The Sun. — London, England, 1834-02-27 00:00:00

BPIRIT fiF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. lord John Russell's proposed bill for the relief of Dissenters may do for a proof of just and kind feeling on the part of government, but it is undoubt edly defective--Ist, because of the narrowness of its object; 2cl, because of the complication of its ma chinery. A registration of births, as well as mar riages, would be desirable, not for Dissenters only, but for all classes of his Majesty's subjects ; nor do we fee an unavoidable necessity for that perpetual intermeddling of the established clergy with the most important interests of Dissenters, which has been provided by the noble lord's bill. There is no reason that we can discover why bans of mar riage between Dissenters should be published in any parish church ; or why the registry of the marriage should not be placed among t i ne civil records of the country, instead of being comtnitted to the hands of the clergy, by whom it has been notoriously, and, in many instances, almost grossly and mischievously neglected. If the fees on any services rendered by the established clergy on occasions of naptism or marriage be made now a bone of cr,ntention, or an obstruction in the way of any efficient relief bill to the Dissenters, let an equi nitnt for such fees be paid into some civil tribunal, and by it accounted for to the parochial clergy, of which one advantage must necessarily be, that at least the amount will be known. We agree, how ever, with those of our contemporaries who think that tithes and other church property afford of themselves a sufficieut maintenance for the esta blished clergy. The spirit of the new bill will of course be taken by the Dissenters as evidence of a strong desire to the part of its advocates to break down those repulsive restraints and disqualifications by which the Dissenting body has hitherto been aggrieved, while some of its details may likewise prove to them the practical difficulty attendant on even the most reasonable change in long-existing regulations.—Timer. An evening contemporary (the Courier)has men tioned a report that the Rev. Mr. Gleig, a writer in Blackwood, and the reputed editor of a violent Tory paper, the K en ti s h G aze tt e , i s a b ou t to b e appointed chaplain t o Ch e l sea h os pital. As this place is in the gift of Lord John Russell, we can not believe that he who introduced the Reform Bill will commit so great a blinder. We trust that the rumour has originated with come Rev. Tory, over sanguine in his expectations of preferment ; or that it has been circulated by some sarcastic radical in derision of a weakness not unfrequently imputed so the present mi n i s t ers , v i z , that of promoting their persecutors, and neglecting the worthiest of their friends. It is, we make bold to say, impos sible that Lord John Russell should bestow so va luable, or indeed a far less valuable appointment on an individual, who though a man of talent has no clerical merit that we have heard of, and who has served all his life under Tory banners. Had Lord Londonderry so rewarded his coadjutor in that (vapid) history which bears his Lordship's name, it might have caused little wonder; but Lord John Russell ! We should rejoice to think that the Whig ministers were strong enough to afford such ad vantages to their sworn enemies, though grieved to suspect, which we cer ainly do not, that the church of England contained no more meritorious candidate for the patronage of a reform Government among those liberal clergy who are held in esteem by the nation.—Times. The public are aware that the motion for the repeal of the window tax, of which Colonel Evans had given notice, stood for Tuesday evening. It was equally well known that the government was under great alarm as to the possible result of that motion, and, in the last place, it is but too well known that Colonel Evans, when called upon by the Speaker to proceed with his motion in a full house, hushed into expectant silence, did not answer to the call. Why the gallant colonel did not answer, nobody could tell. At least nobody did tell. There is one thing quite certain that the absence of the hon. member for Westminster on this occasion was much more convenient and gratifying to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer than to the gallant colonel's constituents. Indeed the ministerial papers have let out the fact, that the intended, or pretended, motion, we do not know which to call it, caused so much anxiety to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he thought proper to con vene a preparatory meeting, an ex parte Par liament, as it were, of the members of the house, who have the credit of always voting to keep Mi nisters in their places when they are not afraid of losing their own. It is said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them the tax could not be spared consistently with the service of the State. We believe it cannot be spared consistently with the keeping up of the present extravagant scale of expenditure in the various departments of the State; nor consistently with the profligate and expensive abuses of the pension list. But when the house and window taxes and the malt and hop taxes shall have been totally repealed, the Ministers will be compelled to cut down the establishments of the State to the circumstances of the country, and to get rid of pension list abuses and sinecures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer having done his best to " embarrass" a former Ministry by voting against the house and window taxes, now modestly requests the Parliament not to embarrass him by relieving the country from those unequal and oppressive im posts. He has been, indeed, almost frightened into a surrender of the house tax; indeed, he has made a sort of promise that he will do so; but as he is not fastidious about "eating his words" the country can never be sure of the thing until it is done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as Sir John Hobhouse, when out of office, voted against military flogging as decidedly as against the assessed taxes, but the sunshine of the treasury benches threw a new light upon the minds of both those patriots, which reconciled them, for their country's good, not at all for their own personal advantage, to military torture and fiscal oppression. We supported Colo nel Evans as candidate for Westminster, when Sir John Hobhouse, qualifying himself for his official distinctions, threw off his old Palace-yard principles, and, in kicking down the ladder that raised him into power, brought himself to the ground. We confess the gallant colonel has, for some time past, not done as much for his constituents as they did for him. His tone of opposition appears considerably miti gated; but the desertion of his post on Tuesday night is an act so little in accordance with the professions which he made, we trust the people of Westminster will require the fullest explanation of it, and " Hob house him" if the most satisfactory solution of that act of apparent dereliction of duty be not given. Co lonel Evans has, at all events, let the " country" get the start of the " town," for the - motion of Sr W. Ingilby to abolish the malt tax stands for to night. There are some who regard the interests of the town and country adverse to each other as to relief from taxation. We are advocates for the relief of both.We would have the house arid window taxes repealed, to relieve one great division of the commun,ty,and we would have the malt tax and the hop duty abolished to relieve the other. We hope, therefore, that Sir W. Ingilby will not imitate Co lonel Evans, but be ready at his post to endeavour to obtain relief for the distressed agricultural in terests, even at the risk of embarrassing the finan cial calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Better is it that the latter should be obliged to make new calculations, than that the agricultural interests should perish.