The Sun. — London, England, 1849-07-04 00:00:00

' ~-~--r , IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 3. Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock. BEER SHOPS. The Bishop of NORWICH presented a petition from 11 .inhabitants of St. Giles•in-the-Fields against the ,read of beer shops. THE MAHRATTA WAR. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGE rose to state the circumstances under which :booty taken from the enemy in the Mahratta war in India had been granted by the Crown to the East India Company or to the Indian army. This property had been transferred to the East India Company, which was in point of fact the Government of India, but that transfer in no way respected the private interests of the individual directors of the company. Ac- Cording to universal custom, with certain reservations as berMajesty might be advised to make, the booty in question had been made over to the Court of Directors and the Indian army. Confiscation implied power over the object confiscated, but th e p ro p ert y in question, situated in the state of Lahore, belonged to the enemy in the Mahratta war, and it could not be rightly confiscated by the Governor-General of India according to the principle which he (Lord tfienborough) had laid down,.for that property was not in the power of the Governor-General of India. That property, consisting of all the state jewels of Lahore, was acquired by war, was retained by right of conquest; it never changed hands, and belonged, therefore, to her Majesty in right of her crown, and the Governor-Gene ral of India had no right to dispose of it. It was a matter of policy, as well as of justice; to deal with this property as the law directs, without throwing any difficulties in the way of its legal appropriation. If this booty, which belonged to the Crown, as he contended, were not' conceded to the army of India, the army of India would have no reward whatever. The Marquis of LANSD,OWNE said he would inter pose no objection to the production of the papers for which the Noble Earl had moved. The question was, how.far the state property of Lahore was to, be consi dered as booty of war, and how far it was to be consi dered Ili state property, liable to the provisions of a treaty? He held in his hand the treaty applicable to the ease in point, one of the articles of which was that all the property of the state, of whatever description and ,wheresoever it should be found, should be con fiscated in part payment of the debt due from the state of Lahore to the British Government. Upon that treaty rested the right of the East India .Company to the property which they had acquired, and the right of the Queen of England to the predtons stones to which reference had been made by the Noble Lord. Tao Dolce of WELLINGTON thought the most re sular mode of proceeding would be to leave her Majes ty's Government to settle this question with the Court of Dimetoes. He must do the Governor-General of India the justice to' say that his Noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) was mistaken if he supposed that the transactions in question recently performed in India bad not been well and maturely considered by the Noble Lord in his recommendation to the public autho rities of this country. After a few remarks from Lord GLENELG, Lord BROUGHAM said the Governor-General of India could not change the nature of the property in question by anything that he. did. If the property was booty, using the word ‘‘ confiscation" was a little . inbensistent with all idea of treaty. Confiscation seemed to him to exclude the idea of contract. Lord ELLENBOROUGH replied. There was, in his opinion, enough in this case which rendered it in the • highest degree necessary that this matter should be fully and judicielly c o nsidered. After a fele words from Lords CAMPBELL and BaououAm, - Lord ELLENBOROUGH consented to withdraw his motion. '- Lord CAMPBELL laid on the table a Bill to empower . the Crown for one year to appoint a sheriff for the county of Westmorlind; which was read a first time. •On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, a r copy was ordered of c , rtsin correspondence, in which the General Board of Health had taken part, relative to the printing of official reports in the octavo instead of the folio form. SITES FOR SCHOOLS BILL. 'Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of the Sites for Schools Bill. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was of opinion that . it would be of great use in particular districts, and he hoped in Committee its powers would be extended. The Bill was then read a second time. AUDIT OF RAILWAYS ACCOUNTS BILL. Lord MONTEAGLE, in moving that their Lordships should go into Committee on this Bill, said that he would in a few words explain the magnitude of the transactions affected by the Bill, because, if they had been under , stood, he was satisfied that an unexpected division would not have taken place upon the second reading . last night. The companies had already pledged themselves, with the consent of Parliament, to expend a sum of 300,000,0001 upon the construction of rail ways, out of which 200,000,0001. had been ex pended already. When he looked at the national • debt of 750,000,000/, which took nearly a century to ac cumulate, he could not but feel that so enormous a sum as 300,000,0001. voted in the course of a few years, to be applied to one branch of industry, and withdrawn from others, was the best justification for such a Bill. They had 12,000 miles of railway sanctioned, equal to half the. circumference of the globe, and when it was • recollected that the whole of these railways were prac tically monopolies, it was clear the public should have some power over them; and it was not less necessary • that protection should be given to the shareholders. — (Hear, hear.) Their Lordships were bound to pass this Act, because they were parties to these transactions, and it was their duty to endeavour to put a stop to a spirit of gambling speculation and adventure, greater, he believed, than had existed in this country since the South Sea scheme, and in which all classes, high as well as low, had participated.—(Hear, hear.) It was stated in the papers before him that in one particular company the difference between the value of their stock at different periods represented a capital of up wards of 3,000,0001; that fact showed the wide mar gin for speculation. He held in his hand a return showing the variation in the prices of the stock of four principal companies during the years 1845, 1846, 1847, and 1843. . The stock of the North- Western in 1845 was 222/, in 1846 it fell to 2101., and • again to 1701. in 1847. In 1848 it fell to 1141., and in 1 October that year to 1001. During the same period the shares of the Great Western fell from 2461. to 771.; those of the South-Western, from 82/. to 361.; and of the North Midland, from 1801. to 661.—(Hear.) The aver age fall in the value of the property from 1845 to 1848, amounted to 64 per cent.—(Hear.) This was mainly attributable to the way in which the affairs of these companies were managed, and which had thrown discre dit upon them all. The public, alienated by the expense of the bad management of some companies, had with drawn all confidence from them. Though he had not the experience of the two Noble Lords who opposed the Bill last night, one of whom was chairman of two railway companies, and the other of one, he had had the advantage of the careful inquiry instituted by their Lordships' Committee, and on the evidence given by the witnesses before that Committee.. He believed that he saw clearly the manner in which the in tentions of the Legislature were evaded, and the opportunities for fraudulent transactions were • created.—(Huar.) The auditors proposed to be appointed by the Act were not the nominees of the Go vernment, but would be independent men, and he re peated that, for the protection of the shareholders them selves, it was desirable that such officers should be ap pointed.—(Hear, hear.) The records of the companies were• full of illustrations of the necessity for such public officers, and showed that the plain meaning of the Acts under which they were constituted had been disre , garded, and that the directors were in the habit of acting according to their own discretion, without reference to the powers invested in them by the - law. As an illustration of the gross misapplication of railway capital to other purposes than that for which it was subscribed, he instanced the case of the Cale donian directors, who had appropriated from the funds entrusted to their care, a sum of no less than 381,0001, in the purchase of traffic on railway, and had given' gbarantssa and security for the payment of a consider . ably larger amount. Shareholders, he thought, should have the power of preventing ether preventing the directors from applying their money sc. .y ie rrpose than that for which it was subscribed. application as he had mentioned could not have hapPenek if there was a good system- of auditing railway accounts, for such practices would be at once detected. The Bill on which he asked shem to go into Committee was not calculated to do harrnto the shareholders, but was in tended to enable them to exercise control over their di rectors and chairman. It took care that they should have the entire truth placed before them. Moreover, • it had been opposed by the great bulk of the railway authorities. He asked their Lordships then to go into Committee on the Bill and to give their satiation to the clauses,Lor BROUGHAM' expressed his fullest concurrence in the measure, and took the opportunity of stating that he considered the country ought to feel deeply indebted to the Noble Lord, the author of the Bill. Their Lordships then went into Committee on the Bill. On the question that the first clause do pass, Lord LONSDALE objected to the principle of Go vernment interference with private trading and commer cial speculation. Where that interference had been ex ercised, great discouragement es. was the result. He also objected to the w to the country would entai l sending down auditors o n u ra G il ll way companies. The Earl of YARBOIIRo b as t e with whi c h so important ! protested against the sßill was being pressed through Parliament. If' e the p Government ee interfered in the concerns of railway ereeni appointing audi tors, perhapi the shareholders might y manifest an indiffe rence to look after the accounts, d tlle result would be great evil instead of expected good. ' EarI'POWIS complained- of the railroad. sped • which their Lordships legislated in so importante with a mat ter, and expressed himself dissatisfied with several clauses of the Bill. None of the railway companies cer ' tain to be affected by the measure could possibly have any knowledge of its important provisions. • • Lord BROUGHAM thought they had not only a light, but that it w.s their bounden duty to interfere, as the Bill proposed, with railway companies; for they were - monopolies, and monopolies created by the extensive pri• .' - 'crileges which Parliament had given to the several rail . • Way companies. . After some further conversation , which • Lord MONTEAGLE and Earl Powis took part, the several clauses were agreed to, Earl Powis expressing his inten tion of moving amendments on bringing up the report. • - The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid upon the table , certain returns connected with the number of ejectments issued from the Court of Exeacquer in Ireland during the years 184614847, and 1848. Their Lordship; theil adjourned. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 3. POOR-LAW (IRELAND) BILL. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. FAGAN admitted that if they had sufficient workhouse room in Ireland, it would be well to adopt the workhouse test by refusing out-door relief to able bodied poor, but as such was not the case, he thought the course proposed by the Hon. Baronet could not be safely acted on. He must, therefore, oppose the clause. Mr. CONOLLY thought that it was the bounden duty of the Government to make some modification in the ruinous system of out-door relief, or do away with it altogether. He would support the clause of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford. Mr. STAFFORD thought it would be better that the clause should be postponed till the third reading of the Bill. Sir W. SOMERVILLE had not been able to elicit from any Hon. Member who had spoken by what means they proposed to preserve the lives of the people if they did away with out-door relief. He admitted that abuses were inseparable from the system, but it was surrounded with as many safeguards as possible, and would be abandoned when it could be done with safety. He trusted, therefore, that the Hon. Baronet would withdraw the clause, and allow the other portions of the Bill to be proceeded with. Sir H. W. BARRON withdrew the clause. Colonel DUNNE then proposed the following clause:— " And be it further enacted that in any electoral division where the ratepayers of any townland, or union of town lands within such electoral division, shall undertake and satisfy the guardians of the poor of the onion in which such electoral division is situate, that they will support a proportion of the poor of the electoral division, which pro portion shall seem to the said board of guardians to be a fair proportion of the poor (taking into consideration the entire amount of paupers liable to be relieved under the poor-law, and the valuation and extent of the townlands aforesaid and the electoral division), then it shall be lawful for the board of guardians to exempt such town land or townlands from any rate, except a rate for union and establishment charges; and in case any pauper within such townland or townlands should appeal to the board of guardians against the support afforded to him or her by the rate-payers of such townland or townlands, and it shall appear to the guardians that such complaint is well founded, then the board of guardians shall re lieve such person or persons appealing, and charge the townland to which such pauper or paupers appealing shall,be chargeable ; provided always, that should the decision of the board of guardians ba disputed, either by the pauper or paupers appealing, or by the r atepayers or any ene ratepayer on their part, then an appeal shall be given to either party to the magistrates and assist . .ant barristers at the Q uarter Sessions next ensuing, whose decisions shall uu se be a fi do n p al t . e " d that unless the 0 s c u o c rin s c t e e d p li so e m w e 5 as 9 e but th little chance of any adequate relief being ex at contained in his clause, there . would tended to Irish pauperism. From conversations which he had with boards of guardians in his neighbourhood, ho was sure that such a plan was one which would be of great use. Mr. C. LEWIS reminded the House that this ques tion had been very fully discussed and determined upon on the occasion of a Bill having been proposed by the Member for Strood (Mr. Scrope), and after the rejection which it met with there he hoped that the Hon. and Gallant Member would not press his clause. Sir A. BROOKE thought the clause could not be carried into practical operation. Mr. P. SCROPE thought that the system of support ing able-bodied men by outdoor relief was a very per nicious one, it would be much better to employ them in cultivating the land which lay untilled. Ho should support the clause. Mr. FRENCH wished to contradict a charge against Irish Members of taking but little interest in this Bill. He could confidently state that every Irish Member at present in London was then in the House. After a few words from Sir W. BARRON, Sir G. GREY wished to recal it to the attention of the House that the principle of this clause was identical with that of the Bill introduced in the early part of the present session, and which had been rejected by a ma jority of 166 to 41; and it would be found that the ma jority of the Irish Members had voted against the Bill. Mr. GROGAN suggested that the Government should adopt this clause, and modify it so that it might be re ceived favourably by the House. Lord J. RUSSELL was in doubt whether Irish Mem bers, and especially the Hon. Member who had spoken last, were or were not in favour of this clause. He re membered that such a plan had been introduced many years ago by the Duke of Richmond, but when it was debated whether this should be made compulsory, it had been satisfactorily shown that such a course would be fall of danger. After a few words of explanation from Mr. GROGAN, Mr. S. CRAWFORD could not agree with the Noble Lord that this clause was identical with the proposal of the Hon. Member for Stroud. That Hon. Gentleman's plan made it compulsory for boards of guardians and the ratepayers to enter into these arrangements, but tbis clause partook morn of a voluntary than a compulsory character, and he was quite willing to support it. Mr. A. STAFFORD was afraid the clause would in flict too much labour and trouble on the boards of guar dians to admit of its working with facility. Ho was fearful, too, that even if the machinery of the clause could be put into operation, it would have a tendency to de press the condition of the pauper, and for these two reasons, although he did not disapprove of its principles, he felt bound to oppose the clause. Mr. ROCHE also thought the clause would work prac tically against the poor, while it would perpetuate the evils of townland rating system, and overturn the very prin ciple upon which the poor law was founded. The guar dians, under the existing law, were bound to support the poor in certain circumstances, and in a specified manner, but establish the system proposed by this clause, and the poor would be subject to the mercy of the ratepayers. Colonel DUNNE only wished the Committee to pro nounce for the principle of the clause and be would modify its terms to meet some of the objections which had been urged against it. Lord C. HAMILTON quite approved of the prin ciple, but he was decidedly averse to the mode i n which the clause was proposed to be put in force. Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH really could not understand, then, why the Noble Lord should not sup port it. The Committee then divided, when there appeared — For the clause ... ... ... 18 Against it ... ... ... ... 80 Majority ... ... —62 Sir D. NORREYS then proposed the following clauses :-1. Whereas in many unions large sums are due to contractors and others, for the payment of which the outstanding amount of uncollected rates is insuffi cient, be it enacted, that the Commissioners for the ad ministration of the poor-laws in Ireland, shall cause an account to be taken of the debts which shall bo due on the 29th day of September next, and also of the probable amount of rates which may be expected from the outstanding collection; and if it shall appear that in any electoral division, in which the expenses for the relief of the poor have during the year exceeded five shillings in the pound of its valuation, the debts due by it shall exceed its probable assets, and that a rate of sixpence in the pound, in addition to the five shillings maximum rate, would be insufficient for their payment, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to require the board of guardians, or the paid officers in charge of the union, to borrow such sum as may be required on the security , of the rates of the union at large, but on condition always that the sum so borrowed shall be re paid, with interest, by instalments extending over a period not exceeding ten years; and the instalments and the interest payable thereon shall be the first charge on the rates of such union, and the treasurer of such union shall be bound to pay off the instalments and interest as they become due, out of any money which may be in his hands to the credit of the union, or to advance the amount thereof and charge interest on such advance, and for so doing the order of the Com missioners shall be a sufficient discharge: provided always that the union at large becoming responsible for the debts of the electoral division, shall not affect the sepa rate liability of the electoral division for the debts due by it. 2. To enable boards of gu ardians to raise the union rate in aid at any period within the current year. Sir G. GREY said the clauses were open to great ob jection and opposed them. Sir D. NORREYS then withdrew the clauses. To clause 88, Lord NAAS proposed an amendment to the effect -t repeal so much of an Act for the more effectual relief -or -- ine -- vaesaliast,sr —pew* -- of Iroland as enacted " that any covenant and agreement whereby any person liable to pay rent, and entitled, under this Act, to deduct therefrom any rate, or any portion of any rate, shall have covenanted or agreed, or shall hereafter covenant or agree, to forego such reduction, shall, so far as such rate is concerned, have no effect, be repealed, except as to anything heretofore done or now pending under this Act." Lord JOHN RUSSELL said helfelt disposed to vote for the amendment. After some discussion, in which some opposition was offered to the clause, The House divided, when there appeared— For the clause... ..