The Sun. — London, England, 1835-07-21 00:00:00

was a guarantee : all gentlemen were not honest—all Peers were not rich. Before Hon. Members made up their minds that men because they were poor were to be suspected of dis honesty, let them reflect whether the same experiment might not soon be tried in another place. A Baron might be bribed by an Earl's Coronet--a Marquis by a Duke's, for, after all, these were only abstract distinctions : they were honourable distinctions, indeed, but not necessary for the maintenance of the Constitution. When a Baron had been bribed by the coronet of an Earl, and a Marquis by that of a Duke, then the House might have a right to consider whether these inferior privileged persons, who bad been convicted of n o o ff ence , should be deprived of their rights, however insignificant. Some admitted that the rights of existing freemen ought to be preserved—some said they would preserve the rights of the children of freemen already born—and some said that they would preserve at least the municipal, if not the Par liamentary rights of persons in this situation. He (Sir R. Vyvyan) maintained that the freeman's child was in precisely the same situation as the heir apparent of a peer of the realm. He maintained that the alderman with his rank was in precisely the same situation as a Peer of Parliament who bad not an hereditary seat in the House of Lords, as the Scotch and Irish Peers. He w ou ld s ay also that the alder man's position as a maeistrate elected for life was, in the eye of the law of England, similar to that of the peer elected for life to sit in the House of Lords. Therefore, whether they considered the peer's right or the alderman's title—whether they looked at the right of the freeman's child in connection with the right of the son of a peer—in whatever way the sub ject were considered, he ( Sir R. Vyvyan) maintained that the rights of the aldermen and freemen were as sacred in the eye of the law as the rights of the most elevated personages in the kingdom. It was the vice of the present Bill that at the expense of one principle it went to set up another. It was an attempt to set up generally the republican principle of repre sentation, upon the ruin of the principle of vested right. It was against that principle of the Bill that he mainly pro tested, although he considered it vicious and dangerous in many other respects. " And here let me ask," said the Hon. Baronet, " will an hereditary aristocracy support the principle of a Bill which is against all hereditary right ? Will the Peers now declare that an old charter of incorporation is worth less than a patent of nobility on which the ink is scarcely dry?"— (Hear, hear.) The Peers had now to fight their own battle. The first step that they took in this instance would be irrevo cable. They would have to decide, when this Bill was sent up to them, whether their Lordships were to be maintained on the doctrine of temporary expediency, or upon the prin ciple of vested right.—( Hear.) Whichever way they decided, they might rest assured that they were going far to aid those who, sooner or later in the progress of the movement now go ing on in England, would make a decided attack upon their privileges, and upon that House of Parliament in whi c h th e y hitherto had exercised their political functions. The present system of the Corporations of England generally was said not to be in harmony with the times in which they were living. He (Sir R. Vyvyan) should like to know what institutions of the country were in harmony with the principles and doctrines of many of those who for the last few years had become the advocates ofgeneral reform ? They (the House of Commons) were not justified is proceeding with a Bill, unless they ad mitted all the principles contained in it. The House of Peers would not be justified in supporting the Bill then under con sideration, unless prepared to enter into a calm and delibe rate consideration of all the great questions involved in it. If this Bill were passed, the House would be bound to pass the Irish Municipal Bill without any discussion at all.—( Hear, hear.) Then, in the case of the Universities, up to the pre sent moment those learned bodies had rested their right to admit or elect members of their body upon their charters. According to the principle of this Bill, Parliament might dic tate to them whom they should admit—whom they should elect.—( Hear, hear.) Yet the right of the Universities to decide for themselves, was a right admitted by the law of the land. He would not then discuss the claims of the Universi ties. He came back to the Municipal Corporations. In the city of Bristol, Corporation influence had nothing to do with the return of Members to Parliament. The Corporation of that city no more pretended to nominate any individual to a seat in Parliament, than any one of the Noble Peers who resided in the neighbouring counties. He begged to call the attention of the House for a moment to that part of the Report of the Commissioners of Municipal Inquiry which relatectm the city of Bristol. The Chamber of Commerce of that city complained that they had been treated most un fairly by the Commissioners. They said that on examining the Report laid before Parliament, they felt it right to state that the observations contained in that part of it which re ferred to the trade of the city was altogether erroneous and un founded, and in every respect the very reverse of the fact. In addition to this, he (Sir R. Vyvyan) could state from informa tion which he had received upon the subject, that he believed every attempt was made, as far as the city of Bristol was con cerned, to render the inquiry as odious and as disagreeable as it could be to those who were interested in it. Having made that statement, he might follow the example set by his Right Hon. Friend ( Sir Robert Peel) in the case of the borough of Tamworth, and express a hope that Bristol might be exempted from the operation of the Bill. He feared, however, that such a demand on his part would not be attended with the same con sequences as a somewhat similar demand made by a gent. in the olden time, as recorded by Dean Swift. " Some hur.dred years ago," said the Dean, " when the Peers were so great that the Commons were looked upon as little better than serfs, a Bill was brought in for making some new addition to the power and privilege of the Peers. After it had passed through some of its preliminary stages, one Mr. Drew stood up, and said he very much approved of the Bill, and would give his vote to have it passed. But for some reason best known to himself, he desired that a clause might be introduced ex cepting the family of the Dre%%s. This opened the eyes of the rest, and consequently the Lill was thrown out." He (Sir R. Vyvyan) feared that his claiming an exemption for Bris tol would not be attended by the same consequences. He would shortly sum up his reasons for protesting against the Bill. First, it attacked the prerogatives of the Crown in a way in which the prerogatives of the Crown had never been attacked before. Secondly, it attacked the privileges of per sons in the highest and lowest positions in every municipality in the country, and thereby it would furnish a precedent for an alteration in the appointment of magistrates and of militia officers, and of the right of admission to the Universities. The preservation of these Corporations was intimately interwoven with the security of the Constitution. They were respected by the Protector Cromwell. One of the charges against James 11. was that he had attempted to invade these privile ges ; and one of the first determinations of the Parliament of 1688 was, that the rights of all chartered boroughs should be restored and respected. He strongly objected, also, to the motive of this measure. The King might, it is true, have the power to dispose of these charters if he pleased, but it would have been better if such a measure had emanated from Parliament than from a Prince of the House of Brunswick. It was dangerous to furnish precedents for paltering with the people's liberties, however specious might be the arguments advanced in their support. The time might come when such precedents might be carried out to an extent subversive of the monarchy itself; and the extreme of the most ultra prin ciples established on its ruins. It would be well to look to the origin of the term ultra. It took its rise in the first French Revolution, when the ultra-montane party attained the ascendancy. On the restoration, Louis gave the French a charter. That charter was objected to by the emigrants, and such persons as were blind to the signs of the times— ( Ministerial cheers)—and who thought they could bring back France into the position in which she was before 1789. An experiment to effect this was tried in 1830 and failed, Charles the Tenth became an exile, and those who made the experi ment lost their power. But could any man compare the po sition of the present powers in France, with that of those who espoused Conservative principles in England ? We have an hereditary monarchy, we have an hereditary aristocracy, and we have as yet these municipal institutions which the Go vernment, indeed, were about to invade, but which we say are in accordance with the spirit of the British Constitution. If not, then so far as they were not, he and those who adhered to Conservative principles were willing to conform those institutions with that spirit. Having given the po litical franchise to persons in towns and boroughs possess ing a 101. a year qualification, he admitted it would be only just that the municipal franchise should also be given to them. He agreed also that the system of self-election was one which was not in harmony with the feeling of the age : and provided the rights of the magistrates were respected, he was willing to assent to new charters being granted, which would take away the power of self-election from any small corporate bodies. But he would not agree to sacrifice the rights of his fellow citizens. The Hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring up the petitions. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that as the Hon. Baronet had declared that it was not his intention to go to a division on the third reading, it was not necessary for him (Lord J. Rus sell) to occupy the time of the House with an answer to the speech made by the Hon. Baronet. Besides, he had already at such considerable length stated his opinion both on the general principle and the details of the Bill, that it was quite unnecessary for him to address the House any fur ther on the subject. He would say, then, that he had no doubt the Hon. Baronet did wisely in not dividing the House on the third reading. The reason why he had come to that determination, no doubt, was because he had found that the general sense of the House and of all parties in it was in favour of the provisions of the Bill, and that if he had proceeded to a division, he would have had but little chance of mustering a very large number of supporters. He (Lord John Russell) took it for granted, after the very strong statement, and after the severe denunciation which the Hon. Baronet had made against this Bill—as being a measure of the most revolutionary tendency—as amounting in effect to spoliation of the rights of property—and as adopting the most republican principles— after all these invectives and strong protestations against the Bill, he ( Lord John Russell) had no doubt that the Hon. Ba ronet would have thought it his duty to divide the House against it if it had not been tolerably certain that such a division would have shown that the principle and general provisions of the Bill did meet ;with the concurrence, and were in accordance with the sentiments, of the great majority of the House; and that that majority were of opinion that the Blil was a t t hi s time called for by the general voice of the country, and that it was due to the spirit of the age, and even in justice towards these Corporations themselves that such a Bill should become the law of the land.—( Cheers.) Ho took, therefore, the pro test of the Hon. Baronet coupled with his declaration that he would not divide the House, as one of the strongest admissions of the goodness and the policy of this measure. If he wanted further proof of the soundness of this Bill, he had it in the fact that a petition had been presented from the city of Coventry, of ars , entirely opposite nature from the one now presented by the Hon. Baronet from that city—signed by 2,600 house - holders and freemen, praying that, with the exception of one particular part of the Bill relating to apprenticeships, the House would pass the Bill. Therefore, whether by the gene ral consent of this House, or whether by the expressed opi- nions of parties out of doors, and even by the opinions of per sons most affected by it, they had reason to conclude that this measure was in general accordance with what was required at this time for the reform of great defects in our present muni cipal institutions, and for the establishment of a system of good municipal Government in the several towns of England and Wales. He recollected to have seen in print the advice of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, given with his usual discretion, to that party to which he belonged, and in which he called upon them not to expect that any other place than this House could be, or even ought to be, looked to as the scene where great public affairs were to be decided upon : and that the opinions of this House alone must be sought for as the index -of the opinions of the people of this country. In this opinion he (Lord John Russell) entirely concurred. He was persuaded that in the approval of any measure expressed either by a great majority of this House, or by the silent for bearance of those who differed from that majority, would be found the expression of an opinion in coincidence with the ge neral opinion of a very great portion of the enlightened popula tion of the empire. Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that the Noble Lord had en tirely misunderstood the latter part of the speech of his Hon. Friend ( Sir R. Vyvyan). His Hon. Friend had not declined dividing the House because he entertained the least doubt of the truth of his principles, but merely because he felt that he could not carry his motion, and therefore he rested satisfied with the protest he had made. The Noble Lord had equally misunderstood the speech of his Right Hon. Friend ( Sir Ro bert Peel), which was addressed, not to the Members of that assembly, but to other parties. He had, on a former occa sion, stated his objections to the principle of this Bill. Jt was contrary to the principle that had ever hitherto been adopted. It was entirely different from the principle of the Bill introduced, two or three years ago, by Lord Brougham. He, therefore, declared his full and absolute objection to the principle of the Bill—an objection hardly to be mitigated by any amendment that could be introduced. He did not, how ever, intend to pursue his opposition to a division, merely be cause he knew practically that it would not be attended with success. Mr. S. R. LUSHINGTON observed, that there was but one general opinion among his constituents as to the nature of this Bill, and that was that it was a most detestable and violent measure. It would be a constant source of discord in all the cities and boroughs to which it was applied. The Hon. Gen tleman was then understood to say that he should bring up a clause, to preserve to the freemen all the rights of electing Members of Parliament guaranteed to them by the Re form Act. Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that the Hon. Gentle man had surprised him by the course he was going to adopt, because, on Friday night, the Hon. Gentleman announced that it was not his intention to propose any such clause. Mr. S. R. LUSHINGTON had only stated that it was not his intention to enforce the call of the House, of which he had given notice. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the clause would not be necessary, because the freemen, whose rights were preserved by the Reform Bill, were already enrolled, and so preserved thereby. Mr. S. R. LUSHINGTON was aware of that, but that circumstance did not meet the case of those freemen who since their enrolment had removed their place of residence, or had done some other act by which it was made necessary that they should be again enrolled before exercising the elec tive franchise. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as the Hon. Gent. had not given a specific notice of the terms of the clause he wished to introduce, he (Lard J. Russell) was not at present aware of what would be its effect, and therefore could not say whe ther he should object to it or not. Mr. FE CTOR defended his constituents against the gene ral charge of corruption implied by the passing of this Bill, and asserted that there were no grounds to justify the exten sion of its provisions to them. Mr. W. GLADSTONE did not oppose the second read ing of the Bill from the consideration that by not doing so he should only be bound by the principle of it, and not to its de tails. That principle he thought was no more than this—the abolition of the system of self-election, and the substitution of an open system founded on an enlightened principle. Beyond that he did not feel disposed to go. Mr. SCA RL ETT said if the principle of the Bill was good yet its details were bad. He saw nothing in it but a system to transfer the powers possessed by Corporations from the hands of one party to those of another; and nothing what ever that would have tho effect of reforming the Corporate bodies themselves. The Bill was inconsistent with the spirit of British liberty. They were now about to institute in every town a pure and unmixed republic ; the conse quence would be, that those new Corporations would be in direct opposition to the institutions of the country, with the inhabitants of the counties, and with the monarchical authority. He believed this measure would give a great in crease to the democratic force in the country, and he thought there was no one who would say that that force was not suf ficiently great already. For these reasons, and for others with which he would not then trouble the House—(Ministe rial cheers)--he really thought he owed no apology to the the House, or to those Hon. Gentlemen who cheered him, for presuming to detain them. " When you destroy us (conti nued the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen)—when you literally put us out, it is but fair to hear our lamentations."