those who opposed the measure in this stage did not object to the principle, but to the details of the bill. Now, those details, he submitted, could not be satisfactorily discussed in the House-they could alone be satisfactorily discussed in committee. And what was the fact? Why, they had been discussed in committee for seven weeks during the last Session. That committee took great pains in investigating the matters that were now adverted to. In the present Session another committee was appointed, and all the five selected Members (who were perfectly free from any interest in the bill) on that committee were unanimous in recommending the course which had been adopted. Now, he thought that he was taking the safest course in placing his confidence in the decision of those five gentlemen, who could not be supposed to be actuated by any of the feelings which might be alleged as likely to influence them in a case where the interests of their own constituents were concerned. He, therefore, in accordance with their opinion, was against interposing any further delay to the progress of this bill.

Sir W. Rae said, this measure was not

it had now arrived, they consented to its recommittal. The object of the bill was the general benefit of the public-even of those parties themselves who were connected with the Birmingham and Worcester Canal. Considering that the bill had had the advantage of a very long and minute investigation, when those who were opposed to the weir were fully heard, he trusted that the House would not accede to the motion of the hon. Member for Bir

brought forward in order to benefit any individual or any company. The bill was intended to benefit the public. The objections now raised ought to have been made long before this time. The bill had been before a committee, in the last Session, for discussion and decision, during seven weeks, and that committee unanimously concurred in recommending that it should be carried into effect. It was, however, too late in the last Session to proceed. The bill had again been con-mingham. sidered by a committee in the present Mr. O. Gore saw no grounds on which Session, and not one of these objections the House should allow the bill to be rehad been advanced. The measure was committed. discussed fully and fairly, and he could see no sufficient reason for not proceeding with it.

Mr. R. Scott, after a careful consideration of the provisions of the bill, thought that it ought to be recommitted because, in committee, suggestions might be adopted by which proper accommodation would be provided for that traffic which would otherwise be injuriously affected by the measure. He admitted the great importance of the navigation of the river; but, in his opinion, it might be improved without interfering with the interests of those who were likely to be injured by the plan laid down.

Sir C. Douglas was favourable to the principle of the bill, but he did not approve of some of its details.

Lord G. Somerset thought that the motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham did not rest on any reasonable grounds. Unless the hon. Member could clearly show that injustice was likely to be done by the measure he could not consent to his amendment. He conceived that it would be most injurious if the House, on light grounds, did away with the laborious work of a committee.

Sir T. Wilde said the motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham was calculated to do away with the bill altogether. It was not suggested that those parties whose interests were espoused by the hon. Member had not had an opportunity to be heard before the committee. If a period of seven weeks were not sufficient to enable them satisfactorily to make out their case, then, he feared, that any further time that might be allowed for the investigation would not produce a more satisfactory result. As the case had been fully heard, t would, in fact, be throwing out this bill, f, after being placed in the stage at which

Viscount Ingestre said, that looking to the great expense to which all parties would be put by a recommittal of the bill, he should vote against it.

Mr. Muntz would not trouble the House with a division.

to.

Amendment withdrawn. Report agreed

Bill to be read a third time.

CUSTOMS' DUTIES-THE TARIFF.] Mr. Forster wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government relative to the proposed continuance of the additional duty of 5 per cent, referred to in the third resolution of the schedule, as follows:

"That the duties imposed in the foregoing schedules on articles other than spirits and timber, shall be respectively subject to the charge of 5 per cent, imposed by an act passed in the third year of her present Majesty, cap. 17."

The strongest objections existed against this mode of assessing Custom-house duties, as leading to misunderstanding between buyer and seller, besides being troublesome and inconvenient. The question which Mr. Forster wished to ask was, whether the public were to consider it a permanent or only temporary arrangement.

