The Sun. — London, England, 1842-03-18 00:00:00

the tax, ;St' tax that. erly tieniect it out:,ht to. ilct r ing thia we omes those NI - 3,(. 1 ‘ t Thus the tenant; 21'"?',,, ) interest hi, 1 interest by, ,1 rent, But:: ?' enabled you. ,a h'e paid his t, and pro to - redi!Dr, but a t it from ;°,4,1" time that the hat W as „ 0 is that Verj course of as t h e tale s iat in the a nd !yen year f'u'nds and .11'; se wrokinds, Cie Cur' ~e 1 of iree nog , 2,00 0 , 000 P not say thaS There hid! ,000,0061 one e y f But that: ding four or in the very 4 been an in l e cied i ;arly equal tee of landlords. been an - stry . in thee ne ?ena .Ords, if yll 00- 4 not only i d n the i.qcolil ity that after e been s ncorae of the to were Ide agp-- os p posing ;ht into eulti-- .Ting of rents, gou wer e to' , Of Agricill." a difference idlords ret es a,gainst is in aal ge, ina tautly tring th e ;iv A . the war'" I an inc rease l ie tra e: • C d oll e, th tart ▪ IrittSt of ~, able. collect that' een given have referl' taxes to the g of the grol 25,000,00. . of the wa r ? omit of caPits,l it, and not ~ tes of the,`' war--I°,l liture, 01)11, capital tz, the taxal o ' id that, not the countri, foll o ws, as °' se taxes there is made to tke. Purrse it„i; ave been me to s_diliert; to a n arnew - , it share of VP" prt,; iare, and neces.setr. ; Y e d ,at an must raise of 'rout a raise` 1 to - spar e - l i tt le to 1 31 ‘:,: wyer, of man' l i ter ary ,ntha t I bel t ace , to p re° mall, y-oor de' t all necess4 ' ,en 2ssay, that an ineosi.. rate as betw•eeP int of toss ion of rot e P o i' id incom es of life annal: Van the a; • and c4q)ailkii; ,ous part oT !-, racter---(110.'„f efinally en ti' ; ', t est . rtineqd Its 'equal in on falls DO it to theluoc,l; hi s ineor le not he 1i0 01 ,4 i s it to pers:;„s wn, it bel l is the [titles of o'hic, landholder tr i t h the trsdme brances on perhaps aiteei: i n curnb ra a tradesnAn sheers.) )ility ) a 10 IlLtVi n g Y be to e the Pw ASV flown. for to pal ford to oblige Il to h e said 1 )/ 40 y , t week Of • 0.• to ld to hell°,oi, ttely conna'air tly by Coaa;01 n issione rSo ;he chancc!ed ht be th e ; ht desire °too rs. O re it ie. The 010,1, which lot a e all of b e car 'hicti say ▪ whiCD'oiio ax. Thi e i „p y unhesl'he'4 do itste; • but p ot ue 0%. 1 stroligio the peel/:1011 necessit);crei tgebe a,P0.4.4 on all cO, r ' public bao,o) to throw '.opi h i s obligsiltiti, 3aka ble Iltirnell SC ry at gar , been no Y fore 'O O it the re s lecess itY a a ' t ParliarnfAlot, )y the 11 ,* J., hear.) , ibe ry paifictio o e ' d oc e :act 6tot i nself• le Coustite;ro t the 3100,0 latticed f°l.o'lloo it warel ~yst ci. detain. cc, but on al l , t i l e teresting euect,f I the resfoot?' king all ',4 0 I have slpiir have so to ni to th i • s 1 1) " yawn . 4 doctrin Noble 0,13 Noble Frlet. y to sled, of I have )f th e rofl 0 0 ijustice , y dutf e id on Ol evy ; ection 00 Le whole he he 3 to jof l , of the 0cci."5,01 :e to Your P-1,10 t, that :bid, but re 6e e ces' a nti 7oi n dir e time of P e i :Of ynf ,e, t he e Airilberi°s.4 ." Let opla tamese rAce, iof r,OO have less rde.'"ilio 'hose bail '110,4 Y be, ar c he Cost, my 14°1115't, Itch a res°peili ; this iliellice' time of 001 : h e rest e i tolY Putri d p ower r o t Which we could, at any meMent, have it in our to sui„„,erY taxes to the amount of 20 millions a year ea ge r 7 ‘ththe necessitie.s of a state of war—the know tholigb nould have incalculably increased, and still in.cal,T.ry.ally and to a certain degree trenched on, will Jlably increase the weight, the name, the power, all nikence of this country in all negotiations and the „, edings with other nations ; and the power and o , 'fence which this country may possess, which Ole • .to ru'esa, and which, I trust, she ever will r atal ,„ .ls 1011 g as that moderation and justice 'thi s .yeethatery and mercantile spirit in which to po s iril ses ra e power is wielded, shall entitle her to 8 , tt---and not an instant longer ought . she thaktehe.:' it as long as she firmly, teme '4 Avi l ie s e , that power and influence, the continuance woriti never will be grudged to her by any part of r tlies because all nations will respect the use she p,tuti; ite,re'srohrte(e Noble Lord concluded by moving his of b That a direct tax upon income ought to, unless in some great emergency e aff airs, when an extraordinary expenditure re aee(ne unavoidable for a time, or in some pros 'istainPll the finances of the country, which can be ed by no other means." Zi ol ie Earl of RIPON was not at all surprised that his udderbrin,qand of Friend had felt it to be his duty to Nr ~ tile consideration of the House, in the man tiaestio,,• wt tleh he had done, the very important thejn%aid," 'which their Lordships might have hereafter to ;ander c ircumstances much more unfavourable for `'''• :te9eration than the present occasion. He (the . ili Pou) well recollected the course taken by his ee Mea e l lid "reed Friend in 1816, when he had sue -I,llpe h aluein g the House of Commons to object . to -• tlifliv,,Lr continuing the income tax after the cessation ti lere fi n ":' 411 (1 although speaking of that transaction in a D tll _, t ertab; 4lc , i ,_al point of view, he (Lord Ripon) might still ;fiend' s - ~,,1 410 belief that the success of his Noble st g r avat e e " r ts on that occasion had contributed to t?.6itioti i 1 he subsequent difficulties of our financial '"hle (Lord Ripon) could not think that his eour z , l i'riend had not been justified in taking the . d id.--(llea,r, hear.) He agreed with his nt the tae 'flend in all that he had stated as insoy li eees sity of reser v i ng th a t w hi c h h e h a d so r aue ssii i ,d 8 . splendid resource for the time when a Re ° neCessity should force them to have recourse to boldl y g,?.ye his Noble Friend full credit for his "uldly 4 , 411 regard to this motion, for coming a b lit t• I ., °r ,ward in the manner he had done, * leee lt e ,'" ; vr titg in the face of the country b ,,Nap p ; s4 ,,Y for this measure, the effects of which he so -eela ted, and the character of which he had so 4 14 11111 Y described. The Noble Lord had admitted f t h e th • I mposition of that tax was necessa a u h ot i luter sst , almost for the safety of the• country c ould deny the general truth of the second pro -11„t1th () s t - aza there were many other things conveyed hs-ere()„ propositions which he thought as abstract truths 7 0 st s 11,44 undeniable, as well as many of the, argu „mac, which 'hi s N o bl e F r i en d h a d suppor t e d th ose But he must c o n f es s th a t h e could not th e e - t o his mi n d th e adoption of these resolutions ' ti ;, eel' W st ate in whi c h this question presented itself ere w, -ally propositions in the clear, aumenta o4ed eloquent speech iti of the Noble Lord, from which evj dente° Id dissent. No one could deny the almost . i so th e :1 proposition contained in the first resolution „ 41 tle n 7, ; cli tae. He could not agree with his Noble Friend llra e l t -741 g that it was a convenient, or a judicious, or i nt an de ahle and useful course for that House, upon the 44the-noUncetnent of a question being brought forward to House of Parliament, immediately to pro they 1 0'" o re e s..., ord a delibera,'„, ,, set of resolutions, which, if Pyott them, might turn out ultimately to be in sakilstent with the Bill which the other House might a_ v 't p , to them, and place them in the extr redie lt a ,„ -I ' he was going to say, the ridiculous ßi n tek i , s - kient or either being compelled to reject that 11 N eY h e it was not founded upon the principles which . °Wi l 61 solemnly recorded, or else to retreat from their Itinin't)tertinly recorded opinions, and accept the Bill t utlii llt t he principle which they had previously declared Lo t h . 1 that e ng to it. It seemed to him to be impos -1(34,0-4‘ business of this kind between the too latt ers -a could be safely transacted upon that principle. 1:z had hi of that kind, connected with finance, e F riend laid it down as a principle that they de al " r ight ' having claimed a n d ne ver a b a nd one d i t, oak; w ith tax bills by alteration as well as rejection. Prudent or judicio u s rigidly to exercise that neo l ,: ll ,'t would they not be exercising it in the most t'4llLtent manner by res o l v i ng th a t a Bill u p on a :11aht-74r subject coming up from the other House aat s- b founded upon certain principles? .Vas not a„ 7111 g to th e H ouse of Commons, " Now, mi▪ nd, profess an intention to alter your Bill ; _we qoia ti ..n3 right_we know that you deny the right. W'y'e 41 1 e 'ut to have a collision upon that point, but . mi▪ nd tai rl YOll beforehand that your Bill must contain cer 'Or jercpositions. and be founded on those propositi t o h n s s ; !oak will not receive it ?" It appears . to an exceedingly awkward and inconvenient hi s ,-,isx„°l)-,,lseussing questions of that kind in that House. , 3 th ig • 'e Friend had referred to certain cases . as parallel Nalv - * L The first was that of Lord Grenville, and, cer ae 'e agreed with his Noble Friend that there never t he ( L t tlY man who more thoroughly n rgh,..`"nstitutional doctrines that belonged to the usages4rl4, ol , and privileges , . of the two Houses of he nor one more . unwilling to give , up what was ho u -11 '' just in principle. A Bill lsraaab ro th u e gh h t m i i n se to_ g()1(1 b e n Rouse fur the purpose of regulating the Ring. Now, his Noble Friend said, that 4'te ,d Grenville did was - to Move for a Committee t tp ,'Ate Bill had come up from the other House. 'e BROUGHAM dissented. Earl of RIPON said that it happened . that the pre e4 i tt le up the same day. But the House rejected the . I tit) 11° I . s . - tt'on, and that _of his Noble Friend was . 'neovenient than Lord Grenville'e His Noble II oa:itZlitlexpeakeot to spowkheoseof a Noble Lord now no more.e I(',6stkesition it 1 Was painfitlllbtloierespciixtri,tfaronndi thaalevnlittgansodraemeeina meant' Lord Holland ; but the case of tly (: 04 ` 1 1 nollaaid Was not parallel to this. The House of .inions entertained a measure for the purpose of Out of the , Consolidated Fund loq,oo_oi. lx , Q,, t r i le Purpose. of increasing the livings of the Nao , eergy, Lord Holland did n ta(„ that this was an improper Bill, but but he h n • 'll ther in the pro 1-erty e a ‘. , ommittee to inquire m e "111 d ; 4 1; t he Church itself, there could not be .I red m eans of doing that which the, Commons de ,42llztt did do out of the Consolidated Fund. not interfere directly or indirectly with the eothie`!, of the House of Commons. There was this tut that Committee which necessarily pledged ptle'ese $° that to dissent from that grant. That did not bear a parallel with the 1148 01‘ 11 -,, t a'ne- He (the Earl of Ripon) felt . himself *hiebhie from entering into the topics on ueONoble Friend had enlarged. He entirely i cot t° ed with his Noble Friend, that Parliament oigret '3orted",ave recourse to such a resource as at present by Goverment without the greatest pressure . of !is This was one part of the subject on which ti e (+lt'oble Friend had laid considerable stress. tos e le Earl of Ripon) did not advert to it for the pur . - ueeau°st; discussing the . matter , but . he . adverted to it E linone of hisHon.'riend s restrictions referred to it i:evied-eant the machinery by which the tax was to be h ard Noble Friend had . described the t he • 83 and the severity, and in many cases aceortl!ljustice to which persons might be exposed ..._ t i c% , iti g to the manner in which this inquisi 1 1 1 ;c1 - " fl u id be carried on ; yet his . Noble Friend . th -° resolution upon the matter at all. titilteetlisae°:tigplhdtiheneemy_i ht not proceed at any length to show o g f adopting his Noble Friend's resoluse their the course he would therefore prop() the "ei;r.., Lordships, was to adopt the motion of : 1 ; 11 er i)- , e vtetts question, which he meant to make. N T .l4 t , e s , l-44 ,cie other topic to which he would refer, and . F riers satisfaction which he, in common with his '' t 3' le -rte nd felt at the announcement of her Ma- N ee through the Minister, of her willingness to a ll 'hje c t t herself to the same burdens as her 4 ,e8 • .0 (.'"for the purpose of making up the „ 1 ,, the revenue, vhich they had all to regret. ;Pon that say that h e felt as strongly as the Noble Lord subject, although he could not de eve,' that gratification so eloquent. He be 4ialetixilhht,t):adt,tihtehefree was not a man, woman, . or r 4 oth, tu not feel that gratification. He concurred ,r ol ze:ervation of the Noble and Learned Lord, lin of other nations of the . world. 