--( Re newed cheering.) He could not refrain from expressing his opinion that the Bill was intended, not as a reform of the corporations, but as a measure for particular party purposes. He did not deny that on some occasions the funds of corpora tions had been applied to particular purposes—foreign, perhaps, to their original destination.—( Hear, hear.) He contended, however, that they were annihilated not on this account, but because they had been applied in opposition to the particular wishes and intentions of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. BO RT H WICK contended that the principle of the Bill was one of marked and undisguised tyranny.—( Oh !) He had arrived at this conclusion because it took away rights, destroyed charters, and deprived the people of England of privileges they had exercised from time immemorial ; and for no better reason than because the House had the power to take them away..—( Opposition cheers.) On what was the measure founded too ? On the Reports of the Commission ers ? Why the House was called upon to destroy those Cor porations before the Reports affecting many of them were laid upon the table. At the very moment at which he was speak ing, the Report of the Commissioners relative to the Corpo ration of London, the most important city in the world, was not before the House. He had just heard it remarked that the Bill did not touch the Corporation of London.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He would ask the Noble Lord and Hon. Gentle men opposite why it did not ? Was there no occult reason for its not being affected—was there nothing undergronnd ? ( Oh, oh!) The Hon. Gentleman proceeded, amidst the strongest manifestations of impatience, to refer to the peti tion he had presented on a former occasion, from the bo rough he had the honour to represent, on the subject of the Bill. The remaining observations of the Hon. Gentleman were lost in the increasing impatience of the House. When the Hon. Member had resumed his seat, Lord JOHN RUSSELL begged to remind the House that they were still debating upon a petition. As it was very desirable that they should proceed at once to the business of the evening, he hoped they would allow him to move the Order of the day for the third reading of the Municipal Corpo ration Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The petitions were then ordered to lie on the table. The Order of the day was read ; and the question put, "that this Bill be now read a third time." Mr. MACL E AN said, when the Noble Lord, the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth) moved an amendment upon the address of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, he did so on the ground that his Majesty's Ministers in that address announced no intention of placing the Corporations under popular control. Now, if the efficiency of popular controul were the principle on which the Noble Lord based the Bill, he should like to know whether he found, in the Reports of the Commissioners, any state ments respecting the effect of popular control over the admi nistration of corporate boroughs, which strengthened that principle? The only borough in which the Commissioners said they had witnessed the prosperity and efficacy of popular controul was the borough of Plymouth. Now, this very bo rough, which, in page 50, was quoted as an example of the effect of popular control, and of the great prudence and discre tion exercised by the constituency, was, in the very next page, condemned by the very identical Commissioners as affording an example of the most profligate expenditure of corporate funds on record.—( Hear, hear.) He objected to the Re ports of the Commissioners because they had given no digest of the evidence taken before them, but had amalga mated all they had heard into one distinct and confused mass. To phew the nature of the inferences they drew, he would cite one fact. They stated that in the borough which he had the honour to represent, the freemen were so corrupt that out of 1,500, 1,000 declined to vote at all, in order to avoid the imputation of participating in the corrupt practices of the remaining 500. Why, if the statement proved any thing, did it not prove that out of 1,500 freemen, 1,000, two-thirds of the whole number, were so pure that they would even place themselves beyond the reach of suspicion ? (Hear, hear.) Were the freemen of Oxford to be stigmatised on such evidence as this—a mere Report of certain Commis sioners, to whose very existence strong objections had been urged by high legal authorities ?—( Hear, hear.) He deeply regretted the general censure of a particular class of men, in which so many Members of that House had indulged; above all he lamented to hear, from the Hon. and Learned Attorney- General, a tirade of abuse against the very men whose ser vices he had not hesitated to avail himself when occasion re quired. Who, but the Attorney-General himself, when the non-resident freemen of Stafford were in danger of being dis franchised by the Reform Bill, came forward as their champion, and proposed the insertion of a clause exempting them from the effects of that measure ?—(Cheers.) As even according to the showing of his Hon. and Learned Friend himself, the freemen were at that time incorruptible, it might fairly be said that they were incorruptible now. He would not detain the House by going at greater length into this question. He would not perhaps have felt or spoken so warmly, had he not perceived a disinclination on the part of the Government to deal with vested rights with proper caution. In offering his opposition to this Bill, he was not acting alone; on the contrary, he was acting with a majority of the En glish representatives in that House, who were determined to stand by the Constitution as they had found it, and not to ac quiesce in innovations which must lead that constitution to a premature grave. Mr. H. TWISS would not say that this measure was not of consequence, but contended that it was unnecessary to push it forward with such unbecoming haste, while other Bills of greater consequence to the country were postponed. He had expected that Hon. Members would have availed them. selves of all the information within their power, before they proceeded to legislate, but that he now found was not the case. The fact was that there was a reaction in favogr of Conser- THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1835. vatives in the country, and Government finding that a great number of Conservatives had got into Parliament at the last general election, thought it necessary that a good popular cry should be got up, and knowing that the corporations were mostly Conservative, they had endeavoured to get up a cry against them, in hopes of thereby being able to venture on a speedy dissolution. This was the reason why this measure was brought forward. Sir JOHN R. REID had never known a more distinct, unequivocal, and direct attack upon the rights of honest men than this was. The time would soon arrive when the Govern ment would find the baneful effects of what they were now doing. Mr. CHARLTON said that the evident intention of this Bill was to raise persons to power in the Corporations for party purposes. He opposed the Bill, not so much on account of its details as because it was founded upon principles wholly unknown to the Constitution. _ _ Mr. GROVE PRICE observed that, if the Noble Lord had at once proposed the abolition of freemen he should have opposed him, but still he should have respected the Noble Lord's boldness ; but instead of doing this, he had endeavoured to attain his object by a side wind. It would have been much fairer, on the part of the Noble Lord, if he had proposed di rectly the end he had in view. The Government had been induced, from fear of the opposition they would otherwise encounter, to continue the rights of freemen under the Re form Bill, but now, by an indirect course, they endeavoured to attain the same end. They bad repeatedly been told that the Reform Bill was a final measure, but the Noble Lord was anxious to make a most material alteration in it with respect to freemen. After nursing it as a favourite child, the Noble Lord now came down, proh pudor ! to destroy his final measure.