—Morning Herald. The present position of Ministers If most difficult in relation to their financial measures ; and unless the different parties in the House of Commons— the town and agricultural members—display a little judgment and fairness towards one another, they may " pull the house down about their ears" and destroy public credit. The agriculturists are at some loss respecting their proceedings this day. One section is for the total repeal of the malt tax. With that party it is understood that Sir Robert Peel declines to act, as it would go beyond the sur plus of revenue at the disposal of Government. Another section proposes the repeal of a moiety of the tax ; and another division who think that they can combine both Whigs and Tories in a country party talk of substituting a revived beer duty and an increased license duty on maltsters, to make good that difference between the surplus revenue and the deficiency which would result from the re peal of the malt and hop duty. In short, any thing save the repeal of the house tax is the angry cry of the agriculturists : and we advise the metro politan and borough members to be on their guard against these various contrivances to disappoint the confident expectations of their constituencies. We have never denied the prostrate condition of the agricultural interest, but the pressure of taxation is not confined to their shoulders only; and in any diminution of the public burdens they are not to reap all the benefit at the expense of the other op pressed classes of the community. We are now in the middle of the " money question." The saddle rubs the galled jade. It is clear that we are suf fering under the scourge of the Pitt system ; and doubtless the Tories, out of office, will do their best to perplex and injure ministers in their neces sary dealing with evils created by the " Conserva tives" themselves. We trust that the really inde pendent and sensible members of parliament will not lend themselves to party manoeuvres, or to un fair and partial sacrifices of one class at the cost of another. But after all, ministers are not dependent on those jumbled divisions and interested splits of parties. No ministry can now, or ought to, " manage the House of Commons." If the mem bers choose to clip the revenue on that side which best suits their separate interests, and inequitably to deal with the national taxation, the responsibility is not with ministers.—lllorning Chronicle. We inserted yesterday a paragraph from an evening contemporary (the Courier), respecting the appointment which it was rumoured there was an intention to bestow on the Rev. Mr. Gleig, the author of " The Subaltern," a notorious Tory writer in Blackwood's Magazine, and the well known editor of the Kentish Gazette—the chap laincy of Chelsea Hospital. We cannot believe that Lord John Russell, who has the disposal of this situation, will be guilty of so enormous a fault as to bestow it upon a man who, whatever his ta lents, has made himself conspicuous by his opposi tion to the Reform Bill, and his hostility to all who supported it. In the year 1832, when the struggle was at its height, the Kentish Gazette teemed with articles combating all liberal principles, which every reformer in the county of Kent attributed to the envenomed pen of Mr. Gleig. Can it then be possible, that the noble lord, who deservedly gained so high a reputation by his able advocacy of the Re form Bill, should have selected this rev. gentleman, the bitter enemy of parliamentary reform and of all liberal principles, to be the fortunate person on whom to confer this most desirable church pre ferment ? The income of the chaplain to Chelsea is between five and six hundred pounds a year; the fixed salary being 3001. per annum, to which is to be added an excellent house to live in; and the other emoluments and allowances make up the in come to the amount we have stated, without taking into account all the advantages of an agreeable resi dence, and the command it affords of agreeable London society. How many virtuous and respect able Whig clergymen are there, who having been true to their opinions during the long period of Tory rule, and who have naturally a right to look up to their friends now in power for some recompense, must feel heart-burning; and indignation, to witness the rank Tory advocates preferred and rewarded, and themselves overlooked and neglected ? We have formerly had occasion, more in sorrow than in anger, to lament the improper distribution of church pa tronage, and we are now forced to this renewed remonstrance, in the hope that Lord J. Russell will not commit a grievous blunder, and encourage his enemies, while he disheartens his friends, by naming a notorious Tory to Chelsea Hospital. Let him recollect, too, that the Dissenters have their eyes upon him. The Whigs really cannot afford to throw away their church patronage. The Tories are no toriously the great majority of the aristocracy, and consequently possess in property many livings. The church is at present nearly filled with Tortes, be cause the government patronage, as well as the pa• tronage of Tory gentlemen, has been long bestowed exclusively on Tories. A judicious bestowal of the government patronage is the only way by which the Whigs can hope to strengthen themselves in the church ; and the influence of the church tells again on the gentry. Ministers injure themselves in an other way by this abuse of their patronage. The Tories do not attribute this conduct to the liberality of their opponents, but to their fear. How often has it been our fate to hear the loud laugh raised at the joke that every parson who has ever written in John Bull, the Age, or some of the other favourite journals of the clergy, is sure of church preferment. These things detract much from the reputation of Ministers. When it is known that men are so afraid of attack that they patronise only their enemies, they will always have enemies.