The Sun. — London, England, 1835-06-16 00:00:00

to:Vasor we understood the Hon. Gentleman to say that his case Waii one more d eserv i ng o f l en i ency th an th a t o fth e o th ers . The 0' pinion given by the Committee was entitled to the re spect of the House. .9,tr R. PEEL said the lion. Gentlemanlhas altogether lw.staken my meaning. So much deference do I pay to the opinion of the Committee, that I am ready to vote that these !proceedings are a breach of privilege. But the report, includ mg the evidence concerning the conduct of seven individuals, should be subp:atted, that the House may judge of the extent of criminality, and discriminate between the offenders. As it is, each member of the Committee may take a different view of the criminality. Lord Ji OHN RUSSELL said that it was competent only in the ',douse to commit to Newgate when the fact of the breach of privilege was established, and afterwards to take into consideration any circumstances which might be urged in extenuation. That, however, was not the question at present before the House. The question was, whether they would * * Ake the report of their own Committee, or whether they would Irst see the evidence before they came to a decision. Pre oedents most decidedly ran in favour of the former course, but he would not go on the mere ground of precedent. The fact was, that this Committee had come to a determination after a most laborious investigation. It was a Committee appointed by that House, and upon oath sworn to judge impartially, and the only sort of tribunal by which the right of Members to seats in that House could be investigated. Now, a Com mittee, so appointed, had, upon oath, reported, not by speeches of its individual members, but by an unanimous decision, that c.ertain persons had absconded, and certain other persons had sided and abetted them in absconding, and he thought the 'House was bound to take the Committee's part. He was quite sure that no man was ready to say that the majority of the Members of that House, with all their various avocations, were sr, well able to judge and discriminate as a Committee set ariart for the purpose of deliberation. After the committal of t:tie parties,_ he should be quite willing to listen to any cir cronstances that could be urged in mitigation of punishment. - Ile thought extending lenity to the guilty was not so great a fault as making a wrong judgment. Sir W. FOLLETT understood the Noble Lord to say that the House were not now called upon to make a distinction between the offenders. Now be thought the fair and proper course for the House to pursue was at once to make the dis tinction. There could be no fear of those individuals in the meantime again absconding.—( Cries of " Oh, oh.") Why, there could be no fear of this. They would not banish them selves for ever, which they would do, as they would be at all times afterwards liable to be summoned on the Speaker's waY.Tant. Mr. C. FE RGUSSON said that there was never such a precedent established in any Court as that, after contempt, the parties should be allowed to be discharged out of custody, without even tho security of bail. Mr. O'CONNE /I LL considered the case was perfectly plain as to the point of law, and that the House was entirely right in exercising its entire jurisdiction. It was the only compe tent tribunal. It was a Court that had first to decide inci dentally and then collaterally. The inquiry had been made as to the incident, and it was found that the parties had been guilty of contempt. Then, collaterally, came the degree of punishment. His legal education told him that this, like every other contempt of Court, must be first met by imprison ment.—( Hear.) Then came the consideration of quantity. It was proposed that Bond should be brought to the bar of that House, reprimanded, and discharged. Discharged ! Was that to be one of the privileges of criminality ?—( Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) It had come to his knowledge through the newspapers that a meeting had beea held at Ips wich to celebrate this indecent conduct of the late sitting Members. Yes, to celebrate it. This meeting was attended by the Town Clerk, the only legal officer of the borough. One of the speakers at this meeting, after lamenting the defeat of the glorious cause, declared that he would give their oppo. rents a grand charge, as the Duke of Wellington had charged his enemies at Waterloo. The same speaker declared they would adopt the same honourable measures they had done before to secure the return of Tory candidates. The same honourable measures, the same judicious measures !—(Loud cheers.) " Why, Sir," continued the Hon. and Learned Member, " they dare us—the bribers dare us."—( Cheers. ) Do they suppose they will find any backers here ?—( Cheers.) We will teach them—we will teach them differently.— ( Loud cheers.) No, Sir, the men of Ipswich are mistaken, they will find no backers in the English House of Commons. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then alluded to the con duct of Mr. Dasent, who, lie said, out of affection for the master he once served became a wretched briber, and begged votes for the love of Heaven and in the name of charity. Such conduct, he considered, was a disgrace to the high and honourable profession to which he (Mr. O'Connell) belonged; and what might be looked upon as a mere fault in another man was in him a crime. He was sorry to see, too, that there were English Members who, instead of rising with the blush of shame upon their countenance to deprecate such conduct, came forward to defend it. Mr. Dasent was a member of the English bar. What would the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn say to such conduct ? Would they inquire into that ?—( Loud cheers.) Would the base calumniators who wrote in the Legal Review inquire into it ? He had never heard of such unblushing bribery in the most rampant days of ancient To ryism. " We know" (said the Hon. and Learned Gentle man) " how money has been sent, aye, and military too.— ( Hear.) And if the matter is sifted to the bottom, the Eng lish public wilt have practices disclosed such as cannot be too soon brought to light." He was glad at the manner in which the inquiry had proceeded, and that Bond and each of the party would be sent to Newgate. Colonel PE RCE VAL admired the spirited statement of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and approved and con curred with him in his indignation against the agents and pay masters of bribery. He rose. however, to bring to the recol lection of the Hon. and Learned Member and to the attention of that House the fact that an individual filling the situation of the highest trust, a learned individual advanced by the present Government, did pay with his own hands, in y the City of Dublin, money to voters to influence their votes. This indi vidual was Counsellor Hudson, who, in August 1831—he re membered it well, for it was the first year he had the honour of a seat in that House—was guilty of this conduct. He called it to the recollection of the Hon. and Learned Member, as it was in accordar.ce with his views that such a person sh.aild be hunted from civilised society.—( Loud and continued elwering.) According to the statement of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, that individual was convicted of a ciime which should have for ever driven him from the Bar, and even from society ; and yet the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman threw the shield of his protection over him. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman should not, under these circum stances, be one of those who came forward to pronounce judo ment on a young man, a pupil to a Barrister, and not ye called to the Bar. Several voices, " He is." Colonel PE RC E VAL said that it did not materially alter the case he meant to put whether Mr. Dasent had or had not been called to the bar. The case he meant to put was whe ther it was consistent with justice for the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin to screen Counseller Hudson, at present the legal adviser c f the Government in Dublin, the Attorney- General's devil, as he was called—(Laughter)—while he urged harsh proceedings against a young man for an offence exactly similar to that of which the former had been adjudged guilty by the House ? The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin called down all the rigour of the House on Mr. Da sent, while the Attorney-General of Ireland, Mr. Serjeant Perrin, rewarded Mr. Hudson with place and profit.—( Hear. ) He (Colonel Perceval) would state a few facts concerning that Gentleman. On the 31st of August, 1831, the Right Hon. Member for Cricklade, Mr. Robert Gordon, on the question of the Dublin election, rose to address the House in support of the report of the Committee. The speech he (Colonel P.) should quote from the Mirror of Parliament, which he saw occasionally adduced as authority in that House.