113', When -* vie` • d e h power and resources of this . coun i - 0 4 , ), I6u "h ‘ e a tax t could be imposed in a time o 'an he c ould not help thinking that such a course b e calculated to establish . a good i': 4 1(1" ta"io_thi cotry among . foreign nations, and l ast he them feel that we were not lito '''ed with. - Altogether, he would be . the ‘iat s sa e s to break the spirit of friend -4114 eti c i M l l o. 4..e arn confidence which the Noble ' l 4O I ed Lord had so well described,. and 14"siti 1 (Lord Ripon) firmly believed to be the La' the powers of Europe and elsewhere, an concluded by moving the previous ques thatf'-s 411°4 a a tee ta i' e 'v words fro m L or d BROUGHAM, i n reply, a rat . of the E ar l o f Rip on wa s put a nd carried rrd atiI,,PITCATION IN IRELAND. tainz -h''NTCASHEL moved for certain returns r - 14, -e ei ll oard of Education in Irelaud.—Granted. after Eight Cl ock. Ps then adjourned, at a Quarter 4°U _. ------------- MARcn 17 . lONS, °'IILIV I'EAlt°F took CO th il e r C 2l' hair shortly before Four , .erti t i lsio o It returns were brought up, and ordered to be th Alrllttiler,table. on .Jtaadi Orders. - -144 xr-:Q.`e,s3,l-TRngTbrougt up the Report of the Com -411 li lu ll la OF ENGLAND RAILWAY. tcl ual, ,zi. lzstnEn presented a petition from to prevent 4tta'N'ing the interference of the House (41: Violations of the rights of property by the North 4gr,laad Railway Company. _P!i" an indi . Th,"ol-4,ASOOW La al INSURANCE BILL. bfio'al,Row Life Insurance Bill was read a stim e. ~,r. (4Q"„"RGII AND GLASGOW RAILWAY. City iL V,' ''ALD moved that the Members for the and -„44 attri, l ,_'''''', and for the counties of Dumbarton and ‘41a5k,,,,".b .added to the Committee on the Edinburgh %: 6D'al„,lwaY 13i11. -4111% —c4l\•E said that an application of a similar to , 4 fer r ),P.; l'elatioa to the Severn Navigationßill, had Hon. 44,4' last session ; and, therefore, he thought the .e t°,ladale.l,7 Glasgow ought to make out a strong case 1,,., alr. (j'ill.„,a liouse to accede to his motion. 0(1 ti:" WA said, the Railway went to Glasgow, 411- ‘‘'Nl I.°lll a grCat portion of the county of La.,ark .t hitcl 4 4 t eluse to -the county of Dumbarton, and as i tc)antm,,,ll 4ferred to the South East list, no Members alit tee. -,-, with those places would serve upou the Com • k r. E o r , SI'"1-7RT said it was true the Bill had been referred to the South Eastern list. As the railway went from Edinburgh to Glasgow, the Bill might with equal propriety be referred to either the South Eastern or the South Western list, and as the South Western list had several Bills under their consideration, and the South Eastern list none, it had been thought best to refer the Bill to the list which was least burdened with business. As some inconvenience was likely to result if the Hon. Gentleman's proposition were not acceded to, he (Mr. Estcourt) was willing to acquiesee in it. Mr. OSWALD said a few words, which were quite inaudible in the gallery. • Mr. FOX MAULE was understood to approve of the course adopted by the Hon. Member for Oxford. Mr. LABOUCHERE said he was much surprised at the opinion expressed by the Hon. Gentleman opposite, at the same time he had so much confidence in him, that he did no;; wish to set his opinion in opposition to that of the Hon. Member ; but he must say that the House ought to be very cautious how they departed from gene ral regulations. This might be itpreceGnt which would lead to many applications, not only from Scotland, but from other places, and in many instances very good cases might be made out for placing certain Members on Committee. Mr. LOCH thought the House ought to consider be fore, it assented to the motion, as he conceived the lion. Member's proposition would be a very dangerous prece dent. Strangers ware then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared, For the motion Against it Majority fur the motion —2l Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from a so licitor- in Marylebone, stating that he had borrowed 91,000/. for the Parish of Marylebune from several bankers in London, who wished to change their securities. Mr. REDDINdTON presented a petition, signed by the High Sheriff, and several merchants of the town of Galway, complaining of the difference between the duties on foreign grain and flour. ELECTION COMMITTEE—BOROUGH OF LEWES. The Committee for trying the merits of the petition against the return for the borough of Lewes, consisting sf the following Members, was sworn in : Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Ellis, Mr. J. Neeld, Colonel Rawdon, Mr. Daly, Mr. Dick, and Mr. Charles Wood. WIGAN ELECTION. On the names of the following members being called over to serve as a Select Committee, to try the merits of the petition against the return from Wigan—Mr. T. A. M'Geachy, Lord Lincoln, Mr. Henry Kemble, Mr. Scott, Mr. Henry Tufnell, Hon. James Kenneth Howard, and Sir B. Hall, as Chairman—the Hon. J. K. Howard was absent. _ _ _ Lord G. SOMERSET moved . that the clause in the Act respecting Election Committees be read. The clause was then read by the Clerk. It was to the effect, that any Member not attending in his place, within an hour of the meeting of the House, upon the day ap potnted for the nomination of the Committee on which he is to serve, or having attended, shall have gone off before the Committee, as sworn un less the petition be discharged, shall be ordered to be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms or otherwise punished or censured as the House may di rect, unless it be verified on oath that such member was by some sudden emergency prevented from attending. Lord G. SOMERSET wished to know if any Hon. Member could account for the Hon. Gentleman's ab sence. Mr. TUFNELL trusted the Noble Lord would not press his motion. He had no doubt that the Hon. Gentleman was in the neighbourhood of the House, and would be in attendance immediately. Lord G. SOMERSET begged to propose that the Hon. J. Howard, having been appointed to serve as one of the Select Committee to try the returns of the borough of Wigan, not having appeared in his place in the House an hour after the sitting, be taken into custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The motion was carried. Inconsequence of the absence of Sir JAMES HOWARD, the Committee appointed to try the merits of the peti tion in this case was not sworn until four o'clock to- morrow. CORN LAWS, Mr. DENISTOUN presented petitions from various places in Scotland, praying for the repeal of the Corn laws. REPEAL OF THE UNION. The HoN. MEMBER then presented a petition from Glasgow, praying for a repeal of the Union between England and Ireland. FLOUR IMPORTATION ACT. Mr. MeNTZpresented a petition against the Flour Importation Act. METROPOLITAN BRIDGES. Dr. ELPHINSTON presented pedtiona from the in habitants of London, praying for the opening of the Me tropolitan Bridges. CORN-LAWS. Dr. DOWRING presented several petitions, praying for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. POOR-LAW. Mr. FERRAND presented twelve petitions from dif ferent parishes in the county of Stafford, in favour of the Gilbert Union Act. _ _ Mr. COLVILLE presented forty petitions; signed by upwards of 3,000 people, from places in Derbyshire, in favour of the same Act, and another with the same prayer from Warwickshire, signed by all the guardians of the poor. COALS. Mr. HUTT presented - a petition from the General Shipping Company, stating that the petitioners viewed with alarm the proposed duty on coals. CORN-LAWS, Mr. VILLIERS presented petitions from Barnard Castle and other places in the North of England, praying for the total repeal of the Corn-laws. BREWERS. Mr. GREENALL presented a petition from Wigan, signed by 80 brewers, publicans, &c., praying for a bill to prevent brewers' casks from being distrained for their customers' rent. _ _ _ Mr. GHIMSDITCH presented a similar petition from Macclesfield, signed by 2,000 brewers, publicans, and others. INCREASE IN THE ARMY. Lord J. RUSSELL said, he understood the Right Hon. Baronet, at the head of her Majesty's Government, to state, the other evening, that it was probable ,an increase of the army might be required, buL he could not then say any thing definite until further information should be received. He (Lord John Russell) wished to know whether the determination to increase the army had been formally taken, and if so whether an estimate would be laid on the table of the House. Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had considered it requisite to re-inforce the army in India, and it would of course be necessary to place a supplementary estimate before the House. He was not able to say more on the subject at present.—(Hear.) TRADE WITH CHINA. Mr. LINDSAY rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, relative to the trade with China. His chief object in bringing this subject before the House, was to endeavour to show that the honour and character of the country were in volved in the full redemption of any pledges given by Captain Elliot, on the faith of which pledges the British merchants delivered up their property.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.) He sincerely hoped that these pledges would be redeemed, as such a proceeding was of the ut most importance to the country. The Hon. Member then read very lengthy extracts from certain despatches received by the Home Government from India, but owing to there being so much noise in the House, and which was continued throughout the Hon. Member's speech, it was impossible to hear a word in the Re porters' gallery. They had from Captain Elliot him self some reasons for which that ransom-money from Canton had been obtained ; he said that the six mil lions of dollars which he had obtained from the Chinese, were intended to be a compensation for the losses sustained by the British merchants, .in that country, or at all events that it was intended to be paid in diminution of the claims of the British mer chants ; the Hon. Member then proceeded to read ex tracts from the evidence taken before a Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed, in 1839, to inquire into the opium trade ; lie implore:] the House to consider whether this was a time when the British Goverment should sanction any act which would have the most remote effect of reflecting upon its character or good faith. There were hundreds and thousands of people in India who would be brought to utter ruin if the pledges given by Captain Elliot, were not honourably and faithfully fulfilled. After expressing his approvat of the appoint ment of Sir HenryiPottinger, and other officers appointed by the late Government. The HOD. Member thanked Hon. Gentlemen for the patience with which they had listened to him, and concluded With the following motion : " That this House will, upon Thursday, the 7th day of April next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the following Address to her Majesty, that is to say, that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty . will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the circumstances under which the British merchants and others, subjects of the British Crown, did on the the 27th of March, 1839, upon the requi sition of Captain Elliot, Superintendent of British Trade in Canton, surrender to