—iWorning Chronicle. Accounts, we have reason to believe, have reached the government from Lancashire and the colleries in the north, as well as from certain agri cultural districts in Dorsetshire and elsewhere, cal culated to justify the most serious apprehensions for the peace of those districts, and of the country at large. It has been for some time past rumoured that a general strike among the manufacturing classes was arranged to take place about the end of this, or the beginning of the next month ; and we have but too much cause to think that the accounts we have alluded to are not without foundation. This was not entirely unexpected by us. It has been the constant policy of the present Go vernment to hold up for admiration, we might almost say for imitation, the example of our continental neighbours in every thing. What wonder, then, if our manufacturing classes take a leaf from the book of their rulers, and if the example of the Lyonese workman is not thrown away upon the Lancashire collier ? What wonder is it if the correspondence with the unions, and the franks from Downing-street, have produced fruit in due season ? What wonder is it, if political unions were fostered, that trades unions should spring up ? These unions, we repeat, are but the offset from this source—these combinations but the natural result of this correspondence. Can the King's government now affect to view with astonish ment the tide of democratic insurrection which is rising over the land on all sides, or• have they left to themselves or to their successors the means of stop ping it ? Do they imagine that the regiment of cavalry which is now on its Nay from Dublin will be sufficient to protect the lives and properties of the peaceful and the well-disposed in those districts ? and, if they do not, from whence are they to draw others, for this, their bounden duty ? And yet, amidst this state of things, it is but the other day we heard the declaration of the Secretary at War of the proposed reduction of the army, arid the declamation of the member for Middlesex for the propounded disbanding of the navy—Mr. El lice, because the one was superfluous; Mr. Hume, because the other was superabundant ; and now we are obliged to send to Ireland for a regiment, to demonstrate the inutility of the former; and the recent treaty of the Porte with Russia, we suppose, will be adduced as a proof of the absurdity of keep. ing up the latter. The army is, as we have stated, to be reduced by 8,000 men. In the teeth of this reduction, we have no hesitation in declaring our conviction that, before the end of March, ministers will be compelled to call out the militia, for the purpose of protecting the peace, arid the property of the inhabitants, in those districts from which the accounts we have alluded to were, yesterday, re ceived.—Morning Post. FUR TRADE.—In consequence of the scar city and great consumption of beaver and other foreign furs, there has lately been an unusual demand for hate skins, which will now fetch from 121. to 15e. per dozen, being more than double what they were worth last year. —Hereford Times, IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT• HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB• 96. The SPEAKER took the Chair at ten minutes past five. Lord G. SOMERSET brought in a bill for making a railway from London to Reading, and from Bath to Bristol. Mr. G. LANGTON s tid the hill would be a most unjust attack upon the landed interests of the counties through which it was intended the railway should pass. Mr. O'CONNELL conceived that the proposed railway would be a great nuisance to Ireland. Lord G. SOMERSET hoped hon. members would suspend their judgments until they should have heard both sides of the question. The SPEAKER said the bill had been introduced pur- suant to the notice given by the noble lord, and with the understanding that no discussion should take place at that stage of the bill. The bill was then read a first time. Mr. BOWES brought in the Durham Railway Bill, which was read a first time. Sir G. GREY presented a petition from the landed proprietors of Langley against the Windsor Railway Bill. Mr. HANDLEY said it was his intention to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a motion of which be had given notice, but not seeing the noble lord in his place, he would postpone it for the present. Mr. HALCOMB begged to call the attention of the house to a petition which had been presented, relative to the Warwick Disfranchisement Bill. From the inquiries he had made, he could state that a very gross fraud had been practised upon that house. The SPEAKER said the hon. member must be aware that the subject to which he alluded was not then before the hour , .. Mr. HALCOMB said that he would content himself with giving notice of a motion for to-morrow for an in quiry into the merits of the petition. Mr. GILLON moved for copies of the resolutions adopted by the justices of the peace for the county of Lin lithgow relative to the vendors of beer, spirits, wine, &c. Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the Committee on the expiring laws. Mr. JEPHSON moved for returns of the receipts and expenditure of the office for the registration of deeds in Ireland. Lord EASTNOR presented a petition from the rate payers above 101. a year from the town of Leamington Priors, against the bill for joining that town with the borough of Warwick, and praying that they might be heard by counsel at the bar upo❑ the subject. It bad been said that the subject of the bill was to confer a bonus upon the town of Leamington Priors. The peti tioners, 650 of the inhabitants of that town, thought otherwise, and begged of him (Lord Easrnor) to state to the house how strong the feeling was against the unio❑ of that town with the borough of Warwick. As a proof of the strength of the feeling upon the subject, he begged to state to the house, that out of 850 of the rate pavers of the town of Leamington, no less a number tha❑ 757 had signed the petition which was presented to the house dur ing the last session. The noble lord thought this a strong circumstance, calling upon the house to well consider the subject before they gave their sanction to a bill for uniting the two places.