The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 22. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool lack at half-past Four o'clock. SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. Counsel were immediately called in to be heard against the Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he saw two Counsel at the bar, but it was the rule of the House that only one Counsel should be heard in a case of this kind. The learned gentlemen might draw lots for the pleasure of addressing the House as Counsel. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham was then heard in support of the petition against the Bill. He said that the notice given to the petitioners, that they should be heard this d.sy, had been so short, that it would be impossible for their counsel to ea) now into a detailed analysis of the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons, upon which the Bill was founded. It had been laid down in that House on a former occasion that their Lordships would not agree to the second reading of a Bill of disfranchisement, except upon evi dence heard at the bar upon oath. It did not supersede that law of their Lordships' House (which had been acted upon in the case of the disfran chisement of Stafford in 1836), to say that evidence had Isaen heard upon oath before the Commissioners sent town to take the evidence. Their Lordships would riot agree to a Bill of Pains and Penalties, without hearing for themselves, at their own bar, evidence on oath, in corrobation of the allegations in the preamble. lie therefore humbly submitted to their Lordships that they were not in a condition, according to the established rules of their Lordships' House, to pass this Bill until they had so heard evidence in support of the allegations. in the evidence taken before the Commissioners sent down their Lordships had no proof of the extent to which corruption pre• s ailed, of the classes amongst which it was prac t sed, or whether there were any, and what number of Teraina, to whom the corruption had not, extended. In t '.venty-seven boroughs of small constituencies corruption equal to that proved against Sudbury had been proved t exist, but these boroughs were exempt from disfran chisement, because it was found that there was a suffi cient constituency free from corruption and entitled to Cle franchise. The present was the third Bill which the House of Commons, in its zeal to maintain the purity of elections, had sent up to that House. That hich was sent up last year broke down at their Lordships' bar. Therefore, in order to find out something to make out a case for warranting the House of Commons in passing a third Bill of this kind, and to induce their Lordships to agree to it, a Commission was sent down. If their Lordships would I at. the report of that Commission they would see twat nothing could be more ambiguous than it was. Lord BROUGHAM asked, was the Learned Counsel able to state from his instructions what number of voters the bribery had been brought home to, and of what Case. Mr. Sergeant Wranghani said chiefly to the freemen. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that a great number of the freemen were also 101. householders. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham said that there was a body of 310 ten pound householders qualified to be registered, te . whom only two were accused of corruption in the report. The LORD CHANCELLOR—OnIy two by name. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham said that the evidence, both before the Committee of the House of Commons and the Commission sent down, had proved that the corrup tien prevailed amongst the lower class of freemen, and that the ten-pound householders were, with an exceed ingly small exception, untainted. But the report did nut make any distinction upon this important circum stance. The Learned Sergeant then proceeded to state points of the evidence, which he contended were in fa vour of his allegation. The Learned Counsel concluded at half-past five o'clock. ACTIONS FOR GAMING AT RACES SUSPEN SION BILL. The Duke of RICHMOND moved the order of the day for the further consideration of this Bill, and James Thomas Russell was called to the bar, in pur suance of their Lordships' order of Friday last. The LORD CHANCELLOR asked, was the witness at the bar, and being answered in the affirmative, his Lordship informed the witness that a part of the ques tions and answers of the previous examinations would be read to him ; and if Mr. Russell desired the whole would be read to him. Mr. Russell wished to hear the whole read, which was accordingly done by the clerk. The reading of the evidence being concluded, Lord BROUGHAM asked the witness did he not on the former slay say that he had never seen the person whose name he refused to give, except in the presence of his brother ? The Earl of RADNOR rose to order. Ile had on the former occasion objected to this question being pressed. The witness and counsel were ordered to withdraw. Lord RADNOR proceeded—He was of opinion that neither in law or justice should the witness be compelled to answer the question, or to be committed to prison if be did not, as was threatened the other day. Ile re minded their Lordships that when the Bill was sent up from the House of Commons, a petition was presented from the plaintiff, Charles Henry Russell, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, and the counsel were heard. Well, after that, a Noble Duke moved that ovidence.should be required to show that the petitioner was the bona fide plaintiff. It seemed to him that it was rather late in the day to call for evidence that he was the plaintiff after he had been named by his counsel as plaintiff upon kis petition. But, passing that over, let them come