The Sun. — London, England, 1841-04-03 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION n enormous and alarming extent. It was impossible that individual Members mould Spend their whole fortunes in investigating such abuses. The expense of investigat ing such flagrant cases should not ibe thrown upon private individuals. Constituted as these tribunals were at menet, no private expenditure would be sufficient for that purpose. He had no knowledge of the particular circums tances which influenced the Committee; but, perhaps. Hon. Gentlemen would agree with him that vvben the Counsel tor the petitioner came forward voluntatily, and said that he had no case against the sitting Member, the Committee ought to have pronounced the petition frivolous and vextatiousme( Hear, hear.) It was rumoured (ho knew not with what truth) that there had been a corn promise.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He thought the House ought to watch whether such a system was in practice that a Member who was not able to defend his own seat should threaten his oppo nent with a counter petition.--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He did not care for either side of the Houses—( Hear, bear)—but he would say that it was necessary to put down the system of bribery, which prevailed to an extent that no one could deny, and which bad been greatly increased since the Reform Bill.--(Cheers and a laugh.) At present he was not sure that he would not move for fur ther inquiry into the proceedings at St. Alban's, but when be saw what the evidence was he would know what steps to take. He concluded by moving that the evidence taken before the St. Alban's Election Committee should be laid on the table. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE assured the Honour able Member that in the amendment which ho was about to propose, it was not his intention to in tsrfero with the Hon. Member's motion, for he was ea desirous as the Hon. Member to put an end to the system of bribery which undoutdedly existed. He agreed with the Hon. Member that it was necessary to watch the proceedings of tbe Election Committees under the new system. It was . to be remembered that this was the first year these tribunals had a trial. It was therefore of the utmost importance that those new tribunals should not only have the confidence of the House, but of the public, and those individuals whose cases should come before them. It was impossible that they could have that confidence if those statements and refiectioas were to be passed upon them by the public prints which be had seen that day, without contradiction :—• When things have come to the worst, there is hope that they may mend,' says the old proverb. With refe rence, to the St. Alban's election petition, and the law and practice of Committees in cases of bribery, this saying teems to caome into full force. " There never was a more open, unblushing, reckless purchase of a borough than that effected at St. Alban's at the last election. The facts of the case, happily, are be yond aildoubc. One of the leading Ministerialists of the town comer, up to London on heating of the vacancy, drives to the Treasury, and here contracts for one of the Lords of the Bed chum' )er, whom he duly escorts down to St. Alban's as the candi bite of his procuring. He then sets to work, loudly prod aiming . to every one that we have plenty of money,' and • lispentieg this commodity in open day-light, in ex citer rge. for Metes, ali.te to Whig or Tory, without the least ape a'etit wish or attempt at concealment. h` Of course these proceedings became universally k terra and universally talked off. They have been W. - ought before a Committee of the House of Corn /nein, and there proved; and no attempt at disproof am much as thought of. The whole reliance of the _Lord of the Bedchamber's advocates was placed upon one tpo:nt mad The bribery we don't deny ; but you can't prove 'sae agency.' A n d accordingly, h av i ng a ma j or i ty c f Mi . resterimists oa the Committee, they have steadily adherel to de i• point, ' agency not preyed.' " According to the decisions of this Committee, if, which Ged lereet. tney should become autherim and precede: t, eoteieg could be more clear or more certain than that, if the meeey be but forthcoming, the whole of the borough conetituenciee of England must be made matter of pur chase and sale in all future elections. Notice is hereby giver, that so long as the candidate gives no written am Inthotatem, undo. his hand, which can afterwards be pro. dueod in evideece, and takes care net to declare before witnesses any person to be Lis egent, the whole of his Committee may run about the open street, with money in both hands, offering it to every voter they meet; and the verdoet cf a Committee, acting on the St. Alban's pr!e cettestit, will be, • Agency not proved.' ' We repeat, that this state of things would be frightful, mere it not fur the hope we alluded to at the outset, that :things will now be felt to have come to a crisis. If there are acy holiest Refcrmers among the Whigs and Raiicalo they will feel exactly as we feel. Except a change takes place, and that tight anon, every idea of public principle in elections is lost, and one abyss of universal corruption ab sorbs the aggregate constituency. The St. Albaa's case must operate injuriously to all parties. The Milisterial ists have been promising us for this month past that they should unseat Mr. Smythe on the Canterbury petition. But thri: counsel, on looking over his case, finds that the very principles %%liche e /re himself had succeeded in est iblishing in the St. Alban's case, would irievitably re-act oa him .i° the Caeterbury, and that his own arguments null put. him out of Court! Ho therefore at once abat laeme the, petition, and the Treasury Journal of last night Las ecco- nes fer the vli:hdraw.l:—.. They were influenced, tie ere assorted, not by any apprehenvions of any failure in prey nag the e pureed sleeations of tec• yeition, but be emote of the fliSfO , ;l l Y they atitieeme I in satisfactorily cowl( eti ng the sitting Member, or his recognised egento with. ti Jose ill e t at acts.' Ps eactly so ! Beyond a doubt, on the p Liciple adopted it' she St. Albert's Committee, the; t ever can be another jotter cf_ candidate unseated for bribem, except he :lee/ nave acted like an idiot. - Corruption must become the order of the day, so long me glare is e, Whig ' c isury' to go to; except the - _ ) m-able moil of the House of Commons, of all por tal, shill at once demand that a remedy bo mtflinchingly e t to me evil so frightful and ee advancing." .w He knew noticing of the prceee lirge that had °centred m a l es • these Committees, and he was, therefore not able oil ill aestee: these stet:most; were true hr nor, but he leasers ed them t.. be urleanded, aid most gross libels on Alban's Coremittee. With regard to the re :nem:3 to which the . Hon. Me nber f r WelFneford had t e l me m e elle should like to hear whether they were true; bot cent airily eftter reading the rip rt of the prcceedisge e th( ibe iC was a prima facie cave rude out of a thuht d . i,'lre` i etable compromise. Ira the Report of the Flw( :tilts es before the Committee upon the Canterbury ttdear, he found it stated that— Me. estin rote and said, that after duly considering tl • voile:me ha should have been able to produce in sup el the petition, and l.ving communicated with the c morsel for the sitting Member, Le had only now to an , oceuee that be should not further proiecute the petition. lane. teseteant Wrangbion, on bt 'mil of Air. Sew!). . tee petitioccr's counsel had scted ikI,JST FAIRLY AN,. I,ANDSDNIELY towards hirn."--IGrcat laughter on ,P,e; House ] • " In thus, i' the tory outset, trrtiedmg !h: meriameication he had then addressed to the (net it:mute; and on behalf of the sitting Member ho Lose leavd to add, that he not only did not ask for, but risprecated, any resolution passing the Com m:leo -I:lfir•:ougg a trlcting the petitioner in consequence iof they withdrawal of his oppasitton." " I=cier there was a pima facie ease of compromise ; not -to :Me of cerrupion, it was this. What was the conclusion the Corn nittee come to ? It was that the aittieg Member ( Yr. Smythe) was duly eleet:d ; tear the petition of Get roe *Hobby and Meters did not appear to be frivolous or weemieus ; and that the oeteositean to such peddle was riot malons or vexatious. —(Laughter.) A prettitr arrange tneat ire bed never seen.—( Renewed laughter.) But si enuMmeous with the withdrawal of that petition nearly thee seam thing took place at t'sc S:. Alban's Committee. In the report in the some paper it was staid— " Upon the admission of strangers, " The Chairman stated that tee Committee had resolved that the evidence should he received, but desired that it should be given by Lord Grimsten himself. " Mr. Hildvard then addressed tae Committee, and stated that tither the come of the proceedings on the pre wines day. he had thought it his duty to unite with his Learned Priem!, Mr. Talbot, in taking into serious consi deration the position and prospects of the case, and that the result of the consultation was, that they had de termit red to proceed no further with the case, as the views which the Committee had taken cf the lays of evidence were so differ ent from those of him (Mr. Hildyard) and Mr. Talbot, that he and his Lebrael Friend were of opinion that they would not be justified in putting the Committee or the sit ting Member to any further trouble." He begged to draw the attention of the House to this fact, If he had been correctly informed the two last decisions of that Committee were in favour of the petidoner. —Meat hear, bear.) Thcy came to a decision that gave the per; titioner greater facility to prove his case of bribery, and vat the counsel fur the petitioner, because they had come to that conclusion, said he would also be very handsome, and withdrew his petition.—(Lau;hted) Was Oct a prima facie caste of compromise to be found in that Re port ? Whether the statements contained in the Report were correct or not, the Members who sat couldnpon tha tCo ß rn u - t mittee, arid who were then in the House,state.