• ... ... 71 Against it ... ... ... ... 10 Majority Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated that he proposed to proceed with the Bill on Thursday, at twelve. The House then adjourned until five o'clock. The House resumed at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. Lord SEAHAM presented a petition from Durham. in favour of the People's Charter. Captain PECHELL presented a similar petition from T. DUNCOMBE presentedda pe tition be appointednfromEdin- Bbtourg , R p e r p a u y b in li g e o th f a ß t oamneA.Ambassador mi g ht mritgharirheli B. OSBORNE presented several petitions from Middlesex, in favour of household suffrage. Petitions m ere r. presented inTfahvon3p favour of th L e o C rd ha p rte u r dl b oy y Mr. Villiers Stuart., Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Bright. Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from Marylebone, praying that the Government might recog nize Mr. SUMS Rom an R epu b l i c. yLktDE,r Rw i shed o presentedp MET R OPO L ITA N t .aT p s k e A t eo BURIALS. Secretarylifr R o from Aof L S Falki rk . Mr. f the Marriage R eg i strat i on (Scotland) t the Home Department if his attention h ais l b e e e n ch rec ted to the statement of Dr. Si mon , Health for the city of London, as t o the ca r ue ofof Publicc tain cases of cholera within the city of London , and if it be his intention to introduce any measur e . dur ing the present session of Parliament for the prevention of the interment of dead bodies within the city of London. Sir G. GREY said ho had not seen the report of Dr. Simon, but having made inquiries yesterday, in conse quence of the notice of the Noble Lord's question, he SUN, hack no doubt that cases of cholera had occurred in certain localities from causes which injuriously affected the public health. As to the other question, the Go vernment had under their consideration a measure to prevent interments in towns; but he was afraid it was not sufficiently matured to be proceeded with this session. THE AMERICAN MAILS. In reply to Mr. WYLD, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated with reference to the refusal of the persons in charge of the mails coming by the last American packet to allow the correspondents of the London and other newspapers to see the files of American newspapers until after the general delivery of letters, that in consequence of the Noble Lord's question he was unable to give any definito answer with respect to it. METROPOLITAN POLICE. Lord DUDLEY STUART rose, pursuant to no ,.ce, to submit a motion for a Select Committee to inquire .nto the manner of making the assessment in the several counties for the maintenance of the metropolitan police, and into the expenditure thereof; as well as into the general administration of the force, and espe cially into the recent annual increased charge of upwards of 35,0002 on the county of Middlesex. He trusted the House would bear with him while he briefly stated the grounds upon which he made the motion. He trusted the House would bear with him whilst he endeavoured to convey to it—and he promised to do so in the smallest possible amount of time—a knowledge of the whole circumstances connected with this most important subject.—(Hear, hear.) A motion for such a Committee of Inquiry was not - only not unusual, hut not unreasonable. There had been a great many such Committees appointed, and only a few years ago—in 1844—a motion almost similar was made by his Hon. Friend who was now on the Treasury benches; and he hoped, therefore, indeed he had no doubt, that he would have the support of his Hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury. That motion was, however, resisted by the Government of that day, and accordingly no Committee was appointed. There had now been no Committee on this important subject for fifteen years, and he must say that that alone, was a sufficient reason for tha House agreeing to this Committee, supposing there were no other; because he must say, if this police force were at all necessary, that it formed a kind of anomaly in our constitution. When the force was first established it was resisted, as not being altogether in harmony with our old-fashioned notions of constitu tional liberty.—(Hear.) It was felt that it was neither n-toro nor less than an army, which was paid out of the pockets of the people, not by money annually voted, but by money obtained under an Act of Parliament—a princi ple which was not altogether consonant with their notions of what was right and proper; and that being the case, he thought it would be admitted at any rate that the expense and management of this body ought to be watched with a jealous and vigilant eye.—(Hear, hear.) Another reason for his asking for this Committee was that within a short space of time the expense of the force had been materially increased, and that a heavy additional burden had been placed on the inhabitants of the metropolis and the surrounding districts. It had often been a matter of astonishment and perhaps exultation to Englishmen that there were s ) few soldiers in the capital, but they were little aware of the fact that they possessed a vast body of soldiers which, though of a military character, assumed a desig nation denoting a civil capacity.—(Hear, hear.) There was in this metropolis an army of upwards of 6,000 men compoied of policemen-5,500 metropolitan police and 600 City police, and though they did not carry arms with them, they were not the less an army, for they were supplied with arms and weapons whenever the Government thought necessary. Since the beginning of last year there had been added to the metropolitan police more than five hundred men, en tailing an additional expense to the community of 45,000/., being about one-seventh of the whole.—(llear, hear.) Now that might be necessary and proper, but did it constitute any rea-on why that additional expen diture should be allowed to pass without some inquiry being called for on the part of the inhabitants of the metropolis ?—(Hear.) The total sum paid for the police force in 1847 amounted to 329,208?., and in 1848 to 374,9291., and those sums were exclusive of the pay ments on account of the Superannuation Fund, and also on account of the Police Courts. That increase of ex penditure was a sufficient ground for inquiry.— ( Hear, hear.) It was drawn from the people in a . way which was oppressive, because it was unjust and unequal; and though its injustice had been admitted by the Government in an official communica tion, they did not propose to afford any relief to the people, and yet repeated representations had been made to them to continue to do without it. The expense of the police was provided for originally by a rate of Bd. in the pound. Afterwards, 2d. in the pound was taken from the Consolidated Fund, and 6d. in the pound was levied. In 1847 the magistrates of Middlesex raised the valuation of the county by the enormous amount of two millions and a half ; they raised it from 6,367,456/. to 7,792,1681. The effect of that was to add to the an nual police rate paid by the ratepayers of Middlesex the sum of 36,617/., while nothing was added to the bur dens of the inhabitants of other counties. Thies woe represented to the Government, and they felt the justice of the complaint, and undertook to provide a remedy. On the 30th of December, the following letter was writ ten by order of Sir George Grey, to Mr. Flood, the ves try-clerk of Marylebone :—" Secretary Sir George Grey directs me to inform you that he has considered the re solution of the joint vestries of St. James's and St. Mary lebone, which you forwarded to him, requesting a reduc tion of the quota on which the police rate is levied, in consequence of the greatly increased valuation upon which the county is now assessed, and I am to inform you that Sir George Grey proposes to introduce a Bill to authorise the Commissioners of Police to reduce the police-rate one penny in the pound for the year, in their warrants issued to parishes in the county of Middlesex, provided the present assessment is not reduced, and Sir George Grey trusts that an ar rangement may be made to give the parishes the full benefit of this reduction, if sanctioned by Parliament for the ensuing year." That was the official statement made by the Government, and the inhabitants were told that they would have to pay 20,0001., whereas the fact was that they had to pay 25,0001.; that was a most extraor dinary increase to add to the burdens of the people of Middlesex, and he thought afforded a good ground for a Committee. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) no doubt intended fully to carry out what he ex pressed in that letter, for he brought in a Bill on the subject e in the early part of May, but after being read a first and a second time, the order of the day for going into Committee was put off from time to time, until the 27th June, when the Government, at two o'clock in the morning, and without giving notice to any of the parties concerned, moved that it be discharged. And when they considered that the object of that was to continue on the metropolis and the community at large a heavy tax for police, which was generally much more numerous than was necessary, and was objectionable in many ways, there could be no doubt that the people had a right to complain of the way in which their requests had been refused. He did not complain so much of the conduct of the police as of their number and cost. The metropolis might be as well and as effectually protected with a much less number of men and a smaller amount of money. The increase of expense had been 25,0001., and the police, for whom they had so much to pay, were not so ad mirable in their conduct as many persons seemed to believe, since there were many cases on re cord in which the police had greatly exceeded their duty and oppressed the people. Doubtless, it might not appear in this light to fine ladies and gentlemen who were glad of the assistance of these well•dressed men to enable them to find their way to their carriages; but such was the fact. But let the House inquire whether the people were of the same opinion, and if they spoke the truth they would say that wherever there was a policeman there was a petty tyrant.