Star. — London, England, 1830-04-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-FRIDAY. Lord IVIIARNCLIFFE presented several petitions from clothing ilistricts in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying the removal of the waives from York to Wakefield, in the cases which occur in the 11'est Riding The Noble Lord likewise presented several petitions from clothing dir•triets in Yorkshire, in favour of throwing open the trade to India and China.—Referred to the Select Committee. Sir A. ORANT, Lord F. OSBORNE, and other members of the House of Commons, brought up the Tanjore Commissioners' bill, with some private bills.—Read a first time. Mt. Crafer, from the Treasury, presented at the bar an account 'of corn imported from Ireland since July 15, 1828. A person horn the Trinity House presented at the bar the account c.1•11e Pilots' Fund for the year 1829. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from certain in. 'habitants of the Tower, against the punishment of death for forgery. 'rte . right rev. prelate said that he perfectly coincided in the prayer of the petition, and his earnest hope was, that the time was trot far distic:r when the punishment of death would be expunged from the .!rainte-book—(hear)—except in cases of great atrocity. The petition having been read at length, was laid on the table. A petition to the same effect, from the inhabitants of Nuneaton, ,Northamptonshire, was also presented by the Bishop of LONDON. Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from a place in Derby eh re, ir. the absence of the noble duke (the Duke of Devonshire) the Lira Lieutenant of that county, praying that the trade to the Rust Indies and China may be thrown open. The Earl of KOSLBERY said, having seen, from the votes in the other House of Parliament, that a Bill had been introduced there for a public measure (the alteration of the Court of Session in Scotland.) which would in all probability come before their lord ships, in order to obtain information connected with the subject, he begged to move for returns to which no objection was offered. The noble earl then moved for an account of the Fee Fund of the Court of Session, as established by the 50th Geo. 111. cap. 112, showing the receipts of the fund, and the application thereof, from the 21st 1821.—Agreed to. The Earl of CHICHESTER presented a petition from Lewes, Sussex, against the punishment of death for forgery. The Duke of NORFOLK—My lords, I hold in my hands a pe tition which I am requested to present from persons professing the Jewish persuasion in the West London district, praying the removal of civil disabilities on account of religious opinions, under which they at present labour. As an English Catholic, but lately admit. ted to the benefit of a seat in this house, I should be most ungrateful if I did not support the prayer of this petition, which I beg to as sure your lordships Ido most cordially. (Cheers.) The noble duke presented a similar petition from persons profess. ing the Jewish religion, residing at Chatham and Rochester. Lord KING presented a petition to a like effect from the Jews of the southern district of London. Lord AUCKLAND presented several petitions from clothing dbl. tricts in Lancashire, in favour of throwing open the trade to India and China. The noble lord also presented petitions against the practice of Suttee, from certain congregations of dissenters in Lan cashire.—Referred to the Committee. The Earl of DARNLEY said he had a petition to present from au individual, of whom their lordships had no doubt heard—an honest, straight-forward man, JohtiLawiess. The petition was in favour of the introduction of the poor laws in Ireland. Lord GOWEtt presented a number of petitions from dissenting congregations in Staffordshire, against burning widows in India, some of which embodied another prayer—viz. the abolition of sla very. Among the places enumerated from whence the petitions came were 13ursleno. Lane End, and Newcastle-under-Lyne. Referred to the Committee. The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from persons professing the Jewish religion at Portsmouth, praying the removal of tlisabilities. GREECE. Lord HOLLAND—My lords, ;eeing the noble secretary of state for foreign affairs in his place, I rise for the purpose of putting a question to him. At the commencement of the present session of parliament we were informed, in the speech from the throne, that measures were nearly completed for the final settlement of Greece. I wish to ask the earl whether the documents connected with that question are in that state of forwardness that it is likely they will soon be laid on the table ? If so, I wish to know whether it is his in tention to lay, them before your lordships before the recess ; or, if not, what time afterwards we may expect them ? The Earl of ABERDEEN—In answer to the question put tome by the noble baton, I beg to say, my lords, I am afraid it is impos. sfble before the holydays to lay the papers on your lordships' table ; but I confidently hope, immediately after the recess, they will be laid before the house. Lord HOLLAND—CouId the noble earl inform the house whether the delay merely arises from matters which have not been completed, or whether from any new negotiations now car rying on. The Earl of ABERDEEN—There are points in negotiation not yet settled; but I have the satisfaction of assuring the noble baron that the most perfect concert exists between the three powers on the subject. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from the inhabitants of 'Warrington against the punishment of death for offences against property. The noble marquis also presented a pe tition from the Town Council of Arbroath against the East India monopoly. FINE AND RECOVERY. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to take that opportunity of inquiring whether the noble and learned lord on the woolsack intended to bring forward a measure relating to the better regulation of the practice of fines and recovery. The evils of the present system had been clearly pointed out by the commissioners in their inquiries on real property, and they had suggested an improve eient in the law on the subject which he had just referred. He ventured to express a hope that the noble and learned lord would. in the course of the present session, introduce a bill on the subject. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he took leave, in answer to the question put to him by the noble marquis, to state that it would be better to wait and see what the commissioners recommended, be fore any particular measure was introduced. The different parts of their report, to which the noble marquis had alluded, appeared to Win (the Lord Chancellor) so connected together, that, until the ge neral view of what they did recommend were seen, it would be more advisable not to bring forward any legislative measure on that par. titular subject. When their recommendations were fully seen, he begged to say that no delay on his part should occur to retar d the object of them. FRENCH ARMAMENT TO ALGIERS. The Marquisof CLANRICARDE—My lords, I rise for the pur pose of putting a question to the noble earl opposite, the secretary for foreign affairs, relating to a matter of no small importance :—I refer to the expedition now preparing in the South part of France, with a view of attacking Algiers. I wish to know, from the noble earl, whether his majesty's ministers have received from the French government an explanation of the views and objects of sending forth that armament ? The Earl of ABERDEEN—In answer, my lade, to the question put to me by the noble lord, I beg to reply that his majesty's go vernment have been in communication with his most christian ma. jesty's ministers upon the subject referred to, and have hitherto every reason to be satisfied with the answer of the French govern ment, and that the explanation is as satisfactory as his Majesty's mi. nisters have a right to expect. rain. RETYOID. The Marquis of SALISBURY, in rising to move the third read ing of the bill for indemnifying the witnesses from any penalties which they might be liable to in giving evidence at their loniships' bar on the East Rettord disfranchisement bill, said that he did not certainly, when he introduced the bill, meditate any opposition to it, especially on the part of the noble baron (Lord Holland.) The bill wat similar to others which had passed their lordships house ; it was one which the general practice, in like cases, not only au- Illorized, but rendered necessary. Their lordships had never taken away any elective franchise without the parties who were considered Mi worthy holding the privilege being heard in their own defence. • rile Coble marquis then referred to precedents—in the year 1771, 'elle Test Of New Shoreham, 1789.* the Aylesbury and Penryn cases, in ail of which similar bills of. Indemnity were passed. He • had examined the standing ceders of the house, and found no less • which the principle for which he con __ . introduced and the impu impu- course ' offer felt .4r could be Med the or of have have on the • Ann connected anions had objeetione wen anew seprobly: dr. link too* strong ''Ane were not suirqvis bye, these period—in ..ipport lord, after some further observations on this point, proceeded to describe, at' some length, the difference which exists between public and private bills, particularizing the nature of evidence required in bills of the former description, before the legislature gave its sanction. The great principle on which this bill went, was on the assumption that the East Retford Bill was a bill of pains and penalties. Nothing could be mote erroneous than such a supposition. It took from the electors of Fast Itetford no right ; it scattered the franchise they already possessed in a greater number of electors, which might per. hapsdiminish the value of the franchise. If a bill of pains and penal ties was before the house, their lordships would, in humane con sideration to the parties to be affected by it, observe all those wise forms which distinguished that house in its judicial capacity. The precedents mentioned by the noble marquis in support of his case were different from those of the bill before the house. Similar bills were introduced when witnesses refused to answer questions airni. noting themselves • but in those cases it was assumed that evidence was required. This was his objection to the present bill. It as sumed that there was already an insufficiency of evidence. The other house had the bill, yet they were to assume that that house had it without having sufficient evidence before them. Their lordships were also aware that the bill was founded upon the report of an election committee established by act of parliament. It was theduty of that committee to try the election, and report on it to the house, and that ought to be sufficient for their lordships