__ ono° of it . they wished those tribunals to have the co fid the House and the country, such proceedings as these ought not to be allowed to take place. It was really tremsferring a scene from the Beggar's Opera into the •Coniamittee-roorns, and were the Peachems and the Lockits to be allowed to go into a room together, and say, "Attether, brothe-, we aro both in the wrong : we shall he both losers in the end, and tie may both baitg each other ?"_(Great laughter.) Was that the way in which business was to he transacted ? It was making a perfect farce of an Election Committee, and it would be a perfect mockery to institute any inquiry before a Committee, if that sort of proceeding were to be tolerated.—(Hear, hear.) He, did net know whether the Committees had the power—he supposed they had not—when parties were guilty of such dishonest and corrupt practices, to push the in quiry:tather.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") lie trusted that the House would be more careful in fu tire. With these observations he begged to move as an amendment, in addition to themotion of the Hon. Mem ber, " That th'e proceedings and minutes taken before the Ciinterbury election he laid on the table." Mr. miurnay (a Member of the Committee) and Mr. Sandford rose together to second the motion. There were loud cries for the latter. Mr. Mildmay gave way, and Mr. SANFORD said he heard the notice given by the Hon. Member for Wallingford with the greatest pleasure --(Hear, hear)—because as Chairman of t h at C ommittee eat i would not have thought it his deity to have made such motion unless he had received instructions to that effect from the Committee—unless he bad found something out of the proper and usual course he should not have thought he would have been paying proper deference to that Com_ taittee, in which so much good feeling bad existed, b a d h e attempted to do anything contrary to their wishes o r without th e i r or d ers; t h ere f or e be considered it a pecu_ liarly fortunate circumstance that the Hon. Member had made the motion, and he-sincerely thanked him for it, in. asmuch as it gave him an opportunity of making a state atm __which he hoped the House would allow, especially fibs egyations which had been made upon the pro. ,-.'"Xelaigh'ettte Committee. He was sorry to trouble the Hew, but he tilusted after what had taken " place they would ar,„aq him their i n d u l gence. He had stated, after V* . 01nottsi" of, the proceedings in the Ludlow case, and V , tee gyp rep,te h 3 th at iii Election Committees not only ideadelV o eSi t l • - ne e tk a u 2i:u; THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDA.Y, APRIL 3. 1841. the character of the Committee, but the character of the House itself was deeply concerned.—(Cheers.) They were greatly iadcbted to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) for the change which he had made, and, as one of those whom the Committee of Selection had chosen to act as Chairman, he had thought it his duty to do all in his power to aid in carrying its proviaions into effect—and, however heavy those duties might be, he took them upon himself most willingly.—(Cheers.) Great as was the responsibility of the other Members of the Committee, that of the Chairman was much greater—they were selected by a Committee, and their service was compulsory—those of the Chairman were in a manner voluntary. With re gard to the St. Alban's case there were circumstances in it which gave it a greater degree of importance than it would have enjoyed but for them. With respect to what bad fallen from the Hon. Member for Finsbury, ho con fessed that it was with great pain he had heard the para graph from the newspaper cheered by Hon. Gentlemen opposite when it said there was a majority of Ministerialists on the Committee.—(Cheers.) He had heard with very great regret the expressions of feeling with which Hon. Members on the other side of the House had received such an intimation from a party paper; it had been received in such a way as ho (Mr. Sanford), if placed in their posi tion, would net have indulged in. Perhaps, With regard to the details of the evidence that had been brought be fore the House generally in the papers, it would not be necessary for him to refer to them ; and here he would Make a remark in passing that, if the evidence before their Committees were daily published in the papers—he had no objection to it—it might be right or wrong, and his own impression was that it ought to be published, but at least all observations on the evidence and the conduct of the Committee, ought te be abstained from. He thought no expression of opinion should be given as to the decision of the Committee while the inquiry was in progress. At its close, and when the Committee bad given its decision, then their conduct was fairly before the House and the public, but during the progress of the Committee any ob servation would only provoke party feeling. He would not refer to the evidence, but merely to that which more immediately referred to the Committee—he meant the decision to which they had come. During the whole in vestigation there had been but two decisions on matters of fact. Upon the evidence produced before them, they had to form an opinion first whether - a certain individual was the agent of the sitting Member. On that occasion the decision of the Committee was far from being ministerial or anti-ministerial, they having divided on the question five to two—( Hear, hear) --against the question being put, because they did not consider the agency had been proved. The other decision was at a later period of the investiga tion, and that he was bound to state was four to three, but when the evidence was produced, Hon. Gentleman would'aea whether those in the majority had fair reason to suppose that no additional proof of evidence bad bees given. Then what did the Committee do? and he would call the attention of the House to one very material fact. So anxious were the Committee to have that matter in vestigated, so little desirous to throw obstacles in the way of its investigation, that they came to a resolution, that if Counsel for the petition stated to the Committee that they should be enabled to prove the agency by acts of bribery, they would be permitted to go into the acts of bribery, although the agency had not been proved. That resolu tion was come to before any decision was made. The re solutions agreed to by firmer Election Committees for tle it own guidance, on points that might be discussed, had been referred to, and it appeared that they had come to the resolution, that first of all the agency should be es tablished, but that, if the Counsel for the petition stated that he was unable, except by bribery, 'to prove the agency, that be would be permitted to pro ceed with the proof of those acts of bribery, in °Her to estah'ish the agency. That resolution was adopted by the Committee over which he (Mr Sanford presi.led. In what way could Gentlemen placed in the situation in which the Members of that Committee were, aepear more desirous; of coming to a fah- decision, and of e.ucidating everything relating to the matter ? With re gard to other questions, they we!e of law, such as whether such and such interrogations were admissible. Those ob jections were taken on every occasion. There was hardly a question put which was not objected to. There were opinions advanced on subjects of which the Committee, as mere laymen, could know nothing. They had two very able lawyers to deal with, who attempted by every means to confuse and mislead.—(Hear, bear, and laughter. ) On every cccasion when the room was cleared they fe!t how unfortunate it was that they bad. no authority to go by. They were called on to give decisions, and whether they gave them right or wrong they could only go according to the best of their opinion. He must say, in justice to the Hon. Gentlemen who composed the Com mittee, he never saw men more anxious t o do their duty. With regard to the observations made by the lion. Member for Finsbury, he (Mr. S.) must say that it was with astonishment the Committee received the illtithe lion that the investigation was brought to a close. Ho hoped the House would see, that, during the latter part of the investigation, every facility was given to the petitionera. On the last occasion the Uommittee had de cided, by five to two, that the question could not be put, and then Counsel stated thst, in consequence of the Com mittee's first decision, they had determined not to pro ceed further with the case. Now, this first decision took place three days before.—(Cheers.) The Committee had teen pressed to admit the evidence ; they bad been pressed to admit proof cf agency by bribery, and, after tney bad consented to the latter, they even agreed, at the request of Coustsel, to allow the petitioners to strengthen the evidence of agency by acts of bribery ; set, notwith standing this, it was thrown upon them, that, in canse quetree of their dcciaion, the proceedings were stopped.— (Cheers.) Hi could only say the allegations against the Committee were most untrue, and he was glad that as oppor.unity was affirded him of meeting stein in his place. He trusted what he had said would be deemed, is some degree, to have exonerated the Committee from them.—(Cheers.) He would now beg leave to make one other observation. He was much afraid, that, as Com e itttei were now constituted, great eiliculty would be found In carrying on the business of Election Committees. The Committee ought to have some authority, as an assessor, to whom tarry could refer upon any questions of Issv—(Hear, hear)—or otherwise the House ought to come t) an express resolution for the guidance of Elee tiers Committees, whether they should be bound by the strict legal rules of evidence, or give a greater latitude to their construction of the facts brought before them.