—(Cheers.) When it happened that there were no other witnesses to an offence besides policemen they were most unscrupulous in their testimony; and yet, upon the uncorroborated testimony of a policeman men were convicted and sentenced to the most degrading punishments. In saying this he did not speak without the book, since he could show that a man was sent for trial, charged by a policeman with the most horrible offence, and that the jury, after hearing the case for a few minutes, stopped it, and acquitted the defendant. By the returns it appeared that from 60,000 to 64,000 were continually taken into custody and charged with offences, but the fact that out of that number 2,000 were discharged showed how ill the police dis charged their duty. Now this was a state of things that ought to be looked into, and if the House were to inquire into the matter they would see why the number of police was so much larger than it should be ; why it was kept up like a large army in:1849, when there was peace and. quiet. Indeed, the Govern ment said, because there were apprehended dis turbances in 1848, they were unwilling to 'allow the number of the body to be diminished, But they should be diminished in number, because their present extent interfered with the comfort, and liberty, and character of the people. The effect upon a people thus constantly tyrannised over must be bad. He thought they should inquire into all these things, and if it could be shown that they behaved perfectly well, or that the police force was kept up cheaply, and that it was inexpedient on public grounds to have a diminu tion of their number, why, then, the people would be satisfied to pay for them.—(Hear.) But let the Government bear in mind that they were not taken by surprise upon this matter, since notice had been given by his Honourable Colleague, who he regretted was unable to attend from ill health at the close of last session. He might occupy the House longer upon this matter, but he felt that he should stand a greater chance of the motion meeting with its approval, if he were, without further preface, to move it. Sir G. GREY satd - that he thought there was but one opinion in the House with regard to the metropolitan po lice force as to its real value and efficiency. He did net think it necessary to enter very fully into the statements of the Noble Lord who had brought forward the present !notion. With regard to the imputations which the Noble Lord had thrown upon the conduct of the members of that force, he could only say that in cases where they had been detected in the practices which the Noble Lord charged upon them, and where the magis trates did not punish them, the Commissioners of Police, sanctioned by the Secretary of State, had always availed themselves of the summary power which they possessed, and discharged the men. With refer ence to the motion of the Noble Lord, he did not think that ha had laid sufficient grounds before the House jfy steliife entirely yg to empty e a Committee. mpty allegations, He a h n a n d d choad produced very little evidence to support them ; and in those very allegations there was nothing new. A similar inquiry to this, which was sought for, had been greased in the year 183 I, and the result had been to satisfy the House and the public at large that the management of the police force was carried on in the be" P"lible LONDON,' WEDNES DAY EVENING, JULY 4, 1849 , manner. No difference had taken place in the manage ment of the force since that inquiry, and he cquld not see any reason why another inquiry should be granted. With regard to the increase of the expenditure, and of the number of the force, he was willing to afford all the information in his power, and that would bo desired by the Noble Lard. The original Act required that the expenses of this force should be paid by a county rate of 3d. in the pound ; and by a subsequent Act 6d. in the pound was fixed, and in cases were this was not sufficient the Treasury was authorised to supply 2d. in the pound; and 60,0001. was now paid from the Consolidated Fund. The counties included in the metropolitan rate were Middle- sex, part of Sussex, Surrey, Kent, Essex, and Norfolk. Some of the counties were below the average of the property-tax valuation. Kent was 22 1-13th below the average. The Right Hon. Baronet then concluded by moving, as an amendment, for a return of the increase of streets and houses in the metropolitan district, and also of the population in the same, with a view to account for the increase of the police expenditure. Mr. BROTHERTON said the Noble Lord had brought forward this motion with reference to the in terests of his constituents in the borough of Maryle bone, and protested against the injustice of this rate; but instead of the rate being unjust in the case of Mid dlesex, of Marylebone, it was still more unjust towards other counties, and it was on that ground he should support the motion of the Noble Lord for a Committee 6f Inquiry, which he considered absolutely necessary. In the county of Middlesex the rates were 6,500,0001. Mr. OSBORNE-7,500,0001. Mr. BROTHERTON—Lancashire was assessed at more than that sum. In Marylebone the expense was 21,0001. a year, and iu Manchester it was 20,0001.; and in addition to that, they had to pay towards the general expenses of the police to the relief of the inhabitants of Marylebone. He hoped the Noble Lord would per severe in his motion for a Committee of Inquiry, and he should feel it to be his duty to give to him his best support. Mr. OSBORNE regretted that the Noble Lord who brought forward this motion had led the House to be lieve that this was an attack upon the metropolitan po lice, and he hoped they would not go to a division on the question with an impression of the kind. He did not agree in the calumny which the Noble Lord had thrown on the metropolitan police, because he believed a more excellent and more efficient body of men could not be. But, in the motion of the Noble Lord with respect to the. increase of 35,0001. on Middlesex, for the police force, he entirely concurred. Instead of 6,000.000/. a year, the county was rated upwards of 7,000,0001., and with a surplus of 61,0001. in the hands of the Commissioners of Police, he was at a loss to know why the county should be thus heavily rated. This was not intended by the constituents of the Noble Lord as an attack on the police, but they wished to be relieved from this additional charge. Sir W. JOLLIFFE did not think the force adapted to the duty they had to perform in the district between Woolwich and Kingston, which ' was thinly inhabited, and could not be protected by the few policemen ap pointed to perambulate that district; and in fact depre dations had been committed to a great extent without the constables being at all aware of it. To prevent this they ought to be mounted, which would afford them greater facilities of detection. Mr. HUME said he objected to the grounds upon which the motion was founded. It should be recollected that this force cost 328,0001. a year, a part of which was contributed from the Consolidated Fund, which he thought a had principle, as any expenses incurred for local purposes should be supplied from local funds. Lie thought these ought to be made to ascertain whether those expenses were fairly expended, but he did not think there was time this session, and the Noble Lord should be satisfied that the Government had called for preliminary information. He did not agree with the Noble Lord In the condemnation which he passed upon the police, but if he persevered in his intention of di viding he should vote with him. Sir DP. LACY EVANS said there were just grounds of complaint on the part of several parishes against this ch trge. At present the sixpenny rate must bo levied, although only twopence might be sufficient, and he hoped the Government would consent to an inquiry in►o this absurdity and injustice. If the additional sum was required, one-third part should be contributed from the Consolidated Fund. Sir G. GREY explained. Sir J. HOGG said the Government had given an as surance that a Bill would be introduced to relieve the metropolitan parishes from the burden that when a four penny rate would be sufficient, a sixpenny rate should not be levied, but they afterwards abandoned it. He thought it was but fair each locality should support its own police, but the metropolitan police were sent on duty to all parts of the country, and on that ground a contribution should be made from the Consolidated Fund. _ _ Sir G. GREY said the grounds on which a motion of the charge of this force was borne by the Consolidated Fund was, that the metropolitan police were employed at the Houses of Parliament and by the Government, and not because they were sent into the country, for on those occasions the expense was borne by the locality to he hoped if a Committee was which m they were Mr. TnoitNEstn. nnicl y t appointed, that county Members would be placed upon it to defend the interests of their constituents from the burthen imposed upon them by the contribution to this force from the general taxation. Lord D. STUART replied. He said it was true that the expense of the police when employed in the country was borne by the locality to which they were sent, but a larger force was maintained to enable them to draught them to the country on these contingencies than would be otherwise necessary. As he had received no assur ance from the Government that they would provide a remedy for this grievance he should divide the House upon the motion. Lord R. GROSVENOR said, as the Noble Lord was determined to divide, he should vote with him. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it ... 137 Majority ••• •• ".