to act upon in a ease like the present. lie repeated that this was not a bill of pains and penalties, taking from the electors any vested rights. The idea that such a bill as the East Retford Bill was a bill of pains and penalties arose from the peculiar nature of the first bill of the kind brought into Parliament —(Hear hear.) —That was not a bill to disfranchise the Borsugh Of New Shoreham, but to incapacitate certain persons. The Bill was chiefly a g a inst an association of persons in the borough, calling , itself ' the Christian Society," which, by fraud, hypocrisy, and corruption, had endeavoured to possess themselves of the borough. That bill, therefore, had mixed objects. The other part of the bill went to an extension of the franchise. It was a bill, to use the em. phatic language of Lord Chatham, one great object of which was to transfer New Shoreham from the banks of the Ganges to the county of Sussex. In the bills introduced in the Cricklade or Aylesbury cues, there was nothing which could warrant their being considered as bilk of pains and penalties but from the notion conceived of the double object of the New Shoreham bill, the same course was fol lowed as to evidence to be produced. In the Aylesbury case two pe titions were presented, one for and another against the bill, but the course taken by the house in that case was, that the counsel and wit nesses in favour of the bill were ordered to withdraw, and the coun. sel against the bill were heard in the first instance. Now, had the bill been considered in the light of a bill of pains and penalties, the patties promoting it would have, in the first instance, been called upon to prove the allegation. In such cases, witnesses were examined to prove the guilt, as necessary to the foundation of the punishment. He could show that not merely the transfer of the franchise from a borough might be done without the neces sity of examining evidence, but their lordships had the prece dent of the transfer of the highest authority of the state- that of the crown itself; transferred not merely from an individual, but taken away from a family, with whom, according to some of the received notions of legitimacy, it existed as a right; and yet no evidence was considered necessary at their bar. (Hear, hear, hear.) The Duke of Saxony, one of the parties excluded, was not called upon to show that he was not a Papist, or that he was not arbitrary in his disposition, as was alleged, as the ground for the transfer. With this precedent before them, would any of their. lordships insist on the vested rights of voters for a borough ? Look at the case of the union with Scotland, in consequence of which many places ware disfranchised which had sent members to the Scotch Parliament ; they were not heard at the bar, nor was any evi dence offered that they had done any act which deserved the for. feiture of their elective franchise. The same rule prevailed with Ireland. Many boroughs were deprived of the right of voting ki er e, many Peers were deprived of the right of seats in Parliament. some compensation was made to them, and justly.--(" Hear, " the Marquis of Salisbury.) He understood the cheer of the noble marquis, but how far did this admission, as to compensation, maim for the noble marquis's argument ? Was the preamble of that bill proved at their bar ? And why should the preamble of a bill for extendinethe franchise of East Retford require evidence mole than those of the bills for totally disfranchising as many bow& k Scotland and Ireland ? The measure of last year, with respect to a large body of freeholders in Ireland, was in point,—of men, whose right of voting was not held in trust, but existed by common law. Those men were disfranchised without any evidence being heard at the bar : nay, their petition to be heard was refused. He owned that his consent to that measure was extorted from him only by his conviction of the great benefit of the measure which accompanied it. That measure of disfranchisement was passed without examining any evidence. If their lordships sanctioned the bill now before them, it would establish an extremely injurious precedent, and would militate against all reforms, however useful. He would repeat to their lordships the trite maxim of Lord Bacon, that time was a great innovator. All who admitted that must also admit that our constitution contained within it the power of re moving any bar or impediment to improvement. But nothing could lead to more dangerous consequences in the minds of the pub. lie than the opinion, that there was something in the constitution and practice of that house which was opposed to improvement. As no case of necessity existed for this bill, he must therefore oppose it, and protest against being thus called upon to pronounce on the evidence which might be adduced in support of the bill until be knew what was its nature. The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to offer to their lordships a few words to explain the reasons why he thought this bill ought to be read a third time. He must begin by remarking upon the quotation which the noble lord (Hollmd) had made from Lord Bacon. He agreed with him in the correctness of the trite maxim of Bacon, that , time is the greatest innovator ;" but whenever that quotation was used, he should like to hear the words which imme diately followed it given—" It were good, therefore, that men in their innovation should follow the example of time