— ( Hear, hear.) If something like this crew not done, he was certain that those tribunals would net give satisfac lion, and the characters of Gentlemen who were desirous of honestly doing their duty would constantly he d•- rnaged, and their feelings outraged, by unmerited impu tati --(Chcerr.) The Hon. Gentleman thanked tee House for the attentive hearing be had received, and sat down amidst cheering. Mr. MILDMAY 'said he never rose to address the House with greater pair. He defended the conduct of tee Committee. The evidence was of a very contradictory natere, and furnished the Committee with no grounds for a speci.,l Report. He thought the House had sometimes tery rg'-tly shown a disposition t) eneaurege special Reports; a'id they were seldom received with uuqualified setisfaction, however well grounded. He remembered he had himself sat upon an Election Committee which had reported that they had reason to think that there - bad been bribery at an election ; but the eansequeace was, that they were censured by various Members of the House for having made such a Report, whi:e the charge could not aff,et the hitting Member. Ho did not wish t i pursue a similar course a se cond time, mere especially when he found that the evidence is the cue had been taken down. He yielded to no man in a desire to put an end to that system of bribery which, he believed, prevailed in many boroughs in the country; but there the crime should be punished by legal mean!. He found that the peti ioners had charged Lord Listowell with bribery; but that charge could not be sustiined, unless the question of agency had been previ ously established. So anxious, however, were the Com mittee for a fair and f,.li inquiry, that they did what he thought was not strictly legal—um , / allowed the agency to be proved through bribery. For 'his part, be was never MOM anxious to do his duty between any partiei. He knew, in the first place, that he had reason to distrust his own bias; and, without meaning any offence, ho certainly thought it could not be denied that they were all liable to a feeling of party interest. But there was another rea son why he felt that if be had erred in judgment, he was not much to blame. He had had matters brought before him of a nature that he had never had before. For him self, he could assure the House that he bad endeavoured to perform his duty.--( Hoar, hear.) Much had been said against him, but he was too old a soldier to mind it. But when his motives were impugned, he felt bound to pro. tect himself. Ile was not actuated in the Committee by any feelings as a Ministerialist, for he would as soon have given Mr. Cavan a seat in that House as Lord Listowell. He conscientiously believed he had performed his duty and, he feared not the consequences. - Mr. CLIVE, as the late Chairman of the Canterbury Committee could not allow the subject to pass without saying a f,!sv werls. From what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Finsbury, it might be thought there was some connection between the two Committees—that, he could assure the House, was not the case. When the Members of the Canterbury Committee went into the Committee-room, they went there not knowing what they were to hear. On the Counsel being called in, th e Com mittee explained to them the course they bad laid down to be pursued. Immediately that statement had been made, the Counsel got up and stated that they bad met the previous night, and they had determined that the wisest course to be pursued was not to entail great expense without coming to any conclusion, the Counsel therefore begged leave to withdraw, and upon that ground alone the Committee had come to the decision they bad done. He had the honour of sitting upon a Committee last year, i n which the decision was made by a majority of 6 to 1. Those Hon. Gentlemen with whom he had had the honour of being associated in Election Committees had show n the greatest anxiety to perform. them credit their duty; for their dhe trusted that the House wo uld endeavours. u be might be for his own sake tha t the evidence Mr. ELLIOT said, that a lthou g h a Member. of the Committee, he had not read any of the statements had appeared on this subject. should be printed, he felt himself called upon to lay before the House the exact nature of the evidence, in order that the House might be enabled to judge whether it was proper that it should be published. The Committee proceeded, in the first p] •ce, to take direct evidence of agency. That fail ing they had, as had been stated, endeavoured to prove agency through bribery. Allegations of bribery were brought against two individuals—there were but two per sons who were charged with bribery tefore this Commit tee. With respect to those two individuals, they went into evidence to a great extent. A prima facio case of bribery was made against one of those individuals, and to a certain degree against the other. In this position the counsel for the petitioners bad said they would go no further. They had a mass of ex parte evi dence before thew, which made very heavy imputations against individuals. He (Mr. Elliot) suggested to the House whether it would be proper: to publish ex parte evidence—evidence to which there had been no oppor tunity of replying? Another point was this. From the mo ment that they proceeded to prove agency through the means I of bribery, it was acknowledged throughout the Committee that the evidence which they were taking would only become legal evidence in the event of agency being primed. Agency had not been proved. Now, if they printed this illegal evi dence the characters of individuals might be greatly injured. Though he stated these objections, however, he would be glad, if it were thought alvisable, that the evidence should be printed. It was important, he thought, to the charac ter of the Committee, and to the tribunal generally, that the evidence should be published; but he could not pos sibly understand why the abrupt stoppage of the Commit tee should be made to imply anything wrong in the Committee or anything wrong in the tribunal.—(Hear, hear, from Sir Robert Peel.) He could not understand such imputations.—( Hear, hear.) He did not see how it was possible to twist it into any thing like partiality. Until the moment wile.' the proceedings stopped, they were affording every facility to the petitioners to prove their case ; and so far from starting difficulties, he be lieved the only doubt in the minds of the Committee was whether they were not going beyond their authority, and opening the door too wide. Suddenly, after they had de cided cases in favour of the petitioner, the Counsel declared that he would proceed no further, Why should they bring disrepute on the tribunal which all were anxious to render respectable ? He felt satisfied that be had acted the part of an honest man, and he did not think there were ten men in that House who thought otherwise ; but if there were, he held them in utter and complete contempt.—(Much laughter and cheering.) No man would entertain that feeling but a man who had the baseness of heart which would induce him to act in the same way himself. ( Hear, bear.) Lord HO WICK—So far as he had understood the ob servations of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he had thrown out no imputation on the character of the Com mittee. The discussion that had taken place, however, was of a very important character, and it would draw the attention of the House to the question of whether there were not defects in the constitution of these tribunals and in the law, which required the interference of that House. —( Hear, hear.) He fully concurred is the observations of the Hon. Member for Somersetshire, on the painful position in which Committees were placed, in deciding what was and what was not legal evidence. During the protracted inquiry before the Ludlow Committee last year, where he (Lord Howick) had been compelled to act as a member, that question had been repeatedly raised ; and, as had been already remarked, Hon. Members, not having a professional education, when conflicting decisions were brought before them, were utterly at a loss how to decide. The same question would perhaps be repeated five minutes afterwards, with some trifling variation, and Counsel, it was well known, presumed upon the ignorance of the Members upon these professional points, and their not being able to decide upon the fallacies they put forward. Every moment the most vexatious objections were made, and the Committee became a scene of wrangling which was most improper to be witnessed in a judicial tribunal. He (Lord Howick) had stated, when the Bill of the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth was first introduced, that it would be necessary for the Committees to have the assistance of a professional and impartial adviser. Some great change was absolutely necessary, unless it was the inten tion of the House to sanction bribery and corruption to the greatest extent. As the law at present stood, unless there was great clumsiness on the part cf the accused, it was impossible to get at the facts. Agency must be proved, and the greatest caution was requisite. A losing candi date might send down persons to bribe and treat in the risme of his opponent, and the grossest injustice might thereby be practiael.—(Hear, bear.) It would appear as if in the case of Ludlow there bad been a tacit under standing on both sides that no petition should be pre sented, for no caution was observed, and both patties com mitted themselves in t'e most extraordinary manner. He could not see how, with ordinary skill in managing the corruption, they could get at proof of agency. There was one cure and one only in his opinion, namely, by a legis lative enactment to authorise the examination of agents by the counsel. That was a test which would get tee truth from almost any men, however reluctant. If that were done he believed it would be a matter of extreme peril to carry on those disgraceful practices, but if they did not do that, it would be better to repeal the laws against bribery and corruption, and let every per son do the best he could.