Sir R. Peel said, the House would recollect that in 1840, the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed and carried a measure for raising 5 per cent additional on the duties of the Customs and Excise: that 5 per cent still remained in force; and it would apply to all duties of the Customs and Excise which were not included in the present reduction of duties. It was his intention, therefore, as he did not propose to repeal that 5 per

cent act in the case of all other duties, to | he thought it would be ready to be laid on retain the 5 per cent for the duties to be the Table. The law of settlement was alreduced, and to levy an additional 5 per together distinct from the measure he incent on the reduced duties, as well as on tended to introduce after Easter. all others. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the great objection to retaining the 5 per cent, from the extreme difficulty of computing its amount; but it should be recollected, that it was not a duty of 5 per cent ad valorem, but of 5 per cent on the amount of duty levied. There could, therefore, be no difficulty in the

tion-a due proportion of the funds an- | stopped, it was the intention of the Gonually granted by that House for the vernment to introduce any declaratory bill promotion of national education in Ire- ou the subject? land.

Lord Eliot replied, that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to include in the estimates for the ensuing year a grant for national education in Ireland, without proposing any alteration in the principles which had regulated its distribution.

STADE DUTIES.] Mr. Hutt was anxious to put a question to the right hon. Baronet, which he had on a former occasion proposed, and to which no answer had been returned, on the ground that negotiations were pending on the subject. He wished to know whether her Majesty's Government were prepared to admit the claim of the King of Hanover to levy a larger amount of duty on ships passing up the Elbe than he was entitled to do by treaty?

Sir R. Peel hoped, as negotiations were still pending, the hon. Member would not press him to give any answer to that question.

Sir R. Peel believed he could undertake to answer the question put by the noble Lord. Since the bill alluded to had left that House, a question had arisen, not upon a criminal case, but involving a civil right, which enabled the parties concerned to appeal in the first instance to the decision of the judges in Ireland, and afterwards to carry that decision, whatever it might be, in the last resort to the House of Lords. This, he rather thought, had caused some suspension of proceedings with respect to the bill; whether that objection to proceed with it was final or not, he could not undertake to say. He believed the general feeling in the other House was, that it would be desirable to have the decision of the House of Lords upon the question of the validity of the Presbyterian marriages in Ireland before proceeding with the bill. If he were wrong, he should take the opportunity of correcting the misapprehension to-morrow.

DUTIES ON CATTLE.] Mr. Childers Mr. Hutt reminded the right hon. Ba-inquired what amount of revenue was exronet, that negotiations had been pending for a long time.

Sir R. Peel assured the hon. Gentleman, that as soon as he could make any communication on the subject consistently with the public interests, he would do so.

REVENUE COMMISSION.] Mr. Hawes inquired whether the report of the revenue commission (as we understood) would be laid on the Table.

pected to be derived from the importation of foreign live cattle. He hoped, as this question was so very important to the graziers both of England and Scotland, the right hon. Baronet would be enabled at once to give a more satisfactory answer to it than he had given the other night, after three days' consideration, to that put by the noble Lord, the Member for Lincolnshire.

Sir R. Peel said, the question put to him the other night by the noble Lord (Lord Worsley) was whether, knowing what the rests were in his sliding-scale, he was enabled to say what amount of duty would be received from the importation of foreign corn. He certainly did say that was a very puzzling question, but when he was now asked, when remitting prohi

Sir R. Peel said, the report should certainly be laid upon the Table in extenso. It would be found to contain a variety of information relative both to commercial regulations and the salaries of public officers; and, as it would probably invite some discussion, it might be desirable that he should state, when it was laid on the Table, the views which her Majesty's Go-bitions for the first time on the importavernment entertained on the whole subject.

tion of foreign cattle, to state what amount of duty would be received, the question undoubtedly was still more difficult. He MARRIAGES (IRELAND.] Lord J. could only say, that the apprehensions Russell wished to put a question to the entertained on the subject were very noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, re-greatly exaggerated. He really could not lative to the Marriages (Ireland) Bill. That bill had been sent to the other House, and he had not heard of it since. He wished to know whether, if it were

conceive it possible that there would be such an import of either lean or fat cattle as could materially affect, if it would affect at all, the interests of the graziers. With

reference to all such questions he must, | land would have an opportunity by comonce for all, declare that he made no munication with their representatives, of pretensions whatever to the powers of that expressing their opinions by petition to extraordinary calculator, who, on being that House. given the height of the mast and the name of the captain, undertook to determine the latitude of the ship.