—( Hear, hear.) Where, then, was his consistency ? They endeavoured to do that covertly, which they would not dare to do openly. If the Noble Lord would consult ancient history, he would find that many constitutions had been de stroyed by repeated elections. That which was true in the political history of Athens, might also be true in that of Paris or London.—( Hear, bear.) If great care was not taken to prevent perpetual contested elections in all the boroughs, the Government would, in point of fact, be handed over to politi cal agitators and pot-house brawlers, while the quiet, sober, and industrious part of the population, who did not like to take part in matters of political excitement, would be excluded from having any share or influence in the towns. He feared, if this Bill came into operation, that agitation would prevail to such an extent, that capitalists would be induced to abandon the large towns, from a feeling that property was insecure. He could not conceive a greater mischief to the country than to keep it in a state of constant excitement. He knew a borough in this country that had suffered greatly from this cause. —( Name.) Colonel SIBTHORP spoke his own sentiments as an independent Member of Parliament, and as such he could not help expressing his deep regret at the absence of the Right Honourable Member for Tamworth on that important occasion. —(Hear, hear.) If the Noble Lord had not forgotten his duty to the country as a Minister of the Crown, he would never have consented to have brought forward a measure for the total disfranchisement of the freemen. He sincerely hoped that was the last measure the Noble Lord would be able to introduce into that House.—( Oh, oh, oh I) The Gallant Colonel concluded with making an observation about noxious vermin on the other side, which excited some laughter, but which was inaudible in the gallery. The Bill was then read a third time. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had a proviso to propose to a clause in the Bill, to the effect that—under certain circum stances, the King in Council might be enabled to appoint dif ferent days from those named in the Bill for the election of the Members of the Council of a Borough for the present year, but the qualification must still be perfected by the last day of August. The proviso was put, and agreed to. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then proposed a proviso in con sequence of a suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, to the effect that nothing in the Bill should affect the right of any person to vote for a Member to serve in Parliament for any borough before the passing of the Act.—Agreed to. Dr. LUSHINGTON proposed a clause to entitle the sons of freemen and those who would hereafter be entitled to the freedom of a borough by servitude—the Right Hon. Gen tleman made some observations which were inaudible in the Gallery. Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that The principle of the clause had been discussed the other night, and therefore he should not then do more than observe that he should op pose it. It was then put, and negatived without a division. Dr. NIC HOLL proposed a clause nearly similar in effect, which he observed he was anxious to have put on record. This clause was also negatived. Mr. BAINES then proposed three clauses imposing penal ties for bribery at the election of Members of Council. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had looked over the clauses, and saw no objection to their adoption. The first clause was then read a first and second time, committed, read a third time, and ordered to be added to the Bill by way of a rider. The second clause was then read a first and second time, and committed.—On the question that it be read a third time, Sir E. KNATCHBULL conceived it was not sufficient that the Noble Lord agreed to these amendments ; the House ought to know what they were, in order that it might come to a decision upon them.—( Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL did not know that there ought to be any objections made to the course he had taken with respect to these clauses.—( Hear, hear, hear.) On a former evening, when they were brought forward, he had proposed that they should be postponed, in order that he might have time to take them into consideration : since then be had looked at them, and what he now stated was, that they appeared to him to be unobjectionable.—( Hear, hear.) The clause was then read a third time. The third clause was also passed through its several stages, and added to the Bill. Mr. Alderman WOOD moved a clause by way of rider, the effect of which was to exclude the Corporation of the city of London from the operation of the Bill. After a few words from Lord JOHN RUSSELL and the AT TORNEY. GENERAL, who said that such a clause was unnecessary, Mr. Alderman WOOD would not press the clause in op position to the feelings of the House, therefore he begged leave to withdraw was withdrawn accordingly. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then proposed several verbal amendments, which gave rise to no discussion, and were agreed to. - Mr. C A YLE Y said that there was an omission in Clause 91, which wanted supplying ; and he rose to move an amend ment to that effect. That clause was introduced for the pur pose of providing a remedy against collusive purchases, sales, and demises of corporate property, since the sth of June of this year, for undue consideration. But there were other modes of collusion ; and it was in reference to one of these that his amendment went. The object of the Bill was to get rid of self-elections in municipal government. Now, in some boroughs, the practice had been to let the corporate lands and other property only from year to year ; but since the in troduction of this Bill, it was understood that a new practice had arisen, of letting leases for seven years, or a longer term. The intent of this was obvious--viz., to continue, in certain lands and tenements, the partisans of the present Cor porations, so as to prolong their influence in corporate and Parliamentary elections.—( Hear.) He (Mr. Cayley) con tended that was against the principle of the Bill, and the re medy for it came within the spirit of this clause. The at tempt was one to frustrate, so far as the power of the parties went, the intentions of the Bill. His amendment would frus trate that attempt, and would be totally inoperative and harm less where no such attempt had been made. It would serve the ends of justice, and could commit no injustice. The principle of his amendment was similar, also, to one proposed on a late evening, by the late Solicitor-General, which went to protect the practice of certain boronghs with respect to long leases, which, by some oversight or other, had not been actually secured by covenant. He was in favour of that amendment, because it was just. His object now was to pro tect the principle of short leases, which had been the practice in other boroughs. It might be retrospective in point of let ter, but not in point of spirit : and, at all events, was no more retrospective than the clause as it now stood. His amendment was to the effect, that if the jury, by their oaths, should find that any demise had been made for a longer term than was usual before the sth of June, 1835, every such de mise and conveyance should enure as against the said body corporate and their successors for such term only as the jury should find to be according to the said practice of the said borough.—( Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL said that according to this clause, whenever there was a case brought before a Jury with respect to premises which were usually let for twenty years being let for sixty or one hundred years, the question to be decided would be, whether an adequate consideration had been paid or not for the longer lease ; if it had not been, then it would come within the meaning of the clause to afford the party the option of either giving up the lease or paying full consideration for it, according to the value of the premises. But in the case of a longer term than usual having been granted, and the parties having given for it an adequate consideration, be thought it would be too strong a measure for Parliament to interfere. Fearing, then, that in the endeavour of Parliament to enforce a remedy for one injustice, it might commit an. other, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the clause. Mr. AGLIONBY supported the amendment, because, without some such provisions, Corporations might grant leases for a period of 999 years. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed it, thinking that the provisions of the Bill as they now stood were sufficient to guard against any collusion on the part of Corpora tions. The granting of a lease for 999 years would be a complete alienation of the fee. He hoped that the Hon. Member for Yorkshire would (not divide the House upon his proposition. Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the amendment. Mr. WARBURTON supported it, and was very sorry that the Government did not assent to it. It would supply a great omission in the Bill, and went entirely upon the principle of the Ecclesiastical Corporations, which could only grant leases of a customary length.—(Hear.) Mr. CA YL E Y did not forego his opinion as to the neces sity of the amendment ; but seeing the Government and the opposite side of the House against him, be felt that it would be useless to divide. Mr. B A INE S presented three clauses, to the effect that all laws relating to bribery and corruption at elections for Mem bers of Parliament, shall be applicable to cases of bribery at elections under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, with the exception that the penalty for giving or receiv ing bribes at municipal elections shall be limited to 50/. in stead of 500/., which is the penalty fixed by the 2d Geo. 11., for bribery at elections of Members of Parliament. Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his acquiescence in all those clauses, which were passed without opposition, and added to the Bill. P.,'lo`'"l Sir E. WILMOT moved, " That the Corporation of Sut ton Coldfield be left out of Shedule B." It was not a poli tical Corporation, and was possessed of considerable trust property, which was enjoyed equally by all the inhabitants. Without some such exception, the inhabitants of Birmingham, Walsall, and other districts, would acquire a right to a share in that property, which would thus come to be divided among 200,000 persons. An HON. MEMBER supported the amendment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed it, and said that the in habitants of Sutton Coldfield were not desirous .of the excep tion.—The amendment was withdrawn. Mr. SCARLETT said that a proposition had been already made for exempting the Corporation of London from the ope ration of the Bill ; and although that proposition had not been agreed to, he wished to observe that the Corporation of Nor wich ought also to be exempted; inasmuch as, by its charter, it was to enjoy the same privileges as London. He knew no reason for objecting to its exemption, except, perhaps, that it was a Conservative Corporation. After some further amendments of an immaterial nature, the Bill passed amid loud cheers. STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. On the motion for reading the Order of the day for the Committee on this Bill, Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN moved " That it be an instruc tien to the Committee to provide, that the privilege of send ing two Members to Parliament be transferred from the bo rough of Stafford to the county of Cork." Mr. DI VETT was not disposed to regard the Reform Act as a final measure, if it were shown that its provisions could in any instance be altered with advantage. At the present pe riod, however, he thought it would be extremely inconvenient to enter into a discussion involving the whole question of the general distribution of representation. He should therefore oppose the motion, although he could assure the Hon. Member that if ever the question of representation should be opened, he should be prepared to do full justice to Ireland. The question was then put, and the House divided. For the Amendment Against it 'Majority -140 The Order of the bay was then read. On the question that Mr. SPEAKER do now leave the Chair, Mr. E. BULLER, after presenting a petition from the county of Stafford in favour of the borough of Stafford, pro ceeded, in pursuance of the notice he had placed upon the paper, to move " that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the bribery and corruption which have prevailed at elections for representatives of the borough of Stafford, and to report the result of their inquiries to the House ; and that it be an instruction to the committee that they do report, in the first place, the result of their inquiries as to bribery and corruption in the late election." The principal grounds upon which he asked for the appointment of this committee was, that notwithstanding all that had been said against the bo rough, he felt satisfied, if the opportunity were afforded, that it would be in his power to show that the criminality of the borough had not been carried to such an extent as was usually required by the House before it proceeded to the extremity of disfranchisement. The Reform Bill, wherever it confirmed the franchise, was supposed to carry with it an indemnity for previous offences. If that were the case, there could be no pretence for proceeding against the borough of Stafford, be cause whatever its previous corruption might have been, he should be able to show—provided his present motion were granted—that at the last election no improper or corrupt practices were resorted to. Mr. DIVETT contended that if amendments like the pre sent were acceded to, it would always be impossible, especially at an advanced period of the session, to disfranchise a corrupt borough. Lord SANDON maintained that there was a growing de sire on the part of the respectable inhabitants of Stafford to rescue the town from the imputation which had so long at tached to it. He supported the amendment. Mr. GLAD STONE opposed the amendment. Captain CHETWYND warmly defended the borough of Stafford from the imputations cast upon it. The House then divided — For the original motion For the amendment Majority in favour of the original motion POSTAGE BILL. This Bill was then read a third time. Mr. LABOUCHERE proposed as a rider to it that the postage on letters and packages of foreign countries should be reduced, provided they made a like reduction in their postage. The other Orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock. _HOUSE OF LORDS, Juan 20. The VICE-CHANCELLOR took his seat au the Woolsack a' five o'clock. The Manure Toll Exemption Bill went through a Corn. mittee. POOR LAWS. Lord TE YN HAM rose to move for certain Returns under the Poor Laws Act, and of the number of persons convicted for having taken part in riots on the occasion of the introduc tion of the Poor Laws Amendment Bill within the last year. His object in moving for these Returns was to show the un paralleled severity of the punishment inflicted upon the per sons convicted upon the occasion of their introduc tion into Kent. He complained that offences of a very venial nature had been visited by most unprecedented punish ment. He cautioned Noble Lords opposite not to exasperate the peasantry of England, for the time was fast approaching when they would be obliged to call upon that very peasantry for support and assistance ; and it was impossible they could expect to receive that support, if they did not protect the rights of the people. The Marquis of CAMDEN begged to know ene object of the Noble Baron in moving for these returns. Lord TEYNHAM intended to found upon them an address to his Majesty, praying for an inquiry into this business. The Marquis CAMDEN thought it was for his Majesty's Government to say whether they would accede to these returns or not. The Noble Marquis entered into a history of the riots to which the Noble Lord (Teynham) had alluded, and con tended that the authorities were fully justified in the course they had taken, and they were in his opinion warranted in supporting the administration of the laws. When these re turns were before their Lordships, he would be prepared to show that there was not the slightest ground for the charges of the Noble Baron—(Hear) —and that the general feeling of the county of Kent, as exhibited in the proceedings that had then taken place befcre the assembled magistrates, was most satisfactory to the country at large. Viscount DUNCANNON was not at first aware of the circumstances to which the Noble Baron alluded, but from the statement of the Noble Marquis opposite, he now knew to what he alluded, and he could bear his testimony to the forbearance and judicious conduct generally, which the Ma gistrates had adopted on that occasion. —(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He thought from all the circumstances their conduct had been characterized by too much forbearance. The Duke of RICHMOND objected to the production of these returns, and would feel it his duty to say "non- content" if the motion was pressed to a division. He th oug ht t h at the magistrates were fully justified in the course they had adopted. One of the persons imprisoned was a regular dis turber of the peace, who was going about from parish to parish inciting the people to outrage. He trusted his Majesty's Ministers would not consent to the production of these Returns. The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE agreed with his Noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) as to the view he took of the conduct of the Magistrates of the county of Kent on that occasion. He hoped the Noble Baron would not press the motion to a division. Lord TE YNH AM replied. He was determined to do his duty, and would not be intimidated by any man.