—(Hear, bear ) The noble lord concluded by saying, that the good of the town would be advanced by considering the prayer of the petition, with the view of acceding to what it prayed for. WARWICK DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. Sir R. FERGUSON moved the second reading of the Warwick Disfranchisement Bill. Regarding the petition which had been presented by the noble lord from the inhabitants of the town of Leamington, he had to hope that the petitioners were more sincere now than they were last year. He understood that they re pented having presented the petition to the house during the last session. —(Hear, hear.) There was a great difference of opinion amongst the petitioners, subsequently to their having attached their signatures to it. The bon. gentleman proceeded to make some re marks, which we could not hear, when The SPEAKER put the question that the Warwick Disfranchisement Bill be read a second time. Sir JOHN HANMER said, that be had made himself acquainted with the reports of both committees, and he thoaght there never could be a more dangerous base, on which to proceed to ground an act of par liament, than the suppositions which were contained in those two reports respecting the borough of Warwick. He would not say some acts of bribery bad not been com mitted ; there was no man in the house that detested bribery more than he did, hut he considered the opinions expressed in those reports unsupported, as the evidence did not warrant the conclusions. The hon. member did not come forward after having been defeated in 11521, until after a requisition signed by upwards of 700 most teepee ' table inhabitants had been presented to him. The amount of bribery actually proved, was in twenty-one votes, and the moiety of those were proved to have been given on the other side. He could not, then, but be surprised that the committee should have arrived at the conclusion which they did, that there was gross bribery at the Warwick election, and that his hon. friend had been returned by that bribery, he having had a majority of 149 votes, and only a moiety of the 21 bribed votes having been given in his favour. It seemed to him to be incre dible that the committee should have arrived at this con clusion upon so sandy a foundation as that on which they had to proceed. He should have expected, that over powering proof of corruption and bribery would have been brought forward. No such thing had taken place, and how the committee could have come to the conclusion at which they had arrived he was really at a loss to comprehend. He would say that there was no foundatio❑ for the allega. tions contained in the bill introduced by the hon. member. He did not purpose to go through all the charges con tained in the report ; he was content to let the case rest upon its own merits. With respect to treating, he admitted that, to a certain degree it existed be fore the test of the writ, but it appeared to hint that there was very great unfairness in that part of the report which related to treating, as it gave one to understand that illegal treating existed after the writ. Now this was not proved in the evidence. If they could get rid of the practice of treating altogether, he should be glad of it, but whilst it existed, it must depend upon the private endeavours of candidates to remedy it. There was a grave and heavy charge that the tenants and adherents of the Gre ville family had been introduced into Warwick in order to sway the electors, but it should be recollected that in 1831 greater riots had been created by the intro• duction of the Birmingham Political Union into the town, who took possession of the hustings, and treated •ery roughly one of the candidates. Some allowance should therefore be made for those who wished to have their friends about them to protect them, but he did not think that to prevent a recurrence of such riots, they ought to take away the elective franchise. For these reasons, therefore, he was determined to oppose the introduction of the pre sent bill. An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, said that he agreed with the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, that it ought to be clearly and dis tinctly proved bribery had been committed before any measure was taken for the purpose of taking away the elective franchise.—(Hear.) It was not so very material to show the number of cases in which bribery had been committed, as it was to show the mode in which that bribery had been conducted. If the bribery had been con ducted on a systematic plan—if there was proof brought before the house that a committee directly connected with the candidate, were the very persons by whom the bribery was conducted—in cases of that sort, it was the duty of the house to interfere, and it was to be supposed that many cases did happen of that sort, that could not im mediately be Lrought under the consideration of the house. He contended that that was the precise case with regard to Warwick. It bad been proved that the principal acting party in the present instance was the agent of the brother of the candidate, which showed that there had been a regular system of bribery going on, end therefore the better way would be to disfranchise the bo rough altogether. Sir J. HANMER said a few words in explanation, but in consequence of the loud cries of " Spoke," his ob servationi were inaudible. Mr. HALCO3IB begged to call the attention of the house to the very important principle that now, for the first time, they were called upon to carry into effect. He, for one, believed that that great and im portant measure of reform was to he something like a final settlement, but still it was the duty of the house, if neces sary, to take the elective franchise from any borough,which, from its corrupt practices, might be undeserving of it. Ad mitting that bribery and corruption ought not to prevail, it became the duty of that house to look at other cases as well as the present one, and to compare the borough of War wick with other boroughs. It appeared by the report that bribery had prevailed at the elections in that borough. The evidence established that there was bribery. The whole sum spent in the bribery, as proved, amounted to 701. 3i. 6d. Of the 21 voters, 10 only were proved guilty of bribery for the honourable mem ber whose election had been declared to be pro cured by bribery and corruption. He would not state particularly the characters of the parties bribed. In the second report the committee had given a statement of those voters, and they amounted to little more than paupers. One of the parties bribed was rated at Is. sd. ; another at Si. ; another at 11, ; another at 1/. ss. ; another at 9.1. 10*. ; another at 11. ss. ; and one only a t 51. ; with the exception of one, who was alleged to be bribed, being an elector, and rated at 331., but with respect to whom, the bribe was of this nature— he was leaving his farm, on which he left a quantity of straw, which the agent of the candidate was allowed to value, and who awarded 91. 