—(Great laughter.) It would be necessary, however, to introduce a proviso that no penal consequence should attach to giving evidence which would criminate the party himself. The Legisla ture would not compel blm to criminate himself, and then subject him to criminal consequences. He wished to have heard, before the discussion closed, a denial that any com promise had taken place, because when there was so strong a prima facie case it was difficult to refuse credit to the rumours afloat. On the whole, he thought the House should turn their urgent attention to these points if they had any regard for their character, and wished to prevent the increase of such a system of corruption. Mr. JA MES said, every Hon. Member who regarded the character of that House must regret the scenes of cor ruption that were exposed at St. Alban's, Canterbury, and Walsall. He had stood a contested election far Carlisle in ar.120, and he declared upon his honour as a gentleman, and be could make oath of it in a court of justice, that be was not cognisar t of a single farthing being expended in bribery when several thousand pounds had been expende I in that way.—( Hear, and laughter.) He was told the legal expense of the electron would be 4,0001. or 5,0001., and three weetes of erwards he was told that the election hal coat him 12,0001.—that the money ho had put into the hands of his - agent to pay the legal expenses had been ex. pended in gross bribery, while he declared most solemnly he had not the s!ighteg ilea of it, and he was repeatedly told that no bribery was going on. If the Hon. Gentleman who brought forward tbii motion, or his friends, were sin cerely desirous c f putting a step to bribery, they shouU adopt the only effectual remedy for the evil; namely, the vete by ballot. Mr. GLADSTONE rose to explain. In consequence of whet bad fallea from the Hon. Gentleman, the Com mittee had, immediately on its sitting, decided that there was not the slightest foundation fat the allegation of bribery_ that was made in the petition against his ( Mr. Gladstone's) eke ion for the borough of Walsall. As to the charge of treating, the evidence did not go to connect it with Liin (Mr. G.) or his agents. Mr. JAMES stated most distinctly that he did not know that bribery had taken place at the election referred to. He had merely said that the most effectual remedy against bribery was the vote by ballot. Mr. HA YTE R said that tho Hon. Member (Mr. Gladstone) was perfectly correct in his statement with re spect to the charge of bribery. With regard to the alle gation rrlatlve to treating, the Committee had made a special Report on it. The Report stated that consider able testing existed at Walsall, both previous to and dur ing the election ; but that the evidence was of such a doubtful nature as to render them unable to connect it with the sitting Member. He had the misfortune of differing with the majority of the Come ittce on that occasion, and though he regretted that, yet on reflection be did net think he was wrong in so differing. They all felt that the great doubts arising in that inquiry were owing to the nature of the tribunal. The fact was, the - ee questions were coesi derel to be simply questions between two interested parties—a sort of issue to be tried between interested per suns. But the patty most interested—the House of Commons itself—did not appear in that tribunal ; and, al though the Committee knew that there were persons in the room who could speak to every fact, and who could prove or disprove every allegation of treatisg, it was not propurel by the parties interested to bring forward those persons as witnesses. (Hea-, hear.) The Com mittee were left to find out the truth as best they could. _ In . any investigation he had eves seen, he had never known so little truth and so much false hood stated. He had merely risen for the purpose of stating the insufficiency of the tribunal as at present con stituted. He thought it requisite that some mode of ex tr .cting evidence, so as to enable the House to arrive at the r: uth, ought to be adopted. Sir R. PEEL thought that the question of granting ed litional powers to Election Committees for the purpose of the better extracting evidence, ought to be kept apart from the mere consideration of the tribunal. He did not think the pre; eat a proper occasion to discuss that ques tion. He muse say, however, that in the course of this discussion, he saw nothing whereby the integrity of the tribunal referred to could be impeached.—( Hear, hear.) Neither in the last session, nor in the present, could he detect anything in the conduct of tribunals of this sort that showed they were not desirous of ascertaining the truth, and of administering justice. Upon the occasion which was now the subject of discussion, he could not conceive what other course could have been adopted. Ho under stood that before the Committee was appointed, the panel of chairmen met to consider the points chiefly litigated in Election Committees, in order that they might establish, if possible, uniformity of practice. They took into con sideration the question, whether they would permit the agency to be established by proving- acts of bribery, and they decided that where the agency could not be esta blished, except by the proof of acts of bribery, they would permit it to be so established. That was laid down as a general rule by the panel of chairmen, and when the Hon. Gentleman who presided over the St. Alban's Election Committee, asked the members of it if they would abide by it, they agreed to do so. He (Sir R. Peel) could not, therefore, see that the slightest shadow of imputation could with justice be cast upon them. Although they might not be able to make the nicest elhs tinctions between the opinions advanced by Counsel, yet the reasonable presumption was that they had acted fairly. and justly. The production of the evidence he would not object to, if it was for the purpose of showing that it was desirable to alter the law in order to enable Committees to have professional assistance; but to its production for the purpose of enabling the Members of that Committee to vindicate their characters, he had every objection, as he did not E yh op e think suc h ii nd i cation necessary. On that ground he d certainly wou ld not vote for the production of the evidence. not oppose te e * MMrr. E w L A L K I T explained the Right Hon Baronet would production of the evidence because he considered it of no importance with respect to the charac ter of the Committee. If the House was to legislate on the subject for the future guidance of Committees they ought to be possessed of whatever would enable them to form a correct judgment of the state of the law. He (Mr. W.) thought the evidence was of no importance with re spect to the character of the'Committee. However, it ought to be produced for the pu r p ose h e mentioned. He thought they ought not to confine their motion to two of those tribunals. They ought to have the evidence given before the Walsall Election Committee also, and if of briber y being put, into practice at no ether Hon. Gentleman would do so, he himself would move for the production of the evidence taken before that Committee. The Hon. Member for Walsall said that he b. An HON. MEMBER—Not bribery—treating. Mr. WAKLE Y —Treating—that's another term for n w for nothing th bribery—a nice mild Parliamentary term for bribery.-- h re is al e ly lee k t n io e he might learn of it hereafter. W . atboroug (Laughter.) But _ . m mber for Cumberland was the information the Hon. e re ceived ? That the 5,000/. deposited for election expenses had been expended in bribery. He entreated the Hon. Gentleman not to congratulate himself upon the extent of his igcorince. • He might soon receive information that might have the effect of enlightening his darkness. The present discussion was a most edifying one. Honourable Gentlemen, one and all, said that their object was to maintain the character of the House. If such was the case he thought they should have been silent on what had transpired, for this discussion exhibited one of the most degrading pictures that could be exposed to the eyes of those who trusted they were faithfully represented in that assembly—bribery and corruption 1 Why these things were as common in their appearance as noon-day ; there was nothing more common and ordinary. The Noble Lord (Lord Howick) bad suggested a remedy, but there was a more efficient one. Bribery was practised among small constituencies, and not in large ones; and if the House was sincere in their desire to prevent corruption, they should give such large masses of the people the power of electing representatives that no purse should he suffi ciently long and heavy to corrupt them.—( Hear, heer.) That was the only efficient remedy, and until it was adopted by the House the sincerity of their professions to put down corruption would be justly doubted.— (Hear,) The Hon. Member for Sornersetshire had said that the Committees were constantly puzzled by the subtleties of the lawyers, and he proposed as a remedy another lawyer. —(Laughter.) Now he (Mr. Waltley) thought it would be a more effectual remedy to get rid of the lawyers alto gether. He was sure the public would agree to it, and he believed the House would also. What were they called upon to decide ? Were gentlemen who legislated for the lives and property of the people, and the great interests of the country to be deemed incompetent to decide upon the simple question of fact, whether or not a Member was competent to sit in that House ? He entreated the House to take the matter seriously into consideration, for he be lieved the conduct of the lawyers in these and in many other Courts, was prejudicial to the course of justice. Mr. SA NFO RD explained that he proposed that the assessor should simply give advice upon points of law, and not on questions of fact. On the question being put, Mr. WAKLEY moved that the evidence taken before the Walsall Committee be also printed. Mr. GL AD STONE seconded the motion. Lord F. EGERTON said he did not think it right, as the proceedings before the Walsall Committee had only been incidentally mentioned, to move that they should be printed. He thought it was calculated to cast an imputa tion upon the Committee, and would therefore divide the House against the motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said if he thought the effect of the motion would be to sanction any imputa tion against the Members of these Committees, he would certainly divide the House against the mo tion, but he thought there could scarcely be such an impression on the mind of any person. He thought there were two reasons of considerable importance why this motion should be carried. By a knowledge cf the proceedings of these Committees they might de vise rules by which those tribunals might be amended. Another important reason was, that it might enable them to judge whether it was advisable to give these Committees additional powers on behalf of the House and the country.