The Sun. — London, England, 1837-12-14 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Lord, I am a thorough Conservative," are words, the weight of which is to be estimated rather by their cease less recurrence, than by the arch and innocent playful ness wherewith they are uttered. The gallant and sen sitive Minister has no more been kept in ignorance of this feeling than he has been able to resist it ; and we may add, secondly, that this loyal disposition of his has received from the late elections all that was neces sary to bring it into immediate and active operation. The constituencies of England have unequivocally de clared themselves in favour of a Conservative policy ; and as during the time of William IV., the indica tions of such a disposition were not sufficiently deter minate to embolden this expediency-Cabinet to break terms with their Radical allies, so the accession of Queen Victoria, having been marked by a declaration of public sentiment which admits of no uncertainty whatever, has been distinguished by a partial fashion ing of Ministerial measures to the loudly-expressed wishes of the country ; in other words, the Ministers perceive that a change towards Conservatism affords a better chance for their retention of office than an adherence to revolutionary projects. Be this as it may, it is certain that the double game thus played by the Whigs has entirely lost them the confidence of not a few of their Liberal adherents. Not to men tion the gathering at the Crown and Anchor, where Roebuck, Leader, Elphinstone, Evans, Warburton, and O'Connell vied with each other in the acri monious vituperation of the Government, whose feet, nevertheless, they will still continue to lick, we observe that Lord John Russell has just been ad dressed in a similar strain, in a pamphlet, entitled A Voice from Stroud," whose author, a Mr. Ginger Symon, rejoiceth, it seems, in the academical distinction of B.A. Poor Lord John is really in a sad plight. Having been justly expelled from Devonshire on account of his unconstitutional liberalism, he is now told by this same Mr. Ginger (a hottish condi ment to have to do with) that a similar fate awaits him at Stroud, because he is not sufficiently revolutionary. According to the numerals of this learned graduate, who arraigns his representative in no measured terms, an absolute majority of the Noble Lord's constituents have signed a petition in favour of the Ballot ; and, therefore (as among all the arts of which this gentle man is bachelor, the art of reasoning is evidently not included), lie infers, somewhat precipitately we imagine, that the electors' signatures to a pro-Ballot parchment is equivalent to the dismissal of their anti-Ballot Member. It is more than hinted, too, by the spicy Symon, that between the Home Secretary's speeches in Parliament, and those which he delivered on the hustings, there is a very startling discrepancy. I-Tow this may be, we know not ; but one thing is certain— that, contemptible in many respects as this angry ba chelor is, the flaring up of such a firebrand in oppo sition to the noble fagot whom he seems bent upon con suming or putting out, is not only an additional evi dence of Lord John Russell's doomed condition among all political parties, but if actively kept in flame among the Stroud Radicals, must ao far to destroy any , b local popularity which his Lordsh i p can still be sup posed to retain. To give any analysis of the merle in which this provincial thresher applies his flail both to the shoulders of his quondam favourite and to the insti tutions of the country, were _to impose a burden upon our readeis from which we shall considerately exempt them. Besides adducing the usual common-places in fa vour of the Ballot, it is the humour of Mr. Ginger Symon to lay claim to great originality for proposing an extension of the Suffrage according to a qualification which, repudiating that of property and differing from the reading one of Bentham, is to consist solely in the claimant's capacity to write his own name I Surely, after so redouhted a display of political wisdom and sobriety, no person aware of Lord Brougham's appe tite for novelties will be surprised to learn that the Learned B iron has condescended to borrow or to pilfer from such a source. But whether this be matter of surprise or not, it is even so. In the development of his Lordship's educational scheme, wherewith the Ballot and an extension of the Suffrage were incon gruously mixed up, it was proposed that without making the acceptance of a National Education abso lutely compulsory, some inducement to take advantage of it ought to be provided, by entitling the recipients of its benefits to certain pfivileges or distinctions of a public kind ; in other words, his Lordship, following in the wake of Mr. Ginger Symon, obviously means that the privilege of voting for Parliamentary repre sentatives shall constitute the great national prize to be conferred, irrespective of all other considerations, on such adults as have learned to write in the Brougham schools. Other points of resemblance between the Bachelor and the Baron might be traced without dif ficulty. But enough. The changeful relations of position and opinion subsisting among the faction of whom Lord J. Russell, Mr. Symon, and Lord Brougham are specimens respectively, are calculated to make the country rejoice that the injurious influence of such a faction is rapidly on the wane. By a righteous retribution the duplicity of the Whigs in having mystified and muffled their anti-Radical views, is repaid with the contempt and distrust of a large portion of their ultra-Liberal associates. On the other hand, Lord Brougham, though making a hard struggle of it to get his head above water,• is only throwing up the bubbles which precede and indicate his drowning. As for Mr. Ginger Symon, 8.A., and such as he, let them rail and bluster to the top of their bent. Our conviction is, that amidst the existing quarrels and mutual criminations among the enemies of the monarchy, the firm union which prevails among its friends will, under Providence, give additional se curity to the Church and the Crown, and the other in stitutions of the country.—Times. Though we have felt and expressed in no measured terms our reprobation of the attack upon the three great points of Reform, into which Lord John Russell was betrayed by the inconsiderate motion of Mr. Wakley on the Address, we cannot help observing the magical effects it appears to have had upon the ranks of the Opposition. Many of the country gen tlemen have been elected merely as " COnservatives," and this word meaning anything or nothing, enables Hon. Members to act according to circumstances. The speech of Lord John Russell took away from those country gentlemen every pretext for opposing the Government on merely Conservative principles, and any opposition they might afterwards offer would be viewed as " factious" and corrupt—not honest and sin cere. Sir R. Peel, who felt his incongruous partisans dissolving from beneath his feet like snow in a thaw, has been most anxious to fix them by their votes on some division. Government, on the contrary, who are equally well aware of the working of this speech, appear to have been equally anxious to avoid divisions, and were enabled to do so until the division on the Pension List, when it appeared that the Ministerial majority had already increased from 28 to 62, and we have rea son to believe that even the latter number is beneath the actual majority agsinst the Tories. So far good has arisen out of evil. No sensible man can doubt that the Members of the Cabinet, one and all, are so pledged to the people that each must feel that he would commit political suicide were he to desert their cause, and it would be a miracle of apostacy unparalleled in all history to believe that the whole Cabinet could come to such a decision in the teeth of their previous con duct, and to the ruin of their political consistency. We trust much, therefore, to the public character of such old Reformers as Lords Russell, Lansdowne, Holland, and Howick, Mr. Poulett Thomson, and Sir John Cam Hobhouse, with others, of whose patriot ism we can hare no doubt ; nevertheless we liked not the speech, though its effects appear to be eminently beneficial, and we understand will not at all prevent very good votes being given by the individual Members of the Government upon one of the most important points desired by Reformers.