10s. to him as the bona fide value of that which he had left on the premises. If that was to be considered bribery, be really should not, on any occasion, be induced to argue a case of bribery again in that house. The bribed voters, therefore, were all under 4/., except the one be had last alluded to, and the two classes were quite distinct. The nature of the evidence also, and its contradiction was very peculiar, but rather than detain the house, he felt, on the part of the voters for Warwick, he could freely afford and admit that the house should take for granted that the whole 20 who were bribed,were rated at the small sums mentioned. The house would remember that this was not the case of a close run contest, where wholesale bribery was com mitted ; they ought to look at the state of the poll, and to bear in mind that Sir C. Greville had refused to become a candidate, unless he had a requisi tion, signed by a majority of the voters, and that that gallant member received a requisition signed by upwards of 600 voters who pledged him their sup port, the whole amount of the voters being only 1,300. He (Mr. Halcomb) could state from his own personal knowledge that that gallant officer was more respected and beloved in the borough than any other man who had ever been in that borough. That hon. bironet had been beaten when the cry for reform prevailed, and when his Majesty made that consti tutional appeal to the people to return members favour able to the measure, which be (Mr. Halcomb) did not find fault with. Sir Charles being opposed to that mea sure, had not been returned. He was told that but for that question he would have been returned is pre ference to any other candidate, and they declared they would have him hereafter. By whom was he opposed ? It was useful to know the horses and the colours of the riders, before entering into an investigation of that nature. The first witness examined before the com mittee, was Mr. Thomas Collins,the mayor of the borough, and Mr. William Collins. The petitioner was his son, and had been married to the daughter of the rival candi date, and it was in this way that the reform candidate had endeavoured to keep the borough to himself. The house would see from this statement what bad been the libe rality of the reform patron of the borough. What was the slate of the poll at the elm of the contest ? Sir Charles Grenville was 701, and Mr. King, the beaten candidate was 552, and yet the committee had come to the resolution that the election of Sir Charles Greville was attributed to bribery, although they exonerated Sir Charles from any guilty knowledge of the bribery. The hon. and learned member continued to urge that the election of Sir Chat lea Greville could not be attributable to bribery, and stated that if a system of bribery in the corporation could be proved to exist, he would be one of the last men i❑ that house to stand up against the bill. The hon. and learned member proceeded to read some documents which were submitted to the committee ap pointed to ascertain the validity of the Warwick election. No general system of corruption was discovered to have prevailed, though some individual cases might have occurred. It was true that open houses were kept, but nothing was advanced to warrant the disfranchisement of the borough of Warwick.—(Great cries of " Question, question.") In his (Mr. H.'s) mind, the neighbouring borough of Coventry deserved to be disfranchised as well as Warwick. He called the attention of the bailee to the danger of depending upon evidence not taken upon oath. He would mention a case connected with the Hertford election—(oh, oh, oh)—one of the witnesses had been found guilty of perjury. —(011, oh !) What would be the case if the house had acted upon this man's evidence ? He concluded by apologising to the house for the time be had occupied their attention. Mr. TOWER was understood to say he thought a case of bribery had bee❑ sufficiently made out, and he consi dered it advisable that every constituency should be made as pure as possible. Mr. BARING said the measure proposed was too sweep ing for the offence alleged, and, if acted upon, no small borough would be safe. If eleven electors were found corrupt—(Here some hon. member said thirteen)—well, even if there were thirteen, or twenty, was that sufficient to warrant the disfranchisement of 211 burgesses ? (Hear, hear.) These were rather dangerous fruits of reform. They would not dare treat large towns thus. if the case of Liverpool were similar, there would he much hesitation. If this plan were proceeded in, they would goon do away with the constituency in all places where the franchise was confined. The house, instead of pro ceeding in this manner, should act upon some general measure which would apply to all cases. The proposed measure was novel, unconstitutional, and calculated to form an important and dangerous precedent. Mr. TANCIZED (as we could learn) urged the neces sity of making an example of this borough, which, he contended, was so overborne by corruption as to defy cor rection. Indeed, it was so corrupt that the very magis trates were implicated, and the poor rates made use of as an instrument of influence. A sum of 8,0001. had been distributed, arid 4,2001. bad been claimed by publicans. Riots had arisen, and the military were introduced, who remained to the end of the election. The committee of inquiry had found out that treating to a very great extent had been practised by both parties, e.pelially in the period from October to December. He would support the measure, as he believed an infusion of new blood into the constitu ency would tend to render it more healthy. Lord EASTNOR contended that there was no room for a charge of corruption against Lord Warwick, and believed boa. members bad taken very prejudicial views of this affair without being sufficiently acquainted with particulars. Mr. E. B. KING said, unless the bill passed there would be nothing like purity of election in Warwick. The inhabitants of Warwick would not consider this bill as any punishment. An HON. MEMER referred to the evidence given before the committee, in order to rebut the statement that no windows were broken during the election. Sir R. FERGUSON replied. The bill was then read a second time without a division, and ordered to be committed on Wednesday next. Mr. HALCOMII hoped the hon. and gallant officer would postpone the third reading of the bill till after the motion relative to Lord Warwick was disposed of, whose conduct there appeared to be some desire to impugn. Sir R. FERGUSON, under the unfortunate circum stances of the case, really could not interfere. LIVERPOOL DISFRANCHISEMENT. Mr. BENETT moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Liverpool Disfranchisement Bill. The order of the day having been read, the hon. member, who, owing to some confusion in the house, was scarcely audible, said (as we understood) as his noble opponent did not, at this stage of the bill, intend to divide the house, he should be very brief in the observations be was about to address to them. Lord SANDON—I certainly mean to divide. Mr. BENETT—If that was the case he should feel it necessary to trouble the house, and state to it the nature of the proposition, and the evidence on which it was founded. Before coming to this, however, he would allude to a report which first appeared (as we understood the hon. member) in a Liverpool paper, that this bill was secretly promoted by the government, and that he had brought forward this measure at the instigation of, and to please his Majesty's ministers, and not from a sense of duty. He most distinctly denied the truth of such a statement.— (Hear, hear.) This hill had no secret sup port from Government, as far as he was aware. He had never asked for any such support. He did not want it (Hear, hear.) He wanted no support but that of a House of Commons determined, as he firmly believed, to do its duty.