----109 THE PEOPLE'S CHARTER. country, Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition, numerously signed, from places in the county of Warwick, in favour of the People's Charter. Mr. FOX presented thirty - six petitions from various places to the same effect. Mr. F. O'CONNOR having presented a number o f petitions from Nottingham and ot her p laces, t hen pro ceeded with his motion to the follo w i n g effect :—" That this House, recognising the great princ i p le t hat labo u r is the source of all wealth — that the p eo p le are the onl y legitimate source of power — t ha t the labourer should be the first partaker of the fruits of his o w n industry— that taxation without repres e nta ti o n is t y rann y , and should be resisted , and belie vi ng that the resources of the conntry would bo best developed by laws made by representatives thosechosen n n b y l i v the y labouring d c u l s a t s r s i e a s t , pursuits , s c n o i n jt 3 that, in recognition of the above great truths , this the e l e,a Charter, embodied namely, i n annual the elections, document entitled House nniv er s a a dt l suffrage, Psop ffrage, vote by ballot, equal electoral dis tricts, no property qualification, and payment of MbEli• bfa.s." Ho was aware, he said, of the disadvantages under which he laboured in bringing forward his mo tion ; but it was the cause of justice, and he would not shrink from doing his duty. He contended th a t great questions such as these, affecting, a s th e y did, the vital interests of the people, oug ht to be discussed sessionally, and if they were t o b e opposed, let them be opposed by sound argumen t an d not put down by brute force. Applications were made to him to withdraw his motion, in order to allow the motion of the lion. Member for Buckinghamshire to proceed; but he felt he would not be doing justice to the labouring classes had he postponed his motion on any such account. He contended that any question affecting theo utnhP toer l o ic p s le h o n u a g d h i t se t n o v b er e ed d i t s h cu at ss n e n d g s n es n s d io w n a a i lly d . nne T t h h e em iri b s y h e mancipation, so it was with the Reform Bill in this y, for no sooner did the party who carried that measure get into power, than they forgot and abandoned the people. Every Hon. Member must be made aware that that House was divided into classes, into officers of the army and navy, bankers, merchants, traders, and lawyers, all of whom believed that the interests of the working classes were opposed to theirs. He contended that if labour was fairly represented it would conduce to the prosperity of all classes. Labour was now the great question on the continent, and although the state of countries there may be urged as a reason for making no concessions, he denied it was just to do so, If France be referred to, he should quote that country in favour of his argument; for they had had two elections for an Assembly and one for a President since the revolution, without any convulsion having taken place. lie should not detain the House at any great length; for probably he should be without one before he concluded his speech; but be that as it may, he should discharge his duty. He con tended that reformation never led to revolution. He produced the original charter, drawn up by Daniel O'Connell, and si gne d b y J. A. Roebuck, C. Hindley, and others, the only difference being that annual Parlia ments were preferred before triennial. He denounced the Irish Members as " lickspittles " who supported Government on ev er y quest i on , b u t absented themselves on the present occasion, when the interests of the people were at stake. He contended that if they had annual Parliaments they could settle annual accounts with their constituents, and not allow political 'tergiversations to go on for years, as happened under the present Parlia ment. Instead of having that hasty legislation they now had, men would know what they came into Parliament for, and instead of having important questions settled by majorities: of 50 or 60, they would be discussed by the people at large. He remembered a signal instance of the value of annual Parliaments. At a time when it was proposed to dissolve Parliament a question was brought forward for the liberation of all political e o g nly lost by a small majority—whereas d offenders, after snus s t e he a . ndw and electiona negatived a w ti a y s ed over,bya la the question majority. uestionw was again discussed,That showed that when they were about to appear before their constituents, they held opinions which they thought would obtain them favour, but the moment that was past, they set them at defiance. One great object would be obtained by holding annual Parliaments. What did they legislate for, but the mind of the day? and was not seven years now of greater (length—if he might say so—than a century in the old Tory times? He rose just now under very unfortunate circumstancel. He had no monster petition, no popular demonstration to back him, but let them not take that as a sign of the times against him; for the fact was, that the people, disgusted with the mode in which their petitions were received, had resolved to petition no more. The absence of petitions was a proof that the people had lost all confidence in that House. His object was to obtain a fair representation people frtdpair ietitee nd i t na tot i t to h hn a e ti their t H f aci o lr u a ss s hs e e . asr.e A ol t f t .r p e tp r h e re s e e s w n e n t ntr t ak h t i e i no r gn e o cil f lt t is h i : nsn w wl h yt o ,ra l e e in that House, andpirtieipationi n the privileges of go- YerUnlent, would Om . .. ?He thought , not. He would come next to the vote by ballot. With ' the present constituency he was opposed to the -ballot, although, to avoid the charge of inconsistency, he had voted for it. He now came to the most important of all —equal electoral districts. He held in his hand a digest of the several cities, towns, and boroughs in England. An HON. MEMBER here moved that the House be counted, but there being more than forty Members pre sent the gallery was again opened. Mr. O'CONNOR was reading an analysis of the re presentation, showing its inequalities. He wished to know whether they would stop in the present stage of progress? He came now to no property qualification. They had fifty-three Members for Scotland, the Mem bers for the Universities, and the prodigal sous of Peers, all without the property qualification; and what right had they to insist upon the property qualification in other Members? No man could vote for a Member without a qualification for those very Members who were admitted to that House without a qualification. Could anything be more absurd? He now came to the last of his propositions, the payment of Members. Twenty-six Members sitting on the bench opposite re ceived as much per annum as would qualify the whole requisite number of Members. He had alluded to the six points, and advocated the Charter, because he be lieved that with it as law there would be neither idle la bour, idle land, or idle money.—(Hear.) He believed that the working classes were fit for the suffrage, and if they obtained it they would use it properly.—(Hear.) If ever this country should be driven to a physical revo lution, the press of this country would be answerable for it. In his opinion the laws of the country should be ever leaning to mercy, but they had so framed their le gislation in that House, that they placed the other classes in antagonism to the working classes. He had now proposed his measures, and the proposition coming from one who had been prosecuted for advocating these measures, he felt that they might have been brought for ward with a greater chance of success had they been pro posed by any other Hon. Member. He would conclude with saying that he should ever be for the People's Charter, and no surrender. Mr. S. CRAWFORD seconded the motion. Colonel THOMPSON said, as one of those who was concerned in the modern origin of the Charter, he ;hought he should be entitled to blame if he suffered motion to pass without expressing his opinion. As to annual Parliaments, he was in favour of annual Par- liaments, on the principle that merchants balanced their books at Christmas.—(Hear, hear.) But as to one prin ciple advocated by the Hon. Gentleman, that of the pay ment of Members, he begged to say that that was no child of the modern authors of the Charter, and he, for one, was opposed to it. He was in favour of vote by ballot and the extension of the suffrage, and he should vote in favour of the Hon. Member's motion. Mr. HUME thought that reforms, to be efficient, ought to be in accordance with the feelings of the coun try, and it was on that ground that he was opposed to the Chartists. He could not, however, understand what odium the Hon. Member could be subject to, as he said he was, for advocating the principles he had put forth. The standing toast of the Fox party and of the Whigs for years had been, " That the people were the source of all legitimate power." And he could not, therefore, he repeated it, understand how the Hon. Member uaild be subject to any odium for advocating the principles be had enunoicted. He would, therefore, support the Hon. Member's motion upon general grounds, and he thought the time would come when the Government would see the necessity of altering the constitution of that House. —(Hear, hear.) He believed that the working classes, it fairly treated, would be found to be reasonable, and it was lamentable that the men to whom this country owed so much—the artizans—should be deprived of those rights to which they were entitled. These men had be come Chartists from a conviction that justice had not been done them, and he was anxious that the Govern ment should so act towards them as to make them as satisfied with their condition as they were now discon tented.—(Hear, hear.) He asked the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to do that which he had often advocated—to do justice to the working classes, and to place them in the possession of those rights to which they were justly entitled.