—[The Hon. and Gallant Member then proceeded to read extracts from the speech, as given in the above-named work, which were to the effect " that Counsellor Hudson appeared to be the principal giver, and that he was assisted by an attorney named Aitch cock." The extracts then went on to describe the case as one of the most gross bribery and corruption, and stated that the people of England would laugh at the House if an end were not put to a system of bribery, which they concluded by de nouncing as twice cursed—cursing him who gave and him who took.' These extracts he (Colonel Perceval) quoted because he wished to show the House that the Hon. and Learned Member could act in one way to oppose a political opponent, and another to screen a political friend. Mr. O'CONNELL.—No, no. Colonel PERCEVAL repeated it. The position of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin in respect to the Irish Government gave him the power to do as he pleased ; but sometime or other, perhaps, the cat would be let out of the bag.—( Laughter.) The Hon. and Gallant Member then went on to read extracts from the speeches of Dr. Lusbington, and Lords Althorp and J. Russell, to show that the perjury and bribery:at the Dublin election were most disgraceful, and that the individuals bribing were much more guilty than the wretched beings whom they had bribed. With all this he (Colonel Perceval) fully agreed ; but he thought any rule which applied to the case of punishment should begeneral and not partial. Mr. O'CONNELL said that a more unfair and unjust at tack had never been made by any Hon. Gentleman in that House, or one which had fewer particles of common honesty in its composition. Colonel PERCEVAL—Does the Hon, and Learned Gen tleman mean to say that I made any dishonest or dishonourable charges against the individual in question ? Mr. O'CONNELL.—No, no. But Ido mean to say that the charges I complain of have been made unjustly and un fairly. The Hon. Gentleman made a charge against the At torney-General of Ireland. Colonel PERCEVAL.—No. Mr. O'CONNELL hoped that he would be distinctly un derstood. He wished to know of the Honourable and Gal lant Member whether the Committee in the case of the Dublin Election, alluded to by him, had made a special report to the House ? Colonel PERCE VAL replied in the affirmative. Mr. O'CONNELL desired to be informed whether the name of Mr. Hudson was mentioned in it? Colonel PERCEVAL was not heard to reply. Mr. O'CONNELL continued—lt was insinuated that he had protected Mr. Hudson. What was the fact? He had voted for his prosecution. He (Mr. O'Connell) put it to the House, whether it was not too bad that an able and talented young Gentleman, who was rising fast in his profession, and winning the affection and esteem of all who came into con tact with him, should be thus aspiersed by the Min. and Gal lant Officer, in a place and under circumstances which ren dered him powerless to defend himself, even if he were not in another country? He (Mr. O'Connell) was a gratuitous defender of that Gentleman. He did not know him sufficiently well to enter on it as he might do ; and, indeed, he had not behaved well to him (Mr. O'Connell), as he had refused to to be one of his counsel in the last Dublin election. But how were the facts of the case ? Bills were preferred against every one concerned iu the bribery alluded to by the Hon. and Gallant Member, under the direction of the House, at the instance of the King's Attorney - General for Ireland. They were sent before the Grand Jury of the City of Dublin—a body of gentlemen known by every one to be opposed, as a majority, to the - party which Mr. Hudson was accused by him of acting with; and yet that Grand Jury ignored the bills.-- (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell) appealed to any man of feeling in the House, whose feelings were not blunted by party, whether it was fair or just to tell one part of such a story—and such a part, and not to tell the other ?—( Hear, hear.) The Grand Jury of Dublin, a body of gentlemen on the Hon. and Gallant Member's side of politics, ignored the bills ; and Mr. Hudson's character stood as unimpeached in the presence of the country, as that of any Hon. Member in that House. He (Mr. O'Connell) would say, let Mr. Dasent stand that test—let a Grand Jury ignore a bill or bills against lum—and if they did so, he (Mr. O'Connell) would consent to be looked upon as a base calumniator—( Cheers)—he would I be content to have the stigma follow him out of the House— (Renewed cheering)—and rest upon him for ever. Colonel PERCEVAL had never heard of the prosecution, and never knew that any bills against Mr. Hudson, or those implicated with him in the same charge, had been sent before a Grand Jury. He appealed to his Hon. and Learned friend the Member for Bandon Bridge, and his other Hon. and Learned friends about him, to bear him out in the state ment, and inform the House whether even they, practising as they did at the Irish Bar, were cognizant of it either? An emphatic exclamation from the Treasury Beaches called up, Sir H. HARD INGE, who considered the course of inter rupting Hon. Members perfectly ungentlemanly. Colonel PERCEVAL, in continuation, should not solemnly in the presence of the House, call God Almighty to Witness the truth of his denial; but he would as a Gentleman, assure them, on his honour, that he had never heard, until the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated it, that Mr. Hudson had been before a Grand Jury for the offence with which he was charged. Under these circumstances he felt that though an injustice might have been committed by him, as it was done inadvertently and without intention, if done at all, he could not be fairly accused of it, and he felt that he did not deserve it. Sir J. WROTTE SLEY was unaware who the Hon. and Gallant General on the opposite side of the House had applied the epithet " ungentlemanly" to. He ( Sir J. Wrottesley) had only expressed his surprise at the statement of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Sligo, and, perhaps, acting under the in fluence of his feeling at seeing all the prospects in life of an individual on the point of being ruined without any legal or other inquiry, expressed them strongly. But he would put it to the House and to the Hon. and Gallant Officer, whether anything said under these circumstances justified the applica tion of such a term? Mr. HARDY would beg to remind the House that the question before them was not one of bribery, but of breach of privilege, and he would beg to remind them that they di gressed very materially from it. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, as he had been appealed to by his Hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for Sligo, felt it a point of honour to state to the House, with respect to what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, that, though practising at the bar in Dublin, he had never heard of the fact of bills being preferred against Mr. Hudson, and ignored by the City of Dublin Grand Jury.—( Cheers.) But he took it for granted, notwithstanding, as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated it to be within his own know ledge. Of course if it were not a fact, it would not be so stated by him. With respect to the question before the House, he ( Mr. Sergeant Jackson) thought that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had made as unfair and as ungenerous a speech in aggravation of punishment, to influence the feelings of the House against individuals, and especially against a mem ber of his own honourable and learned profession, as had ever been made within its walls.—( Hear.) Mr. O'Malley, then in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, was a member of the same profession as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself, at the English bar, and a native of the same country as he was. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) did hot know Mr. O'Malley himself, but lie knew his family to be highly respectable. That gen tleman had petitioned the House, stating in his petition that he had not been engaged in the case until two days previous to its trial, and that he had had only one interview with Pil grim. All this he offered to prove, and prayed to be allowed to put in bail for that purpose. He further stated that he had acted solely under the direction of Messrs. Sewell and Blake, his employers. Mr. O'CONNELL (amidst cries of" Question,") said that the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland in 1831, was then in his place, and he could probably inform them whether the Crown Lawyer had prosecuted Mr. Hudson according to the desire Of the House, or whether the Government had directed the prosecution ? Sir E. KNATCIIBULL was understood to inquire of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin on what authority lie grcunded his statement of the fact of the bills against Mr. Hudson being ignored by the Grand Jury of the city of Dublin. Mr. O'CONNELL was in the Hall of the Four Courts when a Gentleman came to Mr. Hudson, in his presence, and congratulated him on the bills against him being ignored by the Grand Jury. Mr. SHAW wns not aware of any Bill having ever been preferred against Mr. Hudson. Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know whether any Bill had been preferred against any of those included in the same charge ? Mr. SHAW had had a conversation with his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, and their belief agreed, that there were no bills of indictment sent up to the Grand Jury against Mr. Hudson at the time. Mr. O'CONNELL said that Mr. Hudson was of the party, and whether bills were sent up against him or not was a matter of no consequence, as far as regarded the charge. He was involved under the same accusation as the other parties to it, and if the bills against them were ignored he was entitled by every principle of law and justice to the benefit of the acquittal. Mr. Sergeant JACKS ON (amidst cries of " Spoke") said that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated the bills had been before the Grand Jury, and had been ignored by them. Sir F. POLLOCK entirely agreed with all that had been said on the subject of bribery ; but he did not think that it was in time or place on the present occasion. Giving the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin the full benefit of the fact which he first alleged in respect of the Geatleman,who%e name he ( Sir F. Pollock) should not repeat, it would be found by the House, on due consideration, that what appeared true be fore a Committee was ignored before a Jury.—( Hear.) Un der these circumstances he repeated that the House ought to be extremely cautious how they proceeded in a case like the one before them, even though they had an admission of guilt by the parties. An HON. MEMBER complained of the attack made by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin on a gentleman con nected with the Bar, and belonging to a learned profession. The SPEAKER then put the question. It was carried affirmatively. Mr. GISBORNE then moved a similar resolution in the case of A. B. Cooke. Mr. G. F. YOUNG (amidst cries of " Question," " Spoke," and " Oh") begged to suggest that it would be much the better course to refer the case back to the Commit tee, that they might select such portions of the evidence as they deemed necessary to establish the several degrees of guilt attachable to the respective parties, and report thereon to the House. Mr. STEWART should soon satisfy the House that the observations of his Hon. Friend were unnecessary. The re turn to the warrant against A. B. Cooke was Nil., and that to the warrant against Bond was the same. Both had pleaded guilty ; as well as the other who was sent to Newgate. The question was put and carried. Mr. GISBORNE then moved a similar resolution in the case of Richard Burchell Clack. The motion was agreed to. Mr. GISBORNE then moved that J. Dasent and J. Spar row be committed. After a few words from Mr. C. W. WYNN, The question was put from the Chair, and the parties com mitted. Mr. GISBORNE then moved, " That F. O'Malley be committed for aiding and abetting the evasion of the authority of that House." After a few words from Mr. Sergeant Jackson, Mr. P. Stewart, Mr. C. W. W. Wynn, and Mr. Wilke, The SPEAKER put the question, that Frederick O'Mal ley be committed, and which was carried without a division. Mr. GISBORNE then moved that John Pilgrim be brought to the bar of that House. The SPEAKER then put the question to the Sergeant at Arms, whether the offender was in custody ? The Sergeant would go and ascertain the fact. Having returned and answered in the affirmative, introducing Mr. Giffard, one of the Messengers of the House, The SPEAKER asked Mr. Giffard whether he had taken the offender, John Pilgrim, into custody Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir, I have. The SPEAKER—Where did you take him? Mr. Giffard—Sir, at Norwich. The SPEAKER-Where is he now? Mr. Giffard—Here, Sir. The SPEAKER—Did the gaolor of Norwich give him into your custody. Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir. The SPEAKER—On any conditions? Mr. Gifford—Yes, Sir, I had to sign a bond. By an Hon. MEMBER—Does the messenger know on what charge John Pilgrim was in custody in the gaol of Norwich ? Mr. Giffard—l did hear of a suit. By the same Hon. MEMBER—A criminal charge? Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir. By the same Hon. MEMBER—Was it on a charge of felony ? Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir, it was, or at least I apprehend it was. Mr. HUME suggested to the Chair that the witness should be asked whether he had a copy of the committal? The SPEAKER—Have you brought with you the copy of any warrant under which the prisoner had been committed to Norwich gaol ? Mr. Giffard—No Sir, I have not. Mr. HUME—Did the witness serve the warrant of the House upon the prisoner in the gaol ? Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir, I did. Mr. HUME—Did the witness understand when he served the warrant that the party was under a charge of felony in that • gaol ? Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir, I did. He was in gaol under a THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1835. charge of felony, and had entered into a bond to satisfy the parties.---( A laugh. ) Mr. LAW—Did the witness clearly understand that the prisoner was under a charge of felony ? Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir, I did. Mr. LAW—Did you understand this from the keeper of the gaol ? Mr. Giffard—No, Sir, certainly not. Mr. LAW—Was it on a charge of embezzlement or civil debt, or on a charge of felony ? Giffard—A charge of embezzlement. Mr. LAW—A charge of felony Mr. Giffard—A charge of feleny.—( A laugh.) The witness then withdrew, and Mr. HUME moved that John Pilgrim be brought to the bar. Mr. C. W. W. WYNN thought that the best course the House could pursue would be to commit the prisoner to New gate in order to his safe custody ; and if it should be found that he had been committed to Norwich gaol for felony he might then be remanded to that prison. The petition to the House of John Pilgrim was then put in by Mr. P. Stewart, and was read by the Clerk of the House. It set forth that the petitioner had proceeded to Ipswich to in terfere in the election solely at the command of Messrs. Sewell, Blake, and Co., solicitors, with whom he had been a confidential clerk and agent for thirty years ; that he had acted under the direction of those persons throughout the election, and had at their desire absconded, in order to avoid giving evidence before the Committee ; that he had after wards been arrested under a charge of embezzlement by Messrs. Sewell and Blake, that he might evade the Speaker's warrant ; and that he had afterwards made all the atonement in his power to the Hon. House, by giving the most full and accurate evidence of the proceedings at the election. The prisoner therefore humbly threw liimself upon the mercy of the Hon. House, and prayed that the Hon. House would not subject him to imprisonment. The SPEAKER then put the question that John Pilgrim was guilty of a breach of the privileges of that House? The motion being agreed to nem con., The SPEAKER next put the question, that John Pilgrim be committed to his Majesty's gaol of Newgate, in order to his safe custody ? Mr. C. W. W. WYNN thought that the prisoner ought to be committed by way of punishment for the offence he had committed. Mr. LAW ventured to suggest to the House whether, without the consent of the Crown, to be expressed by his Majesty's law officers, the House could proceed to commit the offender to Newgate, when he was already a prisoner under a charge of felony in his Majesty's gaol of Norwich. He only pressed the case out of regard to the rights of the Crown. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would never neglect the prerogatives of the Crown, nor the privileges of his own office, but he felt convinced that no such prerogative or pri vilege as the Hon. and Learned Recorder had adverted to could intervene in the present case. He had looked into the precedents on this subject, and he was persuaded that the House had the power to order Pilgrim into custody, although he was in gaol on a charge of felony.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. C W. W. WYNN said there could be no doubt that the view that his Majesty's Attorney-General had taken of the subject was correct. Mr. D. W. HARVEY thought that the prisoner ought to be committed to Newgate instanter, if it were only to give him the opportunity of proving the allegations contained in his petition..—( Hear, hear, hear.) The petitioner had stated that he had been thirty years a confidential agent to Messrs. Sewell, and this ought to give a prima facie weight to his testimony in this case. He trusted that the House would at length reach the prime movers in this case. Mr. HUME would vote for the committal of the prisoner to Newgate. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was not unfavourable to the mildest course that could be pursued. Mr. LAW, in reply to the Attorney-General, said that in the case referred to the rule of court was, that the Attorney- General might show cause on the case, and the rule was made absolute upon his not showing cause. After an observation from Lord JOHN RUSSELL, which was quite inaudible, the question was put, and John Pilgrim was ordered to be committed for safe custody to the gaol of Newgate. Mr. GISBORNE said it was not his intention at present to bring forward any motion respecting the other parties who were implicated in these proceedings by the Report of the Committee. But if, after the whole of the evidence taken before the Committee had been printed and in the hands of Members—if no other Member, better qualified for the duty, should take up the matter, he should find himself called upon to bring forward a motion for instituting proceedings against the late sitting Members, tbe Magistrates, and all the other parties involved in the report. Mr. H UME said that the Magistrates might be proceeded against for the impediments they threw in the way of the exe cution of the Speaker's warrant. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to know from the Hon. Member for Derbyshire if it was his intention to move that ali the evidence taken before the Committee should be printed? Mr. GISBORNE said that it was his intention to move that all those parts of the evidence relating to the parties implicated by the report should be printed. After a few words from Mr. YOUNG, Mr. GISBORNE moved that a Committee be appointed to select and report to the House, all the evidence bearing upon the cases of the persons implicated in the report of the Ipswich Election Committee. The motion was then agreed to, and the Select Committee named. care that the person exercising it should have such a stake as afforded some warrant for his respectability ; but for corporation purposes it might perhaps be found sufficiently convenient and ef fectual to trust the, right of electing the Corporation to rate payers. It was important here to observe that one of the great objections urged against the present Corporation system and one to which it was fairly liable, was the tendency it had to introduce and foster a spirit of party and political feeling. Without adverting particularly or invidiously to Whig or Tory Corporations, no person could deny that the necessary consequence of the principle of self-election in Corporations was to preserve in the officers and members of them the same political prejudices, and to transmit them from one generation to another. It was most desirable that at length, and after the long experience they had of the evils arising from this system, some steps should be taken to check, if not entirely to put an end to it. Great care should be taken that in future the election of officers should not be a trial of the relative strength of parties in a Corporation, and that the result of the franchise now proposed would be to make the officers, not exclusively the representatives of a particular political party, but the representatives of one set of opinions as well as another.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted the Government would adhere to the principle which required a three years' residence and contribution to the rate. This he considered a very important provision. It might be objected that by re quiring this condition, of a three years' payment of rate, some voters, having the 101. franchise for Members of Parliament, would be struck out, and deprived of the power of voting for Corporation officers. That might be the case; but he would remind the House that permanent residence as a title to vote would be much more important here than in the franchise provided by the Reform Bill. There was one circumstance to be considered, and it was this, that the least respectable class of voters was likely to be that which consisted of per sons that were frequently changing their place of residence. —( Hear.) By requiring the condition of residence for so long a period as three years they were likely to secure a more respectable class of voters, better acquainted with their own interests and with those of the body of which they formed a constituent part. With respect to open voting, it seemed to him that the provisions of the Bill were hardly sufficient to secure that important object. The mere signature of the party, to be inspected only by the Mayor, could not be con sidered open; it was rather secret voting. However, the time for entering into these considerations would be when the Bill was in Committee, and he trusted that, forgetting party differences and shades of political opinion, the endeavour on all sides would be, not to impair the provisions of the Bill, but, if alterations should be deemed necessary, so to alter it as to make it work practically for the greatest possible benefit of the community at large.---( Cheers.) There was one point ad verted to by his Noble Friend (Lord Sandon) which appeared to him of some importance—he meant the shortness of the period allowed to the officers to continue in office. He fully admitted that it was highly desirable the electors should exer cise periodical control over the acts of the Corporation, and should have opportunities of seeing how the property was disposed of, and of checking its application. But, in endea vouring to avoid one evil, they might fall into that of an op posite nature, by depriving the Corporation of that degree of continuance, those opportunities for maturing their plans, and that stability that was necessary to enable them to bring their objects to a successful issue. If a sufficient degree of control could be secured otherwise, why should the period ,of three years be fixed for re-election—besides which, it was proposed that there should be every year a re-election of one-third of the Council ? See what a state of agitation, excitement, and turmoil this would give rise to in every large town through out the country. For his part--and he only expressed his own private opinion—he should prefer a general election every sixth year in place of three years ; and that the re-election of halt the Council should be triennial. It struck him that it would be a much preferable mode that half the Council should go out triennially, than that one-third should go out annually. There was another point to which he would call the attention of his Noble Friend.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped his Noble Friend and the Government would consider whether the division into wards, might not be advan tageously extended farther than it was in this Bill. There were not more than about twenty of the largest towns to which it was proposed to extend the principle of a division into wards. The Corporation of all places under a population of 25,0D0 was to be chosen in a single election. It was easy to see that the result of this must be to enable a single majority in those towns to return all the officers, and thus the minority, however large and however respectable, would be entirely unrepre sented. He would submit to the consideration of his Noble Friend, and of the House, whether there would not be a great advantage in taking the election in different wards ? One great convenience arising from it would be to prevent con. fusion. As the Bill now stood if any one member of the Council happened to die in a town under a population of 25,000 he must be replaced by a general election of all the voters ; whereas by a division into wards there would be no occasion for an election except in the particular ward where a vacancy occurred, and the rest of the town would be left free from the bustle and agitation of an election contest. He would not now go into further details, but when the Bill was in Committee he had no doubt that the Government would be prepared and even anxious to go into a full discussion of the clauses, and to consider, in a spirit of fairness and conciliation, any suggestions that might be thrown out in the way of im provement. He could say for himself that upon this very im portant subject he felt nothing but an earnest and sincere desire to see carried into effect a measure which he considered wise in principle-4 Cheers)—and excellent in many of its details—to see it carried into effect beneficially, not for this party or that, but for the good of the community at large.-- ( Cheers. ) Mr. EWA RT said there was no precedent for the period of six years, as suggested by the Noble Lord. He denied that publicity was the principle upon which the Corporation of Liverpool conducted their affairs. The only publicity they obtained was from individual members of the Corporation, and that without the consent of the rest. Even Tory members of that body admitted that the funds were not properly adminis tered. A meeting was held in Liverpool on Friday last, at which many thousands attended ; and, so far from expressing distrust in the Government, on account of this Bill, it bad greatly raised them in their estimation. Mr. GROTE entertained a very high opinion of the ex cellent principles on which the measure was based, and derived great satisfaction from perceiving the general feeling of the House as to the necessity of abolishing the self-election sys tem. Ile only regretted that such a system should have been suffered to remain so long without any attempt at Reform. As to the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member for Lan cashire he hoped that no one of the alterations proposed by him would be acceded to by the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud. The qualification of the three years' rating, he apprehended, would disfranchise a large body of voters without at all adding to the respectability of the consti tuency, as he would be prepared to show when the House went into Committee upon the Bill. He sincerely hoped that the three years' rating would be reduced to one. The great defect in the Bill be considered to be the want of the principle of the ballot. As to minor points he thought that the number of the members of the Council was unnecessarily large, and calculated to lower the average of intelligence and respectability on the part of the members. The number he should propose to reduce to one half.