the said Captain Elliot, for the service of her Majesty's Government, 20,283 chests of opium, on the assurance of the said Captain Elliot, that he, on behalf of her Majesty's Government, held himself responsible in the fullest and most unreserved manner for the same, and further, that compensation for the injury sustained by her Majesty's sub jects was the first of the demands made by her blajesty upon the Government of China (to enforce which an expedition was sent out), and that a sum of money having now been received from the Government of China, her Majesty will be graciously pleased to ad vance to such British merchants and others, on account of their respective losses, to the extent of the sum re ceived from the Chinese Government, after deducting the amount awarded by h er M a j es t y t o th e ca pt ors , and to assure ber Majesty that this House will make good the same." Sir GEORGE STAUNTON said, he thought he should not be doing his duty if he did not say a few words upon the subject now before the House. If he had any bias on the subject when he was in China, he was Tattier opposed to Capt. Elliot's measure—he never gave it any support whatever. Still he thought that the warmest opponents of the opium trade might take an example from the course adopted by the British Parliament at the time of the abolition of slavery. The British Parliament considered that they were indebted to the holders of the slaves, and did not hesitate to give them 20,000,0002 sterling. Upon the same principle, he (Sir G. Staunton) hoped the House would allow a compensation to those British merchants who had surrendered up so many chests of opium to Captain Elliot. The superintenders of trade that were appointed to China acted up to instructions given to them. The first two superintendents (Lord Napier and THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING - , MARCH 18, 1842 • Mr. Davis) did not think it their duty to interfere at all with the opium trade ;, but Sir George Robinson rather .encouraged the trade, yet no. part of his conduct received any reprobation. At length a different aspect of affairs took place. In January, 1839, Capt.' Elliot learnt that the Chinese Government intended to enforce a prohibi tion ; under this state of things Capt. Elliot ordered all the ships in the harbour at Canton then engaged in the opium trade, to sail away. Capt. Elliot certainly did not anticipate the violent act that was soon after put in force by Mr. Ctnunissioner Lin, nor had he any right to anticipate such a proceedirg, He knew that there was no law then existing in China by which those vessels could be seized. He (Sir J. Staunton) thought, therefore, that Captain Elliot could not be blamed for not having forseen such conduct, here tofore unseen or unthought of in civilized countries. Captain Elliot did, however, as a gallant officer, when the time came, give every . support in his power to his countrymen in China, and in order to bring about an arrangement with the Chinese Government, he gave them a certain pledge, which, having given, he (Sir G. Staunton) thought - he was bound to perform. The real nature of the transaction of the 6,000,000 dollars re ceived from China would be understood from the papers which, her Majesty's Government had laid upon the table. In rue of these WAS given at once the nature and character of the convention ; it stated that the money was received in diminution of the just claim of her Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir George Staunton) thought this money was exactly a grant or instalment of the claim which her Majesty's Government had upon the Imperial Government. With this also the declara tion of the Chinese themselves agretd. He could not, therefore, see the slightest reason, why the money should not be paid ,to those just claim ants who sought for compensation for the opium they had given up at the request of Captain Elliot. He thought the character of this country was at stake; and, admitting its superior condition in China, this was not the moment when the British Government should do anything calculated to shake the opinion entertained of its integrity. The losses sustained by British merchants in Canton were of a serious and extensive nature. He would therefore feel much pleasure in seconding the motion. Sir GEORGE LARPENT said, that circumstanced as he was, he could not content himself with giving a silent vote upon the question. His Hun. Friend, the Member for Sandwich had spoken of the manner in which her Majesty's subjects in China had been treated ; and detailed at considerable length the manner and circumstances under which they were ordered to deliver up the opium in their possession. The merchants, both British and foreign, were in a state of duress in Canton. When they were called upon to give up their property, they relied upon the good faith of the Bri tish Government ; and whether Captain Elliot had authority or not, they delivered up the opium under peculiar circumstances, and he conceived that it was the imperative duty of the present Government to see that the large sum of money which had been received should be allocated to the service and benefit of those British merchants who had been sufferers in, the distressing affair. The present Government Were equally bound as the late Government to pre serve the good faith and honour of the country. He trusted and hoped that as the British merchants who had been sufferers in Canton had received an assurance from the late Government, that they would get even part of the money which had been received ; and as the honour of this country was at stake, he conceived the British Parliament were called upon to settle the matter by allo cating at all events an instalment of that money to those who had lost their property in Canton. Sir CHARLES NAPIER said, after what had fallen from his Hon. Friend, he would not trespass very long upon the attention of the House, but he could not but offer a few observations upon the subject. lle did not blame Captain Elliot for giving the offer, being, as he was, in a state of starvation ; but the merchants had no right to obey the order of Captain Elliot, nor had he, being a prisoner, any right to give the order. Whatever should be given to the opium dealers he hoped would not be at the expense of the British officers and sailors serv ing in. China. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if he could not agree with his Hon. Friend on this motion, it was because he did not believe the honour of the country was pledged to paythe opium dealers out of the money received from the Chinese Government. The Hon. Gentleman in his speech said that the honour of the country was pledged to compensate the opium dealers, but he did not say that.they were to be paid out o f the fund now at the disposal of the Crown. That, however, was the question. (The Right Hon. Gentleman then went on to read extracts from speeches made by himself relative to the origin of the war in China.) It was for the House to consider whether out of the money received for the ransom of a certain city in China it was their duty to satisfy certain claims, which it was the object of this motion to confirm. At the time of Captain Elliot's offer, the British merchants were in fear of their lives and property; being in this situation of danger, Captain Elliot, with feelin i ,s which do him honour—(Hear]-- went, at the risk of his own life, into the situation in which they were, and surrendered himself up to the probability of captivity and danger. Under these circumstances, Capt. Elliot gave them a pledge which the Hon. Gentleman said the Govern ment, was obliged to abide by. In this he (the Chancel lor of the Exchequer) could not agree ; and in making that statement he thought he also expressed the opinions of the late Government, or if he did not, on what ground was it that when certain bills drawn by Captain Eliiot, were presented at the Treasury, they wel - e not paid but protested? The sum we received from China did not come at the end of ho;- tilities, by way of compensati n for injuries receive 1, but it was received during the carr3ing on of the war for the ransoming of a certain city in China, and certainly could not be made available to satisfy the claims of the opium merchants He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought, then, no man could say that there was anything like a breach of faith on the part of the British Government, who had made. no pledge to pay the claims till the termination of the war. Upon these grounds he did not think it expedient to accede to the motion of his Hon. Fr:end. The motion was couched in terms too, which, if he were disposed to cavil at terms, he should object to as not properly expressing the facts f the case. There was another question also connected with the case which the House would have to consider • it was whether they could depend upon the assessed value Of the opium. He had seen in some of the papers that certa'n merchants had valued their opium at 1,200 dollars a chest, and that others had valued theirs at 500 dollars a chest. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that before allowing any compensation whatever, even if it were admitted that compensation was due, that it should be clearly and distinctly ascertained what was at the time of the seizure the precise value of opium. These were the views which he entertained on the question, and as such were his opinions, he could not give his support to the proposition of his lion. Friend.—(Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON was not prepared to say that anY pledge had been given by her Majesty's late Government to obtain the money for the relief of British merchants in Canton. Undoubtedly the pledge given was precisely as w as stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), but though there was no positive pledge given, her Majesty's present Government would be acting judiciously and wisely, in his ( Lord Palmerston's) opinion, by yielding to the motion of th e H on. M ember (Mr. Lindsay.) The money was of course to be paid into the Consolidated Funds ; this .was a sum of money recovered from China, and certainly it seemed to him there was a wide distinction between advancing money out of the funds of this country to the relief of British merchants in Canton, and allocating money which was ob tained in that country to the relief of those parties who had claims upon the Government in consequence of the sufferings and the losses th ey h a d endured. fie hoped her Majesty's Government would therefore apply it in that way, as it would have the effect of relieving a great deal of distress. Mr. M. PHILIPS did not rise for the purpose of advocat ing the rights of British merchant; in Canton, in consequence of any-interest he had with that country; but he thought it extremely inexpedient at this moment that injuries should be inflicted upon those merchants while means were in the power of the Government and Parliament of this country to relieve these injuries, particularly when it was recollected that they were caused by an anxiety on the part of British merchants in that country to vindicate the Government of this country. He contended that the property which had been given up was not given up with the juri s di c ti on o f th e Chi nese G overi men t, but it was in fact paid as a kind of ransom for the lives of Bri tish subjects which were in jeopardy. He wished, therefore, for the honour of the British Government and the British em ,iire, that the motion of the Hon. Member for Sandwich would be acceded to, and that good faith would be kept with those who had suffered those losses, rel3ing upon the honour of England. cE a jA ofo tithDeiENxE7wEicim spoke Mr. After a few wo r d s f rom Si r G . L AREENT an d t h e CHAN n a very low tone, was under stood to say that it was of no consequence from whom the Go ren ment received the money they did get, and he certainly thought it should be applied to indemnify the parties. He was sure no Hon. Member, whose desire was to do justice, could lay his hand upon his heart and say that the expenses of the war should be settled before these parties were compensated. Mr. J. A. SMITH said, if he were to collect anything from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was, that unless sufficient money was received from the Chinese Government, not oc.ly to compensate the merchants but to pay the cost of the expedition, the cost of the expedition should be paid by the Government before the claims of the merchants were satisfied. He must say that he heard that announcement with very great regret ; he believed it was the first time that a country ever admitted that she undertook an expedition for the purpose of gain. He could not sit down without expressing his regret at the terms made use of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the assumed value of the opium. He (Mr. A. Smith)believed that the character of the opium merchants were of the highest order, and that they had courted every inquiry ; he was sorry, there fore, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had made us:: of the terms in which he indulged. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER briefly ex• plained. Mr. J. A. SMITH replied. Mr. WYNNE said he possessed no information upon the matter, except what he had received from the papei s beim* the House. From them he should not consider the claims to be strictly legal, but still such as in point of equity were entitled to the consideration of the House. With respect to the money which had been paid by Captain Elliot under; the convention, in his opyiion Captain Elliot acted as the representative of the British Government ; and if he made any agreement, or anypledge, he thought they would be suchas the country would be bound to abide by. He admitted the claims of the British navy, and he thought that something should be allowed to them in the shape of salvage. The question as to the remainder then was, whether it should be Applied to the expenses of the expe dition, or to the sufferers. This appeared to him to be rather a question of time than a question of right; and he did feel disposed to think that some advance should have been made to the- losers ; he thought it should not appear that the compen sation had been unnecessarily delayed. He had rather that this motion were not pressed to a division, but that it should be left to the further consideration of the House. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, in speaking on this subjeet, his dt sire was not only to do' justice to the merchants, but also to those whose interests were too often neglected in discussions in this House—the people of this country. He hoped there was now in the House a considerable majority who had no interest in the opium trade, or the claims for the losses in that trade, and who he was quite sure would form their judgment upon the matter upon perfectly unbiassed prin ciples. The question was this—whether it was right and proper, that having got a certain sum of money on account of the ransom of this city, that that money should be ap plied to the redress of losses sustained by certain British merchants ? The principle upon which the war was undertaken was according to the only official statements which had been made, and these were made by the Noble Lord opposite, who, when as ked what were the objects of the war, distinctly said that there were two objects, first to claim reparation for the i n j ur ies offered to her Britannic Majesty's subjects by the Chinese Government; and secondly, to obtain compensation ft.r the losses sustained by their property having been taken under the direction ( f the Chinese ,Government.—(Heaf hear.) If the British merchants had a right to compensation ? why not have the whole of the money voted to them ? If that money was obtained for compensation for losses sustained by British merchants, why not give the whole 150,0001., or 2 , 0 00,0001., the price of the opium ? if it was right to appropriate the whole of it to that purpose, why not do so ? If it was a strict claim of equity and justice it cer tainly was as incumbent upon Parliament to vote the entire 2,000,0001. to the indemnification of the British merchants who sustained losses in China, and then trust to the chance of raising it from the Chinese Government. If they failed, though he did not believe there was a possibility of failure, then the loss would be of course sustained by the British Go vernment. It was said that Captain Elliot had pledged the British Government to the application of the money to the relief of the distress of the British merchants in China, but it should be recollected that the late Government, by whom Captain Elliot had been appointed ai.d sent to China ' had never recognised him—they actua ll y re f use d to h onour hi s bills, and rejectod them—upon the whole, he his duty, not having the sli g ht est persona l i n t erest i n t h e mat ter, to decline in the most p os iti ve terms to g i ve hi s consent to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. (Sir R. Peel) felt it Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who s p o k e i n a ve ry l ow t one o f voice, and was 'very inaudible throughout, was understood to say, that if the claims were allowed they ought to go to the full extent of the loss. Many of the ebjections of the Right Hon. Baronet applied with considerable force, but he thought these were equitable, and ought to be taken into the considera ion of the Herne. One objec tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman was, that the value of the opium could not be rice: tamed until the termination of the war; but still, if the Government felt disposed, he (Lo-d J Russell) thought there w.is sufficient grounds for investigation. If the Hon. Member who brought forward this motion could obtain a pledge from her Majesty's Government to that effect, he (Lord J. Russell) would advise him not to press the motion on the House ; but if he should do so, he should certainly feel it to be his duty to support him. Mr. LINDSAY, in reply, said, that he was much indebted to the Noble Lord for the view he bad taken of the subject; and if her Majesty's Government would take the matter into their consideration, he would not_ press his motion to a division. Sir R. PEEL said, that his Hon. Friend must exercise his own discretion altogether. They had directed inquiries to be made as to the value of the opium, but he could give no pro mise to the Hon. Gentleman. He must, therefore, decide himself whether he would take the sense of the House on the subject. Mr. LINDSAY intimated his intention of dividing the House, and strangers were ordered to withdraw; and the House divided— For the motion Against it B7 . . Majority against the motion LUNATIC ASYLUMS. Lord GRENV,,ILLE SOMERSET then rose to ask leave to briag in a Bill to provide for the more effectual inspection of houses licensed by the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions for the reception of insane persons in England and Wales. After de tailing the inotiveA which induced him to bring that measure before the House, he said he did not intend to include the metro politan districts in the proposition he was about to make. He had taken some pains to ascertain whether the system of visitation in the country was effectual, and though he did not derive much satisfactory information from the returns which had besn laid on the tsble of the House, yet he was able to state that the visits of the Magistrates, according to the pre sent system, were very irregular, and the whole responsibility was entrusted to the mercy of the superintes dents. He did not wish to insinuate anything against the proprietors of li censed houses, for he was bound to say that he had seen as much humanity and kindness evinced by them as could be possibly evinced by himself or any of those Hon. Gentlemen whom he addressed.—(Hear, hear.) He made no charge whatever against the proprietors or against the superintendents of those houses, but he was exceedinly anxious to see a regular system of inspection carried out. He thought it would be most desirable that some of the Commissioners acting in London should be amongst those selected to in spect those houses throughout the country from time to time. What he proposed to do was, to have two bar risters to inspect those houses, and instead of having the Commissioners allowed to practise at their profession, as they now were, that there should be Commissioners appointed who should be required to dedicate the whole of their time to their duties in London, and the other duties they would have to per form in the country, and that they should each be required, once at least in every four months, to visit every licensed house in the ccuntry. At those visits he proposed that their atten tion should be paid to the parts which more particularly de manded investigation, and more especially the part as to the fitness of the inmates to occupy a place in a madhouse. What he proposed was, that instead of visiting every 14 days for three visits, the third visit should be left out, and that after two visits, with an interval of 14 days between them, the patient should be let out as soon as the Commissioners thought fit. Barristers should also be appointed in the country houses, to examine every path nt previous to his admission. He be lieved these r egulatioos would have very many beneficial results , they would tend first to prevent persons being improperly kept in the asylum, and they would prevent persons being impro perly admitted. He had considered it desirable to adopt some measure more stringent than those at present in force to prevent the admission of improper persons into the asylums ; but he entertain: el the opinion now, that though there were a few cases where parties wished to send their relatives improperly to a lunatic asylum, yet, as he believed there were very few in stances of that sort, and as he should be sorry to add anythires to the present expenses of the establishment, it was with some regret, therefore, that he had come to the conclu sion, that the certificates should be left as they now were, without any adepional signatures being required. It seemed to him that he should gain very little also by laying down any rule as to therank and standing of medical gentlemen who should alone have the power of granting certificates. Fie did not now attempt to regulate the management of those insane Persons who were confined in the single houses of private indi viduals. They were left to the cam of persons over whom there was no supervision, and no doubt they suffered much more than other insane persons—( Hear, hear)—and he should therefore feel much pleasure in introducing some measure on that subject ; but he remembered, that on a previous occasion, after a due consideration of the subject, it was thought inadvis ab!e to attempt to interfere with the management of those un fortunate persons who were confined in private Louses. (The Noble Lord here lowered his voice so much as to be quite inaudible for some time ) Neither did he attempt to interfere with the" public as) furns—by them he meant Bedlam, St. Luke's, and the other establishments of that kind; he be lieved they were generally conducted very well. —(llear. ) In proposing this measure, lie did not do all that he could du, or all that could be done ; but he did think what he proposed mould be accompanied with very beneficial results, and would lead to a broader and more comprehensive legislation on the r t s h e e t ') vv plan, a in becauseore perfect subject. He should wish to s ee t h e p l an propose d b y t h e N o bl e Lord (Lyndhurst) in the o th er House d i scussed previous to forming an amalgamati on ( as we understood) with his (Lord U a st i e e m v believed might tt be ,fro eff m e c a te c d o . m combi nation Son lie did not