itself, which, indeed, innovateth greatly, but quietly, and by degrees scarce to be perceived - -(hear.) The other point was, whether bills of this kind should be considered as bills of pains and penalties. It was true that the bill in the case of Cricklade was so considered by Lord Mansfield. He would take the point as put, and admit that the right of voting was held as a public trust; but where there was a charge for the abuse of that mist, it was, he must contend, necessary to take evi. dence to prove the alleged delinquency. The noble baron said that that they might be satisfied with the evidence taken before the committee of the House of Commons; but the House of Commons itself was not satisfied with that report. In the case of Penryn the same course was adopted. The noble and learned lord, after quoting the cases of Shoreham, Aylesbury, Barnstaple, and Orampound, to show that the same course, as to evidence being given at the bar, was adopted which was proposed in the present, contended that the necessity for examining evidence being once ad mitted, they ought, according to all principles of law, to pass such a bill as the present, to indemnify the witnesses against the conse quence of their evidence ; otherwise that evidence might be incom plete. It was necessary to protect a witness who gave evidence at the bar, in a way which would effectually guard against all prose cution ; for, according to the principle he had laid down, such a bill as this was necessary for the purpose of getting the fullest evidence. On the occasion of Orampound a bill for indemnifying the wit• nesse' was found necessary, and carried through all its stages in one night. The same mode of proceeding was resorted to in the case of Penryn. There was no departure recorded from this course on their , journals. For the lost 30 years it had been usual to indemnify such witnesses. On these gruunda, therefore, he should move• that the bill be read a third time. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that, if witnesses were still tequi. site, they must, of course, have a bill like that now produced. Upon that point he apprehended there sou no difference of opinion ; but the question was, whether their lordships ought to examine wit. nines at all. The preamble of the bill stated that it was necessary to examine witnesses at the bar of that house ; and his objection was that this expression seemed to Impose the same rule upon their lordships upon all similar occasions. This precedent their lord ships would be obliged to follow, perhaps, in eases where there might be no necessity for examining witnesses. He differed al together from the noble and learned lord on the woolsack on one point. The powers of such committee did not stop where the noble and learned lord supposed they stopped ; for the committee might report upon general malpractices. The committee on the East Retford e lect ion stated in their report that they considered it their duty WWI the attention of the house to the general practice of bribery and corruption which had prevailed in elections for that borough. The noble and learned lord, therefore, sou wrong in sup• posing that the powers dam* a Committee were limited to the par ticular election. He came back to his objection,that the preamble pre duded that house from proceeding in similar cases without evidence. If this were to Abolish a franchise, evidence might be necessary; but it did not take away a franchise. It proposed that others should partake of the right ,of voting for members for East Retford; but did not deprive any one of that right. What was the tight in qques► don ? merely the right of being_ represented by person for whom the voters voted penonally. T h e personal representative, the% would be mill the stubs. He was no reformer. Be thought that any gesat addition to the democratic,' power of the Henn of Csm. mono would prevent the Government from going on, no boo as it remained a Monarchy. He saw Bills of this nature introducid with pain; but if they were to have such Bills, let them deal pro. I . perly with them. There was a reform pretty,mwedly spiked of, ' and one which, but for his objection to nay 4o the demo. aatical power of the House of Commons, lie sheidd be inclined to consent to—namely, reform in the repesentation of the coun ties of Scotland. Should the persons who proposed such a re. Liam be met by saying—" You - most produce evidence in sup port of your proposal," this would be groposterous. Equally so would it have been if the measure for dilkanchising the Irish 40s. freeholders had been met in the same manner. He thought that, in the present case, there was anthers facie case kr Cheir Lordships to proceed upon ; and he could not, shadow, gine his consent to the preamble of this bill, which said this it was necessary for their lord. ships to call evidence, though he might agree to it if the words were altered to " it may be necessary." Lord WY NFORD conceived their lordships would act incon sistently if they neglected to call evidence in a case like the present. It had been said by one noble lord, " Walt and see if any of the witnesses refuse to answer the questions put to them, before you pass a bill like this." He differed, however, from that noble lord, and in this respect there was a shade of di fference too between him and his noble and learned friend on the woolsack. He would say that their lordships should not wait to see if the witnesses would take this objection ; for it was