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL could not vote for the abstract proposition of the Hon. Member for Not tingham, and which the Gallant Colonel and the Hon. Member who had just sat down had stated should receive their support. For his own part, there were only two of the principles involved in the motion to which he could give his support, namely—the abolition of a pro perty qualification, and vote by ballot. He was of opinion, however, that there should bo a large extension of the franchise; and considering the unsettled state of the continent, it would be wise that the earliest opportunity should be taken to give a large body of the people, who were now excluded, the possession of the elective fran chise.—(Hear, hear.) He was ready to admit that the Reform Bill, when it was introduced, was a large mea sure, but he thought it was unfortunate that a large and valuable portion of the community—the working classes —had been shut out of its operation; and be would ven ture to express a hope that the Noble Lord would ac quire the additional lustre of so extending the franchise as to include that valuable class to which he had alluded within its provisions.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. G. THOMPSON said, in mingling with his fel low-citizens out of doors, he found that a remarkable change was going on among them. while inahat House. on the contrary, every dispositionwiisliciwiCti; narrow the rights of the people. From the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) nothing, be believed, was to be expected. Every declaration he made of resisting every attempt to widen the basis of representation was loudly approved of by the great body of Hon. Members, and it seemed but too certain that the Noble Lord was resolved to abide by his declaration of November, 1837, that it was his determination to abide by the Reform Bill of 1832. There was no country in the world in which the suffrage could be extended with more safety than in this coun try.—(Hear, hear.) The people of England are not, as in the United States, scattered in different localities, but are united together in their different callings, and are anxious for their rights, which the motion of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. O'Connor) implies. He would call the eCention of the House to the monstrous anomalies in the representative system, and would refer to the Tower Hamlets, which contains 419,730 persons, and which sends only two Members to Parliament, while 65 English towns, containing only 419,259 inhabitants, send 93 Members to the House. Again, he would call the attention of the House to the many boroughs where cor ruption prevails, in consequence of which he saw the same Members returned at every election. This, he considered, would be put an end to if the people had those rights which the motion of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. O'Connor) contended for. He recollected that the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) advocated, in 1841, the necessity of suppressing corruption, and he consi dered that the same opposition to so vile a practice was as requisite now as then. He felt fully assured that there are among the people of England many who would be fit and proper to sit in that House, and would be worthy of the interests and affections of the people, for many of those men are most intelligent, and deemed fit to be entrusted by their employers with their property to a very large amount. He would centrist Manchester r c r a i d beents of the tho cause peoplo, of lay and and the other towns of England, that h a d b een enfran chised by the Reform Bill, with B ur y, H arw i c h , Hors ham, and not characteristic h y a m r a e o Regis, tio w of which ing on the table of the H ouse pil es o f vo l umes, which the h rights teis which tend to show the state of the country. He should, therefore, support the resolution, hoping that it would obtain the majority of the House. Mr. CAMPBELL said that he considered that the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, (Mr. F. O'Connor), was not based on any distinct grounds, but was mere abstract, and theoretical. •When the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor), said that the interests of la bour were sacred, he did not mean to oppose that axiom, bathe did not see how his motion would advance the inte rests of labour. He should, therefore, oppose the motion, because he did not think that it would tend to the be nefit of the people. or of the constitution. Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. O'Connor) had referred to his name, as having been attached to the People's Charter. Of that act he should say that he was proud, because he believed that the true principles of the Constitution were contained in that document. He considered that the interests of the people were not fairly represented in that House, and also that further reform was requisite. P.Le should, however, say that he would be glad if the Government would give them an instalment of the modification of reform, such as the extension of the suffrage, it would be most acceptable. He should, therefore, support the motion. Sir G. STRICKLAND said that, as an honest man, he could not coincide with the Hon. Member (Mr. F. O'Connor), though he agreed with the Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). It was beeause he felt embarrassed in consequence of his formor vote on the motion of the Hun. Member (Mr. Hume) that he arose to speak, and he therefore felt it his duty to op pose this motion. He thought the ballot would be an admirable ingredient in the system of representation; but though he was anxious for an extension of the franchise, he could not consistently vote for the motion. Mr. W. J. FOX said it was objected to this motion that it was abstract proposition, and would tie down the House from modifying it. It was only an abstract ques tion, as was every general proposition. He regarded the motion as an assertion of the right of representation, which was the great principle of the British Consti tution. To show how far this principle was carried out, he would refer to a paper moved for by the Hon. Member for Marylebone, which gave the population and the number of voters in the various cities and bo roughs returning Members to Parliament. He would take two groups of boroughs from that paper. Taking the first fourteen boroughs which returned 20 members, and the last nine boroughs in the list, which also returned 20 members. In the first group each member was returned by 172 electors out of a population of 3'366; and in the next group each member was returned by 7,083 electors out of a population of 107,824. Unequal as this was with regard to persons, it was equally so with respect to property. It appeared that the difference of property represented was as between 6,200,000/. and 78,0001. He advocated a change in the representation, in order to make the people satisfied and contented, to remove these gross inequalities, and to remove just grounds of com plaint. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that on a former occa sion he had stated his views upon this question, and he would not have thought it necessary to address the House but for the allusion which had been made to his opinions. The Member for the Tower Hamlets said that ee would resist every effort which might be made to effect Parliamentary reform. That was not a fair re presentation of his conduct. The lion. Member referred to a speech which he made in the year 1837. When in that year he, as the organ of the Government, brought forward the Reform Bill, the introduction of that mea sure excited great enthusiasm among the people, and great alarm in the minds of others who ev, re not favourable to the Bill, who were leternamed to upset it. There were others who, although favour able to a reform in Parliameo4 onteMined apprehensions of more extensive democratic changes. These parties put the question to Lird Grey, who was the hea I of the Guvernmerr, winch was also put to L‘prd Althorp, the representative of the Governineut in the House elf Comin . ons, " whether this was to be the etim- mencenaent of other measures, calculated to destroy the entire system of representation, or whether the Bill then introduced was that upon which they meant to stand ?" Lord Grey, speaking in the name of the Government, gave an assurance upon these interrogatories that Go• vernment had no ulterior objects beyond the Bill then brought forward. Upon this assurance many persons, who would otherwise have been opposed to the Bill, give their adherence to the Government and enabled them to carry that measure into effect. Some five years atter wards he (Lord John Russell) was asked to give his con sent to an entirely new scheme of representation, when he stated that though there might be defects in the Re. form Bill, he was lapt prepared so soon after the passing of that measure to propose a new scheme; but that a time might come when public opinion might demand an alteration, based upon the principles of that Bill, which should receive his best consideration, and to which he could give his consent. The H o nourable Member said, that by that declaration he had precluded him self from supporting any measure of reform. He after• wards wrote a letter to his constituents, in which he stated that he was not opposed to giving greater extension to the political privileges of the working classes, and that any measure of teat kind, duly matured, would meet his consideration.