think it was nseess ary to trouble the House any fuither iol on the subject. He had before admitted that he did not think the measure went so far as he could wish, but still it would be a great step towards perfect legislation. Air. W A KLEY commenced by thanking the Noble Lord who had just sat down for having turned his attention to this subject, but he did not think the measure he proposed was suf ficiently comprehensive. He would beg to draw the attention of the House to the different syst• ms of managing insane per • sons adop ed in England, Ireland, and Scotland. In Scotland there was one system, in Ireland there was another, and in Eng land there were several, but the whole of them were very detec tive. The proposal of the Noble Lord was b icily this :—'l hat there should be appointed two Commissioners to visit the li censed houses out of the metropolitan district. Now, what was a lunatic asylum? It was an hospital appointed to receive patients afflicted with the woe. t of diseases; and what did the Noble Lord propose to do? actually to appoint two barristers, two legal men, to superintend the medical condition of the in mates of these asylums. He was sure the Noble Lord did not mean any slight upon the medical profession, but this certainly did look very like it. Did the Noble Lord know that the recovery of these patients depended entirely upon the treatment they received? The Noble Lord said that he did not propose to meddle with the public asylums. He (Mr. Wakley 1 thought the Noble Lord's measure was not suf ficiently comprehensive. He did, therefore, pray the Noble Lord to postpone the second reading of his Bill till seine futur date, and in the meantime he would undertake to lay reports of ail the lunatic asylu ms b efore the H ouse; he would also thoroughly maize the reports of the Commissioners, and he thought he should not be doing his duty if he did not assist Government to appoint a Commission fully to inquire into every circumstance connected with the management and con duct of these asylums. In his visitation plan the Noble Lord's measure wa also defective. But he (Mr. W.) would not now detain the House, as he meant to introduce the subject in all its details after the Easter recess, until which time he hoped the Noble Lord would postpone his motion fur the second reading of the Bid. _ Mr. — HAWES also wished for postponement, for it was al visable, and indeed necessary, to introduce a more comprehen sive measure. Even the efficiency of the . keepers and the salaries of the Commissioners required a great deal of con•• siderat ion. Lord ASHLEY had no objection that the Hen. Member for Finsbury should direct his vigorous attacks against the Metropolitan Commission. Certainly he (Lord Ashley) could wish that the measure hadgone further—(Hear)---but still great benelitAvould be effected by the Bill of his Nold:! Friend in the very defective system that now prevailed in the manage- ment of lunatic asylums in the provinces, particularly in visita tion, whereby the Commissioners could carry out the object of the Act, and prevent persons who had been discharged trom a London asylum from being incarcerated in a country lunatic establishment, for the Bill would establish a perfect record of pe e r f :n y o e f ry com l:t o le n every such house. He thought also a controlling suggestive visiting commission would be much better than a medical one. In the fi rst place, the House could not introduce an uniform curative process into all country establishments. It would be impossible for them to irsist upon the introduction of the non bthaiteneoesittency system,wofueldr the e ve e n x o pen ri s g e ht to impose it, would be so great, coercivethat the House be cause many of the private lunatic houses were con secnaspeitla‘l,a,s j and they were screwed down to the lowest amount of ducted by persons remu neration for the inmates they took in. —(Hear, hear. ) Further the House had not yet sufficient experience of the of sanity or .insanity as a medical man. non-coercive system, though he (Lord Ashley) would admit to get medical men in the country than that very great good had been derived from it. As to the sup riority of medical men in deciding the question of sanity, be ;,ad just as good aB reason juutdigt et was of think theinm 1 c p, r t r h ee a see t ans a cye barristers, while a knowledge of the law was most important to a Commissioner; therefore he thought it better that the Commissioners should he lawyers, with content themselves power to call in a doctor when they wanted him. The law was to be applicable to a whole country ; and in many. y n nt ru e st st ta n k o e t only him as they found him. of the present t wH h ie i t n h l ayel-nlpueedoepdletdo medical d t i h s e t ra r i greata c n t s , prac tice with regard to lunatics. In some places the facilities of incarceration being very great, and in oth e rs ma d men were to be found walking about in all e irections.—(A laugh.) He was glad that he had heard the objections that had been made to the Bill, as they had cinced him they were not of extraordinary force. They Convinced bins they were not of extraordinary force. 'lhey would also have the effect of directing public attention t o the subject, and that would strengthen the hand of those who Would have tbeadministra lion of the law. Mr. C. W. WYNN was much disposed fo agree with the views of the Hon. member for Lambeth, with resject to the Bill; but it ought to go much further. Ile supported the Bill on general grounds, a s it was now more than thirty years since the Legislature bad passed the law empowering counties to join in the management of lunatics, and the state of the law was now imperfect. Lord G. SOMERSET replied. Tt -e proposed the Bill, in hopes it. would lead to something further. It especially pro vided that the legal gentleman conducting the inquiry should be accompanied by a medical gentleman, without whose concurrence he could not act. For the informa tion of the Honourable Member for Finsbury, he intended to take the second reading before Easter; he should proceed with it a short time after Easter, and he would take care that all interested in the discussi on should have due notice of it. lie was anxious the Bill should pass as speedily as povsible. After a few words from 111' B. 'HAWES in explanation, leave was given to bring in the Bill, THE BISIVP OF JERUSALEM. Dr. BOWRING begged to postpone till after Easter the motion of which he had given notice for the correspondence respecting the establishment of an English Bishop at Jerusalem. Motion withdrawn. GILBERT UNIONS. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented two petitions, praying that the Gilbert Unions might he exempted from the opera tion of the Poor-law Ame n d men t Act. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented several petitions to the same effect from places in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose, pursuant to notice, to move for " a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of re lief to the poor in parishes incorporated under Gilbert's Act, or subject to the provisions of any Local Act , and to report whether it would be expedient or ju s t to repeal those Acts for the purpose of substituting in lieu therece e the Poor-law Amend ment Act." He felt that the proposition sv;.:. ich he begged to submit to the House was of so reasonable a naaZe, that he need not occupy for any length of time the attentios: of the Hon. Gentlemen in convincing them of its justice. In ens.: 3- veuring to give effect to the petitions presented that night by the lion. Member for the We .t Riding of Yorkshire (31r. S. Wortley), as well as those presented by himself (Mr. I'. Duncombe), end several other petitions presented by various Hon. Members, in favour of the present motion, he might, perhaps, be allowed to remind the House of the state of the question at the tune the new Poor law Amendment Act was passed in 1834.—(Loud cries of " Hea-, hear.") When Lord Althorp introduced that Bill to the House, great apprehensions were felt that those parishes subject to Local Acts and the Gilbert Incorporations would be affec,ed by the measure. The then Hon. Member for Marylebone in quired of that Noble Lord whether the proposed measure would isterfere with those Local Acts. Lord Althorp, in reply, stated that the Conimissioners would not interfere with those part bee which were well regulated, and that he hoped that they would follow the example of such parishes. The Noble Lord fuefillsd the wish which he had expressed on that occasion to the letter, for in the 32nd clause of the New Poor -law Amendment Act, it was stated that no dissolution of, or altera tion in those parishes should take place unless two-thirds of the majority of the guardians should require such alteration or dis solution. There was a guarantee, a compact entered into by Par liament with regard to those parishes and incorporations under Local Acts. if that clause had not been insisted on, if that provi sion hat not been made, Hon. Gentlemen were well aware that there would have been such an opposition to the Poor-law Amendment Act as would have rendered it very difficult for the Government to pass that measure. The Poor-law Com missioners had induced, after that, several of those incorpora tions to dissolve their unions; nevertheless, there still re mained a great number, in which the guardians felt persuaded of the superiority el their system to that of the Poor-law Amendment Act for administering relief to the poor. The two last measures introduced to the House, for the pur pose of amending the Poor-law, proposed to give power to the Poor-law Commissioners to dissolve those Gil bert corporporasions w:thout the consent of the guardians. On this subject he (Mr. D.) some time ago put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, but the Right Hon. Gentleman thought fit to I-err:tin silent on the point. If the object with respect to those incorporated parishes of the mea sures for amending the Poor• law were carried out, a gross breach of faith with those Incorporation would be committed. That was one reason why the House should consent to the in quiry. There was another reason. When the Committee on the Poor-law was sitting up stairs, in the year 1838, he (Mr. D.) moved, in consequence of the aspersions thrown out against Mr. Gilbert's incorporations by the Commissioners, that it be an instruction to the Committee to inquire into the accuracy of a p rtion of the report of the Poor-law Commis sioners, which had reference to the vicious system said to prevail in the incorporations formed unici Gilbert's Act, and report thereon to the liouse.—( Hear.) Among other charges brought in their Report, by the Com missioners against the guardians, was one to the effect that the guardians received various sums of money, varying from 51. to so high as 20/. for their services. He (Mr. I).) denied that they received one shilling. In moving that that instruc tion to which he had alluded should be given to the Committee, he had pointed out the necessity of the inquiry not being con fined to the assistants of the Commissioners, but that practical men of unprejudiced minds should be examined. The Chair- man of the Committee concurred in what he (Mr. D.) there stated as being necessary, and yet what had been done? Though he had had a great number of witnesses to disprove the statements of .the Commissioners, not oise of them was examined, and the Report was drawn up without hearing any of them. Now, with respect to the objections entertained towards the Gilbert Unions, he (Mr. D.) was au thorised to state, on the part of the guardians, that if, at a fair inquiry before a Committee, it was proved to them that their system was inferior to that going to be introduced by the Poor-law Amendwent Act, they would immediately consent to the dissolution of those incorporations. Could anything be fair than that? The lion. Gentleman then read a letter from the Rev. Mr. Bathurst, who was connected with those incor porations, calling for such an inquiry, and then went on to ask if the advocates of the system proposed by the Poor-law Amendment Act feared this inquiry. Did they fear a comparison with those incorporations? He was sure it would be found that more economy and advantage in every point of view would result from the operation of the system pre vailing in the incorporations than from that of any other. He felt sure that the House would grant him an inquiry and hear those parties before it adopted a Bill of pains and penal tics.