their duty to protect witnesses, unasked, and to take care that neither the counsel nor any of their own body should press a man to give answers which would criminate himself—(Hear, hear.) Again, it had been asked, "How do you know that any witnesses will be in this situation ?" Their lordships had only to look at that evidence in order to be as sured that many witnesses would be in that situation. The ques tion then was, would their lordships refuse to extend to these wit nesses that protection which every court of justice in the country gave to every witness who came before them ? The noble baron op. polite, in his very ingenious speech, had described the elective franchise as k trust. The more general and the more correct de. acriptiou would be found to be "a trust, with an interest." That it ought not to be sold was certain ; but where property gave the right of voting, that property was saleable, and a man was in all', cases allowed to hold out this right as a circumstance which en- 1 hanced the value of the property. If the right were not derived from property, still the description of "a trust, with an in terest," was correct; for would any one say that "people had not an interest in sending to parliament men who represented their opinions I" Hence it was not only an interest, but a most valuable interest, the possession of which the people of this country had often been envied. If so, ought their to ships to take it away without evidence? Certainly not. But then it had been said by a noble baron (Whameliffe) opposite, that they did not deprive the voters of their franchise; but merely admitted others to share it. Now he imagined that noble baron would consider Le was really deprived of a portion of his property, if a number of persons were admitted as joint-tenants with him on it. Was not this case very nearly the same ? As they added to the number of persons who were to share an interest, in the same proportion they diminished the interest. He must be allowed to say that he entirely concurred with Lord Mans field and Lord Thurlow, in the opinion that such bills were bills of pains and penalties. Of this nature was, in strictness, any measure which took from a man any thing that he possessed. But if such bills were not bills of pains and penalties, still they took away a right which ought never to be done except upon sufficient evidence, espe cially in s country where no man had ever been deprived by puha. ment of a single acre of land without receiving compensation. With regard to what had fallen from a noble lord respecting the report of the select committee of the House of Commons, that report, although it stated the existence of corruption, did not state the extent of the corruption—which was not merely important but necessary. The noble baron (Holland) said that these bills were public acts, and related to public interests. The instances given by the noble baron, such as the transfer of the crown from the Stuart family, were pro. ceedings founded upon public and notorious facts. Was such the case with respect to the matter now before them ? Far from it—the alleged offence had taken place in a scorner, and required to be proved by evidence. This was a general principle, upon which their lordships had always acted, and from which he trusted their lordships never would depart. He dissented altogether from the noble baron in the opinion that measures like these would retard the reform for which that noble baron was an advocate. For he could not think, that to add vigour and purity to a decayed and corrupt borough would be a hindrance to reform. Lord HOLLAND said he had given no opinion as to how far measures, like that before the house, would postpone or accelerate the important question of reform in Parliament. But he had said that bills like this for calling or indemnifying witnesses were cal culated to retard the hope of moderate reform, as in the case of East Retford. For the remainder of the quotation from Lord Bacon he was anxious to express his gratitude to the noble lord on the woolsack, because the part suppled was even more favourable than that quoted, or the argument which ho had attempted to enforce. The Earl of CARNARVON hoped that their Lordships would not adopt a course which must be most unsatisfactory in its nature and result, in preference to the old established usage of regulating their decisions upon questions of this nature, by evidence taken at their own bar. It had been argued, in the course of this discussion, that because no petition had been resented, and no Counsel were employed, there could be no party interested in these proceedings. He must beg leave to dissent altogether from that assumption. lie maintained that there was a party, and an important party. The Constitution was that party, and, before their Lordship. consented to any Inroad upon its rights, they ought to put themselves in pos session of all the circumstances of the case in which those rights were involved. It was their duty to satisfy themselves that the grounds upon which they were called upon to act were such as to warrant a deviation from the ordinary practice. Some Noble Lords would have the House proceed upon the evidence taken by the Committee of the House of Commons. lie mast observe that that evidence was, from its nature, the wont which their Lordships, under the circumstances, could have, because it was not taken upon oath. Their Lordships, therefore, ought not to be satisfied with