—(Laughter. ) He would call for these returns, he distinctly avowed, for the purpose of founding an accusation against these Magistrates. He avowed it—(Laughter)—he had never done anything in an underhand manner, and if he stood alone he would press the motion to a division. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but the motion was negatived without a division. PROTEST OF Mr. HOGG. Viscount MELBOURNE said it was impossible that the Report and Protest of Mr. Hogg, one of the Municipal Cor poration Companies, could be produced. A NOBLE LORD suggested that it might be embodied in the form of a petition, and in that way laid upon their Lordships' table. Viscount MELBOURNE thought that would be opening a very wide door to complaints and remonstrances, and would decidedly object to such a course. The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the Gentlemen in question dissented from his brother Commissioners, who had been appointed by his Majesty to obtain certain information. He wished to know whether he had not a good title to enter his protest against the opinions entertained by his brother Commissioners. Had the protest of Sir Francis Palgrave been omitted it would have been of great loss, inasmuch as the information it conveyed would have been lost. He thought the cases similar. Lord MELBOURNE made some remark which did not reach us. He then said that he seen the Noble Baron (Lord Lyndhurst) in his place be should have inquired whether a criminal information against Mr. Hogg had not been moved for in the Court of Exchequer ? He did not mean to say that anything particular attached to it, as the Noble Lord (so we understood) might have acted in the capacity of Counsel. Lord WHARNCLIFFE thought it was advisable the protest should be produced, as he had heard it contained the disclosure of very important circumstances, closely connected with the objects of the Commission. Lord LYNDHURST thought that, in making a charge against a respectable person, the Noble Viscount (Lord Mel.. bourne) should have ascertained the foundation on which it rested. The exclusion of one Commissioner appointed by his Majesty from those with whom it was intended he should act, was, he thought, a most extraordinary proceeding. - He did not state this from his own knowledge —he had it from Mr. Hogg himself; and, stating it, he put it to their Lordships to decide whether it was possible to regard as a complete and satisfactory document a Report professing to come from a body of Commissioners, but from which the opinions of one of the most competent Commissioners were excluded.—( Hear.) Lord SKELMERSDALE thought it was of the utmost importance that they should have before them, before they pro ceeded to legislate upon the measure, all the evidence which could be collected and. all the opinions which could be procured from persons whom either inquiry or talent rendered compe tent to form one. It so happened that Mr. Hogg was one of the Commissioners sent down to the part of the country with which be was connected ; and, when he stated to their Lord ships that, in consequence of the refusal of the Commissioners to embody in the general Report the opinions and evidence contained in the particular Report sent in by Mr. Hogg, he was in entire ignorance of the justice and policy of the mea sure as regarde the cases of several individual boroughs in the county to which he alluded, he put it to the House whe ther he was not justified in calling for its production ? Lord MELBOURNE denied that he had made any at tack, or even insinuation, on Mr. Hogg. All he had said was, that a criminal information had been moved for; and that was a proceeding so popular, and so generally under stood, that no imputation could result from its being stated that it had been had recourse to. Lord WHARNCLIFFE would not lose sight of the report in question, and that he should take the most effectual measures for having it speedily laid upon the table of the House. The Earl of DEVON fully concurred in the opinion that the House was bound to have Mr. Hogg's report before it proceeded to legislate on the measure about to be sent up to them. The object of the Commission was to procure gene ral information, and that could not be procured unless all the facts and circumstances to which the persons engaged had directed their inquiries, were laid before them. In procuring the report of Mr. Hogg there appeared to be some difficulty, but the House was not without its remedy. The Home Office not having the report in its possession, would be com pelled to return " nil" to an order for its production ; and it then became their duty to consider if there were not other means by which the information it contained might be got at. The House of Lords had it in its power to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the facts connected with any mea sure upon which they were called upon to legislate.—( Hear, hear.) Now, it appeared to him that the present was one of the cases in which if they found it impossible to get the in formation of a perfect Commission, it would be their bounden duty to institute such an inquiry.—( Cheers.) After a few words from Lord \YHA RNCLIFFE, the con versation dropped. Lord GREY had a petition to present relative to the sub• ject which then occupied their Lordships' attention, and, although it was somewhat after the proper time for offering it, he trusted their Lordships would, under the particular cir cumstances, excuse his doing so. It was the petition of a very numerous and respectable meeting at Newcastle-upon- Tyne, presided over by the mayor of its Corporation, and its prayer was, that their Lordships might pass the Bill for the regulation of the municipal corporations of England and Wales without in any wise impairing its beneficial provisions or detracting from its efficiency. The petition was signed by the mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne alone, but it was so signed by him as Chairman of the meeting ; and, although, according to the rules of their Lordships' House, it could only be presented as the petition of the individual who had signing it, he had authority to state that it might be consi dered as an expression of the sense and opinion of the district in question as to the Bill to which it referred. He was aware that the presentation of a petition, praying their Lord ships to pass a Bill not yet before them, was to a certain de gree irregular ; but as several petitions under like circum stances had been already received, and as, being under the necessity of leaving town immediately, he would have no other opportunity of presenting it, he trusted their Lordships would have no objection to its receipt.—( Cries of " Go on," and " No, no.") If its presentation were objected to, he would at once withdraw it and leave it in the hands of some Noble Friend.—(" Go on.") He would, then, go on. The prayer of the petition, he repeated, was, that their Lordships might be pleased to pass unimpaired and unaffected the measure of Cor poration Reform about to be presented for their consideration. The Noble Earl, having laid the petition on the table, then proceeded to say that he was glad to have that opportunity of declaring his hearty concurrence in and approbation of the measure to which the petition alluded. He had long seen with pain and anxiety the many abuses and anomalies existing in the Corporation system of the kingdom, and it had been for years his wish that a measure similar to that now before the other House should become law. A Commission of In quiry having been appointed, a most rigorous investigation took place, and the result of that investigation was that all the abuses and anomalies alleged to exist were proved and brought home. To the principle of the Bill he did not ex pect there would be any opposition.—(Hear, hear.) To the details of the measure their Lordships would, no doubt, in the exercise of their deliberative functions, give every atten tion ; and, considering them with every impartiality and jus tice, their object, he was persuaded, would be to pass the Bill in such a manner as might best give effect to the great prin ciple in which it was framed, namely, that of giving to the se veral Corporations of England a good and permanent system of Municipal government.--( Hear, hear.) If the Bill were passed in its present form he was confident it was calculated to meet the wishes of the people of England; but should their Lordships, in their wisdom, thiuk proper to alter it, he sin cerely trusted their amendments would be directed by a de sire of extending and perfecting, rather than of impairing the machinery by whieb the principle was to be called into operation.