--( Hear, hear. ) Captain PECH ELL rose to second the motion. The Hon. Member who had just sat down had shown the exact position in which the Gilbert Unions stood with respect to the present Poor-laws. He believed that if the evidence which had been given before the Committee in 1838 had been duly weighed they would never have heard of a proposal to subject those unions to the power of the Poor-law Commissioners. The inquiry was asked on the most reasonable grounds. Cisarges of the grossest kind had been made against the guardians of these incorporations, and as the re were three milbons of the population of this coun try who were subject to their influence, it was of the greatest importance that they should be rebutted. The guardians had bee naccused of peculation, of ignorance, and of prejudice. They demanded inquiry into these charges. Mr. Hawley stated that the conduct of the guardians was marked by extreme partiality, and that many of them were unable to write. Now he could state, from his own knowledge, that in the county of Sussex there were nineteen guardians, who represented property of the yearly value of 14,00 e/. lie thought that was a sufficient an swer to the charge. It was stated that they afforded a mis chievous example to the guardians of other unions. Now, these unions were subjected to the provisions of the New Poor law, as tar as was consistent with the operation of the Gilbert Act, but they were not subject to the uncontrolled influence of the Poor-law Commi sioners. Was it a mischievous example, for the governor of the workhouse to make a distinction between old persons, who had fallen into misfortune without any fault on their own ',art, and other claimants for relief ? Was it mischievous that the guardians should take into consideration the conduct of the persons to be relieved? Was it mischievous that the inmates of the workheuse should be permitted, under the 22d of-Geo. 111., to attend church on Sunday to hear divine service? Was it mischievous that they shouldbe fed upon a different diet—that they should be allowed good and wholesome beer, ?—( Hear, hear.) He had ro hesitation in saying that he had advised the guardians to abide by certain regulations, but by all means to resist a mandamus of the Queen's Bench against beer.—( Laughter. ) It had been alleged against the guardians that they had acted illegally i n selling goods to the poor.. If that charge were true, it was equal to the truck system. Now what was the fact? lie had made inquiry in Sussex, and found that one of the guardians was in the habit of laying in a stock of fuel, and allowing the poor to purchase it, during the winter, at half price.—( Hear, hear. ) Then it had been stated in evidence by Mr. Hawley, that the guardians of these unions were in the habit of receiving sa'aries of from 25/. to 35/. a year. Now it should be borne in mind that, according to the late Act, a guardian might be fined Si. if he did not attend in the course of the month, and that he would thus, in case of non-attendance, be called on to pay 601. a-year. He was convinced that, if the evidence was gone into before the Committee the ch urge would be proved to be most unwarrantable. No petitions had been presented against the Gilbert Unions, and he had therefore reason to think that they had given general satisfaction. He believed that if the Commissioners were allowed to interfere with them the guardians in those unions would resign, and. he responsibility of the conse quences would rest with the Government. Sir J. GRAHAM said thatt here was nn motion so specious as that which asked for a Parliamentary inquiry ; and it frequently happened that it was a very convenient course for Government itself to adopt, and if a sense of public duty would allow him, it was one of those things which the Executive Government could not object to in its own nature. Under the cover of such a Committee it would be easy for the Executive to propose a short Bill on the subject, and again pass over the subject to the next session. But there was a great principle involved—the relief of the poor of the country ; and a ft er t h e announcement of her Majesty's Government to bring the subject forward, he could not acquiesce in the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. He had distinctly notified to the House on the part of her Majesty's Government that on an early day after Laster it would be his duty to submit a measure, not only to continue the Poor-law Commission, but also to make such alterations in the law for the relief of the poor as, in their deliberate judgment and experience, they may be justi fied in bringing forward ; and that being the case, 'his sense of duty compelled him to resist the temptation of entering into discussion then. It would be unwise, in his opinion, to enter upon the consideration of such an important subject then, and he thought it would be only wasting the time of the House. The Hon. Gentleman did not even think fit to confine him seat° the consideration of the subject as it stood at present, but he went back to the discussion that took place at the latter end of last Parliament. That was not the time to enter into the discu sign of the question.—( Cheers. ) But at the same time there were some matters to which he she old refer. The Hon. Gentleman who introduced the motion, referred to the statement of a single individual, to show that it was not the intention of the framers of' the Poor-law Act to incorporate the Gilbert Unions under the general law ; but he (Fir J. Graham) was aware that, in the first part of the Bill, a direct provision was introduced for the purpose of repealing the Giloert Unions, but subsequent alterations took place, and though a direet repeal was avoided at that time, if any person looked to the 15th clause of the Act as it now stood, and also the 2d clause, and looking also to the interpretation clause, and the opinion of the late Attorney-General, he thought there could notbe a doubt that there was a virtual repeal. The Hon. Gentleman also said that there were 3,000,000 persons living under the administration of the Gilbert Unions, but what were the real facts ? Since the passing of the Poor-law Act fifty-five of those Unions had agreed to come under the operation of the general law—( Hear, hear)—and those fifty-five Unions contained no less than 715 parishes • and there was one remarkable ci rcums t ance connecte d w i t h them which was that at the passing of the Poor-law Act those Gilbert Unions owed 39,0001., but since they came under the operation of the law they paid up about 20,000/., or more than half the debt.—( Hear.) There were only twelve Unions remaining under the operation of Gilbert's Act, and they existed in only nine counties, and those 12 unions con tained 394 parishes, and a population of 156,000. These unions owed a debt of 5,457/. at the passing of the Poor-law Act, and they paid only 1,400/. out of that MM.—( Hean ) The Hon. Gentleman talked lightly of the geographical defects under which these unions existed, but he could state that in consequence of their scattered position many and great inconveniences arose.—(Hear, hear.) There were other dis advantages rerulting from the mere incorporation of these unions, one of which was that they refused to admit the benefits of the Vaccination Act passed during last session, the power of introducing which was placed in the hands of the board of guardians. What he was about to state on this subject was on the authority of Mr. Park, a person who was well qualified to speak on the subject. He stated, that in the first quarter of the operation of the Act, 608 persons died of small-pox ; in the second quarter, 252 ; in the third quarter, ending October the 3 d, 128; and in the fourth quarter, ending the Ist of January, 1842, only 68. Tint was the result of one year since the introduction of the vaccination system ; but that most salutary system was not int ro d uce d i nto the Gilbert Unions . — (C h eers.) The Hon. Gentleman had talked of the excellent management of the Brighton Union, but did not the Hon. Gentleman ever hear of 24/. being paid for the purchase of a Court dress, to present an address to her M a j es ty on the birth of the Princess Royal ?—(Laughter.) Diet the Gallant Officer never hear of the Brighton lunches ? _(Laughter.) Did he never hear of the charges for cigars? Great laughter.) However, the right time to go into the discussion of these matters would be when the Government brought forward the measure. —(Hear, hear.) With respect to the Gilbert Unions, whatever might be done, should be clone on the resposibility of her Majesty's Ministers, and from that responsibility he would pot shrink.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that the inquiry sought for was premature, and he for one I would oppose the motion.—(H ear , hear.) Capt. PECHELL, in explanation, said, that although those abuses alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet might have existed, the people in vestry had put them down, and did not want the control of the Poor-law Commissioners. Mr. WAKLEY admitted that this was not a proper time to enter into the general merits of the Poor-laws. Nor was it necessary, for the purpose of his Honour able Friend. The simple question was, were the Local Acts to remain in force, or if it were a wish for the parish ioners to retain them, was that wish to be respected?— (Hear, hear.) lie did pot know what the intention of the late Administration were, but he knew that they had struck out some of ti-.e most monstrous clauses of this odious law.—( Hear, hear.) Since the last measure was proposed there had been a change of the Government, and he was one of those who was not sorry to see it.—(Cheers and laughter.) The members of the Government who had introduced the Poor-law Amendment Act were not now in the House, and he was gild to see that they were scared out of their own mea sure.—( Cheers and laughter.) He held in his hand a record of t h, opinions of the Noble Lord the Member for London, of the Right lion. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, and of the attorney-General, who could no t b e supposed to hare changed his op ,h ions because he had ch ange d hi s seat i n that : House. That Hint And Learned Gentleman said that when the Poor law 13111 was passed, there was a general understand ing in the House that all Local Acts ,should remain uninter fered with, and that the parishes regulated by those Acts should not be under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that it was ridiculous to suppose that any such th'ng was contemplated. Now he (Mr. W.) would not read the whole of the Right Hon. Ba ront's (Sir R. Peel's) speech, but the Right Hon. Baronet said that when he found whose masses of the people wt 11-governed under their Local Acts, he did not think it expedient to place them under the con t ro l o f the Commissioners. The I\Toble Lord the Member for Liverpool expressed his hope on the same occa'ion that those who were under Local Acts would not be interfere wits . The Noble Lord, the Member for London, had said that the purport of the clause at that time under discus sion was, that no further interference with the Local Acts should occur than what had occurred already. Now, the Local Acts had remained untouched since that time, and who were now going to interfere with them ?