—(Hear, hear.) It had always appeared to him that the Grenville Ant tended to make the question before the Committee apparently a question between two parties, each of whom had able Counsel, each of Whom proposed their own views, while the gene ral question before the House, whether representation in the House was duly secured, seemed to be overlooked. However the remedy, into the question of which he would not then enter, was a matter of 'considerable difficulty. He thought the production of any evidence of this kind would show the inefficiency and imperfection of the law for the purpose of thorough investigation, and would thus be useful, and enable them to discover in what way a re medy could be applied. He did not think any imputa tion was intended upon the Committee, for if these ques tions had been sent to a Jury or a Judge, and one party had said...." We have no evidence to offer, and cannot had said—" We have no evidence to cffer and cannot make out our case," they could clearly come but to one decision. On there grounds and on these general prin ciples he should not oppose the motion.—( Hear.) Mr. BLACKSTONE wished to set himself right with the House. He had never intended to cast any imputa tion on the Committee. He had no objection to the pro duction of the evidence before the Walsall Committee. The evidence before each of the three Committees was then ordered to be laid before the House. In answer to a question from Mr. ORMSBY GORE, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it wes intended to i3suo a Commission to inquire into the state of the Church in North %Vales. Colonel SIBTHORP askcd if it was to be a paid Com mission? Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had better ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, at whose instance the Commission was issued.—( Laughter.) COUNTY COURTS BILL. The further consitlerationoi the Report on the County Courts Bill was postponed to Monday. HOUGHING OF CATTLE BILL—(IRELAND,) This Bill was read a third time and passed. POOR-LAW BILL. On 'the reading of the Order of the Day, for the ad journed Committee on the Poor-law Bill, Mr. SANFORD said that be had intended to make a statement before the Speaker left the Chair respecting a charge made by an Hon. and Learned Member opposite against the guardians of the Bridgewater Union. Bat as the lion. and Learned Gentleman was not in his place, he (Mr. Sanford) would take another opportunity. The House then went into Committee on the Bill. On clause 24 being put, which related to the regulation of the Emigration Fund, Lord J. RUSSELL announced his intention to strike out tl e clause for the present, with a view of inserting here after another in its stead. He wished to give the control of the Emigrati ,n Fund, to the guardians, and take it out of the hands of the rate-payers. After some conversation, the clause tvai struck out. On clause 25 being put, which related to the buiial of paupers, Mr. DARBY proposed an amendment, to the effect that paupers might be buried in the parish churcbykrds. Colonel SIBTH 0R P thought there was agencral feel ing that the Noble Lord had given up this clause. It was totally unmindful of the feelings of the poor. By the clause power was given to consign to the grave the body of a poor person who might die in Union gaol—for so be would call it—without the consent of his relatives. There was but one further step to take, and that wag tb consign the bcdy to the anatomist... He should take the sense of the Houac as to the propriety of expunging the clause. He gave the Noble Lord credit for the possession of good feelings and humanity, and he tru;ted he would expunge the clause. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the meaning of the clause. Its meat!. ing was not to prevent the giving up the bodies.cf poor persons to their relatives who might be inclined to bury them, but to provide for the burial of those who had not left behind them sufficient effects to bury them, or whose relatives might refuse to do so; at present the law was uncertain on the subject of who should bury such persons, and it was to settle the law on that point that this clause had been introduced. He should not object to the intro duction of words enacting that the body should be buried in the churchyard of the parish to which the person had belonged. Sir E. KNATCHBULL thought that where the ft lends refuted to interfere the body should be busied in the churchyard of the parish in which the union house was situated, but that in other cases every facility should be efferded to the relatives of the deceased to have the body interred in the churchyard of the parish to which the deceased belonged. Dr. LUS HINGTON had endeavoured, as fkr as he could, to collect the true meaning of the Hon. Member for Sussex, but he confessed he could not understand it until it was explained by the Right Hon. Member for Kent. As he understood it, the clause was intended to consult the f, cling r f the relatives cf the poor by proliding that those who died should be buried in the parish to which they be longed. That might be all very well, but he thought there ought to be no compulsion. It ought to take place only upon the application of the friends of the deceased. In many cases such a provision could not be carried out, for in some parishes there were no burying grounds; in others where there were, there was no room ; and theref,re there must be some provision made in that respect. He deprecated burials in populous places, as he thought it tended greatly to the injury of the health of the inhabitants. Another subject worthy of consideration was the expenses attendant upon the burying of paupers; this often led to ill feeling, and the clergymen under the pre sent law could not recover any fees. He thought those fees ought to be reduced to the lowest scale; but unless sonic enactment took place on the subject, he was afraid the same ill feeling would continue. He considered the prin ciple of the clause good, but it required some amendment. Mr. DARBY, after a feW observations, withdrew his amendment, upon the understanding that Lord J. Russell would so frame the clause as to carry it out. Sir T. FREMANTLE was anxious that the amend ment of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Sussex, should be carried out. He was glad to hear that the Noble Lord in tended to do so ; and, under these circumstances, his Hon. Friend had done right in withdrawing his amendment. Mr. WA KL E Y could not go the entire length of the Gallant Colonel, in objecting to this clause. In many in. stances parties died without effects, and then the most in decent Disputes took place as to who should bury the body. He thought it most objectionable that parties should be buried in the parish in which they -died. If that part of the clause was modified, he saw no objection to it. Lord J. RUSSELL intimated that he was willing to modify the clause in that respect. Sir A. DALRYMPLE said he entirely concurred in the suggestions of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Sussex. He believed, in some instances, the prac tice referred to had already prevailed. Mr. DARBY objected to the words of the clause which assigned the payment of the burial fees to the Poor-law Commissioners, and moved that they be struck ou•C Mr. GORING hoped the Noble Lord would not agree to the exception. Mr G ROTE said, that in his opinion there was not much difference between the clause as it they stood and the clause as proposed to be amended. At present, power was given to the guardians to order the body to be in terred according to their own discretion. Sir T. FREMANTLE said the case was provided for by the 29th clause. Lord J. RUSSELL said he would have an observa tion to make on the 29th clause Colonel SIBTHORP thought they should have a pro vision for sending to the relatives of the deceased, and consulting them as to where the body should be'interred. Lord G. SOMERSET thought it would be very unde sirable to get rid of the clause. Still he thought the ad.. dition of a few words would would greatly amend it, espe cially some words providing for the burial of paupers in grounds belonging to unions which were in villages, a n d too small for the purpose. He trusted provision would be made for any wish exprcsssed by the pauper as to the place of his burial, especially . if it were within the limits of the union. That was an important point, and might greatly relieve the mind of many poor persons who were reduced to the workhouse. He certainly should move a Prolix° to cause paupers to be interred decently and in a proper manner , and the expenses should be allowed by the a tors. • Lord J. RUSSELL thought the proviso wauld be totally unnecessary, for if the funerals cf paupers were conducted in any indecent or improper manner, they broke the law as is at present stood. There was a general with that all such funerals should be conducted both decently and properly. Mr. BRUGES said, as Chairman of a Poor-law union, he was aware that many dissenting paupers had a great ob jection to being buried in the parish burying ground. Would the Noble Lord have any objection to strike out the words limiting the burials to such grounds ? Mr. BERNAL said there was an amendment before that. Cactain PECHELL proposed to add words to enable single parishes burying a pauper, not belonging to them selves, to recover the expenses from the parish of the pauper. He moved the insertion of the word " or."