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Of the severance between the judicial and administrative functione he greatly approved. In regard to the trustees of charitable uses he considered the mode of election an improve ment ; but he thought there should be some provision for insuring a proper discharge of their duties when they were elected ; at present they were irresponsible and irremovable. He also begged leave to recommend that some means should be adopted for removing the Recorder when be ceased to give satisfaction to the town—he might be subjected to removal on the petition of a majority of the Council, or a majority of rate payers. The Hon. Member concluded by stating his inten tion to reserve other details for the Committee. Mr. WALL ACE said that the system of wards which was which was proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for Lan cashire had not been found to answer. The system had failed in Scotland. As to increasing the three years of office to six, it would be advocated only by those who were in favour of septennial Parliaments. As to the general plan it was excel lent, and he hoped its advantages would in time be communi cated to Scotland. Mr. BL AC KBURNE said there was no doubt as to the propriety of abolishing the self-election system. The best substitute would be a right on the part of every inhabitant to take part in the election of those destined to manage his affairs. Nothing was more just than that he who paid his pro portion of certain funds should have a voice in choosing the managers of those funds. The qualification of a vote being fixed to consist in the payment of rates was the most politic, as it insured the respectability of the voter. This qualification was, by the Bill, intended to be three years' residence and three years' rating, in order to exclude from voting those who were only occasional residents in the borough. But, in his opinion, a year's residence was sufficient to show an individual's inten tention to remain in the borough, and after being rated, and after residing for one year, he would still ,be unable to vote for a greater number of the municipal officers than one-third of the whole. With this exception he agreed in all the details of the Bill, though of course many excellent alterations might be suggested in Committee. Though he was one of the Corpo ration Commissioners, he had no share in drawing up the Bill, and, therefore, be had been induced to make these few remarks. Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke as follows :—Sir, the same motives which induced me to make no opposition to the mo tion of the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud for introducing this measure will lead me to give my assent, and I must say my willing assent, to the second reading of it to-night.—( Hear, hear.) When I hear of certain political parties being inte rested in opposing a reform of the municipal institutions of the country, I must say that that great party with which I have the honour to be connected can have no other interest than that os see i n g a well constructed system of good Government established in those large and important societies.—( Hear. ) To the general principle of this measure I am a cordial friend. I believe that you could not establish a system of permanently good Government, and at the same time preserve all the existing privileges of the corporate authorities. I think that it is better to place the administration of towns in bodies en tirely new modelled than to leave the corporate authorities in existence, and at the same time to supersede their interference in municipal affairs by the erection of higher and controlling powers. Indeed, it may be said to be a compliment to the principal inhabitants of the towns to provide, by a new mode of election, for the municipal administration, instead of preserving the system of self-election, and at the same time of depriving the authorities of all power. Upon the details, Sir, I intend to reserve to myself an entire right of bringing forward any suggestion which may occur to me as worthy the con sideration of the House. At the same think I think it proper to state that if I mean to propose any important amendment, at all affecting the principle of the measure, I shall give notice of such proposition ; and I think were other Hon. Gentlemen to adopt a similar course it would be one of great and general convenience. —(Hear, hear.) The three most important questions connected with the principle of the Bill appear to be these :—The qualification of the constituent body, the frequency of elections, and the manner in which the governing body is to be elected. But, besides these questions, there is another point which I do not find no ticed in the Bill, and which I believe has not been adverted to by any Honourable Gentleman in the debate. I mean the qualification of the members of the governing body.— ( Hear, hear.) With respect to the qualification on the part of the constituent body—that is, those who are to elect to the administration of the towns—l have given some consideration to the subject since the measure was introduced by the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud ; and my present impression is, that it would be advisable to have a qualification which is dif ferent to that fixed by the Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who stated to the House some facts relating to the Scotch burghs, omitted to inform the House that the qualification of a voter for municipal officers is identical with that required on the part of electors of Parliamentary repre sentatives. The qualification of a voter in the Scotch burghs is fixed at 10/.—( Hear, hear.) Now, if we introduced the same principle into the measure before us, we should have the advantages of the existing system of legislature • but, on the other hand, I feel the full force of the objection ;hat we should run the risk of causing the constituent body to be entirely po litical, and influenced by all those heated and acrimonious feelings which too frequently govern the voters at elections of Members of Parliament. On every vacancy in a magisterial office, whether by death, by resignation, or the triennia 1 ro tation, the election might be converted into a trial of po litical strength, and that I think would have a considerable tendency to paralise the exertions and wholesome influence of the local magistrates, inasmuch as they would be sus pected of having a direct interest to secure the municipal elections for political purposes—a suspicion which must necessarily shake the public confidence in their incor rupt and impartial discharge of their functions. Under these circumstances, then, I conceive it would be ad vantageous to adopt another qualification than that of the Re form Bill. The next question is, whether the qualification laid down in the measure before us is the right one ?—( Hear, hear.) It consists of three years' continuous residence, and three years' continuous payment of rates. Now Iby no means consider this a bad qualification ; for the three years' residence forms an excellent test of the good character of the elector, and the three years' payment of rates of his property, respecta bility, and interest in the maintenance of good government. But to fix this qualification is not enough ; you ought to guard against its evasion.—( Hear, hear.) If no such precautions be taken, you will give a vote in many towns to individuals who are without any settlement there.—( Hear, hear.) Here, although the parishes de facto pay the rates, the paupers are the parties who directly make the payment, and consequently, notwithstanding the provisions of a three years' residence, and a three years' payment of rates, paupers belonging to another parish, and having no settlement in the towns they reside in, will have a right to elect to the first offices in the municipal system. After this example I think no Hon. Gentleman will dissent from the suggestion that effectual provisions ought to be made for a strict bona fide adherence to the qualification established by the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) As to its amount, I consider it to be quite low enough. I cannot agree with the Hon. Gentleman who ventured the dictum that every man who contributes to the rates levied in a town ought to possess a vote in the election of those concerned in their management and disposal. I do not think he has any such right. You do not say that every man who contributes to the exigencies of the State has a claim to vote at the election of Members of Parliament, but you adopt that course which appears calcu lated for obtaining electors who are best qualified for taking a part in such elections, and appointing to the station those who are most fitted to hold it. Why should not the same princi ple be adopted in corporations ? If you think that by laying down a qualification of three years' residence and three years' payment of rates you can obtain a more efficient control over the rates, and a better system of municipal government, I say that this is a mere material object to look to than any theoretic principle, that he who contributes to the rates should vote in the election of the managers of them. With respect to the frequency of elections, I am inclined to think that more would be gained by the permanence of the administrative body than by the introduction of a principle of constant turmoil and agitation which must go to poison the harmony of so ciety. With respect to the qualification of the governing body, I believe it is a very prevalent opinion in this coun try, that there ought to be some qualification.