—( Hear, hear.) Why the present Administration. He had expected that the severities of the law would be mitigated, and that the guardians would obtain a greater control over their own funds. —( Hear, hear.) He had expected that the change -would be for the better, and lie had contributed to produce it.—(Great laughter and cheers.) Yes, he had—(Renewed laughter)— and he should have to go home to a bed of repentance.— ( Great Laughter.) What was going to be done ? All those parishes were to be given up to the Commissioners.—( Hear.) Did the Right Hon. Baronet think that the people would be better satisfied with this under a Tory than under a Whig Government? The understanding last se=sion was that these Local Unions should not be touched by the Bill introduced into the House last session. The Gilbert Unions were not to have been broken up and destroyed under that Bill without the consent of two-thirds of the guardians, but in the Bill of this sesssion— Sir JAMES GRAHAM—The Hon. Gentleman has not seen the Bill. Mr. WAKLEY knew he had not. The Right lion. Gen tleman had taker, precious good care that he should not see it. He (Mr. Wakley) did not like these secret modes of proceed ing. The ancient and constitutional practice was to grant no supplies until a redress of grievances had been granted, and it was a most wholesome practice, for when Governments had got the money they were apt to be very saucy. They were now in the month of March. The Poor-law Bill was not to be intro duced until after Easter. The Poor-law Commission would expire in July, and what time, he would ask, could they have to consider the subject. The Right Ho nourable Baronet no doubt had had his Bill pre pared for a considerable time, and after all that bad taken place in reference to the Poor-law Bill, he had thought that that Bill would have been among the first which the Right Hon. Baronet would hove laid on the table of the House ; and after the objections which had been urged against any inter lerence with these local incorporations, and the intense anxiety I entertained en the subject, he was sure that if the Right Hon. Gentleman could have said that these Local Acts were not to be interfered with, he would have been too glad to have said so. 'I here were the parishes of Marylebone, St. James's. Islington, and St. Luke's, containing upwards of 60,000 inhabitants each, all governed by Local Acts, and it was preposterous to call this a free Government, if the government . of these parishes was to be taken out of the hands of the rate-payers and conferred on the Poor-law Commissioners. He called upon those Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had assisted so nobly in fight ing the battles of the people when the question of the Poor law was under consideration last session —(Cheers),--to main their principles now—(Cheers)—to redeem the pledges which they had given—(L•aid cheers) —and to uphold their high station.—(Continued cheers.) He regretted not to see that energetic Gentleman, the Member for Knaresborough, in his place.—( Loud Opposition cheers.) It was of no use for Hon. Gentlemen to make spirited speeches, if they did not fight the battle of the people, when the battle was to be fought. —( Loud cheers ) He entreated the Right Hon. Gentleman to consider the state of anxiety and suspense in which the inhabitants of places under these Local Acts were placed, and to relieve their anxiety by at once declaring what his intentions were in regard to these local incorporations. Mr. COLVILLE had listened with regret to the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, ;the Secretary for the Home Depart ment. They sought inquiry into the management of the Gilbert Unions, but they wished that inquiry to be made by a Committee of the House of Commons, and not by the Poor law Commissioners. On another point, also, he agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet, namely, that the paupers of Brighton were better fed under the Gilbert Act than under the new Poor-law.—(" Ilear, hear," from Capt. Peehell. ) lie begged to express his obligations to the Hon. Member who ha + brought - forward this motion, for the able and gallant manner in which he had defended the rights of the poor of this country. He thought that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department had not treated those inte rested in the preservation of the Gilbert Unions with that courtesy which they deserved. He had been four times ap plied to to take the intentions of the Government in regard to those unions, and he had thought it fit to maintain that dig nified silence which, although convenient to him, was death to them. He considered that silence as most ominous. It was the intention evidently of Government to keep them in ignorance of their intentions in order to attack them unawares, and to de stroy them. That was not a manly course to punue— (Cheers)—and morever it was not a course he had expected to have seen pursued by. a Conservative Government.— (Loud Opposition cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet had said on a former occasion that inquiry ought to precede le gistation, and acting on that principle he hoped if the Go vernment refused inquiry they would not legislate, and that was all they wanted. He hoped the Hon. Member would press his motion to a division. He could have wished that he had added to it a motion for inquiry into the manner in which the dissolution of those Gilbert Unions which had vo luntarily dissolved themselves load been brought about. If such an ,inquiry were instituted, facts would be elicited of such a nature as would astonish some Hon Gentlemen. Mr. R. YORKE was afraid that the forthcoming measure of the Government would not show a proper corrideration for that large class of poor who were poor through the inevitable force of circumstances, and not from any fault of their own. He should support the motion. Mr. LIDDELL said, he thought the Hon. Member for South Derbyshire might have applied his concluding words to his own speech, when he condemned the proposition of the Go vernment before he had heard it. He (Mr. Liddell) enter tained better hopes of the forthcoming measure of the Govern ment. He felt most strongly the argument that had been urged by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Phis was not so mach a question of inquiry in that House, as it was a question of prin ciple, whether or not the guardians should have the manage ment of the poor. He had known, of his own knowledge, much injustice inflicted on the poor under 'the present system. —(Cheers from the Opposition.) Although he had as yet been unsuccessful in his opposition, he would never be found wanting in his plane in Parliament to do justice to those to whom justice was due. lie would therefore not refuse to give his vote with the Hon. Gentleman opposire (Mr. Wakley), for this distinct reason, that a;though it was easy to make an excuse in that House for declining to vote, yet when he had given a pledge to the people of England, please God he would never be found wanting.—( Cheers. ) Having endeavoured to explain the vote he intended to give, he must say with some pain to himself, against the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department, he would give all credit to the Government for their intention in the proposed remedy to be applied to the grievances particularly complained of. He hoped the country would not be disappointed in that measure. He should give his vote to the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Mr. HARDY said the Members who opposed the Poor-law Bill had been appealed to by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and he (Mr. Hardy) would say that nothing could give so much satisfaction to his mind as his opposition to that law. He could not say if alteration had been needed in the South of England, but it was found by those who had the management of the relief of the poor in the northern counties that the con sequences which had been expected had followed the adoption of this measure. 'I he object of a Poor-law was to relieve the poor, and make them comfortable, and nothing could give satisfaction unless they gave security to those who received that relief. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side had said that many Hon. Members on his (Mr. Hardy's) aide of the House, owed their seats to that measure. He (Mr Hardy) believed that he would not have had the honour of addressing that House then if he had not given a pledge of opposition to that measure.—( Opposition cheers.) Not that he did so for the purpose of obtaining his seat, for it was pretty well known in 1834 what. were his principles on this question ; and he must say that it would be a great relief to the minds of the poor in his part of the world at least, if he supported the Gilbert unions in opposition to the attempt to dissolve them. It would be a great satisfaction to their minds, if the Right Hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, would give some intimation of the alteration he intended to Introduce. lie remembered that when the Poor law Bill was put into shape, a resolution was passed that it should be laid before the Court of Quarter Sessions at Easter in 1834, in order that there might be an expression of public opinion upon it, and that some o f th e p rov isions of the Bill might be altered according to circumstances. Now it would have been very desirable to have so. done with respect to the measure proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet. By this course an opportunity would have been given to various partia to petition against the measure. He trusted that a great alteration would be made in the law, but that that altera tion would not affect the power or authority for those who were locally interested, if it was intended to make those altera tions, he wished their purport could be, known—(Hear, hear, from the Hon. Members for Finsbury)—he trusted the alter ations would be such as would afford satisfaction, he should say that nothing gave him more satisfaction ; than the reflec tion that he had supported the interests of those persons whom he represented by always opp os ing the measure. Mr. S. WORTLEY observed,' that his object in rising to address the House was to profess very nearly his concurrence with the Hon. Member who had just sat down ; but at the same time, he (Mr. S. Wortley) was not disposed to cast that severe censure upon her Majesty's Government which had been cast upon them by Hon. Members, for having abstained from making known all the details of the measure they in tended to propose, before the time had arrived when they expected to be able to carry it into a law.—( Hear, hear, and ironical cheers.) He doubted the expediency of explaining the details of such measures, whilst the Government were so circumstanced, in consequence of the pressure of other mea sures, they had no great chance of passing the measure to which the motion referred. The Hon. Gentlemen concluded by expressing his determination, without hesitation, of voting for the motion. Sir H. PEEL raid he must say he was not a little surprised that, considering the Poor-law had been brought forward by those who constituted the late Government, who looked on it as essential to the best interests of the people, and who founded a great deal of their fame: upon the introduction of this mea sure, there was only one of these Hon. Gentlemen present.— ( Hear, hear.) He pursued on this occasion no coarse from what he always had pursued ; he never sought any popularity by opposing the New Poor. law. He stated that he thought on account of the mode in which the old Poor-law was adminis tered, of the gradual and rapid increase of evil under it, it was for the advantage of the general interests, and above all of the poor themselves, that some change should be e ff ecte d i n the law. Ile was perfectly satisfied that it could rot be properly administered if there were an opinion. that. Parliamsnt was in clined to abandon the subject.