—(Hear, hear.) He had been now for 30 years connected with the cause of reform in Parliament, and he would now state his opinions on the motion when the Hon. Member for Montrose brought forward his motion, which he considered rather obscure. He then thought it was a step which would tend to the six points of the Charter. He was not, therefore, sur prised that the Hon. Member should support this motion. The Hon. Member for Nottingham lays it down that the people are the legitimate source of power, and that the labourer was entitled to the first fruits of his labour. The labourer receives his wages for which he contracts, and there the matter ends. There was an opinion which prevailed in France, and which might still prevail there, that no capitalists should enjoy undivided property, but that every man who was engaged in the undertaking should participate in the profits. If the Honourable Member meant that, he would at once declare be would not consent to it. The Honourable Mem ber said that taxation without representation was tyranny; if he said that because a man had not a vote, he would not agree to it. That system of representation which was most for the benefit of the . people was the best, and should not be rejected upon abstract principles. The Member for Montrose said that every man who had not a vote was a slave. Ho did not agree with that opi nion. He often heard the boast made, and that by the people of this country, that he was a free-born English man, but he never understood that to mean that he had a right to vote for a Member of Parliament. What be came of women, if every one who had not a vote was a slave? It could not be said that they were unfit. Miss Martineau would surely be competent to vote. The same objection might be made with regard to serving on juries, which was limited to a certain amount of pro perty, and being deprived of the qualification, it might be said that a man ❑ot entitled to serve on juries was a slave, and it might be further extended to the disquali fication of being judges, for which certain qualifications were necessary to be called to the bar, and to have a legal coucation. The object of the motion was to give every man of lull age a vote, but if that was the case they would enjoy as much liberty as they did at present, as if universal suffrage was the rule. A House of Commons so elected would not harmonise with the other parts of the Constitution. The whole constitution depended upon a moderate exercise of the privileges of every part. If the Crown exercised its prerogative capriciously ; if the Lords rejected con tinuously Bills sent up from that House; or if the House of Commons refused the supplies whenever the will of the House was obstructed, the Constitution would not last a month. He would not say there might not exist another form of Government on its ruins, but they could not enjoy the temperate liberty which they had so long possessed.—(Hear.) For these reasons he (Lord John Russell) could not agree to universal suffrage. With respect to the equalization of electoral districts, the proposition of the Hon. Member for Nottingham was certainly more intelligible than that of the Hon. Mem ber for Montroee. He could understand the division of the country into districts, each district to have one or more Members; but that it would put an end to the in fluence of the aristocracy, who were a bugbear with some Hon. Members, he did not believe. If considerable pro perty possessed by one man or by several, was to have an influence in a neighbourhood or district, most as suredly it would carry elections with universal suffrage as well as with the present mode of election. He did not, therefore, think it so good a system as that which they at present enjoyed.—(Hear, hear.) The Honour able Gentleman who spoke last, spoke for the hundredth time of the discrepancy which existed between the num ber of electors in one place and that in others, but there never was a doubt of that fact. He (Lord John Russell) never denied it, but what he did say was that the sys tem of representation, though not of numbers, was more a representation of the whole community than if they had districts. If they had the country divided into districts they would have the Members of many town and country districts discussing nuestions_._wbich. no doubt, would come before them, touching their particular interests. Very possibly those who at first expected a great de mocratic change, would be disappointed, for a Conserva• tive may be returned. But if they made that great change in the Constitution, would those who did so be satisfied?—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Why, they had seen in a neighbouring nation within the last year that a large majority was returned of Conservative opinions; but did that give satisfaction, or did the mino rity sit down contented ?—(Hear, hear.) They brought their question before the Assembly, and afterwards laid plots to carry destruction through the streets of Paris, and to obtain by force what they could not otherwise get.—(Hear, hear.) These were the results of the doc trine of universal suffrage, and also that which held that the working classes should be always in a state of pros perity; that the order of society ought to be so managed that manufacturing industry should be so restricted to the exact necessities of the world, so that the supply could never exceed the demand. They were disap pointed, and then some 30,000 men went into the streets of Paris prepared to sacrifice their lives. For his own part he did not think that the people of this country, who were called slaves by some Hon. Gentlemen, that what they possessed was so trifling as to induce them to run a risk. Feeling this, he was prepared to resist the pre sent motion, but at the same time he believed that it would be for the advantage of the country if a greater number of the working classes were possessed of the suffrage, if that could be done without a sacrifice of their Constitution. He should, therefore, oppose the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, feeling that it would tend to the greatest evils, and deprive them of the enjoyment of benefits which, if parted with, would place them among the most foolish and unwise nations of the earth. Mr. MUNTZ reminded the Noble Lord of the declara tion he had m-ade with respect to finality when he was called " Finality John "—(Laughter)—and asked how he'd explain that. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he never used the word finality. The nick-name given him was no doubt a good one, but he should repeat again that he never used the word. Mr. MUNTZ continued—He (Mr. Muntz) had heard with great pleasure the last declaration made by the Noble Lord, that he was prepared to extend the suffrage to a large portion of the working classes. He, however, thought the resolution of the Hon. Member for Notting ham was exceedingly ambiguous, and as for making elec tions annual, he certainly should give that proposition his opposition. He was quite ready to extend the suf frage, and when that was done he should support the vote by ballot. As to the electoral districts, it required very careful consideration; but, as regarded no property qualification, it was absolute nonsense.—(A laugh.) He should, however, he regretted to say, be compelled to vote against the motion, though it contained much of what he approved, and which, if not given to the people, they would take themselves. Mr. F. O'CONNOR replied, and denied that his reso lution was either a Socialist or Communist one, for he was opposed to both. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion... ... 13 Against it ... ... 222 Majority —.209 FRAUDS IN THE SALE OF BREAD. Mr. BANKS then rose to move " that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for the purpose of considering the means of more effectually preventing frauds in the sale of bread, and also of pro viding in the manufacture of bread against the use of deleterious ingredients in that article." It had been er roneously supposed that when ho introduced his Bill of last year he meant to cast some imputation on the trade of bakers. Any such intention he disclaimed; but it would happen in that, as in other trades, that the honest trader would be placed at a disadvantage in the compe tition with those who were of an opposite disposition. At present the poorer classes had not that degree of pro tection in the purchase of bread to which they were en titled. The Lion. and Gallant Member for Brighton had introduced a Bill on the subject, which, though it might have been a very good Bill for the genteel inhabitants of Brighton, took away the protection required by the poorer classes. The Act of 19 Geo. 111., which formerly protected the poor man, and the effect of the law now was, that all bread was Bold by weight, t h o ugh the bak , r was not limited as to the size or weight at which he should make up his loaves. Undoubtedly there was the power to call on the baker to weigh his bread, and if it was not of th e proper weight , be might be discharged by the rich man; but how frequently was the poor man indebted to his baker, and, therefore, did not dare to exercise this right.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member proceeded to read from statements that had been forwarded to him from various counties, show ing the fraudulent practices which prevailed, and the manner in which the poorer classes were deprived of the proper weight. The remedy he proposed was, that in stead of bakers being allowed to manufacture bread of any weight and size they pleased, they should be required to make all loaves of a given weight and stamp them with the weight they professed to contain. He had in troduced a Bill containing such a provision last year, but was opposed by the metropolitan Members, and ulti mately found that it was doubtful whether such a subject should not have been intrteluced in a Committee o• the whole House. That sae the ceurse he now proposed to teke, and to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the sale and manufacture of bread. If the Government or the law officers of the Crown or magi-trates of experience would tell him that there was no necessity for such a measure, he would ge.e up the question. But, however, he might be told th,t trans ,lirt.hirw: awl bread eh-sp, he thought ihat, [A , )r.t-etion wee required by the t;loor rol'or., he felt coutaa,t,eu to urge the question upon tee lion of the House. He found by a case which had taken pla i ce its Edinburgh last autgoan, that he was askiLig for nothing impracticable, but that by a clause in the Edin bureh Police Act, passed last year, all bakers were re quired to stamp, in large and distinct figures, the im psrial weight of the loaves, and lading to do so were liable to a tine of 405.; or, it the loaves were deficient in weight, to a psnalty of 51. Now, what was good for Edinburgh was good for London, for Essex, or even for Brighton. But our northern brethren were ever on the alert, and had incorporated his proposal with their Police Act. He could, therefore, no longer be told that the thing was impracticable, and he trustAl we would now imitate the sagacity of our Scottish brethren. At that late hour ho would not detain the House further; but would conclude by moving the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on a question which he had no personal interest in; but one on which he felt strongly, as involving an act of justice to the poor.