—( Hear, hear.) We have a right to entertain that opinion. And, Sir, con sidering that a Mayor of a town is to sit on the same bench with county Magistrates, from whom some qualification is required, and that for the proper discharge of his important duties a similar security seems just as necessary, it is not inconsistent to call for the insertion of a clause to that ef fect. I have now adverted to the three main points in the Bill, and having declared my sentiments in regard to the principle of each, I shall reserve more minute details for a future opportunity. With respect to the Mayor of a town, I wish to remind the House that he is also the returning officer—that he is a political character, and that he has political functions to perform. Now, what are the powers with which, in addition to his political authority, this measvre proposes to invest him ? They are of the greatest extent, and, there fore, what I wish to suggest is, that precautions should be taken against his abuse of his municipal powers for any po litical purpose. You give to the Mayor the power of re ceiving the lists of the voters in the municipal elections, of examining those lists, and of proclaiming the result of such examination. You have not neglected to take pre cautions for a due discharge of their duties by the members of the Council, and for a proper application of charitable funds ; and, therefore, if you are so cautious in matters of less importance you should at least be equally so in pre venting political from clashing with municipal duties. But by the Bill the Mayor has almost irresponsible power in regard to the municipal voters ; and, upon the grounds I have before stated, it is not only requisite to guard against the abuse of this power, but also to make provisions for preclud ing the possibility of such an abuse being suspected, for sus picion is sufficient to invalidate confidence in his impartiality' and. integrity. Now what objection can there possibly be to the appointment of a certain number of authorised scru tineers, to examine and report on the lists of the voters ? At present the Mayor is to preside in the Court for hearing objec tions against voters, to receive the lists of those objected to, to examine the lists, and, moreover, he has the power of destroy ing them immediately after such examination. Any abuse of this unlimited power might, however, be prevented by the ar rangements I have suggested. There is another point also deserving of attentive consideration. The Bill makes no pro- vision for the application of any surplus corporate funds. Many of the boroughs are extremely wealthy, and if we provide them with funds for the determinate application of which we furnish them with directions, it is quite clear that frequently a con siderable surplus may be left. Liverpool, I believe, has at present a considerable surplus. Lord S AND ON A surplus of 25,0001. Sir R. PEEL—WeII, the new corporate bodies are to have all the power of the existing municipal officers, and in the event of a large surplus, which may accrue after providing for all the purposes named in the Act ; they may make what use they please of it, unless some distinct enactment is made, that they are not to dispose of it without the sanction of the Trea sury, or without complying with certain forms. Under this Bill many boroughs will have to incur considerable expense— for instance, in establishing a body of police, and for such pur poses they are to be empowered to levy a sufficient rate. To this there can be no objection, and I highly approve of the pro vision by which, existing interests being excepted, no munici pal officer is for the future to have any private pecuniary in terest in the local funds. The improvements under this head would, therefore, I think, be complete, if some enactment were made in reference to the disposal of the surplus funds.— ( Hear, hear.) The next point to which I shall direct attention relates to the county rates, a subject in which many country Gentlemen in this House are deeply interested. All the-new boroughs will be exempted from the operation of the county rates; their criminal jurisdiction is to be taken away ; and this Bill seems to assume that all their cases will be sent to the assizes. The county rate, moreover, will be levied on a new principle ; for, by this Bill, the treasurer of the county will have to certify to the treasurer of the bo rough what portion of the expenses the borough would have to pay. In most instances lam afraid the borough will not be satisfied with the calculations of the county treasuprer ; and this, as may easily be supposed, will lead to almost endless dis putes. The present mode of assessment is simple ; but cer tainly this proposed alteration is not so simple. There is another enactment in this Bill which is of great importance. The counties now pay for the erection of bridges and of lunatic asylums; but by this Bill the boroughs will also have to pay their portion. The treasurer of the county will certify the portion to be paid in the new districts, and in case of difference there is to be an appeal to the Privy Council, but I am afraid that the Privy Council is not a body the most fit to determine such points, there being no test to guide their judgment. Looking at this Bill as if it were a local Bill the districts composing the new boroughs will not be conter-minus with the parishes. A part of a parish may be without the boundaries of the borough, and, being in the county, will be under the control of the old system of contribution ; but the other part, being within the borough, will come under the operation of the new principle to be established by this Bill, and, consequently, great confusion will arise. These, certainly, are minor difficulties, but they are of such a nature that to disregard them would materially impair the successful working of the measure. But there is a more important point connected with this Bill, to which I now come. This Bill provides that twenty boroughs are to be divided into wards, and these wards are to be determined by the Privy Council, on the report of Commissioners, to be appointed by the Crown. Now, Sir, surely Parliament ought to have some control over the establishment of these wards, without leaving the matter entirely to Commissioners and the Privy Council ; and I think that much ill-will and bad feelings may be done away with by extending this principle of wards beyond the limits provided in the Bill. On this point I shall reserve to myself the power of proposing some alteration when the House goes into Committee. The Bill, as I have just remarked, provides that twenty towns shall be divided into wards ; but it also provides that the Privy Council shall not only have the numbering of these wards, but shall decide as to the number of representatives to be returned by each ward. This is an extremely great power, and to say that any power short of Parliament shall divide Liverpool or any other great city into wards, and determine the number of the re p re sentatives of the wards, is to give the power of making that Corporation aristo cratical or democratical, as the Commissioners or Privy Coun cil may choose. But does the Noble Lord suppose that, with out any reservation, the Crown ought to exercise this very great power ? In the case of the Reform Bill the Crow was to have the power of determining the boundaries of the new boroughs, but Parliament took to itself that power. By this Bill the Crown is authorized, in the case of a first election, \to dispense with the division into wards. Surely this is ma- nifestly wrong, for the Bill gives to the Crown the appoint ment of Commissioners—to the Privy Council the division of these wards ; but if the Crown does not think fit to exercise its discretionary power the electors are to have liberty to proceed to the election of the corporate body. In this there should be some alteration ; but most undoubtedly the privi lege of dividing into wards ought alone to be reserved for Parliament. Having thus far considered the measure in its; general bearings, it is my intention to support the Bill ; but my most earnest advice to all parties is, to give the fullest op portunity of examining the details, in order to secure the suc cess and popularity of the measure. The operations of the Bill in individual cases may be bad, but I hope they will not mar the general good features of the measure. There cer tainly are some cases, in which I think the advantages to bo expected from this Bill will not be realized. For insrance, in the town with which I am connected, referred to by the Com missioners in their Report, the corporate body is self-elected, it has only limited funds, but it is independent—has never meddled in electioneering matters—stand above all suspicion of abuse ; and I must say that I should see, with great regret, any alteration made in its government, which would only serve to introduce electioneering squabbles and dissensions. This would impress upon the Noble Lord, and beg of him to con sider most seriously whether Corporations, against which no suspicion of any abuse can breathed, ought not to be suffered to remain as they are at present.—( Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. BR OTHE RTON, which were totally inaudible in the gallery, Mr. JERVIS said the Right Hon. Baronet considered the annual going out of one-third of the town-council would be inexpedient ; but then that Right Hon. Baronet must have forgotten that two-thirds always remained in office to instruct those newly-elected. Besides, as was the cue with the guar dians of the poor, if they behaved well when in office, they were generally sure of election. As regarded the qualifies tionr he considered that the persons who would be elected would be of such character and station in life as would ren der any qualification unnecessary. Because a Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) had chosen to introduce a Bill into the other House with qualifications, he apprehended that that House was not bound to adopt the same principle. To en large the division of great towns into wards, he considered beneficial, and he should advise that a revising barrister should go to each town, and examine into the list of voters, to pre vent any undue influence of the Mayor, who was to be the returning officer under this Bill. It was not necessary for him to observe any further on the principle of this Bill, with which he most cordially agreed ; but he hoped that its pro gress might not be delayed beyond that time which was ac tually necessary for a measure of so much importance. Lord J. RUSSELL was extremely happy that the House entertained so favourable an opinion of the measure which he had introduced, and he felt convinced that the same feeling would successfully carry it through the House. It had afforded him great gratification to hear the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire to express his concurrence in the objects of this Bill. He had expected as much from that Noble Lord, and he was glad that he had not been disappointed in receiv ing his support in endeavouring to reform one of the institeu tions of the country. The Right H o n. Gentleman opposit had likewise stated, in the most candid and honourable man ner, that some Reform was necessary in the Municipal Cor porations of this country, and that it was necessary to deal with them on large and general principles. The Right Hon. Gen tleman had spoken on three points of the Bill. First, as to the franchise of the constituent body; secondly , a s t o the fre quency of elections ; and thirdly, as to the absence of any qualification in the governing body. With respect to the fran chise of the constituent body, what the Right Hon. Gentleman and his Right Hon. Friend said had tended to confirm Idol (Lord John Ru.,sell) in his opinion, that he had made a pro per selection of the species of electors, and he felt not at All disposed to make any alteration in that respect. In former . times residents in towns for one year were considered perma nent residents ; but such fluctuation necessarily took place in the number of inhabitants of towns, that he thought it OS not unreasonable to say that the permanent inhabitants of a town should be considered to be those who had paid rates for three years. He certainly thought that the Bill as it now stood was preferable to the alterations proposed.—( Hear.) The inhabitants of towns ought to have due controul o ver the election of the Corporate body, and have a power of inte ference for the purpose of re-electing at so long period those persons of whose conduct they approved. This Bill, he conceived, would not tend to effect perpetual changes in th e parties chosen, for it was only natural to suppose t hat those who had established a character in office would generally be re-elected. The Right Hon. Gentleman proposed some qua• lification, but he (Lord John Russell), after the best considera tion he had been able to give the subject, was clearly of opi nion that no possible practical benefit could arise by requiring qualifications.—( Hear.) With respect to the question of wards, it was said that a greater number of towns than those specified in the schedule ought to be divided into wards. He thought that dividing not very large towns into wards instead of having a beneficial, would have a very bad effect. At this late hour of the night he would not press further upon the attention of the House ; and with regard to those ques tions of detail which had been touched on by the Right Hon. Baronet, another more convenient opportunity would occur for their discussion. He would therefore conclude by stating that it was his intention to propose that the Bill be committed on Monday next, and he co nsidered from da y to day. The Bill was then read a second time. The Offences Against the Person Bill was then read a se cond time and ordered to be committed. The Western Australian Bill passed through Committee. It being now half-past twelve, Mr. B ROTHE RT ON moved the adjournment, but the motion not being seconded, Lord G. SOMERSET moved the Address in pursuance of resolutions of the Committee on rebuilding the Houses of Parliament. In doing so he said that the erection should be open to competition. With regard to the expense, he added that it was impossible to lay down any rule by which togo vern every species of outlay. As to the total outlay, the Committee were of opinion that if too large a sum were named there would be an inducement to make the estimate too high whilst, on the contrary, if the sum were too small, it would be found inadequate. Mr. HUNIE and Mr. R. COLBORNE supported the motion. Mr. L ENNARD hoped the different plans before they were decided upon, would be lithographed and distribute d amongst the Members for their consideration. It was stid" mentable fact that of late years a great deal of moneY been squandered away upon public buildings, which even for proved very little ornamental to the country. He t hought , ` h _ instance, Buckingham Palace would not have cost so ' glue ble and would have proved a handsomer and more credit° f building, if the plans had been submitted to the House Commons. After a few observations from the Chancellor of the El" chequer, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Tooke, the motion was agreed to. IPSWICH ELECTION. Mr. GISBORNE moved that the special report of e, the it V' wich Election Committee be referred to a Select C omm e to select such parts of the evidence as they might deem t ut propriate (as we understood) to the c as es o f J ohn Dsseu and others implicated in the report of that Committee.' A The to. other Orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'Clock. THIC WEATHER.--A poor woman who lived IP Dickinson bridge was found stretched on the floor of he a l house, quite lifeless ; and as the skin was excoriated on sever, . parts of her head and face, there is little doubt but that the was killed by lightning.—Manchester Guardian. THE INDIA-RUBBER BOAT.- 44 The boat Na invented," says the Providence Journal, "by Mr. Caleb Nv! liams, jun., of this city, and was manufactured at the In ch "; rubber Factory, on Eddy's Point. It is constructed very 113 ,t 1 ", on the plan of Burden's steam-boat, with two inflated cylinoc'; of India-rubber cloth, connected on the top by five or beams of light portable plank, which supports a deck of boa r . which may be procured at almost any places where th e bog " , to be used. The whole apparatus weighs about twenty punt's' The cylinders may be both inflated in from five to ten minus e, and, when the air is discharged, may be folded in a valise The rest of the apparatus may be conveniently carrie d io . t bottom of a waggon or chaise. In addition to the whole ig seat, on which the angler may sit, and hold his dominion. ose t the finny race. This boat will sustain at least one ton weighs,' and, by enlarging the deck, would accommodate quite a paf,J • The elasticity of the cylinders has been proved to be a prof tion against their being punctured by snags and rock s. Mechanics' Magazine. BIRTHS. On the 15th inst., in Russell - square , the wife of Edmund I/. Daniell, Esq., of a dauOter. On the 14th inst., in linrk-place, the lady of William 1 30°14 Esq., of a son. Ef4 °f On the 12th inst., the lady of Ja me s Wentworth Buller, a son and heir. On the 12th inst., Mrs. James Block, of a daughter. o. On the 13th inst., in Grenville-street, Brunswick-square , George Cook, of a son. MARRIED. On the 9th