-- (A laugh.) Mr. F. MA ULE said it was not very easy to see what the effect of the insertion of the word "or " might be. He was afraid that it was intended to obtain a recognition of the Gilbert Unions.—( A laugh.) He felt bound to oppose the amendment. Sir C. GREY suggested that the Hon. and Gallant Member might obtain his object by striking out the words " under their control." Mr. BERNAL said the amendment could not be put ; it was too late. Captain PECHELL hoped the Noble Lord, the Se. cretary for the Colonies, would turn his attention to the subject, for some parishes were put to an expense of 50/. a.year in the burial of paupers not their own. On the motion of Mr. BRUGES, the words " in the palish of" were struck out, to allow paupers to be btoied in chapel burial grounds, if he expressed a wish for it before his death. Mr. GRIMSDITCH said he should divide the House upon the clause. In answer to a question from Alderman HUMPHERY, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he proposed to fill up the blank for the fee for the burial of a pauper with the words " five shillings." Mr. PRYME moved to extend secti.ms 25 and 27 to persons discharged from or dying in any public hospital. Sir E. KNATCHBULL thought the clause unneces sary, as those who died in hospitals would be removed for burial by those who had recommended them to it. Mr. PRYME said that if such an expectation were to be generally entertained it would have the effect of induc ing subscribers to hospitals to withhold their recommends tions.—(No, no.) Alderman HUM PHE Rl' said there was never any dif ficulty with respect to the buriallof a pauper who died in an hospital.: If the body was not removed by friends it was always buried at the expense of the hospital. He therefore recommended his Hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment. After some further discussion the House divided— For the clause For the amendment Majority ageinst the amendment -98 On clause 26 being proposed, Lord HO W ICK said the casual poor were constantly sent from one parish to another, and were furnithed with the means of proceeding to their destination. He was perfectly persuaded that relief would be administered to the casual poor on a mere fair principle if the expense fell in common upon all the parishes of the union. He hoped, therefore, that the clause would not he rejected. Lord G. SOMERSET said that justice was involved in the clause which they were then discussing. He thought that some reasons ought to he stated to induce the House to make alterations in the law, which would be of so ex tensive a nature as those that would result from the pass ing of that clause. Humanity was not in the slighest de gree inter ested in the passing of that clause, but great in justice would be done by its enactment. He would, there fore, persist in h:s intention of moving the rejection of the whole clause. Mr: HAWES thought the passing of the clause would be attended with the most beneficial results, and therefore hoped that it would meet with the support of the House. After a few words from Colonel WOOD, Mr. HUMPHERY said that the Irish labourers, at certain seasons of the year, passed in large numbers through the large towns situated on the principal high road, and spent in those towns the money advanced to them out of the union fund. Those towns were, there fore, Lenefited thus in some degree, and it was fair they should bear the burden of forwarding those paupers from one plsco to another; but it was a hardship that parishes some ten or twenty miles off, which happened to be in the union, should contribute to the expense, from which they delivel no Lcnefit whatever. The HOMO then divided, and the numbers were— Fur the clause Fur the amendment Majority ... 49 On cur readmision we found the Commitiee in discus sion on the 27th chime, the object of which was that notice of removal of paupers might be sent by post. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved the following amendment to the clause—" unless the party to be affected by such notice or other document shall prove that the same had .not been duly received." lefer some conversation the amendment was added to the clause. Mr. TOWNLEY PARKER trusted that the Solicitor- General would divide the Committee on the clause. Strangers were ordered to withdraw. The Committee divided, when there appeared— For the clause l3O Against it 69 Majority for the clause —6l On clause 2ss being put. Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposed to strike it out.— ( Loud cheers). Colonel WOOD said that ho should, at some future stage of the Ball, propose the amendment of which he had given notice, as a distinct proviso. The clause was then withdrawn. Clause 29 was postponed. On clause 30 being put. Mr. TATTON EGERTON stir! that as many unions were situated in different countie, he should recommend the clz.use teing withdrawn, in order that it might receive farther consideration. Lord G. SOMERSET suggested that this chure would place the high constables of counties in a situa. tion of great dit&ulty. He hoped it would receive further consLiereiGn. Mr. GRIM SDITCH was of opinion that the law as it stood at pres, rit did not need any alteration. Lord J. RUSSELL thought the clause would effect a great improvement in the manner of collecting the rate:3, and was not inclined to postpone it. Mr. GOULB URN did net approve of imposing upon the guardians the duty of collecting the rates. Mr. E. BULLER thought the clause pointed out the cheapest and the readiest way of collecting tha county rate, and one that would effect a considerable saving. He thought the guardians ought to have the same power given to them as the overseers now possessed to enforce payment of the rates. lie hoped the Noble Lord would persevere in the clause. Lord G. SOMERSET complained cf the anomalous situation in which this clause would ',lace ex officio guardians, who, in their capacities as Magistrates, might be called on to issue warrants against themselves. Coloi,el RO LL E STON said that the rate -pa} era would have no security for the money they paid under this change. He trusted, therefore, the Noble Lord would amend it so as to give the required security to the public. Mr. GISBORNE thought the principle of the clause was good, but there were one or two parts of it that might be amended. Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would he .better that the beard of guardians should order the collectors cf the rates rather than let them remain as they now stood. Mr. GOULBURN said that the clause had more re ference to the collection of county rates titan the relief of the poor. He trusted, therefore, the Noble Lord would reconsider the clause. Mr. HAWES thought it would simplify their proceed ings on this Bill if the Noble Lord would consent to post por.e the clause. Lord J. RUSSELL admitted it to be true that the clause was not necessary to the working of the present Bill. If the Committee thought it should be omitted from the Bill, he should have no objection to do so, but as to introducing it into another Bill, that would be matter for future consideration. Mr. E. BUL LER said, if the Noble Lord would with.. draw the clause and undertake to introduce it in another Bill, he should be glad. After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL, the clause was withdrawn. Tile CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again pro forma on Monday. The South Australia Bill went through Committee with out amendments, and the Report was ordered to be received on Monday. The Ireland Bonding Warehouse Bill went through Committee, and the Report was received. The Wide Street Dublin Bill wet,t through Committee, and the Report was ordered to be received on Monday. The Double Costs' Bill was read a third time and passed. The Indemnity Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Mr. LABOUCHERE then moved for a Select Com mittee to inquire into the state of the law' respecting Joint-stock Companies (banking companies excepted), with the view to the prevention of fraud.—Agreed to. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to One. SPANISH EMBASSY.—Despatches were re ceived on Tuesday last by his Excellency General Alava, by which we understand the gallant General is recalled by the Spanish Government. We can also state, upon un doubted authority, the same despatches accredit his Ex cellency M. Gonzalez, as Minister from Spain to the Court of St. James's. His Excellency M. Gonzalez left Mi. vart's Hotel on Monday night for Paris, en route to Ma drid, and of course was unacquainted with his appoint ment. A courier was despatched by General Alava on Tuesday afternoon to Paiis, in order to apprise M. Gon zalez of the instructions he had received from the Spanish Ministry, and to urge his immediate return. As M. Gon zalez intended to stay 24 hours in the French capital, it is probable the courier would be able to reach Paris before his departure for Spain. General Alava will leave this country with regret to a numerous circle of private friends, particularly the Duke of Wellington, with whom his Ex cellency has maintained a cordial friendship of nearly half a century. OLYMPIC THEATRE.