—(Hear, hear.) Capt. PECHELL said the Hon. Member had referred to the Bill which he had introduced. He had done so in order to abolish the intolerable evil of the assize sys tem, which formerly placed the baker at the mercy of the common informer, and rendered it almost impossible to carry on the business of a baker. He did not see how the Hoe. Member could protect the poor any more than they were under the present Act, and he had never seen any petition against it, or heard of any complaints as to its working. He did not know what the Govern ment intended to do in the matter; but he should cer tainly advise the Hon. Member, at that late period of the session, not to press his motion. For his own part he would certainly defend his own Act. Mr. LABOUCHERE said, as the Hon. Member had been precluded last year from bringing in his Bill by an informality, he was not prepared to oppose his moti on ._ (Hear.) At the same time he wished to add that he believed the present system worked well both for the baker and the public, and he believed that the principle proposed to be introduced by the Hon. Member would lead to great confusion and to great opposition from the master bakers, because it would expose them to the mercy of common informers, while in the metropolis, at least, it would not pro tect the poor.—(Hear, hear.) He was informed that the poor did not, in numerous instances, buy whole loaves but parts of loaves, end of course it would be im possible to stamp the weight upon such portions of loaves.—(Hear.) Ho doubted whether, the measure of the Hon. Member would remove the poor from any sub serviency to the dealers in provisions to whom they were indebted, while the respectable masters would fled themselves hampered by it. As to the clause in the Edinburgh Police Act, it had been introduced without the attention of the House being called to it.—(Hear.) He certainly was not aware of its existence until the Hon. Member drew his attentioh to it. He should agree to the motion, reserving to himself the power of pur. suing the course he might think best. Mr. PACKE supported the motion, on the ground that bread was much dearer in the towns than it ought to be, when the price of wheat was taken into consideration. Mr. FOLEY wished to take advantage of the dis cussion to call the attention of the Right Hon. Gen tleman at the head of the Board of Trade to the fact that a great number of persons had been poisoned, and others made seriously ill, by a miller mixing up deleterious materials with his flour. He thought such cases proved the necessity for the interference of the Legislature. Mr. fIEATIICOTE hoped the House would agree to the Bill, and especially considering ihe extreme dispro portion of prices in various localities. The press used formerly to keep a careful watch over this matter, by showing the difference in various localities, and it it did so again he tho fight it would confer a great public ben, fit. While they had been cutting down the price and profits of corn, they had not toucle‘-d the profits of the baker. He hoped that, although late in the session, the Bill would be allowed to be brought in, and receive the sanction of the House —(bear, near.) Sir DE LACY EVANS objected to the measure, for which he thought nu sufficient grounds had been offered by the Honourable Member. The insinustion against the honesty of the bakers was certainly not sufficient to his mind, and though this was the Hon. Member's hobby at present, he had certainly chosen a very unpropitious time for bringing it forward. He brought this Bill in too late in the session. The Honourable Gentleman who had just addressed the House had expressed his surprise at the difference of price in the metropolis ; but was he not aware that other articles as well as bread varied in price? The baker would tell him that bread changed its weight from being exposed to the air, and other causes, and unless he took care that it was heavier in weight when he put it into the oven than it ought to be, he could not be certain that it was of the proper weight. The bakers were desirous that inquiry should be instituted, and such an inquiry as would satisfy the public. They felt that there was no necessity for such an enactment. Mr. MANGLES said that a greater case of retrogres sion than this Bill would be he never heard of. As re spects the principle of the Bill, it was just as applicable to the butcher who sold a bit of meat, or any other tradesman, as to the baker. He was quite sure his Right Hon. Friend would not s anc ti on thi s Bill, as it whould let loose a host of informers, and therefore he should oppose the Bill.—(Divide.) The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it ... ... 37 Majority —54 The House then went into Committee, and a resolution was agreed to upon which to found a Bill. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. POST-OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS WITH IRELAND. Mr. KER moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of the proposed alterations as re gards the transmission of the mails between the south west of Scotland and the north of Iceland. He thought that economy, and the convenience of the public, should be the guide of the Government in making this proposed alteration. He thought that great injury would result from adopting a contrary course. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he really did not know anything which the Committee could inquire into which had not already been the sub ject of inquiry. Auer some conversation, Lard CASTLEREAGH trusted the Hon. Member would press his motion to a division. After so much money had been spent on the harbours in question, he did not think they ought to be left utterly useless, or to fall into decay, without good reason being assigned. Mr. KER said he did not wish to put the House to unnecessary trouble, but as his motion had been stir ported by his Noble Friend, he should divide. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it 44 Majority against the motion ... —7 MINES AND COLLIERIES, Mr. W YLI) obtained leave to bring in a J l3ill to enable her Majesty's Secretary of State to appoint inspectors of mines and collieries ; and for providing the means of pay' meat for such inspection, which the Hon. Member after' wards brought in. LYME REGIS ELECTION. Mr. BUTLER call. d trio attention of the House to the special report and recnnamendation of the Lyme Regis Commit et) of last session, charging John Attwood. Esq., with bribery (then a Member of the House, and subsequently unseated for bribery in his election for Harwich), and moved that the Atturney•General be di' rected to prosecute Mr. Attwood and his agents for the alleged cases of bribery and corruption at Lyme Regis and Harwich. air. Attwood's conduct, he believed, was calculated to destroy the freedom of election, and, there' fore, h© brought forward the present proposition. Mr' Attwood, like Mr. Smith O'Brien, had fallen under the displeasure of the House, and therefore he had become public property. His " demoralising generosity" at the last Athlone election had been attested in a letter writ' ten to him (Mr. Biller) by the Catholic Bishop of El' phin. Unless a check were put on the system adopted by Mr. Attwood, they would find English eapitalista contesting Irish elections, and Irish boroughs represented by London millionnaires.—(Laughter.) Mr. SOMERS seconded the motion. Major BERESFORD said that he came to the House under the impression that he should have to defend I'll present constituents and his late colleague, but be found that the only matters to be defended were imaginary charges against an English capitalist, for inveigling some Milesians from their strongholds—charges founded ort the private letters of private individuals. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the House, would be going out of its wa y to p un i s h an i n di v id u al case, and that the Attorney-General would be wrong ill beginning a prosecution which could only end in failure. He should meet the motion with a direct negative. Sir G. GREY said that the Committee had not re' commended the prosecution of Mr. Attwood, and even if they had, he thought that the time which had elapsed since their report would effectually act as a bar against the success of that prosecution. The House then divided, when there appeared— ' For the motion „. 3 Against „, 46 Majority —43 ••• •.• The other orders were then disposed of, and the Rouge adjourned at Halt -past One o'clock. Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial' offico from the Governors of the West India Colonies. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat yesterday. The appeal " Montague v. the Governor and Council of Van Diemen's Land" was concluded• An appeal was heard—" Raja Oodit Punkash Sing I ) * Martindell and Stacey." 81 RTIIS On the 30th ult., at Totternhoe, Bedforshire, the wife of the Rev. T. H. Roper, of a son. On the :'oth ult., at Park-crescent, the wife of C. F. Bur' nett, E q , of a son. On the 30th ult., at Oxford -terrace, Hyde-park, the Wife of F. Milne, Esq., of a daughter. On the 30th ult., at the Vicarage, Pembury, Kent, the wife of the Rev. G. S. Woodgate, of a son. • On the Ist in t., at C ollege-house, Islington, the wife o f the Rev. J. G. Hetcech, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the 28th ult., at St. Marylebone, Patrick Strachallf Esq., New York, to Helen, second daughter of J. Andersolif EN., Peterhead, Aberdeenshire. On the 31)th ult., at St. James's Church, Mr. W. J. Back: of Regent-street, to Louisa, second daughter of Edward, 1 10 ` niece of Joseph Trimmell. b.sq., of tie Old Kent-road. DIED On the 29th ult., John Phillpotts, Esq., of Portbgwidde s Cornwall, for mriny years M.P. for the city of Glocester. On the 30. h ult.. at Tsvistock•terrace, Upper 11,11000 Mr. T. Palin, late of Christ's Hospital, aged 23. On the 30th ult., at Mill-hill, Woolwich, Lieut,natit' Colonel Frederick English. Commanding Royal Engineer. At Port!awl•terrace, St. John's-wood, Mr. Richard Croft. . • gcd .IL 0 and Pahlisl,c , ? t r , ;,:Rl4 ..!va tral.li, fruiter, at The Sun Office, No. 1 ' Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in tio emu*" Middleass, Wedueiclay, July 4 1 1549.