—Morning Advertiser. We have purposely abstained, up to the present moment, from noticing the late speech of the Hon. Member for Maidstone, lest it should be supposed that we regarded it as a mere ephemeral display, when, on the contrary, we rank it, without hesitation, amongst the eternal monuments of that particular school of eloquence to which it properly belongs. Mr. Benjamin D'lsraeli's oration is not one of those pro ductions which we read with rapture at their first ap pearance, and then dismiss from our minds for ever. Oratory is sometimes like philosophy, " a perpetual feast of nectared sweets :" and certainly, if ever an orator furnished an uncloying banquet of mirth and entertainment, the praise may he assigned with justice to " that young man eloquent," whom Maid stone (to that borough's immortal honour) has given to the State. The difference between the oratory of such speakers as Fox, Sheridan, or Grattan, and that of Mr. D'lsraeli, may be said to consist merely in the difference of the effect produced upon the audience—in fact upon the difference, such as it is, between bursts of applause and fits of laughter. Upon " the greatest happiness principle" we have no hesitation to give the preference to the latter school. If to set a table in a roar has always been considered a fine talent, we do not see why the power of setting a house in a roar should not cover its possessor with deathless glory. Mr. Benjamin D'lsraeli's speech might correctly enough be ferined a failure, were we to suppose that he aimed at eliciting the cheers and acclamations of the House ; bu.t the kinder hypothesis is that the effect which he actually produced was that at which he aspired ; and, if this be true, a more successful maiden oration was never delivered in the British House of Commons, for the appeal to the risibilities of the assembly was tri umphant beyond all precedent. Benjamin had cer tainly Benjamin's portion of the laughter of his audi ence. At the same time, perusing this remarkable speech with all the attention due to so masterly a per formance, we think we are able to trace in one or two passages an evident effort on the partof the orator to draw forth that species of applause commonly sought after by the speakers of the opposite school. We would instance the passage in which Mr. D'ls raeli described " the hurried Hudson rushing into the chambers of the Vatican," or that other still grander burst in which he pourtrayed Lord John Russell " wielding the keys of St. Peter." We shrewdly suspect that the peals of loud and long-con tinued laughter which greeted ate delivery, and, in deed, prevented the completion of these passages, were not precisely the demonstrations that were anti cipated, and we can figure to ourselves the orator's surprise at so unlooked-for a reception. " So baviee said, awhile he stood expecting Their universal shout, ar.(l high applause, To fill his ea , .; when, contrary, he hears On all sides, from innumerabl: , A universal laugh." The modesty that characterises true genius was never so beautifully illulrated as in the followiwy, itn morlal extract, which we n prig' with the exeressions of feeling which it drew forth:—." I i-t-Ind here to-nig•t, Sir, nut fern ally, but in some de gree virtually, the representat'ye of a considerable number of IVlemb , rs of l'arliarnesit.—( Thus's of hnghter.) Now, why smile ?—( Continued laurht , r.) Why en% yme?—( He, e the laughter became lone and genrrol.) Why should I not li;ve a tale to unfold to-night ?"—( .I?6ars of laughter.) ‘• Now, why smile ?" Mr. Bcnjainin D'lsraeli, with maiden diffidence, calls all these bursts and roars of laughter " smiles !" In his exces , ,ive modesty he de scribes his triumphs as ovations. " Now, why smile ?" asks Mr. Benjamin D'lsraeli. " Why envy me ?" af. , ain exclaims the orator of Maidstone. " Why enve" Mr. D'lsraeli ? What a question Who envies not, or can help envying, the representative of representatives. and the laughed at of all laughers—the successful rival of Mr. Peter llorthw.ick in eloquence—the und:s pitted peer of Mr. Horace 'fwiss in statesmanship ? Mark how philosophy extinguishes the vulgar feeling of wonder in the peroration of this incomparable speech, which needs a Quintilian to do it justice ! I am not at all surprised, sir, at the reception which I have re ceived ! !" " Let peals of laughter, Codrus, round thee break, Thou - unconcerned canst hear the mighty crack ; Whigs, Tories, Iladieals, in convulsions hurled, Thou standst unslim,k amidst a bursting world." The whole of this rare speech would make a valuable addition to the " Curiosities of Literature," a new eclitien of which we see announced by the booksellers. That remarkable prophecy which terms the conclud ing sentence—" Ay, S;r, although I sit down, the time will come NT lien you will hear me"—would furnish a new and most interesting illustration of the chapter on " Political Prediction." Mr. D'lsraeli's divination, however, of his own future success in the House is certainly not drawn from the source from which, ac cording to Thucydides, Themistocles, was wont to de rive his insi g ht into futurity. Themistocles," says the historian, "far surpassed all in his deductions of the future from the past." We would humbly suggest to Reform Association to publish the speech in question in a cheap form : it cannot be circulated too widely.— Morning Chronicle. Why the Whigs should have selected this particular juncture for making a demonstration against the three favourite objects of Radicalism, is not a matter of cu rious speculation merely, bat, as thowing additional light on their Ministerial character and position, is a question of rule!) practical importance, These objects, comprising the Ballot, Short Parliaments, and an ex tension of the electoral franchise, have been pressed upon their aieention for some years ; and although they have repeatedly declared their reasons for believing that such measures were neither desired nor needed by the country, yet lid ving in the same breath invariably spoken of them ag " open to be brought forward in Parliament, either by Government or by any individual Member," they have thereby fostered a very general impression that, far from being finally resolved upon the'r e oints in question, their minds were by no means I ()%seelosed against giving them a favourable conside ration. " I thought," said Lord John Russell, " that it might hereafter appear that those principles might be safely introduced, and I resolved to keep my mind ready to watch the progress and course of events." Nay, apart from this intimation, in which his Lord ship must be considered as only confirming what were previously uuderstood to be the sentiments of