—(Hear.) He brought forward this measure from a sense of duty alone. Perhaps the best mode of impart ing to the house the object of the bill would be to read the report of the committee. It would be remembered that he was chairman of that committee, which com mittee declared that gross bribery and corruption prevailed a t Liverpool. As such chairman, it became his duty to introduce the bill into the house. He introduced that me asure originally, but postponed it at the wish of Go nmight no t t he in a t s e s r e f m er b e li w ng it o h f t io h lt e e discussionverm e n t n ew parliament the house thought proper to grant another inquiry, confining that in q uir y to what h ad taken place Go vernment,of i n order t e that Reform it Bill. during the last election. That committee sat, and by a majority of 3 to 1, declared the existence of most gross bribery and corruption. The hon. member then pro ceeded to read from the report of the committee published last session, and then reterred to the speech of Lord J. Russell when the first bill was withdrawn, who said that when the Reform Bill was passed he hoped the honourable member would feel it his duty to renew the bill, for the purpose of punishing such corrupt practices ; and Me. Wynn had also concurred in the opinion of the noble ;ord, and declared that if he had a seat in the house the measure should have his supp ort . Th ere was now pre vailing abroad a rising interest in favour of these parti cular and local reforms, even amongst those who objected to wholesale and sweepin g measures. Th e cry o f t h ese latter was, Give us a specific case, and we will at once grapple with it, and fairly consider any measure you may found upon it, but we will not have reform by wholesale. Here, then is a case of this description.—(Hear, hear.) At the former election, no less than 2,661 of the freemen were bribed, only 992 not having taken any.—(Hear, hear.) The total number of freemen registered for 1832 was 3,628, out of whom about 801 would be entitled to vote as householders. this he Would say, that he had been upon many election committees, and had gained much experience on these subjects, but in the whole course of his experience he never saw anything so wholesale—so gross—as the bribery practised at Liverpool, nor any set of men so determined to take bribes, and not to vote with_ out being bribed, as the freemen of that town. In tit_ language of Lord john Russell he called upon the re e formed parliament to restrain this gross corruption. Th hon. member then referred to the evidence of Mr. John Atkinson, and detailed the case of a poor man, who, by the importunities of a canvasser for Mr. Denison, who offered him 501,, and the influence of his wife, who called on him to think of his poor children, was prevailed upon to vote for Mr. Denison, though he had previously re ceived a smaller sum from his master, to vote the other way. The man went up to the h ustin g s ver y much dis tressed, and after he bad voted, Mr. Denison thanked him, and held out his hand, but the man drew back, and ex claimed, " No ! I have given him my vote, but I cannot give him my hand."—(Hear.) He wanted to rescue these unfortunate wretches from similar degradation.—. (Hear.) Talk of this bil l bein g a punishment to the in dividuals, indeed ! It was fo r their g ood ; it suche to their advantage to protect the m from the arts of seducers.—(Hear, hear.) He wo uld detain theT ~thouussednido ~ these would longer, but simply move the sec ond reading. si b p e ( wish H R t e l ° a G : , see h y e t a h \ r e v . Dr. NICHOLLS never denied that gro ss briber had )AprsinocNiplesecoofndtleade tßhetfmoromtioßni.ll y followed prevailed them once had been in fi v t e h e e l e b c o t r i o o n u s g — h ; tw b o u tfofrrommayloBrs3,oa,nttibtohurg he for representatives in Parliament—no bribery could be de tected (much as instances had been sought for), with the exception of those few isolated cases which amounted to the vast sum of 401. Lord SANDON asked, why did they now wish to de prive the freemen of their rights? Simply because they had ceased to be their tools.—(Hear.) There was an inveteracy of persecution shown here, wholly unparalleled in the history of Parliament. The hon. member for Wiltshire, who, he must say, had opened the case in a fair and dispassionate spirit, said that the committee had come to the conclusion that gross bribery bad prevailed in 1832, an assertion in which he was not supported, for the report distinctly declared that the bribery had neither been ex tensive nor important.—( Hear, hear.) If the body now attempted to be disfranchised had been householders, and not freemen deriving their elective right from the Reform Bill, however gross the corruption might have been, such a bill as this would not have been listened to. And why were the rights of freemen to be held by a slighter tenure than those of the 101. householders ? It never could be the meaning of honest men, by a side-wind, to disturb those men in the enjoyment of their rights—they would rather come forward at once, and boldly propose an alteration in the Reform Bill, so as to disfranchise them openly and fearlessly. The usual remedy in these cases— where remedy was really required—was to add a new and enlarged constituency to the old, and why should they now depart from it? If, however, the House was deter mined to punish, let their vengeance fall on those who had sinned themselves, and induced others to sin, and not on the poor, who had fallen because powerfully led into temp tation.---(Hear.) Would the rich be let off, and the poor sacrificed ? Was that the justice of a reformed Parlia ment? But it was much the fashion with those who had liberty ever in their mouths, to be found foremost to assail that class whose votes were against them, in order to put others who might be more agreeable to their views in their places. He would move as an amendment that the bill be read that day six months. Mr. ROTCH rose amid loud cries of " Question," and said there could be no doubt but that bribery and corruption had prevailed in Liverpool to a greAt and dis graceful extent. It was clear as day that the freemen were in the habit of openly selling their votes. He (Mr. Rotch) remembered in 1827, that the Quarter Sessions were put off for an entire week in consequence of the elec tion of mayor then going forward. The noble lord had said there was only an item of 48/. for bribery in the re port be held in his hand. True, there was that item, but then there were also sums stated to the amount of 20, 30, and 40,0001., the price of the votes of the freemen of Li verpool. At most, however, it would not now be entirely disfranchised, and the house was called upon to deal ino,t moderately with them. They certainly would be disfran chised as freemen, but then they might fall back upon the franchise which they had acquired under the Reform Bill. Mr. HODGSON objected to disturb the original ar rangement, unless there were grounds shown for so doine. The bill to disfranchise was withdrawn its 1831,and until fresh cause was given he should vote against the present measure. Mr. FLEETWOOD opposed the present bill, becauv it was a measure which would press only against the poor. The Reform Bill was intended to extinguish corrupt bo roughs, and why, then, was Liverpool passed over in 1831 ? Why have waited till the present moment, if the purification was so necessary? An Hox. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn) defended Mi. Foster, the tow❑ clerk, against the charges which had been made against him. Mr. T. GLADSTONE was well acquainted with the present Mayor of Liverpool and Mr. Faster, and he could bear the strongest testimony to their high and honourable characters. Mr. BENETT briefly replied. The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there appeared— For the original motion For the amendment 3B Majority in favour of the second reading -15.2 Being readmitted we found Lord SANDON complaining of the absence of Minis- ters, and saying that at least one Minister of the Crow❑ ought to have been present during the discussion which had taken place. Mr. P. THONISON considered the question was one which ought to be solely decided by the members of that house. It was one in which it was not necessary or proper that Government, as a Government, ought i❑ any way to interfere. Sir R. INGLIS thought the subject was so important, it was not at all respectful on the part of Ministers towards the members of that house not to have at any rate one of their number present. Mr. R. WASON hoped that Government would always leave such questions to be decided, without any interfe • rence, by the members of that house, and that they would never come down to tamper or meddle with such discus sions. After a few words from Mr. HODGSON and Mr. BENETT, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted on Wednesday next. The other orders of the day were then deferred to Fri day nest. CONVICTED FELONS' PROPERTY. Either and M of convicted felons. lie said his object was to property amendr .R OT t C h moved e l-I Law of for Forfeiturelea ve to a sbring regardsin a ti b , e i bill to alter personal 's family, or give the Court before which prisoners were tried the power certain amount. He thought that such property, instead i l l dt s : h e t eoebf i f ob n f o oer u du p t n r, r h d i fe s to o o t l p il l h od . r a i that o n h e e r had a hundred m e b e t r i of disposing of felons' property, wherweefirinaTtgyittwihdhaeyonesnox:.tp_exceed a of being handed over to the Treasury, to the shetiff, to the constables, or elsewhere, ought to be left to the Court consent of the Crown to bring in the t sttphoohuoeepru d ieppon i o s trsdi p roase o tsimdie s hn e enhium o cietbf f yi,eoh i natub l :dane s nitt o eopts m asepr e wrtioi o tielv f si bill. The SPEAKER—Who authorised the hon. member to say he had the consent of the Crown ? Mr. ROTCH—Lord Althorp. Mr. ELLICE asked his hon. friend to defer his motion until his noble friend Lord Althorp should be in his place. Mr. ROTCH had been induced last session to put off a similar motion, and— The iPEAKER—Whetber it be a hardship on the hon. member or not, unless he be authorised by a mini ster present to say that he has the consent of the crown, the house cannot permit him to go on, nor can 1, as Speaker of this house, put the question. LIGHT-HOUSES. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET moved for leave to bring in a " bill to alter and amend such parts of the sta tutes passed in the 31st, 36th, and 44th years of the reign of Geo. 111., relative to the making of improvements in the lights at the Mumbles. Mr. P. THOMSON believed that benefit would arise from the proposed alteration, but as there was a committee sitting respecting all the light-houses, he hoped that the noble lord would, when the bill had paved through its first stages, allow it to be referred to the committee above stairs, which was sitting on the subject of light-houses generally. Lord G. SOMERSET—That was exactly the course be wished to be adopted after the second reading of the bill.—Leave given. HIGHWAYS. Mr. SHAW LEFEYRU obtained leave to bring in a I IL • bill to consolidate and ame nd the laws relP ito, b to the highways. CT c ORS' EAST INDIA COMPAN Y DIRE ° seeming Colonel EVANS moved fo r certain Par " . 's Bench, for $ the late application in the Court of ging t , r _ iia con , the uired by India q pany to send certain Orders to trial that was now pending reiderstood there Bogrd of riontrol. He said, that be tun extraordinarf existed considerable anxiety respecting a o _ _ ngi, Benc b, Mandamus to compel the Directors of the Eas In" I to collie tone in which two parties of the State were ab 1 important one collision. The question was a great and . mot o f 010 which was going to be submitted to the jiMF v i ng ' s Go' Court. The parties he alluded to were trel_ st l at hs vernment and tht Court of Directors of the of : using a ll Company, and the trial might go the point ,_ ... 0 1...-* the Directors to be committed to his IllajestY a re a s _ it af (Laughter.) If such should happen to be the .. the ini, the trial, the whole affairs of the Government ot 1 : TO mense dominions of India would be put a stop t° for the question, if viewed in a financial light, involveld. , land it present, prospectively upwards of b 0,000,000 ;how of also involved questions of international P clicY t' the 02 r: 1 peace and war; and was, unquestionably, one o ag itate.. important subjects that had been for some tim e Govern , He was aware that it was not the intention of the t, thought ment to refuse the papers he moved for, but - e _ a tter himself justified in offering these few words, as the L... blic, was neither fully known to the house nor to th e P. u ,_ ol , He begged it to be understood that be attributed no Dl * in thc Court _ e f ti N to any of th e parties engaged in this transa ction. of Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE--I° the abseoeeelog my hon. friend (M r . C. G rant ) I b eg to state that b no objection to the production of those papers. be Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON said that as far as been was concerned he w as g l a d th e p rese nt motion ba d b made. Returns ordered to be granted. Mr. HUME moved for returns from the principal rte; gistrars of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury ; stut returns from the deputy registrars; also, return of owl in the said cour t a t the dis p osal of the Archbishop° Canterbury. Dr. NICHOLL said that the hon. member for Middle' sex laboured under a misconception as to the direction to e which the proceeds in que stion went. Five-sixths of s is h t b proceeds went to the Stamp -office, and the remaining p, only to the officers, in the stripe of fees. A great lON fees were abolished since the last settlement in P 1775. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUS SON characterised the rvi bate duty as the most odious of all the taxes. He tio t _ 4 o , that obnoxious tax ought to be taken off, even if e e ant order ssessd taxes wee still to remain unrepealed, in 1 : ) ,._ that government r might be enabled to abolish that odious duty. Mr. HUME'S motion was agree move to. ne° Mr. HUME, in rising to that the h ouse re ct o, the order of last session, for a return of the burial-Pgl:oj &c., within the metropolis, said, that great and g v interest had been felt, at the time of the cholera r , res Pee ing the propriety of having the burial-grounds aringol l from the metropolis. If be (Mr. Hume) had eo fficie :w 'line at his command, he would himself take the trou t of proposing a plan by which the removal of those 0°- of interment out of town might be effected. The SPEAKER informed the hon. member for lg id 'a dlesex, thit an address on the subject of his motion h i s already been made to his ithjenty ; and that, conseq uei l it would be an informality further to trouble him matter. Mr. HUME acquiesced in the remark made le Speaker. 014) :: Mr. LALOR moved for leave to bring in a bill to parishes in Ireland to assess themselves, with a vie vi a, provide for poor persons, by waste or uncultivated 15nse, He had that day had a cominunication from the "n'or cretary for Ireland, who told him (Mr. Lalor). that ro, vernment had no objection to the bringing in 0 f thg P posed bill.—Leave granted. CIVIL SINECURES. cures. Alr. S. e ß s T id E h b e r i o l i u d g s h o t u in p p re n t r u su rn a s n elatingcen f ap t r n o 03 8 t i bi lt: during the last session by the Government to briog, subject fully before the house at as early a period of the present session as possible. The Government had proct;t, ing sinecures, and it was the intention of his noble friend through means of those papers the fullest account *t . referring ou ng °b 18 yio' abfdocee p tohrattoit reporting e t o ci t v h i et committee s n to e tui c es u em r e ae s , present d a n t sthoef pduitcl siis: thegi the fuef question h C sr tre h ieo a qdn n ut c eo e : committee, l nt l aj o o r nwse o hale f sice t tth h o e st, E ,hme xchequer to move that these P i to ic others itstricted, of sß lt e precise state ofthwestiesstinoebnruiroes. viewse.existing but individualsut t f h o c for the bl enters sinecures . purposetetroctfu the . ;doe dbei: motion of his noble friend jec public the before I clearly The paper.; were then laid on the table. 's ne" 111 r. S. RICE then gave notice, on the par t o l f ovr h ier i lbitioe b ro ri Agto, friend Lord Althorp, that he would on Friday ne xt c obs il t ln h ot e ueo q snen u t.i e ot s nh t ieoofnmaoodftoicopintviinl adopting sinecuressubject. eirtt. e:consideratioo . 6 00°' Mr. Htmoz and Mr. Runivcs expressed their d t heir tion at the course which Government bad al'ov ie D o U f O S N . R S I P C I E R , ordered respecting t 111 he number of glaTvllaSorniegosfrperteurofo:fl:ldirtieitrti: distilled in the United Kingdom, and the are °uu hicb h °4 thereon. His object was to correct returns %owe', been already made, but which were necessarilY in consequence of some official alterations. of, $ l)4 The other orders of the day were then d is P, °s ; the house adjourned a few minutes before We''' . ALARMING FIRE.,--AbOlit elb- t A delr yesterday evening the neighbourhood of the °' Strand, was thrown into confusion by the M l '; i r,sif' flames from the attic windows of the house of " .. roc his l bain, bookbinder, of No. 10, Duke-street• TheY s were, and other engines belonging to the Insurance Ofue,7d, in a few minutes on the spot, but it was twenty minutes before a supply of water could b U e eu le ot ocl In the meantitne the flames extended to theli bt e rd n' in the upper story, occupied as workshops► the tents of which were thrown into the air, and aPr e6 d a rog t to a considerable distance. By great exertion the_ d o ess teas confined to the workshops of Mr• Fairbaini aP ALLAN BRECK —The injury to the houses on each . side. unhappy fugitive, known under th e e Ve a n b t°fvlij b lairn i fee t ; n hf , lt i l:bie; forded to Mr. Gleig, the author of " T he Su facts ao f the cso° materials for a striking romance. Th e . ‘with x j' do not appear to be suppressed, but to be invested bt broil ditional circumstances arising from details recentlY to light from papers in the possession of the a uthor' t he re i tnirs.n,aeot. c rit l gevh e reu a eas r arb , ,l INte h olag o asl leco x twnDh e v elir e ao t r,im , esaosir t (ynsi h oem a :l t opafanNat n: dalei o ii s .lstm, t h er o e f a t bh victimseo absorbed is : r a a ri c ut t . e r are c o fruits ceied o of and executed Gleig's o w w i n th invention, w a h n i d ch tb r e e s ol e ut i e r e; Hultver's " Eugene Aram." Such are A1150'5, ° h er p t r b e e ssi J ve ac n o a b t i an awful moral. utere,Cpleorgy 0 1 :3 - r: ----------- 0 1 1 3 tlY BIRTHS. the ' On the 25th inst., in Upper Gl o ucester -place' John Searle, jun., Esq., of a son lane, London, to Harriet B ro o MARRIED. kse:rygo un g e vs , fO, On the 26th inst., at Eltham G e Warner , -- - 4"' ° o f ; e Joseph Warner, Esq., of Southend, st daughter .. late Elthatn• , r3o c'' kr thu c r raroijoaci On the 25th inst., at St. Michael's, CoventrY,4 Gregory, Esq., of StiN, Warwi c kshire, t° eldtYes t too laugh' of the late H ,icha Liellut.-Colonel Hood, V Lee, laughter of the late Hon. Lieut.-Colonel tiow , I, , Viscount Hood, of Whitley Abbey, in the same coot: - 0 f.s 4 P c On the 25th inst., at Scole, Norfolk, Thomas V, r e bre rg )f Brome, Suffolk, to Jane, fifth daughter of the ' 3 Lee, Esq., of Dickleburgh, Norfolk. i DIED. ,„ ; 1 0 ~i " t f l O e s . At Harlyn, Cornwall, William nous Peter, .. -7 .r , I 37th Foot, and second son of William Peter, kl a q'' P B o d m i n . hers' On the 25th inst., at Leamington, Samuel SteP 0 11.. .„% )f Baker-street, London, and Treggenni Castl e, Cora 0 111 ,11 " 3 1 l'\ On the 23d inst., at Langton Lodge, in the I'W:belie" DE' Yorkshire, Francis Redfearn, Esq., formerly of . of Civil Service, aged 75. aois tett On the 25th inst., Sarah, the wife of Mr. Jo hn° 'l°' 1 00 New Windsor, aged 57. „et, ail./ On the 25th inst., at his house in Kenton -s" CO' wick-square, Mr. Jellings Blow, of 'Change-alief , V. auctioneer, aged 29. ~ t, g i : et' On the 13th inst., at Wateringbury, in ...-,,,% ii, - 1 Mackenzie, the sister of Mrs. F • f ‘ Wl"' r ' raser, o c ington, late RIB ness-shire. . , On the 23d inst., Mrs. Jane Burton, widow a " ~e i.irt • chard Burton, Esq., of Newingfon-place, Kenn, aged 76. , ga r°. On the 22d inst., at Upper Clapton, Mr. Jam ~,, 11 l late of Featherstone-buildings, Holborn, aged 59. rev. 9•,,e0i, 1 , : i it,lae22 Westminster, nst . , at the Letitia, Prebendal-house youngest d aoufgthh e i. the - Sir S"tOt Edward Kynaston, Bart., of Hardwick -park , tSciirr°°l l; b c ircle. ei l• On the 21st inst., at Park-road Regent's-Parl"niel 0° Mary Ann, fourth daughter of the late John D a- Esq., of Old Broad street. /rkO I -- ---------- PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY 1.14 UR D 0 y o — IT , C r , 1. 4.- SUN OFFICE, 112, STRAND.