—On Easter Monday this hum will be opened under the auspices of Mr. G. Wild, ho has provided for the occasion the following enter tainments :—A drama in three Acts, called " Charles O'Malley, the Irish • Dragoon," founded on the popular story of that name ; a new piece by the author of the Ladies' Club, emitted the Little Gypsy ; and a mytho logical burletta, bearing the title of Olympic Frailties. The company includes Messrs. T. Lee, T. Parry, Brookes, Helford, and Mr. Charles Baker (the stage manager), Miss Fortescue, Miss Howard (pupil of Mrs. Glover), Miss Lebatt, and other artists, of provincial ce lebrity. The prices of admission have been reduced, and the interior of the theatre has been thoroughly cleansed. Mr. George Wild has every chance of success, and we trust he will have no reason to repent of his undertaking. COURT OF SEWERS OF WEST MINSTER, AND PART OF MIDDLESEX. A Court of Sewers for the City and Liberties of Westminster was yesterday held at the office of the Commissioners, Greek-street, Soho, T. L. Donaldson, Esq,, in the Chair. The usual routine business having been transacted, Mr. BICKNELL, the Solicitor to Chelsea Hospital, entered the Court, and said that he had attended out of courtesy to the Court, to state to them that he had taken the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-Gene ral as to the liability of the buildings belonging to the Hospital not hitherto rated to be assessed to Sewers rate, which he would, if the Court pleased, read to them. The CHAIRMAN expressed the feelings of the Court on Mr. Bickneil's courteous offer, and stated their de sire to hear the case and opinion. Mr. Bicknell then proceeded to read the case and opinion, from which it appeared, that according to the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, Mr. Hall was not legally liable to be assessed to the rate for the chapel and buildings of Chelsea Hospital ; that the second presentment was bad in form and in substance, and that the payment of it ought to be resisted. Mr. BICKNELL said that lie would attend whenever a distress should be levied, in order to try the ques tion ; but he gave the Court notice that he should take a preliminary objection to the presentment, so that the merits of the case could not be tr:e 1 under the present case. The CHAIRMAN then called on the Court to consider as to signing a warrant for levying upon the buildings not hitherto rated, chapel and wards, and fifty-seven acres of land of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. Sir G. FARRANT said that after the declaration of the Learned Gentleman, that he could put, and should put them out of Court, on the ground of informality, it would be well to review the proceedings to see where they were vulnerable before they went into Court, and retrace their steps if necessary. Mr. GUNTER was not influenced by the opinion given by the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and should certainly hold up his hand for signing the warrant. The CHantmAisr asked Mr. Bicknell if the Commis sioners of the hospital would be willing to take a deci sion-on the liability of Chelsea Hospital to be rated. Mr. BICKNELL said he should advise the Commis sioners of the hospital to take an objection, first to the form, and next to the merits, in order to give him an opportunity of showing to another Jury that the hos pital derived no benefit whatever from the sewers. Knowing what Mr. Ogle's charge had been, he should be prepared with evidence on that point; he considered Mr. Ogle's charge not a judicial one, not a legal. one. Mr. MULLINS thought the charge a highly improper One. Mr. LESLIE had pointed out to the Court that they could not levy except upon the goods of the person rated, and as Mr. Hall had no property in the hospital no distress could be levied there. They had been misled by Mr. Ogle and Mr. Smith into the opinion that they could levy upon the property without regard to the persons. He thought the sooner a determina tion was come to the better, and that they ought to try the question immediately. T►;e CHAIRMAN then put the question, when there appeared For issuing the warrant 4 Against it The CHAIRMAN gave his casting vote for having the warraa signed. Mr. Beach, Mr. Lecke, Mr. John Gunter, and Mr. Grace, were the four Commissioners vi ho voted for issuing the warrant. To: warrant was then signed and given to the oil eer of the Court for execution. The COURT then proceeded to consider as to signing warrants for levying upon the churches and other newly rated property in the Eastern Division of the West minster Sewers. Mr. GODDIDGE suggested that they should select one church to try the question. Ile CHAIRMAN asked which church they would choose to proceed against in tha event of their deter mining to issue a warrant ? Mr. J. GUNTER wished to know whether, in the event of the churches not paying, the Company could cut off their connection with the sewers. Mr. MULLINS thought it would be well to let the question stand over until the question of occupancy should be determined by the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of Chelsea Hospital. Mr. BnouGHTox wished to know what mode of pro ceeding was to be adopted with regard to churches when the warrant should be issued. What was the officer executing the warrant to take ? Mr. LESLIE said that by the decree the Commis sioners had determined, if the officers found no goods, that they would proceed to demise away the church, so that they would put up the church to auction he sup pose d .—(A laugh.) Mr. BROUGHTON still urged his question—Did they intend to take the sacred vestments on the count - nut:ion plate, or the books of the church or of the congre gation ?_ Mr. J. GUNTER thought it was a serious question, asid suggested that after issuing the warrant it would be well to consider how they should execute it. He had not said, as had been represented, that. he would sign a warrant unawed by ecclesiastical censure. He had said that he would follow up his opinion by signing the warrant, but that warrant ought not to be cxe cut.id in such a way as to shock public feelings. Mr. BROUGHTON said, in allusion to the opinion of Dr. Phillimore, that there was a white sheet hung over the heads of the Commissioners and of the collector, if they proceeded. It was hard upon the collector, as he had no voice in the matter. The Court ought to de termine how they would execute the wan ant before tilt) , issued it. Mr. BOUVERIE thought it was ridiculous to issue a warrant until they' had determined what they would do with it. The solicitor was present, and he could tell them how they were to act. Mr. GOODRIDGE hoped the Court would not be intimidated from doing their duty by the bugbear of ecclesiastical censures, and white sheets. •He was surprised at the present backwardness of many Com missioners, who had hitherto been the most forward in urging on the rating of churches. There was always plenty of furniture in a vestry-room on which they could distrain, and which, he believed, was not inter res saci•as. Mr. A ' BECKETT washed to know whether it was necessary to go upon the property assessed, and -whe ther they could not take the goods of the churchwardens a their own houses. Mr. SMITH thought they must go on the premises assessed. Air. A'BECKETT had never heard of such a thing as a distress in a church. If they were right in law, how ever, the Court of Queen's Bench would interfere to protect them from ecclesiastical censuring by means of a probi,)itiov. lie should like to know in what form it was proposed to issue the warrant. Tie SOLICITOR referred to the original opinion given by him, that a'though churches were liable, it would be impossible to enforce the rate in respect of them, and to the opinion of Sir 4V. Follett and Mr. Ogle. He was still of opinion that it was impossible to enforce the rate against churches. Mr. LESLIE said the whole of this difficulty had arisen from their be;ng misled by their legal adviser into the opinion that they could rate property without an occupier. They could do •no such thing. It behoved the Commissioners, signing these warrants, to ci.nsider well what they were doing, as they would be running themselves individually into expense ; for they had taken care to place such matter upon their records as would exempt the public from the expense, and throw it upon the individual Commissioners taking part in these pro ceedings. Their defeat was certain, and the sooner they were defeated the less embarrassment would be oc casioned to the Court. Mr. BROUGHTON thought the opinion of the solici tors as to the liability of property in contradistinction to persons to be assessed to sewers' rate, was quite right, and Mr. Leslie was wrong, and quoted the words of the Statute Hen. VIII. in support of his opinion. He thought churches were not liable under either the Act of Hen. VIII. or of Anne, and he could not recommend any Commissioner to sign a warrant, nor ought they to send any officer without giving him clear end distinct instructions. He thought the best plan would be to re trace their steps in regard to churches. Mr. LESLIE contended that the wording of the sta tute of Hen. VIII. proved his position, that persons were to be rated for the land and not the land itself. The jury returned the parties liable, not the lands liable, and, therefore, unless the person were rated, the rate was bad. Could they sell the churches if the rate were refused? Let the Commissioners recollect that if they exceeded their commission, they could not be indemni fied for any expences they might incur. Mr. MULLINS agreed with Mr. Leslie that the person must be rated for his property, and not the property, without reference to the occupation. He thought the churchwardens, having neither beneficial interest, or in terest in fee, in the churches, could not be rated. He should, therefore, moves, that no warrant should be issued. Mr. WILLOUGHBY thought the warrant ought not to be signed on account of the practical difficulties existing in the way of executing it. He seconded the motion. Mr. LESLIE said that at the last Court a similar mo tion of Mr. Willoughby's was negatived on the ground that it would stultify the proceedings of the Court. He had always understood that the decree was the final judgment of the Court, and could only be set aside by the judgment of a superior Court, and the sooner that judgment was obtained the better. They had not the power of reversing thoir own decrees. He should not vote on the question for the reasons he bad frequently stated. - Mr.