his col leagues, the extreme surprise wherewith their recent and determined denunciation of those " principles" has been received by a large portion of the country, is a sufficient proof that the contingent adoption of them by the Whigs was very extensively, though in most quarters very indignantly, reckoned on. Accordingly, when the Noble Lord declared, a fortnight ago, that if Parliament were disposed to support Mr. Wakley's proposals, he at all events " must not be expected to take a part in favour of any such mea sures," we could not but feel that to whatever extent the said expectation existed, it had been at least passively encouraged by these very Ministers themselves, who, instead of having manfully announced at an earlier period, their fl and final stand in opposition to the Indica' ovulertures, had maintained such a coy flirtation with them, distinguished alter nately by occasional caresses and tame resistance, as induced a universal belief that sooner or later they would abandon their equivocal hostility. Now, with out meaning to insinuate that the Whigs will adhere to their recent anti-Radical protestations one moment longer than their selfish interests may seem to require, it is pretty clear, we think, that up to the opening of this present Parliament they have been encouraging a most unworthy and reprehensible delusion among a large proportion of their supporters. That even now, they arc only practising a different kind of delusion by making a show of Conservatism, is pro bable in the highest degree. But in the mean time, as it has been their cue to assume all of a sudden a high constitutional tone on certain points, the question still recurs, what are the circumstances which at this particular crisis have elicited from them such a strong and novel intimation ? These circumstances appear to us to be chiefly two ; which, operating concurrently, are in err, judgment eiifilcient to explain the plienorne nou. First of all, there is reason to believe that, with out any personal disfavour towards Lord Melbourne, a certain exalted personage, whose hospitality, we think. muss almost be superseding his Lordship's cu linary establs shment, has given such an unequivocal express:on to Conservative predilections as might well work upon a much more phlegmatic temperament than the Noble Vi'scount has credit for. " You know, my HORSE STEALING.—On Thursday, Nov. 30, a valuable young horse, the property of Mr. Frieker, surgeon, of this town, was stolen from its pasture in Prestbut7. Although persons were dispatched in different directions in pursuit, and hard-bills issued, no clue to the detection of the thief was obtAined until Fi iday last, when Mr. Pricker re ceived a letter from a friend, in!orming him that his horse was detained at Birmingham, and that his presence was requested to identify the animal. A man, who gave his name '1 homes Johnson Jones, had been'takea up by the police there, at three o'clock . of the same day that the horse disappeared. The cul put, who on Friday morning swallowed laudanum with the in tention of committing suicide, but without effect, will be sent to this town ft .r examination before our Bench of Magis ! trates.—Cheltenham Journal. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1837 he felt bound again to renew the measure, not shutting his eyes to the difficulties that surrounded it. Last session, in consequence of understanding from the Chan cellor of the Exchequer that some measure was to be brought forward with respect to the establishment of Local Courts, he had withdrawn his motion on this sub ject. That measure, however, not having been brought forward, he felt compelled again to introduce this subject. During the last session, the House had been counted out no less than thirteen times when his notice to bring in this Bill was upon the paper. He had, however, after great difficulties, succeeded in persuading the House to read the Bill a second time ; before he could get the measure through a Committee the House was dissolved. On these grounds it was that he had withdrawn the former Bill. Having stated this much, he would shortly revert to the evils of the law as it at present existed, which arose from the delay in actions of ejectment. In a very early edition of " Burns' Justice," he found it stated, that " a more short and easy method of ousting the tenant seemed eligible." In the course he (Mr A.) was pursuing, he was supported by the opinion of eminent lawyers, and by the opinions of Gentlemen appointed under a Commission sanctioned by the House.—(Hear.) The Commissioners of Common Law, in their fifth report spoke to the same effect, and stated that it appeared desirable the jurisdiction of the proposed local courts should extend to cases of ejectment between landlord and tenant, when the value of the tenements did not exceed 201. The evil continued at the present moment to the greatest extent, and he had volumes of correspondence, from every part of the country, complaining of those evils. He called on every Hon. Member who opposed the Bill to deny, if he could, that the evils were not such as to be ruinous 'to the industrious classes.—(Hear, hear.) He found that in general the owners of small tenements were those who had retired from a life of industry, or those who after several years of servitude laid out their savings in the pur chase of small property. He knew of many cases in which vexatious possession of tenements was kept, when there was no other property on the premises belonging to the nominal holder than a chair or a table, or some piece of worthless furniture.—{We understood the Hon. Member to say a dog in some cases.] He had known cases in which the occupying tenant had been paid .5/. on condition of giving up possession, and the tenant under whom such occupier held, afterwards retained possession, until 301. were paid to buy him out.—( A laugh.) He intended to divide his Bill into two clauses. The Bill provided that parties should go before a magistrate and make certain declarations in the Bill provided, and which were intended to satisfy the Magistrate, first that notices had been given in a manner described in the Bill, which notices were to give the Magistrates jurisdiction ; and secondly, to satisfy the Magistrates of two facts, that the relation of landlord and tenant, did at one time subsist between the parties, and that it no longer existed. If any question of title was included in the case, the Magistrate might dismiss it to a higher jurisdiction. The Bill provided further— that if a landlord used this process to gain possession of a tenement to which he had no right, the tenant so ousted might bring an indictment against the person who made the false representation, and also an action against the landlord. The Bill gave a remedy against the landlord, for he (Mr. Aglionby) thought the Ma gistrate ought to be protected from any action whatsoever. kVith respect to the 501. clause in his Bill, which gave the landlord, after bringing his action of ejectment power to cal an the tenant to enter into security for costs, he was prepared, notwithstanding the objections that might be urged against it, to justify it on these grounds :—he might be told that it gave the landlord power to dispossess tenants of large holdings for political purposes, but he contended that it would have no such effect. Let them look to the expenses to which a landlord was put by an action of ejectment against the tenant, who, if he happened to be a man of straw, would leave him in beside for the costs. The object of the clause was to meet cases of this sort ; and it was grounded on no less an authority than the Report of the Commissioners of Common Law, from which the clause was copied almost word for word. If therefore he erred in introducing such a clause into his Bill, he erred on great authority. He would call the attention of the House more particularly to the effects of the clause. After the landlord had brought his action of ejectment, he could go before the Judge, and call on him to give a sum mons to the tenant to come before him, prepared to give security for the costs of the suit.