—( Hear, hear.) He begged, in conclusion to offer the petition to which he referred to their Lordship's con sideration. After a few words from the Earl of ABERDEEN, Lord SEAGRAVE. and the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, Earl GREY would withdraw the petition for the pre sent, and have it presented on a future evening by some Noble Friend. The Duke of NEWCASTLE wished to know what course the Government intended adopting with the Bill when it reached the House ? In his opinion it would be impossi ble to proceed with it until the requisite information and es pecially Mr. Hogg's report before them. Was it intended that, if brought up to-morrow evening, it should at once be read a first time, or did Government mean to wait for Mr. Hogg's report ? Lord HOWARD of EFFINGHAM rose to order. There was no question before the House, the petition having been withdrawn.—( Hear, hear, and cries of " Order of the Day.") The Earl of FALMOUTH—I appeal to the Noble Lord on the Woolsack.—(Great laughter, in which the Vice-Chan cellor joined, and renewed cries of " Order of the Day.") All that he wanted to deny, and that in the most emphatic terms be could use, was that the Noble Earl was justified in saying the abuses alleged to exist in the corporation system of England, were proved by the Report of the Commissioners. He could not suffer such a statement to go forth to the country, without rising to protest against it.—( Hear, hear.) The con versation here dropped. ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES BILL. The Marquis of CL A NRICARDE rose to postpone the second reading of the Roman Catholic Marriages Bill until that day week. He was induced to do so, in consequence of the absence of a Noble and Learned Lord. He, if present, would, he knew, be anxious to take a part in the discussion. The Noble Marquis then proceeded, in an extremely indis tinct tone of voice, to allude to the conversation which had taken place on a former evening, upon the subject of the ap pointment of Mr. M'Dermott as one of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland. We understood him on the part of Mr. M'Dermott, and with his authority, to deny ever having made use of the language attributed to him on that occasion, by a Right. Reverend Prelate. The Bishop of EXETER was happy in being able to sup port the statement he made on a former evening by some im portant documents, and as the observations of the Noble Mar quis gave him an opportunity to present them, he would at once proceed to place them before their Lordships. The cir cumstances which gave rise to the speech in •question were the following :—A Miss Bourke, a lady of 28 years of age, residing at Castlerca, became a convert to the Protestant Church ; and, dreading violence from the peasantry in cense quence, took the advice of a Magistrate (Major Baggot) as to the best means of protectin g herself. She was r ecommen d e d by that gentleman to place herself, until she could arrange to leave the district, under the protection of the police constable of the town, by occupying apartments in the barracks. This advice she followed, and it was in consequence of her doing so that the meeting, at which Mr. M'Dermott spoke the speech in question, took place. Of the temper of that meeting— and it was not sought to be denied that Mr. M'Dermott was present—it would be sufficient for him to say that the Rev. Robert Boyd, the Protestant Clergyman of tht district, chancing to pass by at the time, was assailed by the mob, and narrowly escaped from their violence.—( Hear, hear, hear.) With respect to the speech made by Mr. M'Dermott upon the occasion, he had but this to say, that the accuracy of the report he (the Bishop of Exeter) referred to on a former evening, did not rest on a single evidence. In the Roscom mon and Leitrim Gazette of the day it appeared as a reprint from another journal, and attached to it was not only the name of the reporter, Mr. Thomas Brooks, as vouching for its accu racy, but in a note was appended, in the form a letter, a cer tificate, signed by four persons, who attended the meeting, namely, Messrs. Quin, Black, Kelly, and Blundell, in which the parties signing pledged themselves that Mr. Brooks's re port contained a true statement of the scurrilous and abusive language used at the meeting. In fact, the report of Mr. Brooks was never doubted until it was mentioned by him (the Bishop of Exeter) on a former evening in that House. For tunately, a copy of Mr. M`Dermott's speech, as so reported and so vouched for, was now in his hands, and, without fur ther preface, he would read it to their Lordships. It was as follows :—. " As soon as he (William M'Dermott, Esq. ) took the chair, he stated that The reason for their assembling there was to present a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, in order to get the constabulary police broke for their interference in controversial doctrines, and giving Bibles and tracts ; and, finally, for their gallant Captain, contrary to his duty, making a police-barrack an asylum for perverts, and a prison for ille gally detaining children from their parents ; therefore we are assembled together in order to adopt measures to tame their fanaticism. Gentlemen, the unhappy wretch (Miss Bourke) who is the occasion of our assembling here to-day, was seduced, or rather perverted, by that nefarious, puny, in significant legislator of Ballymor (a Magistrate, named Bag got. )—( Shouts of applause.) This fiend not only did this, but he goes about with a tract in one hand and money in the other, in order to accomplish his pestiferous ends ; he goes further, for if he miss one of the children from the school he takes the Bible in one hand and his sword in the other ; when he goes in if he find none in the house he will pierce his naked sword down through the bed.--( Shouts.) But, Gen tlemen, one would think that this nefarious wasp had some wisdom in his head, and certainly, if we are to measure brain by the circumference of the skull, he must be possessed of a very extraordinary one.—( Shouts and clapping.) But, Gentle men, this insignificant wretch stood not alone in his endeavours to raise a disunion in the minds . of the people ; for he has klow, poor, grovelling, ill-coloured, demoniacal, clerical mounte bank, who was chased from diocese to diocese for his schism. Gentlemen, this puny, ill-coloured runaway, wrote certain letters, in which the Catholic religion is set up to ridicule ; and, I say, my friends, from the authority of the Attorney- Ge neral, that any person ridiculing the religion of the people should be brought to public trial, as a nuisance to society. But, Gentlemen, our memorial will be before the Lord- • Lieutenant in a few days, and, as he is a man of candour and_ honesty, wholly divested of prejudice, we will get a hearing. Thank God, Goulburn is out ; if it were not so I would not ' stand here this day. While he was in, if we petitioned daily none of them would be presented—but now we hope to be heard, and are confident that we will bring one of the Kieg 4 4 parsons to a sense of his duty—( Laughter)—and if possible to have both captain and police broke. Gentlemen, we have funds enough ' • we will set up schools in opposition to them we will try all means to rebut their schools—and if we cannot do it by these means, does any one think that seven millions will be held in trammels, and thwarted in their purposes, by a handful of men ?' " He now would leave the matter entirely in their Lordships' hands. He had felt it his duty to ask their Lordships if the person who was capable of using such language was a fitting person to hold the situation of Commissioner of Education le Ireland ? And nothing havtng occurred to disprove the fie° which justified him in submitting such a question, lie ago' put it to them.—( Hear.) After a few words from the Marquis of CLANRICARD S (again inaudible), the subject was dropped. IRISH COERCION ACT. Lord GLE NGALCwished to know from the Noble Lord at the head of the Government if it was intended to rene', the Irish Coercion Act which, it would be recollected, world expire on the Ist day of August next? Lord MELBOURNE was understood to say that the Bi . l _ l in question was only introduced in consequence of various sae of disturbance and outrage in different parts of Ireland in 18 1 and 1832. The state of things had been in consequence niuc li improved, and it was therefore not thought necessary by the Government to renew the measure in all its details. In 183 A 1 and 1832, a Committee of the House of Commons was require"' to report upon the most effectual means of suppressing outrag2 in the Queen's County, and the measures recommended that Committee it was intended to introduce.