inst., William Claxton , Esq. , of Bris tol, to --11:1,en. Nairne, fourth daughter of the late Charles Kyd Bisho p , of the Island of Barbadoes. On the 11th inst., at Clapham Church, John James de Loacl‘ ei :l Esq., of Vught, in the Kingdom of Holland, to Ellen, youlc daughter of the late Thomas Selby, Esq., of Otford Castle, DIED. On the 13th inst., at Eltham, Kent, Mrs. Bell, of 3, Clevelent row, St. James's, after many months of severe illness, to the grv grief of her afflicted husband and children. On the 15th inst., at the house of his brother, the Hon. and e R. B. Stopford, Cloisters, Windsor Cas tl e , the Earl of Courteillb K.P., in his 70th year. On the 14th inst., in Saville - row , Margaret, widow of Ti m Brent, Esq. On the 14th inst., Anthony Merry, Esq., of Dedham 1 4 ° °° ' Essex. On the 14th inst., at Ipswich, in his 90th year, John Cobb° id, Esq., of Holywells, near that town. v.;r 'et On the 13th inst., at Wakehurst-place, Sussex, John C. the infant son of John Fairlie, Esq. aged 13 days. On the 12th inst., at Hull, agedBo, Isabella, widow of the late Captain Wlliam Pounsbu. On i the 1 1 3th inst., n his 90th year, John Inge, Esq., of the Charter-house, near Coventry. of Tate On the 12th inst., in his 74th year, Mr. John Peeke , ton Foliott, formerly of Penn cross Barton. The deceased I?: seen on horseback on the road leading from Knackersknowle to or Budeaux, on Friday evening last, about nine o'clock, by a lad. re s 2: dent at Knackersknowle, and on the following morning the, 5 ", 12 i 0 - ' lad found his body lying across the leat which skirts the rote, " horse grazing by his side. . , ; London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of ', , 112 Strand, at The Sue Office , N o. 112, Strand, in the cowl of Iliddlesex. T HE That the Company, al on w EDIT'S noon, is MA from the Co By-Laws, p of the Comp BE THE PIC One Hundre Queen Mists IS OPEN Evening. LONI Dour &e., may be THOMAS 1 OLD The and newl y y p ft and ever BRETT'S r Pledges him Calculated to this Establisl COT' SURA George-strei Incorpc Thomas Hai Charles Ball J. Gordon I James Good , John Kingst S. Z. Langt lINQUE! RATES of PORATIO: Insurances yond the P NAME DAY PftEMIUN Age. y O e r ,, s. 20 0 15 25 1 2 30 I 5 $5 1 9 40 1 14 45 1 19 51) 2 7 55 3 60 3 18 In the F] stription ma usual low rat Years only, Sr Removals Tables of Office, 449, LINE T HE v cw, horse power, London, on ' Applicatio it London, t 33 , Regent-i From Lon From Fair GENE] THE CON General VOCE Nj DIG The coleb thf..,-giea of edicine I lion, that n ll °ln.xci and t°odii‘ion, head, tkie by t herefore, ei r equire to Te t he frame. Mr. Cock: tract it loner, /er, have c v stion is ful ' 0 greatest b ilious Pills t heory,) vrhi toition, for I kid Liver C throughout Cockle's med Noble and di ~ incheater Roscommon , I ltrtland, ai Atath and V c ,-•+gor, and . b ,rr Gerard ‘ , 4 ' ll ldyer,Si .akyth, Bar JUr. Prepared London ; a Druggists a -. . --__________, ___, F IR . O w) 1 40 , sing proi EOUS I r ' * -s• grulue ~ " n.no even "I &NT W 4141 in.parti It is equa 4t etly innozi kin delical " Le Y ; posm ' 41 4e4 of inci GENTL. Fill find it 14 K that mo Sold in To pro ve 4 '' - ‘ ll6 .'s of Vued 0. It 0 It e „ --ommetN )'e't the mos 4 , 14 At0 effie ingredier it never f; 'mod Gum s 'l l kley to .tr Orrl th e T *eaaizing A ( .t'et,ttes en 111 ,1" their .I t' BR] ti'ch G( s kit .s,itt INVERNESS ELECTION. Mr. BANNERMAN, in furtherance of a petition which he had presented to the House, praying for an extension of the time for going into the inquiry as to the validity of the late re turn of a Member for the county of Inverness, on the ground of bribery, begged to move that the present order be discharged, and that the petition against the return be taken into conside ration on the 4th of July. Mr. CHISHOLM E opposed the motion. Sir G. CLERK said that it would be a great hardship on those parties who had already prepared for the inquiry, to have it now postponed ; and it would be a great injustice to the sitting Member, who had the most right to complain, if any one had. The parties had already exchanged lists, and it was too much, at that stage of the case, to ask for a change of the day. After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. GOULBURN, and the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER, The gallery was cleared, but no division took place. It was agreed that the time should be extended to the 2d of July. The SPEAKER at the same time gave it as his opinion, that the lists were not to be changed. A short conversation took place relative to the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill. The second reading, as we under stood, was postponed till to-morrow. CORPORATION REFORM BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Corporation Reform Bill. The Order of the Day having been read, Mr. PR AED would take that opportunity of giving notice, that in the Committee he should move an amendment, the object of which would be to preserve the rights of existing freemen (so we understood the Hon. Member). Sir R. INGLIS wished to take the earliest possible op portunity of declaring his opposition to the principle. He admitted, that in cases of proved delinquency, Corporations might be punished, but they could not be destroyed. He denied that it was competent to Parliament totally to take away those rights. An Hon. MBMBER made an observation which was to tally inaudible in the Gallery. In answer to a question from Lord SANDON, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the persons that would be eligible as Recorders under this Bill were Barristers of five years' standing. Lord SAND ON then proceeded. He admitted the princi ple of the Bill, but at the same time they should be most care ful in providing a fit and proper machinery for the administra tion of justice in Corporations, for the preservation of the peace, and for the proper disposition of their charitable funds. There was one provision of the Bill, as to the applicability of which to all Corporations, no matter what might be the amount of their funds, he entertained great doubts. The provision to which he alluded was the triennial election. The Corporation of the town which he had the honour of representing had the superintendence and disposal of funds to the amount of one hundred thousand pounds a-year. They were applicable, in part, to extensive plans of improvement, which must naturally take a considerable time before they could be completed. He did not think the execution of business of this kind could be conducted so beneficially by a Corporation chosen so fre quently as once in three years, as it would if they were suffered to continue longer in office. Men who succeeded each other so rapidly could not be so well acquainted with the business as persons of longer experience. Besides this large fund of one hundred thousand pounds a-year, there was another pecu liarity in the Corporation of Liverpool, which was, that it had a concurrent jurisdiction in other funds to the amount of two hundred thousand pounds more, in the disposal of which not only the town of Liverpool, but the country at large, was deeply interested. Some of the plans to which he alluded would require five, perhaps more than five, years for their com pletion. Was it to be expected that they could be satisfacto rily managed by a Corporation the constituent parts of which were changed every three years ? He did not mean now to enter at any length into the details, but this, as well as sAme other parts of the Bill, required particular and anxious attention in the Committee. When the Bill came into Com mittee, he would be ready to second the amendment of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Praed) for preserving the rights of existing freemen. Lord STANLEY had before in his place in that House expressed without reserve his opinion that some measure of Corporation Reform had become necessary, and he was now happy to have this opportunity afforded him by his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) of expressing the gratification he felt at the introduction of a measure founded on a principle of which he approved. He would not, however, be understood as fully concurring in all the details of this Bill ; but he must express his thanks to a Government with which he had so long acted in zealous and cordial co-operatien for proposing a bill founded on such a principle—he meant the pnnciple of vest-. ing the control of corporate funds in that body at large who contributed to them, and not in a self-elected Corporation.— ( Hear, hear.) It would have been impossible for him, how ever, to have supported the second reading of the Bill, if he saw reason to disapprove of that important part of it, namely, the franchise upon which it was proposed to found the right of electing to the various offices of the Corporation. His own prejedices were, he must say, originally in favour of the 101. franchise. There were, however, very strong, and, as it ap peared to his mind, satisfactory arguments for making the elective franchise for representatives to serve in Parliament; and that for the election of Corporation officers different. The object of the franchise fixed by the Reform Bill was to take