--( Hear, hear.) The Judge was to determine whether the bail which he offered was considered to be sufficient or not. In what way, he would ask, would a tenant be injured by this' No one but a dishonest tenant would put a landlord to the ruinous process of ejectment, and it was but fair that in such a case he should be made answerable for the costs. He begged to apologize for detaining the House so long. He had introduced sonic matters which might have been better introduced in Committee, but he preferred alluding to them now, as he might not have another opportunity of answering objections. He threw himself upon the House, and he would be glad tofind he was mistaken in thepositions he bad laid down ; but if the House found that his princi ples were fair, and required the intervention of the Legis lature to carry them into effect, then he trusted he should receive their support. He had no feeling of paternity for his own clauses, but would readily consent to the introduc tion of any clauses that might throw a greater shield of pro tection over the landlord. His great object was to protect the honest landlord, but not to injure the honest tenant ; and he would add, he never would throw the protection of the law over a fraudulent tenant whatever might be his party or politics, or upon any other pretext whatever.— ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill now be read a second time. Mr. JERVIS did not complain of the course taken by the Hon. Member, although it was his (Mr. Jervis's) pain ful duty more than once to oppose the Bill. He avowed that he belonged to that party which had given a factious opposition to the measure, for he had divided with the Hon. Member for Finsbury against it, and successfully too, for the Bill did not pass. It was essentially a landlord's Bill. It was calculated to draw a most invidious distinction between the rich and the poor. He did not dispute some part of the arguments of the Hon. Member, and enough had been said to shew him that some measure was neces sary to enable the landlord to recover possession. It was most unfair to say that a Magistrate was sufficient for the poor man, while the rich man might go into a Court of Law, and it showed him (Mr. Jervis) the neces sity of a reform, which would be best effected by the establishment of Local Courts. His Learned Friend was obliged to pray in aid the fact of his Bill having been read a second time on former occasions ; but was the Bill then as it had stood before ? As the law at present stood, if a tenant was in possession of a house, and paid rent, which was the proof of a tenantcy, a notice to quit was all that was required in order to entitle the landlord to obtain possession of his premises. Surely that was sufficient protection. By the Bill of his Hon. and Learned Friend, if a person was in possession of premises—no proof being required of any payment of rent—an alleged landlord comet in, and by giving a four days' notice to quit, ho immediately threw the proof of the title upon the tenant or person in possession, which was a means of setting aside the whole law of ejectment, as well as the com mon law of the country. His Learned Friend had stated many cases of oppression which had been reported to him by landlords—they were a wealthy class, and were able to make their grievances known; but would the House for a moment suppose that tenants had no grievances to complain of ? It was only at the last Assizes for Chester, that he held briefs in two cases which he would characteriie as most oppressive. Enclosures had been made from a Common, each had paid rent, the landlord had given notice to quit ; but upon the case corning before a jury, they confirmed the parties in their freehold. Though it might be convenient in towns that a summary re medy should be given, he would contend that one case of injustice was worth a hundred cases of delay. His Honourable and Learned Friend had stated that this Bill was not calculated to injure the tenants. He apprehended that it was so, in no ordinary degree, and he was extremely surprised that such a measure should proceed from his Hon. Friend. What, he would ask, would be the result of it ? Why, in all towns where there were 101. householders, if parties had given notice to quit, they would have the vo t er entirely in their possession. The measure would not be confined to that alone ; for it would apply equally to the county voters in all cases beyond 501.—(Cheers.) His Hon. and Learned Friend assumed that all tenants were rascals— (Cheers and laughter)—and being so, he asked protection for the landlords. If he was right in his view with respect to this Bill, it was intended to give an advantage to the rich over the poor. If he might be allowed to give a recommenda tion to his Hon. and Learned Friend, he should say that the best way would be to wait till the Government had re deemed the pledge which they had undoubtedly given to the country to bring forward the subject of Local Courts.—( Hear, hear, hear.) In Ireland an appeal was given to the Judge. He was afraid, if the present measure met with the sanction of the House, it would be attended with the worst results, and he should, therefore, move an amendment to the motion of his Hon. Friend, that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. Sir S. WH ALLEY seconded the amendment. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could not but think that. the Ilouse had great reason to lament his Hon. and Learned Friend the Membor for Chester should have thought it necessary to state his opposition to this Bill in language such as he had used ; and to surround his opposition to it with topics which he must say were very unne cessarily of an inflammatory nature. He was not at all disposed to deny that the question which his Honour able and Learned Friend the Member for Cockermouth had put, with so much credit to himself and benefit to the country, was surrounded with many difficulties. They had to deal in this, as in all other cases, with a choice Select Committee where the matter would tderngeoceesestearryy of evils, and the question for the House to decide was— consideration, and where, if it were thought be whether it was so clear that the balance of difficulty witnesses from both classes affected by the was against this proposition, that they would refuse to called and examined as to the working of the pdres.tenvyt Osytishitethno. entertain the Bill now, for a third time, brought It would be the better p lan, and he hope before the House ? Now he must say, if it was admitted, a greed to. as it must be admitted, that there was a necessity Mr. C. FERGUSON hoped the Bill would nroitnebiepileosat for some remedy, he was not able to discover by upo n its second reading. He considered ihp so modi what mode it was possible to obtain better sera - a mos t valuable one, and he believed it might e benefi rity against the evils which at present existed than Pied in a Committee up stairs , as t o make it a Tulho t t s t m igh t, that which was proposed by his Hon. and Learned vial one for all parties.