—(Hear.) The Marquis of C L ANR IC ARDE asked if the Noble 1 715 " count meant to say the law in Ireland was intended to be per manently altered? Lord MELBOURNE did not think that, upon that oe casion, any statement of the present state of the county OS necessary. It was certainly comparatively tranquil, but net, so much so as to justify the Government in returning to the old powers of the law. The object of the Government Wou ld be to, give the authorities in Ireland powers to tranquillise the country, to be used when they might be deemed requisite. Lord GLENGALL said it was most important that what - t ever measure was introduced should, if required, be eft" cious for the suppression of outrage and insubordinatiee . i The Roman Catholic Priests had never more power than at present. SEAMEN ENLISTMENT BILL. Lord AUCKLAND moved the second reading of this B I , After a few observations from Lord COLVILLE the Br was read a second time, and ordered to be committed onWe' y nesday next. Viscount DUNCANNON brought up the Report of tb e , Commission of Inquiry into the Post-office. Their Lordships then adjourned, at ten minutes past sevr'll. LIST OF THE MAJC Who voted for going into Committee on tl chisement of Stafford For the Motion.. Against it.. Adam, Admiral C. Alston, Rowland Baines, E. Baring, F. Bewes, T. Blake, M. J. Blunt, Sir C. Bowring, Dr. Brabazon, Sir W. J. Bridgman Hewitt Brodie, W. D. Brotherton, J. Campbell, Sir H. Cavendish, lion. C. Caylcy, E. S. Chapman, M. L. Clerk, Sir G., Bart. Crawford. W. S. Curteis, Curteis, Major Divett, E. Donkin, Sir It. Dundas, T. Dykes, F. L. Ebrington, Lord Egerton, Sir P. de M. Elphinstone, H. Etwall, It. Ewart,W. Fellowes, Hon. N. Gaskell, D. Gladstone, W. Bagot, Hon. W. Buller, Sir J. Y. Bullcr, E. Chetwynd, Captain Cole, Viscount Davenport, J. Fleetwood, H. Gaskell, J. M. Hardy, J. Harland, W. Hay, A. L. Heneage, G. E. Hindley C. Howard, P. R. Home, Joseph Hurst, R. H. Hutt, W. Ingham, R. Labouchere, H. •Lennard, T. B. Lennox, Lord J. G. M'Cance, John M‘Namara, W. Marsland, H. Murray, J. A. O'Brien, C. O'Loghlen, M. Parrott, J. Parry, 1 . J. P. Pease, Joseph Pechell, Captain Pelham, C. A. W Phillips, C. M. Plumptfe, J. P. Paulter, J. S. Poyntz, W. S. Price, Sir R. Pryse, P. Pryme, G. Raphael, Sheriff* MINORITY. Goodricke, F. L. H. Heathcote, R. E. Houldsworth, I'. Jones, Wilson Kirk, P Mackinnon, W. A. Morgan, C. M. R. Moseley, Sir 0. I RITY ie Bill for the Diefiln 98 ; LIST On the Amendment trans] 19 Roche, D. Rundle, J. Ruthven, E. S. Ruthven, E. Sheldon, E. R. C. Sheppard, T. Spiers, A G. Stanley, E. J. Steuart, R. ' Strutt, E. Stuart, Lord Jane! Talbot, C. R. Thompson Colen.s , - ° Thornely, Thoulai, Tooke, W. Tracey, C. 14. Troubridge, Str Tulk, C. A. r Tynte, C. J. K x Tynte, C. K. K. •1 Vesey, Hon. T. t. Wakley, Thonial Wallace, R. Warburton, li. Wagon, R. Westenra, J. C. Wigney, I. N. William., W. ,s 1 Wilson, Henry Wynn, W. Wyse, T. , Young, G, F. Perceval, Colon lor Rushbrooko co; Sandon, Lord Scott, Sir E. D. , 2 0 Vere, Sir C. as PAIRED mil'. Bruce, Lord E. Chisholm, A. Baldwin, Dr. Blake, M. J. Clements, Lord Crawford, W. S. Fitzsimon, C. Fitzsimon, N. Martin, T. ' OF THE MINORITY DO that the Privilege of sending Member! ferred from Stafford to Cork. Martin, J. Roche. D. Macnamara, W. Vigors, N. C. O.:. Mullins, W. F. Westenra, Hon- J . v. Nagle, Sir R. Westenra, lion. O'Brien, C. TELLERS. ~,, Rundle, John O'Connor Don oh Roche, W. O'Brien, W. so l, * • SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. ADVICES, ARRIVALS, AND DEPARTURES A .. 1; THE SCOTCH WHARFS, JULY 20. h p' HOARE'S. DUNDEE AND PERTH STEAM-WHARF. AdfiCe ' 1 ". 0 Dundee, Perth, and London Shippi ng C o mp a ny's stearali Perth, John Spi n k com m and er , arr i ve d a t D un dee thelii/ inst., •at six A.M. HOARE'S WHARF.—Advices : the Banff and London : 1 1 r ping Company's smack Medora, Alexander Watson 1110 : 5 T " arrived at Banff the 11th inst., and the same Company's '' Union, George Bruce master, sailed from Banff the 16th 1t; with a general cargo for this wharf ; the Arbroath and L'O'' ter , Shipping Company's smack Defiance, Peter Mill oaf. 0 arrived at A r b roa th the 16th inst. ; the Blossom, Wil' ia ff West master, sailed from Banff the 16th inst., with a cargg cattle, &c. ; and the Dundee, Perth, and London Shi Company's smack London, Robert Abbott, master, sailed , Dundee the 18th inst., with a general cargo , both for' wharf. Arrivals : the John and Margaret, William Ross'nd ter, from Wick; and the Courier, John Ross master, 62 7 Peterhead, both with general cargoes. No departures. DOWNE'S WIIARF.—No advices. Arrival : the ItYverV e f and London Shipping Company's smack Inverness Pa c j e. Robert Paton master, from Inverness, with a' general No departures. • CARRON WHARF.—No advices, arrivals, or departures. -1 1 MILLER'S WHARF.—Advises: the Leith and Edinbl o r Shipping Company's smack Earl of Hopetoun, Davi master, sailed from Leith for London the 17th inst. • sitr o `a, Aberdeen and London Shipping Company's smack ' Ni7L,i, James Phillips master, arrived at Aberdeen the 16th ies' . 7 c it Arrival: the Leith and Edinburgh Shipping Company's s w pril l Favourite, James Dickson master, from Leith, with a ge n " cargo. No departures. LEITH AND GLASGOW WHARF.--No advises, arr. ; va departures. 0 1 LEITH AND BERWICK WHARF.—Advice : the Berwick London Shipping Company's smack Ann, William Stestd, master, sailed from Berwick the 17th inst., for this Wh o p Arrival: the London and Leith Old Shipping Coree tj , smack Ocean, Henry Johnston master, from Leith, " 1 general cargo. No departures. g: _ ~~, VESSELS ENTERED JNWARDS - AT THE TOM-HOUSE, JULY 20. 00 1 Hope, Boxer, from Rotterdam; Sir E. Banks, Now to Rotterdam ; Union, De Jonge, Ostend; Gazelle, Ni f „, l r Smyrna; Glory, Hurst, Hamburg ; John Bull, Corbin, Vie, burg; Medora, Coward, Jamaica; Castle Lachlan, '13 , 1 ; 1 * - on , • Jamaica; Cosack, Konig, Riga; Gaunt, Hannam, is„`P vi d, Lamb, Lamb, Riga; Danzig Packet, Tanner, Danzig; 1 j ;4., Stone, New Orleans; Mentor, Barlow, Quebec; Elenth e Wheatley, Quebec ; Mary Bell, Brown, Montreal and Q, 11 ,4, bee; Dorf Gartmeer, Vanderzee, Workum; Sarab, Guernsey ; Dart, Leitch, Guernsey and Jersey; P rl 4r Renart, Restigouche; Nymph, Edwards, Petersburg; v' te r, flower, Sanderson, Petersburg ; Charles William, Trotio Petersburg ; Joseph Storey, 'Mullins, Petersburg ; H ol t& Kingston,. Memel ; Bjorneborg, Peterson, BjorneborgL wood, Morfee, Antwerp ; Henry Allen, Wilson, New Ye l g o, ENTERED OUTWARDS FOR LOADING, JULY ry e , Roberts, Wake, for Madras and Calcutta; Comnle`: 4 ; Thom Fournier, Calais ; Hebe, Weeks, Barbadoes and St. Wm. Jolliffe, Downie, Hamburg. CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO, Vestal, Newell, for Newfoundland; Swallow, Ire Guernsey and Jersey; Roseland, Dunstone, Gibraltar; Art ie, thers, Towers, Hobart Town and Sydney; Swallow, a9' Malaga ; St. Ann, Thomas, Bermuda ; Albinia, 01 ,, c 0; Demerara; Bellemy L u i se , Gub er lande, Cadiz and Duke of Bedford, Bowen, Calcutta ; Don Giovanni, vvi" . Hamburg. CLEARED OUTWARDS IN BALLAST, Jol t s op , Mercury, Lawson, for Archangel; Cerops, Fin likr Or Quebec; Alexander, Porter, Para; Micmac, Stephei'ijoy pehagen; Three Sisters, Lund, Dunkirk; Johanna, P„Z y se, berg, Gefie; Triton, Larson, Norway ; Harriet, nt or Sunderland and Hammerfert ; Francis Harriet, Dodds , bee; Cecilia, Bay, Baltic ; Paulina, Kraeft, Dantzitoe„,,e -- BIRTHS. go of On the 19th inst., in Gower-street, Mrs. William Cha n° , a son. alf ° ‘`' On the 18th inst., the lady of W. H. Palmer, Esq., °- f 13 ............." row, of a daughter. MARRIED. to 14°' On the 18th inst., at St. Pancras, James Alston, , garet, daughter of Major Alexander Orme, of Fitzroy - P:11'10W; On the 16th inst., at Poole, Joseph Shepherd, Esq., fo rme to Esther, third daughter of Robert Were, Esq., of place DIED. , u p MK of of On the 25th of May last, at Belvidere Estate, in 14— 00' Jamaica, the Hon. George Cuthbert, President of the.C ° that Island. ~ilh - Lod On the 16th inst., at Bromley-hill, the Rev, Canon of Windsor, and brother of Lord Farnborough. ~ On the 15th inst., Mr. James Hutchinson, of Glnlic"" -- 8) # . Tewkesbury, aged 76. . On the 11th inst., at Chamarande, near Paris ,• - 4 ,„ Underwood, Esq., formerly of London, in his ath Yea r ' ‘• On the 24th ultimo, at Lisbon, Charles O'Neill ) E 01"- 440 r% On the 18th inst., at Lambeth-green, in his 78th Yq 434 Matthias Turner, Esq., of the Stock Ea:change. London : Printed and Published bf MURDO YOUDIG , 112, Strand, at T4c Sun Office ' Pro. 112, Strand, in the of Middlesox. ~~ -tirthei AT2cc m , For I VAIL, on e of t Huey, GE k Gri Ti lt' 10, 'fits, Jul rtisul toli e ' 110 11. i • • 11 1) inJUr e. Ari q Yscoh~ibet, ntlth o . ID ale s Pr V „ r ein !! , titioni . hart Agri eoz ent ta p taicui :l!'f e thd / freN X-2113 5, ), t tittit N • do n :POEN and , %1