that de scription of proof, but ought to receive evidence at their own bar, and govern the steps which they should deem it proper to take by the facts which should be disclosed on oath before them. Ind ee d , in justice tot only to the parties concerned, hut to themselves, their Lordships were bound to call for such evidence. Lord WHARNCLIFFE and the Marquis of SALISBURY each said a few words in explanation. The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question, and the amendment brina s :zatived without a division, the bill was read a third time and Lord Joint itusszu. and other Members brought up from the Commons a bill for the better regulation of the affairs of the united parishes of St. Oiles.in.the.Field and St. George, Bloomsbury, which was read a first time. Lord WYNFORD gave notice that on ➢londay he should move that the 26th and 27th standing orders of the house be dispensed• with in reference to this BilL Their Lordships adjounird at a QUARTEII to EIGET. HOUSE OF COMMONS-FRIDAy. Mr. Crafer, from the Treasury, presented certain men pre viously ordered. Mr. Barrow, from the Admiralty, presented certain annual re. turns relating to that department of administration. Mr. Berthall, from the Trinity House, presented certain returns relative to the above establishment previously ordered.—Laid on the table. tees XRW HAYMARKET. Lord LOWTHER brought up the report of the Committee o the above MU. . --- Mr.EYI 4 I6 repeated the observations he had made at a previous stage of the bill, in opposition to its passing into a law, condemning it as highly injurious to many individuals, his constituents, engaged in agricultural pursuits. Lord LOWTHER considered that the house must be fully aware that the present market fee hay, to supply the principal and major part of the metropolis, could not be considered in any other light than a public nuisance. To the inhabitants of its immediate vici nity it had long been considered as such, and it was not until reiterated and general complaints had been addressed to government that the present alteration had been resolved en, although fora long time previous its necessity was apparent. There had been no nuns assay inconvenience created in the present measure; the line of policy adopted in this instance was strictly amforstabic to all pre vious instances of alterations In large towns, wheal there were gene rally some few to complain against an alteration which mast be attended with benefit to the public at large. The bill was Ordered to be committed in a committee of the shah house, and to be taken into consideration on .a future day. • maw IlitlfoEll , olD MAIZET. The above bill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn. mitted. ST. GILES AND ST. GEORGE'S (RLOODISDURY) VESTRY RILL Mr. HOBHOUSb presented two petitions spin the above bill. The one wasadopted at ennead meetinsof the parishioners held that morning, and was signed. nOtwiihstanding the shortness of the notice, by 1,000 bons.flAe Inhabitants, whose names and address were sub scribed to the petition, and would bear the strictest investigation. They considered that by the proposed bill they were being deprived of their imeoemorlal privileges, in the right of toting on the elec. I tien of paroshlalelleers, by the amount being restricted to the in. habitants oho =datums than WI rental. The petitioners complained I —and justly it his oploicat-Lot the sheet time allowed them to op pose the present WU riling into a law t for it wits only at half. past two o'clock that nine sterning. ghat he (Mr. Hobbouse). as Chairman of the Coninktoli had Pleteettpii the report, after a sitting of two years, upon thiA,trety/wastion-rqbe laws affecting the select Male*. (ilsar.) H, taw .0 1 i acme 14 1 4 1 *R-ft& to 60 .10 1 top report fo in : a laberhette tillforto :Or ) tf , •W ei eenttentoocf.. sisa that wed' t otiOat briEnt e r At/ anisit i e before any bill A os ta be pried w might at defiance the recommendations contained in such upon. The present bill de. stroyed at one blow the elective principle of those who had to pay rates of choosing and appointing their own officers in all affairs of the pariah. The second petition was from Mr. Wakley, one of the churchwardens, who complained in the same terms as regarded the parishioners generally, and, in addition, that the election to the office of churchwarden would be completely abolished, or confined to a few Individuals. At the meting held that day he (Mr. Hob. house) was authorised to contradict the assertion made by the hon. member for the City of London (Mr. Ward), that the bill W 3.4 considered in a favourable light by a majority of the parishioners ; so far from that being the truth, there were only four individual. (we understood the honourable member to say), unconnected with the pariah business, who expressed their full concurrence in the hill. Mr. WARD denied that he bad made any misrepresentation, and defied the hon. member for Vi'estminster (Ms. Hobhouse) to point out any inaccuracy in what had fallen from him on a previous occa- I 'ion. He spoke upon what had transpired in evidence, and not from hearsay. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN supported the petitions, and thought there was nothing so unreasonable as that of attempting to deprive numerous individuals of the legal right to elect those parish officers who possessed the power of extorting money from their pockets. He knew from the parish in which he had resided, the many abuses practised in parochial business; and as regarded the statement urged in respect to the present bill, that the parties likely to be appointed to office were the 'most rich and influential, he would say that this was any thing but a recommendation in their favour. It was the same in this case as regarded certain joint-stock companies ; the rich, or what is termed the most re spectable individuals, neglected to attend to their duties. The con sequence was, they devolved on a few of the more obscure persons, who acted in the name of the whole, and hence brought on those disgraceful consequences which it was most anxiously now sought to obviate. (hear.) He knew of instances where money had been fraudulently appropriated, and the principal and responsible parties were compelled to refund, entirely through the activity of that de scription of parishioners who, according to the terms of the present bill, were too obscure to entitle them to a vote in parish affairs. He considered this bill an attempt to destroy the elective right of the parishioner, which, however, be feared, existed more in theory than in practice. The two petitions were then ordered to be brought up, and or dered to lie on the table. After some petitions had been disposed of, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading of the St. Giles and St. George's (Bloomsbury) vestry bill. Mr. HUME opposed this measure as extremely pAtipitate and unusual, where a temporary delay might be attended with great ad vantage and little inconvenience. The ,petition so nume. rously signed, which had just been presented, and which had been adopted in so short a space of time, he thought, ought to have some weight. After recapitulating the turns of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Bill, he (Mr. H.) felt of opinion that if the amount of sum at which rate-payers were allowed to vote was reduced from 301. to 201. it would be attended with great advantage, and tend to re store peace and tranquillity in the parish, which was next to impos sible if the present bill passed. He considered a man paying 201. a year as much entitled to vote, where his interests were concerned, as one who paid 1001.—and the former felt more severely any coal-practices of his parish officers, and, therefore, was more inte rested in their due election. He ( Mr. Hume) was greatly surprised at the part taken by the noble lord (Lord John Russell), who was so active a partisan on all occasions for reform and the freedom of election. In the parish in question, his lordship's family interests were so much at stake in the preservation of tranquillity and har mony in that district, that he (Mr. Hume) was at a loss to account for the active part which had been taken in opposition to the views of the majority of the inhabitants. He (Mr. Hume) would conclude by moving that the bill be re-committed. The SPEAKER observed that there were three courses of pro ceeding in opposing the Bill, according to the usages of the house. The first was to negative the Bill on ha third reading ; or, secondly, to move that it be read that day six months ; and, thirdly, by nega tiving the several clauses of the Bill, but that could not be done un til the Bill was read a third time. Mr. HUME hoped further time would be granted for the consi deration of the Bill, and, with that view, should move that it be read a third time on the 27th inst. The question being put from the Chair, Lord J. RUSSELL rose and observed, that, with respect to what had been said regarding his family, he was desirous of stating that the only interest they were actuated by was the preservation of peace and tranquillity in the parish, where certainly they had a large pro. this parish lie had wished to have avoided any interference in hep parish difference', but he had been strongly urged to it from the two existing parties who had caused the whole affairs of the parish to be involved in confusion, and it was only to remove those differences, that he had Inteifered. (Hear.) He did not consider himself at first bound to advocate the present bill, and was inclined to recommend a reduction in the amount to which the votes were limited ; but, from the evidence which had been adduced before the committee, he had good reasons for altering that opinion. He thought, if blame attached to any one, it was to those who had refused or neglected to make their representations known to the committee. lie felt bound to declare lie coincided in the opinion of that committee formed, as it was, a ft er the most mature and delibe. rate consideration. If he had thought the bill at all injurious to the body of inhabitant., he would have been the first to have oppo sed it ; but he felt convinced it was the only medium which could be adopted to restore perfect harmony to the general body of pa rishioners. He should therefore urge the third reading of the bill. Sir F. BURDETT opposed the further progress of the bill at the present map, as an encroachment on existing laws of vestry, and more particularly of Mr. Sturges Bourne 's bilk He con demned the present bill as excluding too many persons aho had an undoubted legal right to vote in parish affairs. lie hoped the sug- gestion of the hon. member (Mr. Hume) for a temporary delay in the progress of the bill, would meet with the approval of the house. Sir T . FREMANTLE supported the bill, and objected to any farther delay. He thought it of importance that the house should decide one