—(Hear, hear.) Select Friend, the Member for Cockermouth. What was the however be remedied in Committee, or evil? It was this, which every Gentleman must own, Committee up stairs. He thought it was well a c the impossibility of ejecting tenants, after the expiration of of the House to consider whether they would not give g' The enor a tenantry. It was said by his Hon. and Learned Friend, t rates power in the cases to which he adverted. stood, the Member for Chester, that this was essentially what mous expense attendant upon the law, as it at present to 0 13- was called a Landlord's Bill. U n d ou btedly, in one sense, rendered it totally out of the power of the poor man •it was a Landlord's Bill, because it was a Bill to provide tain justice. deserved the at proper remedy for an injured landlord.--{Hear.) He agreed Lord SANDON thought the Bill well with the Hon. and Learned Member for Cockermouth, tention of the House, as the evils of which it compllu% worthy_ that they must divest themselves, in considering this Bill, were admitted to be great ; he should, therefore, vote fur its of everything like the apprehe ns i on of c l amour .—( Hear.) second reading,in order that it might not be thrown out, until Was the landlord the only per son w h o wou ld b e benefited the whole of its merits had been considered in detail. d by the Bill? Had it never occurred to the Honourable Sir H ARRY VERNEY would vote for the sec l a and Learned Member for Chester, that individuals pos- reading of the Bill. sessing property might be loth to invest it in the Mr. AGLIONBY said that if the House wished it, he building of cottages or small tenements, f rom th e c i rcu m- was willing to accede to the proposition of the Honour:08l! stance of the difficulty that existed in the wa y of en f orc ing Member for Finsbury for a Select Committee ; but E_l their rights, and therefore, altlioughby a sort of reflected light, present advised he thought nothing would be gained it was a Bill that operated for the benefit of the tenant, it Mr. BROTHERTON supported the second reecho 0 ° was as decidedly, though not so obviously, for the benefit the Bill, at the same time observing be thought the prh.p.,_ of the landlord? What was proposed was this :—that on sition of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, for the conselu -1 0 _ the expiration of a tenantry, an individual, who was tion of the two Bills was well worthy the consideration now driven to the expensive process of ejectment, of the House. might come and give security to the Justices, and th en Tile gallery was then cleared for a division, but non e when the tenancy had expired, what. objection could there took plane, and the Bill was read a second time. be to give possession to the landlord , leaving t o the other M r . A G LION BY then stated that he should to-morroW party the remedy of an action at law ? It was said that move the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. R this might give rise to injustice. But was not the p resent PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS AND state and practice of the law unjust to the landlord witho ut MEN ' S BILL. being beneficial to the tenant? Indeed the difficuty of the Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that this A BpillFberEeE3'; lion. Member for Chester was to find instances in which a second time. the proposed measure might operate unjustly towards the Mr. Sergeant JACKSON rose to put a question oldie occupying tenant. It was quite otherwise with the Hon. subject of Irish education, when he was interrupted by Member for Cockerrnouth, who was furnished with enough The SPEAKER, whose observations were not heard. of cases to make out good grounds for the present measure. Mr. F. FRENCH then rose to put a question, which he There could be no doubt that the balance of evidence was said related to the subject of the Bill. in favour of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth. He The S PEAKER called the Honourable Member to thought also that it was very much in favour of the Hon. order. He had already said, that it having been trie' e , Member for Cockermouth, that this measure was very that a Bill be re a d a seco nd time, no q uestion could be nu; much like what had been recommended by the Common by any Hon. Member , u ntil that first q uestion was Pu Law Commissioners. That Commission had not emanated from the Chair. from one or other side of the House ; but consisted of The question having then been put that the the most distinguished men of the bar without regard to meutary Electors and Freemen's Bill be read a second lir' party.—( Hear, hear.) He should support the second read- Mr. F. FRENCH begged to ask the Noble Lord Yo e : ing of the Bill. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Aglionby) had ex- tiler it was his intention to introduce into the Bill a elan"' pressed a wish that the subject should tee taken up by the for the remission or reduction of the stamp duty on fre e ' Law Officers of the Crown ; but he (the Solicitor-General) men's admission ? in declining to take upon himself the management of the Lord JOHN RUSSELL spoke across the table a feet Bill, was disposed to give his best assistance to the corn i- words in reply, which were not heard. deration of the Bill, but he did not think it could be in Mr. THORNELY was in favor of an alteration of tl:e better hands than in those of his Honourable Friend.. law respecting the admission and registry of Freemen. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said that the House, when An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not lear u ' legislating generally on the subject of landlord and tenant, said that the rights of the freemen having be en should be careful to satisfy that vast body of persons who sacrificed, and they having been deprived of their exclus filled the relation of tenant, that they were not anxious sive privilege to vote for Members of Parliament, and al- 0 merely to secure their own rights as landlords, but were for the Members of the Municipal Government, ouch equally anxious to make security for the rights of not to be required to pay a tax for the exercise of their Parlia tenants.—(Hear, hear, bear.) Now he thought the remaining rights. It was complained that the rate-paY ie a cr Bill was in direct violation of all principles of legislation, clause was a hardship upon the Constituency crea te as regards mutual remedies.—(Hear, hear.) He did not under the Reform Act, but the tax upon th e deny that there ought to be such a modification of the admission of freemen was considerably more unjust' law as would, by lessening the expense, give a more speedy He would not oppose the Bill now, but at a future stage' remedy.—(Hear.) It was a mistake to suppose that by Colonel SIBTHORP said he could not hear the free making the remedy more speedy, if it were a just remedy, the men of England abused as they had been by the Hl' landlord only was benefitted. It tended to prevent litigation Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Thornily) between landlord and tenant, and therefore conferred out standing up in their defence. If the freeme n equal benefit on the one as on the other.—(Hear, hear.) of Wolverhampton were so bad, those who had don° But. his objection to this Bill was, that it did not admit of him the honour to return him as their representat ive any modification. No alteration in Committee could make were a different race of people.