—( Hear, hear.') Thi s was a proposal for an inquiry, and it was said that 'there were 2,500,000 persons acting under the mode, into w hi c h an in quiry was now sought. He (Sir IL Peel) should have thought that the House of Commons had sufficient information (in the subject, to enable them to discuss the proposition of a new Poor-law, without instituting an inquiry. There were 67 Gil bert unions; 55 of t h ese h a d voluntarily resigned their autho rity, and there were 12 remaining, di spersed over d.ffercnt parts of the country. His Right Hon. Friend intended to submit proposition; en the subject of Local Acts and Gilbert Unions Immediately after Easter, but the Hon. Gentleman proposed to institute an imuiry. He certainly thought that th e House of Commons was in a proper condition to determine whether a different system of law should apply to 12 Unions, from that applied to every other Un on throughout the 'country. For whatourpose was this inquiry moved ? The Gallant Officer _ sell it was for the purpose of enabling the Guardians to relieve themselves from many chat gee brought aga i nst t h em. That was perfectly indefinite. If they admitted one single Union to be tried, they could not refuse another one an °ppm tunity a vindicating itself ; thus the House would forsome months he oc cupied; the summer would come on ; the attendance of Members. would become thin, and it would be neces , ary to pass a Poor law for another year. His Hon. Friend - the Member for Bradford would wish to establish outdoor relief. Mr. HARDY—In the north. . Sir It. PEEL— The reference should be more specific —( Mr Hardy then said "the rnaliufaJuring districts").. —well, then, it would be necessary to define what were the manufacturing districts (Much laughter) and while the time . of the Committee was so consumed, a tem porary Act would be necessary; the Government would be re lieved, and the country would be left in a state of on ertainty. It was said that. the House should be put in pos4ess•on of the measure intended by Government, but really the House hail ma;e little progress as yet with the measure before them, In sixteen nights they had vane through but nine clauses of the Corn-law Bill; and - in the conamerci.d and financial plans they had made no i irogre=s. Let the House therefore get through with one Bill at first, instead of having eighteen or twelve Bill s l ai d b e f ore i t. As for himself, he retained all his harmer opinions respecting the Poor-I.w ; but he considered the House, without going into a Committee, could now decide whether they would adopt the Gilbert union plan or the general ' Poor-law plan, or whether the country should be ruled at the same time by the two systems ; therefore he would oppo ed the Committee. His Hon. Friend intended at the earliest possible period to bring forward a measure providing a remedy for their just causes of complaint, and he trusted the House would feel in a condition to decide on this point. If the Poor-law ought to be altered, the House was in a condition to say so—( Hear, hear)—but he did deprecate as the very worst course the instituting a protracted inquiry, which would increase the difficulties of those who had the regnlation of the poor, and who had a very unpopular duty to perform. Let them take a eourse of amendment if they thought the law required amendment; let them cordially support it if they theught it ought to be supported; but let them not leave all in doubt as to what their intentions were by an inquiry which cannot be satisfactorily concluded, within a period that would allow them to legislate on the sub ject with advantage. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE replied. He had not heard any one in the course of the discussion accuse either of the Right Hon. Baronets with inconsistency on this subject. Both the Right Hon. Baronets had been uniformly consistent in their support 'of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and therefore be (Mr. D.) had never considered this as a party question. He bad taken exactly the same view when the late Government was in office, and divided the House against it, and he should do the same that evening. It gave him infinite pleasure to find that it was nut considered a party measure by Honourable Gentlemen upposite, but that those who had pro claimed themselves as the friends of the poor, and had raised Vie cry, " D own w i t h t h e basiile!, "'lhnrik with the tyrants of Somerset House," would now redeem their pledges. He knew that the Secretary of State would say that this measure was premature, and ask them to wait till they saw his Hear.) This would be locking the door after the horse was stolen ; they must wait till the Poor-law Jommissioners had stolen their union charter, and then lock their union chest. The Right Hon. Baronet knew it was the intention of the Government to dissolve the Gilbert corporations. The Right Hon. Baronet said there were twelve Gilbert corporations wholly under a different sys tem, and were they to continue so, after so .large a number had dissolved themselves? He contended that, vender the faith of an Act of Parliament, they had a right to insist on. continuing till the consent of two-thirds of the guardians was obtained to their dissolution, and till they got it, they had no right to interfere with their privileges. They avoided their opposition at the time the Act was passed, and now they could not reason with them. They came down with them by force, an•l attempted to deprive t::em of their Charter? Those who had dissolvedthetr 7 selves would be too happy to revert to the Gilbert Unions. On every principle of good faith and justice they ought not to encourage the Right Hon. Baronet in proposing any law that. would disfranchise the Gilbert corporations without giving : • them a fair hearing. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion ...... Against it Majority against the motion --67 RURAL POLICE. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE postponed, till Tuesday next, his motion for' Copies of all lettere and communications that have passed between the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment., the Chief Constable or any Magistrate of the county of Norfolk or city of Norwich, from October last to the present time, relative to the conduct of th e rural police of that county in the apprehension of a man of the name of Smith, on a charge of vagrancy." MANUFACTURING DISTRESS. Dr. BO WRING moved" for a Report made to the Home office, by a Committee appointed by the Conference lately held at the Crown and Author, on the subject of manufactur ing distress." Sir J. GRAHAM said that the document moved for was sent to him by four gentlemen unknown to him, and con tained information which those individuals communicated wit of their knowledge, but which had been given to themselves by others.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to him (Sir James Grattam) that the document was of a private nature, and partoott by no means of an official character, and to comply with the motion would, therefore, in his mind, be establishing a mast dangerous precedent. The question was then put by the Speaker and the nvition negativcd without a division. Mr. AI. ATTWOOD moved " that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that Ler Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct her Majesty's Consuls, situated in those foreign ports to which British coals are exported, to re port what quantities of such coals have been received in those ports during the year 18.11 ; and to state, as far as they are enabled to do so, the purposes to which such coals have been applied." After a few words from Sir R. PEEL, the motion was agreed to. CALEDONIAN CANAL. Sir G CLERK moved "fora Select Committee to examine the report of Capt. Sir W. E. Parry, R.N., on the Cale donian Canal ; and to repot t their observations and opinion thereon to tl.e douse." At the suggestion of Mr. ELLICE, the words " and the reports of the year 1832 and 1840," after the word " Canal," were added to the motion, which r.as agreed to. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past One &Clock. . - ANALYSIS OF THE BUDGET. We to-day present to our readers the following analysis of the new financial scheme propounded to the Legislature by Sir Robert Peel on Fi iday night last. Those amongst them who have not had sufficient leisure, or sufficient courage, to reed through the long and elaborate statement of the Prime Minis ter, will be enabled by the perusal of this mialysis to compre hend the general features and statistics of the new Budget without the least difficulty or embarrassment : Tim BUDGET OF 1612-3. DEBTOR. • Estimated income ........... . ..... 48,350,006 E3timated expenditure... Deficiency Additional items of expenditure estimated at ..... 101,000 Tctal estimated deicicncy Estimated losses of revenue arising from the reduction of the duties on 1. Oil, ores, ikc. .C270,000 2. Coffee 3. Timber 4. Abolition of export duty on Bri tish n,alaufact•urc 5..... 5. Stage-coach duty .... 70,000 Total £3,763,700 Gross total estimated deficiency, in round num berg, eay £3,780,000 CREDITOR. Estimated income arising from the following new taxes. viz• :- 1. The income tax. Schedule A 1,600,000 B 150,000 C 646,0(X) D 1,220,000 E 155,000 £3,771,000 Or, in round numbers, say 2. Equalization of the Irish stamp duties 3. Increase of Irish spirit duties ( Is. yer gallon ) 2b0,000 4. Duties on export of coal Total estimated increase Or, in round numbers, say 4,300,000 RECAPITULATION OF THE FOREGOING ITEMS. Gross total estimated increase ?f income £4,300,000 Gross total estimated deficiency, including the actual deficiency in the income of the year, and the loss to the revenue from the re duction of duties, ke ..... 3,780,000 Balance £520,000 So that the new financial scheme, if fully carried out, will, according to Sir R. Peel's estimate, leave a surplus, a balance of upwards of half a million sterling, to provide for any casual ties or contingencies that may arise. - * In round numbers. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TA TTERSALL'S—YzsTakpAy. The betting yesterday afternoon was flat in the extreme, and, beyond the advance of Auckland to 16 to I, consequent on the Warwick running, and a few inquiries after the Lord of nolderness, presented nothing worth dwelling on. The odds quoted against the other horses mentioned will be found to agree very nearly with those reported at the commence ment of the week. CHESTER CUP. 10 to 1 agst Mr. Kirby's Lanercost—taken 12 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Marshal Soult—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Johnny —taken DERRY. 50 to I agst Sir G. Ileathcote's lot to I agst Col. Anson's Attila—takes 16 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Auckland 20 to I agst Col. Peel's Chatham—taken 30 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Dirce colt 30 to I agst Mr. Gregory's Defier 40 to 1 agst Mr. G. Clark's The Lord of Holderness • 40 to 1 agst Duke of Grafton's, Canadian 50 to 1 agst. Lord Chesterfield's Joanna colt 66 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's William de Fortibus—t. OAKS. 20 to I agst. Mr. Etwall's Passion. (RECEIVED 'l'll IS PAY.) LEAMINGTON GRAND STEEPLE CHASE. (TM URSDAY. ) Sweepstakes of 20 sous. each, with 100 added ; each, &e. Hon. F. Craven's Gipse) (Hon. M. \ aliens) 1 Mr. J. 13. Phillipson ndMischicf 2 Mr. Maddoeks' Creole Sir P. Mostyn'a Seventy-Four .................................... 4 Mr. G. Campbell nd Legacy. .. .. a l s o s tarted, nu__n. g b a u r t oe_ were , M. i n 0 not placedde Burgh B lu ‘r,gohn : — bay ; a l p r ie . ern ß ieg o ttil .. 'The foliming bertson's Sultax, Mr. Dalrymple nd Memento, Mr. Moore's a t A i n o n d n ° , a n a Y h n n n a d l ' f it u a lcr ' t . l ' a h r . 1 1 1 . 1 j e i l o ) y s n o e fi n s n ' n d d J race.i m -along 11111 M