way or the other, as the parish was in a state of itritatier and legal contention. Mr. BARING was in favour of postponement, to give the house time for acquiring farther information on the subject. It was, he conceived, of great importance that there should be some uniform rule for deciding the qualification of voters, and thought that every person assessed to the amount e,f 20t should have that right. Colonel DAVIES was apprehensive that uniformity was imprac ticable. There were three different bills in the house at present, and the qualification was different in every one. The bill might be ed by omitting some of the objectionble clauses. BYNG expressed himself strongly in favour of postpone , ment, and declared his intention to vote against the bill altogether, if time were not given. Lord NUGENT objected to the bill, as a disfranchisement of the majority of the parishioners. Mr. TENNYSON opposed it, on the same ground. Mr. BttA MSTON did not think the principle of disfranchise ment was at all concerned. as even the hon. member for Aberdeen was willing that the right should be limited to persons assessed above 201. The house then proceeded to a division, when there appeared For the Amendment.. Against it Majority against the postponement —34 . The Bill was then read a third time. Mr. HUME next proposed an amendment, that the qualification be reduced from 301. to 2.1/. assessment ; and further, that at what ever sum a parishioner was rated, he should nut be entitled to more than one vote in the parish vestry. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he must oppose this amendment. Iwhich, he must say, was in some degree contrary to good faith.— ' The friends of the Bill had consented to reduce the qualificatier from 301. to Mi. upon an understanding that no further opposition would be given to this Bill. Mr. HUME disclaimed all knowledge of any such mrangement or comproentee. Ain some more conversation, the house disk led, when there ap peared For reducing and limiting the qualification...... 27 Against it. Majority against the amendment The house again divided upon OW third reading of the bill, who there were For the third reading 4B Against it. 26 Majority 'flee bill was then bead • third time and passed. Loan Exttorsonottfaes vet-once at LL. Sir G. CLERK brought up the report on Lord Ellenborough's Hemet Bilk—Laid upon the table. Sir G. CLERK moved the Ada mikes fee Monday next. Mr. A. BLLIS prosiotellogalisst timAeato adds tallith it was PTO' posed to put forward thierillk 8.,ewl nee Morastas to oppose the bilk but it ought not ft hbeinsliAllswersi within* teuMh he*f• Be would pos±posse des eMilletesibiellitafter_dite.balliaga. thnt the bill ought to be paired witlesutidehty. Maws., if any Itieicculw mained to themeless on Alksedap, he Irma bather pneepenelt- It should not be feegotemanina Illnusday wan fined fur the house ad immolate over the bailee. Mr. SPICING RIO& mid thee the he me, after °editing the evi dense so be printed, wedisoe indlsesettly fa proceeding with so menohlieses. At the matt.tintsit world been injustice to the per din to debt the passing of desthill. He looped wrens fietani cloy rsdnid naese4. • :Sir GIORQE.GLERJE would yield to the • of the beseueable combs, and lia,Tuestilly for..the.X • reading of 4 ° bill • The bill was then ordered to be read a third time on Tuesday neat. IHrorce 0. .. . . a number . than sixteen, in - which the principle for which he e tended was recognised. The bill, be said, bad been introdu perhaps rather late, but he bad given due notice of it, and sieges were taken in the usual manner. Therefore, from the im tenon of smuggling the bill through . the house, did any. such im tail'on exist; be stood perf y free. If he were wrong in the cot 'taken; he should be mou i yto be set right ,' and would o Il arct Ast.spology to.lhe hopsnith such an mot required, bite . he ' seri t tatied - thaetbe course he bad ,teruni.. was one which their I, ' .istee "Oule‘ 0ons• ides. ,ifte only and pop.ii course that could PitoPi . C4. A '''''. ' • , Lord IitYLLAND commenced w i t h si ting that he acquitted noble merger of an intention of tab!? the house by surprise, c - j otthEni. fnktti ggle'the bill threw the Louse. It would 1 :bea k : !fierbbn (Lcire: ellana,) doubtlessly, to 1 • '.- , • ' :.• ~ ~71 .1 , ,''. - irhleh he wastow about to offer either on .• - . •.., .• 'the. bill; CC when • the itetion Was made for at • • 1141Mikt • . ' •'• ' ' 'in:jiltit -Evidence on the other bill mune viih . *we -.- .11011.7Te_ Artfiittd the other Of these omantons ~ jeotli -4 '... "... , fri Ufbolit Ala ideating, to. the object • -4Shltiff - b .4,4.3/billA . Vie tiehle marquis conceived * ' 'lt'. • -:'.' • Vitita iiilfliOn fats, they Irina tom to " be- • . iCartettrkime, add hunted it down i bit probibly. game which he (Lord Ifolitind)'shbuld start was a little too su for the noble marquis. His (Lad Holland's) objections were • as had been supposed; so much to theirinciple of the bill, as to s tz le the thn ' e manner,. and circum ' .which it came WOW tbs . Rouse.. It was nee!i'assi to ordshlps gigot* to the exact stet'[ of the wettest= existed -respatins V* .13111, and the 'Ober hill :to At applied. (Hear, ham ; bear.) There was no petithas before the house either for or against the bill. Uport itp being so introduced, the noble marquis had stated precedents of former times—though, by the bye, these were at no distant period—in support of it. The noble lord P alter