—(Laughter.) He wou ld it such a Bill as its supporter thought it ought to le. It not now oppose the Bill, but he beggedto state that this wa g went upon this ground—to take away all security whatever one of those Bills which had been brought in by the Nob le from the tenant, and to place him entirely in the power of Lord who represented the Reform Bill as a final measure,: the landlord.—( Hear, hear.) It ought to be a matter of The Noble Lord repeatedly re fu se d to f u rni s h him Wit' grave consideration whether the power of deciding upon are turn of the printing of that Bill, although day aft el c i questions between landlord and tenant should not, up to a day he had applied for it. In his conscience he believe s certain amount, be given to the Magietrates, though cer- that a better man did not exist in private life, but a tainly this would be placing them in a very delicate posi- worse man never showed himself in public life.—(Laught er.) tion, and they would probably be the first to object to it. His policy had been dark and crooked, and he.had been The lion. Member (Mr. A.) had stated that the Magistrate working like a mole underground. The freemen was to see that the relation of landlord and tenant had in his opinion, been treated shamefully, di , gracefn a Y' once subsisted between the parties, and that it no longer and faithlessly—(Hear, hear) —they had been told that subsisted ; but the Bill provided no such thing—it only their rights would be preserved, but such was not the eas e ' provided that the Justice was to see that a certain notice had He would say nothing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's been delivered and a certain declaration made. The tenant conduct, but without meaning anything disrespectful, it ap' wrongly ejected, indeed, might bring his indictment or his peered to him that the Noble Lord and his Friend we° action ; but how seldom would lie have the power to do so ? like the Siamese twins.—(A laugh.) He hoped the free- A man in full possession, with his family and furniture in men of Stroud would some day remind the Noble Lord et, the house, receives a notice to quit which he does not his ingi atitude towards the entire body of' freemen, some I believe to be legal, or, perhaps, he does think that whom, when he was kicked out of another place, had ser• his term has not expired. He says to the landlord him to that House.—(Much laughter.) that he will resist him; and had he not a perfect right to do Sir AUGUSTUS DALRYMPLE said that he or so ? What, however, said the Hon. Member—he would proved of the first clause of the Bill, which relieved those not stay to enquire whether the landland was right persons who were bona fide rate-payers, and for this or wrong, but would go a neighbouring magistrate, reason, that great and serious inconvenience had bee' and having filed his declaration, the magistrate was occasioned in some of the districts which he had the 11 ' ' bound to issue his warrant, and within four days to turn nourtorepresent , bytheenforeement of thelaw in th is respect the tenant out of doors. What, however, was to be done He must, however, protest against the sweeping charg e° with his furniture ? Suppose that he was not able and insinuations which had been thrown out aga inst th° to find security for the costs, it was to be sold within 14 days. freemen. Was this fair, was this consistent with the laws of England ? Mr. WILLIAMS said that he, too, would not be 11 The Hon. Member would give a hearing to one side, but party to what the Honourable Baronet had se justly d e ' would deny it to the other. If he said that he would sum- signated ,the unwarrantable insinuations which had b ee ' mon the tenant, and that he would hear his statement before thrown out against the freemen. He had the bon°. resorting to any extreme measure of this sort, he could then to number a good many of them amongst hi s cons"' understand the proposition ; but he never could believe tuents, and not one of those persons had e ver re; that the House of Commons would give its sanction to a ceived a single farthing for their votes. H e d id not se measure so unjust in principle and so oppressive in why a body of electors should be attacked in this w a Yi practice as this.—(Hear, hear.) He for one, as belong- The borough of Liverpool had been frequently men tion e'_. ing to the class to which these powers were given , would when such a subject was under discussion ; and i t had be le; feel great alarm lest a feeling of suspicion should be proved before the Committee of Inquiry, that not onli, t engendered in the minds of the people of England , that poor , and working men , had received money for t,ts.,' in sanctioning such a measure, they were thinking more of support, but one in especial, who belonged to a their own interests,than of the justice of the case. — (Hear.) ral profession , and who w as belie v ed to be vvealthYi The Hon. Member said what harm will this Billdo the tenant? refused to tender his vote until he was paid 601. It ba I give, to be sure, extraordinary powers to the landlord, been said by some Hon. Members who had preceded lit', but give tenants something in return. What did he that the effect of this resolution would' be to increase tij, give ? He gave him an action for damages, and an indict- number of freemen in towns. He denied that it wo uld b u ll ment for perjury. Was it possible the Hon. Member was any such effect. The fact , he believed , would be , tha t it vve aware of the state of the law, and make such an diminish th em. At p resent when it w as know n that a o°o'l2 provision as this? Did he consider the relation in which was out of his time, and was too p oor to p a y the fees 0130,0 the class of persons stood who were likely to be affected by h is admission, there was a stron g contest betw een the t r , this Bill, and believe that such a remedy as this would p arties for the p ur p ose of s ecu ri ng his vo te. " fle ,rh e not be inoperative ? Suppose the landlord was wrong , diall y su pp orted the Bi l l of the Noble Lo rd, au "io what was the remedy which the Hon. Member gave the would in the mean ti me withdraw his notice of 1112,:-J, tenant—an indictment for perjury. This was a remedy which s to od for to - morrow. He would give the .o°oo which would scarcely ever be resorted to, and Lord four months to carry his Bill into a law—if it sh° ,ol the tenant was thus wholly left without p r o te e - be a failur e , he trusted that the House would then for tion. He would never be a party to a factious the l ea v e they had so kindly given to bring in a P - opposition to any measure ; but he would never give his abolishing the stamp duty on the admission of froth° . net• sanction to a Bill which he believed to be so objectionable Lord SANDON could not sit still and listen to the!tj,e in all its details. He thought that in any measure of the putations that had been made by the Hon. Mem ber , v/1 v ot sort which might be introduced, the tenant had a right out giving his positive denial to them. He di' tad to demand the same security which the landlord had. for one moment deny that great malpractice s the He was quite satisfied that whatever difference of' opinion existed in Liverpool ; but he did not believe that to there might be as to the details of the measure before the freemen of that place deserved the imputations 0f4,10y0 House, there could be but one opinion - as to its principle. had been cast upon them.—(Hear.) He would oroo He should therefore, although reluctantly, vote against the stand up as the friend of the poor man, wh lte proposition.