*GOODRIDGE contended that they ought either to carry out their decree at once, or abandon the question entirely. Mr. BROUGHTON had never heard that' a ft er judg ment was obtained it wasimperative to proceed to exe cution. There could not he a doubt but that they could refuse to issue the warrants. EVENING EDMQN Mr. A ' BECKETT was certainly against issuing we' rants against the churche. Mr. FULLER considered their refusal to carry out their own decree as an invcluntary compliment tbel were paying to Mr. opinion. Had they eons? dered Mr. Leslie's amendments on a former occasion, they would ha% e escaped all the trouble. It %*;ils now the time to consider the question. What woe' they think of the Court of Queen's Bench, after havig given judgment, on the application of their office rs t : - carry that judgment into eff ec t, to say, No, WO ~rilltak time to consider, and get some barrister's opinion. e Mr. :I`.,IuLLINs replied, and contended that by agrc_. ing to his motion the Courtwould not be precluded fr; issuing the warrant at some future day if it shoul d deemed requisite. a. Mr. BROUGHTON thought it would be better eF cre dify the motion by introducing the word "now , r- the word "signed." Mr. Mullins and Mr. Willoughby assented to bat' etile o , ' motion modified by the introduction of the word " 0/ 74 Mr. LESLIE objected to having the mo tion al° s It 71 3 after it had been handed to the Chairman. contrary to the Standing, Orders, and he thought tri important that they should have the opinions of Pr ° C, li i ser and seconder on record, seeing they were both le, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN could not put Mr. Broughtoo's position as an amendment after the mover had rep I\Lr. GOODRIDCE would then move the adjoure'.°- of the Court. C3pttin BAGU E sec o nd e d th e mo ti on f o .r an a d jl: merit, which was carr i e d by a m a j or ity o f to st ll 7, The Court then adjourned to Tuesaay mixt. THE SPECTACLE-MAKEUS . PAN Y. 1 011 On Thursday a Court of the Speetacle--1, ; , to Company was hcld, for the purp ose of admit: o 4 o y, their freAom Lord lidsborough, Mr. Fox AO' Captain Dundas, Mr. A. Rogers, Lieutenant- The Cimpbell, and other distinguished individuals. .0 Court of the Company and the newly-madetn afterwards dined together at the London Coffee. leit ery when the chair was taken by the Worshipful I r Sir James Duke, M.P. Mr. Hutt, Sir Georg f`,9l . roll, Sir H. Nicholas, and seve ra l o ther Mem rot Parliament, were present. After the usual toss P ee t health of the new members was given with applause. `i4o Lord HILSBOROUGH said he had bee n indo"br seek the freedom of the City of London from tbC a'or ration he entertained of her civic institutions, tled , numerous charters which it was her pride and gi° ll e id maintain.—( Hear, hear.) His name had been col," that day as a member of the Spectacle-Makers' pany, and he was delighted to form an acquain with the members of the Corporation. He try that associations of that description would tend to der the different orders of the community better quainted with each other, and to unite them togs by closer ties.—(Hear, hear.) He should at time' delighted to contribute to the charities of the City, t to any of the offices in the Spectacle-Makers' (3%1 pany, which it might be his duty to occupy.-- -- (C hc p ei bi There was, however, one exception. He mil s " °. being Lord Mayor.—(Laughter.) Song—" The Lord Mayor's Show." e Captain .DUNDAS and Colonel CAMPBELL r° a f el ; Lively returned thanks for the navy and arinY• former said he felt no hesitati o n in asserting tha t tue ly had been no period of our hi s tory in which the '3,;4 had been in a higher state of efficiency, notwitbst an lo the misrepresentations which had prevailed LIP° t ied point. If the' enemies of old England should be tendsby the croaking of those who ought to be her frieti be to provoke hostilities, which, he hoped, would loot; so averted, the navy of Great Britain would be re ad led vindicate the high reputation which she bad aceiil) during the brightest days of her glory.—(Hear, boa r " " Toni Bowling," by Mr. Turner. of t° Lord HILSBOROUGH proposed the health Chairman, which was received with great app l a use. to t Sir JAMES DUKE said, as an old sailor he felt Prt that the navy had recently proved that she was as re l iyi as ever to sustain the honour of their country. - ile trusted that the blessings of peace would long 5 1 upon the land, and that the commerce of the Cite London and of the kingdom at large would conti o i nk prosper. In giving success to commerce, he 9 11 °'„t sociate with it the name of Mr. Hutt, as the repr.e6-0,0. tive of Hull, a port second only to Liverpool 10 c mercial importance. tLer Mr. HUTT returned thanks, and expressed great:. t o faction at being brought in communication w i , t ;ei members of the Corporation of the great emPot' u n i e s• commerce, and one of its principal Livery C° 1111) : - The time had passed away when narrow feoli n g", e B re• local jealousies estranged from each other tbe g r re et sentatives of great commercial interests in di O ld parts of the empire. The prosperity of e:very Por t ,',. o er be best promoted by upholding a liberal_ system of menial intercourse, and the Corporation of the City, London, as the conservators of the noble' river tow"tiiii they were indebted for their mercantile greato° s9 ,'Re well to set an example in manifesting there - ings.—(Cheers.) pit I , The toast—" The Church," wasreceived" ) ,t e (11 applause, and the Rev. Mr. J. Judki n , the 8 " - i - e n :bor Mr. Jennings, prebendary of Westmi n st er , vio ° lain to the Company, returned thanks. , ress ea Mr. DoLLoND and several other gentlemes3a du the Company. They separated, at 11 o'clock, after a very' eoavl Yial enjoyment. l4. MORTALITY in the METROP° The following are the results of " A Table of 111°100 in the Metropolis, showing the Number of Dea th 5 the all Causes Registered, in the week ending Satu rd qo 27th March, 1841." The Table is issued from th e of the Registrar-General:— Total. is' 04 0 ' ‘,04 Epidemic, Endemic, and Contagious Diseases. 160 10 . Diseases of the Brain, Nerves, and Senses 147 Diseases of the Lungs, and other Organs of `2 Bl Respiration Diseases of the Hea-t and Bloodvessels Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other 6 0 Organs of Digestion 44 Diseases of the Kidneys, &c. Childbed, Diseases of the Uterus, sec. Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles Diseases of the Skin, &c Diseases of Uncertain Seat Old Age, or Natural Decay B2 Deaths by Violence, Privation, or Intemperance 22 8. Causes not specified ..."" Deaths from all causes... Average Weekly Deaths Deaths in the Average ris ,9.7 . Week. Deaths, j 3 Western Districts ........110 ...... '- 15 3 North Districts Central. Districts lB2 ..... 21 1 East Districts lB3 ...... 22 3 South Districts .---- 'O6 CCU Total 865 • „ • It is stated that under the term Metropolis er'd e the prised the 32 districts herein mentioned, which il e b tl i t y lif l City of London within and without the walls, the hi ; t) e Liberties of Westminster, the out parishes wit ie boo, k ; bills of mortality—and the parishes of St. garY r ow - St. Pancras ; Kensington ; Fulham ; / 118 "' nic W r i t (Chapelry) ; St. Luke, Chelsea; Paddington; I::f a ri. l e Stoke Newington ; St. Leonard, Bromley ; s t. 1 11.. bow ; Camberwell ; G reenw i c h ; St. Nicholas It o es:, Paul, Deptford ; and Woolwich. The popular a ge f., merated in 1831 was 1,594,890. The weekly avie e o bS I 1838, 1839, 1840, was obtained by dividing th e u le a the three years by 156. my Sl ips THE NUMBER OF DEATHS IN 12 WEEKS FR- -1 lO6 DISEASES AND OTHER CAUSES. Small Pox .... .. ......... 5881 Asthma ...... " . ......... .. °I ..."... 10 Measles .. 17 ~,,6 *' CAUSES OF DEATH. Scarlatina 155 Childbirth ............ Heoping Cough . ...... Influenza Pneumonia, Pleurisy, & se al Bronchitis 1,528 , Diarrhoea and Dysentery have been All m o C r a e u f s a c t s al ; o l l ,:: in the season ; Puerperal Fever has prevailed ; ooer ce Measles and Scarlatina have gone on declining; _ i deee of Cough and Influenza are the reigning epidemics. Tiwroatioe of the cold weather was most remarkable in Infisn'of Pe rs° s6 the Lungs, Asthma, and Paralysis. The dest hs es soe, of above 60 amounted to 266 weekly through the ,40• 0. per cent. above the average of the three years I j3 OD 9 TEMPERATURE IN THE WEEKS E NDING 3Ltq l ,. r ch 2 7. I March 2 0 . 6.1* 62' 43 38 52 50 General - Register-office, Apiil 1, 1841• Highest Lowest Daily Mean .... ......... ... Ora lj • REGISTER STOVES, 3 ft, Wide, 2 4 5 " f oe , fl ef oter mo o Poles for Window Curtains, ls. 3d. per foot• per inch; elliptic stoves, 4d. per - inch ; register _ ., " ep ts, with bright fronts, ',right and black liar,: bronzed orZietell 100 s. ; brass poles for window curtain's', feet Is. 3d. per foot ; 2 inches, Is. id. ; a 2 inch 19 6 L, inches Catalogues log,w g it r h at e is n , d e s, en ri t n a g in s i , n a g ndtibla;kzet es, complete, every at ironmongery. pp R o , i\d and BURTON, Wells-street, rmw5........... - natsrrrraagime•eweveffnravns- - -1- BIRTHS. m obli lb On the 24th ult., at Brighton, the wife of J. G. Aor Esq., of a daughter. tlis On the Ist inst., at Harley-street, Cavendish-squas,eu'iok lady of the Venerable Archdeacon Austin, of British u of a daughter. Ba O r n the lst inst.. at Colebrooke-terrace, Islington, 3irsi' ton, the daughter On the 2d inst , at . Larkhall-rise, Clapham, Ellis, Esof . Esq., a daughter. ---' of the lady of 6. DIED • Ma O ri n bo th ro e ug 2 h d , a i g n e s , t i ., 74 i . n Park-lan e, the Duchess Dowager On the Ist inst.. at Clap ham, Surrey, John O'Brien, F's 4 M.D., late of the 7th Royal Fusiliers, aged .95. On the 28th ult., J. Hip, pool of ExMouth, Devon, age On the 28th ult., at Liver, Mr. W. Longmore, of fle yard, fleet-street. On the 28th ult., Mr. Answorth, of Clifford's Inn, aged6,;!i On the 31st ult. Jermyn-street, Mary Smallones, re:,'4, of the la.e W. Smalbones, Esq., of Lewisham, Kent, aged ' London: Printed and Published by 111URDO YOUN No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, I the county of Middlesex. -:-Saturday, April 3, 1841. T ~ A/1(