—(Hear, hear.) generally depressed by those who professed t°„p:,./ Mr. PR YME—The Hon. and Learned Member who his friend. He had been accused of deluding, th e t heir had last spoken, in arguing against the principle of the ratives of Liverpool, under the pretence of being r i g l)t Bill, seems to have argued against objections that might be frien d . He thou g ht that the Hon. Member had e°, jt remedied in Committee. There was no one unacquainted to make th e assertions he had done.—(Hear, heaT•tilitalf with the difficulties to which landords were exposed in get - was quite n atural tha t fr eemen should not be Paleedeer4 ting a tenant out of possession, and the inducements were favourable to the opposite side of the House, as r i le or often strong to the occupier to remain obstinately in pos- on the opposite side had taken every posso;,reetli session, or to demand a considerable sum of money for portunity to deprive them , by every means ou , la no t giving it up. It was for that acknowledged grievance that and indirec t ly — of that franchise which the y c heal° his Hon. Friend had introduced his Bill. It was for the withhold from them by the Reform Bill.-041 se n o (Pi es ' House to decide whether they should give to magistrates He hoped they would be enabled to separ ate the __.,erits. the power of adjudicating or not, but the Bill did not give it. tions , so that they might each stand on their ovsn i _ w e N o ble It was further suggested, that giving Magistrates the power Lord JOHN RUSSELL , in re p l y , said, Toarablf to adjudi ca te did not give the tenant as effectual a remedy L ord had tho ught it proper to p ut a most tins ha; as he would otherwise have. It appeared to him, how- construction on his motives. A great many M eln to reh ever, that the course proposed by his Honourable Friend thought that it would not be fair or equitablhstity, scho4, would do away with a great deal of the evils complained freemen from the payment of the Stamp ii - u __ lvan tage i of, and that the arguments urged on the other side were householders were subject to so many d:sie'•_,,,, ti irc t r_ more against the details than the principle of the measure. By doing to the freemen the benefit which th_e o y ti 7 ei l n ide Mr. WAKLEY was glad that the Bill had been opposed the House would leave it, of course, for the h to Pa t last Session, and he also rejoiced at the discussion that had also to demand relief. He should be very s orry ti taken place this evening. No person who had listened barrier to the improvement of the Reform Bill to the speeches of the Hon. and Learned Member oppo- After a few words from Mr. HODGSOI%-tiel_misted site (Sir E. Sugden), and the lion. and Learned Member Bill was read a second time and ordered to ~0 for Chester, could feel other than satisfied that the Bill was IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATI"" to le calculated to inflict great injustice upon a large class of the Mr. Sergeant JACKSON asked if an n y t community. Since the discussion that took place last session taken to make any change in the steps y ste tri w e a r f .ina , on the subject, lie had received a great number of coma u- National Education, so as to satispfyretshee scruples o f tea l ' e nications, and there was no doubt that every Member who scientious Protestants. intended to . b represented a large constituency had also received letters Lord MORPETH said it was irticularly wi t stw it on the subject. He (Mr. W.) would vote unhesitatingly some alterations in the system rote on oft for the rejection of the Bill, because it was a most improper gard to the reading of the Scr t i n p s tLs. h e, all i or T 2 i ii ii etu ear r , e re , af-2 1 remedy for what lie admitted to be a great grievance. children (we understood) vver the answer was He should be sorry, therefore, to see the Bill reject e d up on Scriptures in a separate part of the scnoor. e pat er; the second reading. He trusted that his Hon. and Learned Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said of the was to o beeu' ra ? Friend would agree to send it before a Committee up stairs. satisfactory. pENSIO N% a n n. A NOV }:":'-' 13:011t 1.- A matter of that kind could not be satisfactorily arranged THE KING OF H v from the !e, lee 4,i, in a Committee of the whole House. It had been Mr. HUME wished to tried twice, and had most signally failed. His Honourable Gentl ema n, y-ear to prine of t h,e and Learned Friend appe are d t o e n t er t a i n a different opi- last night stated that the 6, glen of his Bill to what he had done on former occasions. of Hanovern'to the Duke C,r Exchequer, a: Geon er • ti In his former Bills be proposed that the Magistrate should '21,000/. granted asap en t s i l ie throne of Ilanover_?_e, „ e n% only act ministerially ; but now he proposed that they should who had now acceded to of the ExcH Egt.J i b ,e i e l - e 0 1- f .1 wase Chancellornnow w to e ee k o o act judicially. As the Bill stood lie much doubted whether The CHANCELLOR Prince George ha d w i t h roge r i , the Magistrate would have such power. He had been as- that the pension the resent l't•i n g c - no iberla od sured that mo rn i ng by a Barrister of high standing, that different description° to other Oc",,,sirs. of Ilan°Yer'for Duke °I . the words in the Bill would not give such a power. to the 21,0001. to h.na wh P erl The Hon. and Learned Member should not object to a had been grained to IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF GOMMONS.—DEs. 13. -- -- - The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock. Mr. S. LEFEVRE brought up the Report of the Com mittee on the Chester Inclosure Bill.—Leave was given to bring in the Bill. The Hon. Member also brought up the Report of the Committee on the Cambridge and Errington Road Bill.—Leave was given to bring in the Bill. The Hon. Member also brought up the Report of the Commit tee on Exmouth Market and Finsbury Small Debt Court Bill.—Leave was given to bring in the Bill. FIRST FRUITS. Mr. BAINES gave notice that it was his intention, after the recess, to bring in a Bill for the better Appropria tion of First Fruits. LAW OF PATENTS. Mr. MACKINNON stated he had given notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relative to Patents. Since he had given that notice he had found that it was necessary to divide the Bill into two sections—one relative to the alteration of the law with respect to patents, and the other with respect to different scientific inventions. _ yv The SPEAKER stated, that it was perfectly compe tent for the Hon. Kember, he having given notice to intro duce a Bill, to bring forward that measure, and then move to divide it into two parts. Mr. MACKINNON adopted the suggestion, and gave notice that he should on Wednesday, the 20th instant, move for leave to bring in two separate Bills. REVISING BARRISTERS. Captain PERCEVAL gave notice that he should, on an early day after the recess, move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend that part of the Reform Act which related to the duties of Revising Barristers. VOTE BY BALLOT. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from the inhabi tants of Freshingfield, in the Eastern division of tit* county of Suffolk, praying for the Vote by Ballot. The petition was signed by 506 individuals, but there was a circumstance connected with the signatures whicti it was his duty to state to the House, and to ask whether it was an objection to the reception of the petition. The peti tioners in this case were the inhabitants of Several rural villages, and he was sorry to say a considerable number of theM, though in a respectable station of life, were not able to write. Accordingly the parties who took the petition round signed their mark, hut the signature of those persons was fixed in every individual instance at the request and in the presence of the person whose name was signed, and after the petition had been read over to them. H• thought it his duty to state this, in order that he might knoll whether he could lay the petition on the table of the House. The SPEAKER did not apprehend the signatures of the petitioners by marks would be a ground for refusing the peti'ion, although it might be a reasonable ground for doubting the authenticity of the petition. Mr. GROTE said many of the signatures were the sig natures of the petitioners themselves. The petition was then brought up and laid on the table. On the question that the petition be read, Mr. HUME said that he wished the question to be settled, whether or not petitions could be received which were not signed by the petitioners themselves. In Courts of Law signatures were admitted, although not written by the parties whose names were signed, provided that a mark was of by the person whose name was signed in the presence of the signing %iitrwsses. After a few words from Captail BARNARD (inau dible in the gallery), the petition was ordered to be laid en the table. LONDONDERRY BRIDGE. Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE brought up the Report of the Londonderry Rid4e Committee, informing the House that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. Referred to the Committee on Standing Orders. EXPENSES OF WITNESSES BEFORE COMMITTEES. Mr. F. BARING (who was very imperfectly heard in the gallery, having his hack to the reporters' gallery) was understood to recommend to the Hon. Member for Rns- bury (Mr. Wakley), that he should raise, upon the petition which he had to present, a motion that would include gene rally the whole question of expenses to witnesses before Committees. Mr. WAKLEY said he would adopt the course which was suggested to him, which indeed he was compelled to adopt ; and he would give notice that he would bring the subject forward on Friday. The SPEAKER—If the Hon. Member chooses, he can bring it forward when the Orders of the Day are disposed of. But what Ido object to is, the bringing it on before the Orders are disposed of.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. W AKLEY—But I have not the petition now with me ; it has not yet come from the Treasury. POST-OFFICE. Mr. WALLACE said he had to present a petition from the Printers, Beokselers, and Publishers of London, and without attempting to make a speech, he begged leave to state one or two important facts which the petition set forth, and which he thought would be interesting to the House and to the country.—( Hear, hear.) The petitioners stated that if the rates of postage were not lowered, communication by steam-boats would soon enable them to forward letters for Dundee, Edinburgh, and many other towns on the coat at the rate of Is. per thousand, and with despatch equal to the mail-coaches ; and that when the principal lines of railroad were completed, an equally available road would be opened to the petitioners for communication with Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Southampton, Bristol, Belfast, Waterford, and all the principal towns of the United Kingdom at the same low rate. They also stated that while pamphlets, maga zines, &c. were transmitted great distances at the small cost of a penny or three halfpence each, and while news papers, which, on an average were each equal in weight to six moderate sized letters, were conveyed to Edinburgh for the charge of Id. each, the petitioners had to pay for six sin ,gle letters to or from any part of Scotland no less than 6s. 9d. They further stated that manyof them-would, in the ordinary course of business circulate from '20,000 to 50,000 more letters per annum if the rates of postage were lowered, and many other traders would be glad to avail themselves of such a reduction to increase their correspondence by post. The petition was then brought up, and ordered to be re ferred to the Post Office Committee. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he perceived by the Order-book, that the Hon. Baronet the Member for Warwickshire had given nitice for the 13th of February, of his intention to introduce certain Bills. Now it struck him that this was going beyond the four notice days pre scribed by the House. Sir EARDLEY WILMOT said, that before he placed the notice on the books, he had asked the Speaker if ho were strictly within the rules in putting it down for that day, and had obtained an answer in the affirmative. The SPEAKER (as we understood him), said that if he had told the Hon. Member so, he was wrong. Sir E. WILMOT.—Then the order of the 13th must be discharged, and the new order made for putting back the time. Lord J. RUSSELL said be believed that the Hen. Baronet had placed his notice on the books before the new regulations were adopted. Lord G. SOMERSET made some observation which was inaudible in the Gallery. Sir E. WILMOT said, that as respected his unfortu nate Bills, he was indebted to the Noble Lord, for being obliged to withdraw them in the last Parliament. The Hon. Baronet then withdrew his notice. AUSTRALIA. Certain returns respecting the Colony of Australia hav ing been ordered, Mr. GLADSTONE wished to put a question to the Hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for the Colonies with respect to the Colony of Australia. He begged to ask the Hon. Baronet whether it was intended to renew the tem porary Bill which had been passed for the government of that colony ; and if not, whether it was intended before Easter to introduce any measure of a permanent nature ? Sir GEORGE GREY said her Majesty's Govern- ...._. _ ment did not at present propose any further extension of the measure. There was, however, no immediate neces sity for it, as the Act did not expire for sometime ; and whether there were any further. measures in contemplation he was not prepared to say. RURAL POLICE. Mr. GLADSTONE begged to know whether the Government had received replies to certain queries ad dressed to the magistracy, and asking their opinion with respect to the establishment of a rural police, and whether it was their intention to introduce any measure on the subject. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had not yet received any Re port from the Commission appointed on that subject ; nor had they communicated to him the substance of the infor mation they had received in answer to those queries. Until he was in possession of that information, he would rather decline giving any answer to the question. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the Orders of the Day should be taken into consideration. RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS BILL. Mr. AGLION BY moved the second reading of the Recovery of Tenements Bill. In two former Sessions this Bill had been read a second time without opposition. Last year, on the motion for the Bill going into Committee on its details an opposition m os t u nex p ec t e dly h a d be e n got up, not with respect to the details of the measure, but with respect to the principle of the Bill. He did not in tend to complain of the course that was then taken, but he trusted that if there were any objections to the principle of the Bill they woull be stated now, and that all objections to the details would be reserved for the consideration of the Committee. He ha d appliedin vain to the law officers of the Crown upon the subject, and, such being the case, t, 4