to the position the matter now stood in. —(Hear, hear.) The witness on Friday refused to give'. the name of a person whose name was commu nicated to him in professional eonfidence and stated that he had laid a case before Mr. Erie, the Queen's Counsel, that he was not bound to divulge the name to the House. The House then adjourned in order to examine the witness's evidence before the Committee, and to compare it with what he had given before the House. He (Lord Radnor) had compared the evi deuce, and he could not Lind that there was any discrepancy. Whether the person whose name it was sought to get at was a gentleman or no gentleman, it was quite consistent with the most respectable cha racter that a man should be desirous of putting an end to gambling of this kind, and yet might not wish to be held up as a common informer in a qui tam action. In such a ease it was not improper or unreasonable that a man, gentleman or no gentle man, should go to an attorney, and ask him to find some one to bring the action, he.himseif being liable for the costs. The object of fishing out the name was to eneble the Earl of Eglintoun and the other defendants to know against whom they might proceed hereafter, if the action went in their favour or was stopped. He did not think that the answer would be of any use to the House. He could not see what they wanted with it, or what right they had to exercise their power of committing the vvonesses. Lord BROUGHAM thought that that was not the time when the Noble Lord should have made his speech. The time would be when the motion should be put fur committing the witness. Then it would be for his Noble Friend to make his speech to show cause why the witness should not be committed. —(A laugh.) But he (Lord Brougham) never heard so marvellously erroneous an argument in his life, as that the witness was not bound to answer because a Queen's Counsel, - very learned in the law, gave an opinion that he was not bound to answer the question. What ! was it to be said to their Lordships that they should be governed in their acts, whenever a point of law arose, by the opinion of a counsel learned in the law? He (Lord Brougham) was sorry that his Noble and Learned Friend en the Woolsack was dis turbed by other Noble Lords.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Ile wished to have the attention of his Noble and Learned Friend, because this point was very material—more material in respect to the forms and privileges of the House than to the case in question. His Noble Friend (Lord Radnor) did not understand the case—(A laugh)—the question was one of very material consequence to the case. The object of the examination was to ascertain who was the per son interested in these qui taut actions. The pe titioner was heard by counsel on his representation that he was plaintiff, and that he would be injured by the passing of the Bill. Now, the object of the question was to ascertain whether he was the plain tiff, and liable to be injured by the Bill. It was with a viem to the privileges of the House that he troubled their Lordships with those observations. The Duke of RICHMOND said that his Noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor) had taken up this case with great warmth and but little consideration. The Noble Earl had accused the Committee of striving to fish out the name of an individual to serve the purposes of Lori Eglintoun. If that had been said out of the House he (the Duke of R.) would have given it a very short answer. lie thought they were perfectly right in getting at; the name of the individual who brought the action in anotherperson's name, and might be, for aught they could know, the foreman of the jury, although he was interested in the amount of all the costs and one-half of the damages. Lord EGLINTOUN was certain that his Noble Friends on the Committee would not condescend to act set they had been accused of actin g , for the purpose of serving his interests. H e wou ld b y no means wish that on his account any friends of his would he so influenced. ._(dear, hear.) The Earl of ItADNOIt explained. The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the shoa l:mat writer to read his notes of the question. Lord BROUGHAM said that he was giving the He use his assistance as a professional Peer, but he would ce ase, to do so if the House did not protect him from interruption.—(Hear, and a laugh.) '.she witness was then called in and examined by Lord BROUGHAM, as to whether he knew the name of the unknown, otherwise than through his brother, and in connection with these actions ? Witness—Never.—("Hear, hear," from Lord Radnor.) Lord BROUGHAM said he never knew such great indecency before—(" Hear, hear, and h " Order")—in a court of law as to call out "hear , hear' at the answer of a witness. But, it was now clear, from the answers of the witness, that the name was a privileged communication, and the witness could not be compelled to answer the question. The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred with his Noble and Learned Friend, as the doubt had arisen from the ambiguity of the witness's former answer. Lord CA7..IPBELL and Lord COTTENHAM were of' the Same opinion ; but they thought that the question was by no means an unnecessary or unimportant one. Lord RADNOR begged leave, in his own justifica tion, to read what had been said. The Noble Lord then read an extract from the witness's evidence. The LORD CHANCELLOR—The question was IMF, and it had been decided by Mr. Baron Parke—Was the solicitor bound to disclose his client ? He said no, and so also decided Mr. Baron Parke. Lord CAMPBELL thought that further time ought o allowed for consideration. The witness was then ordered to withdraw. The House went into Committee on the 'Bill. Lord CAMPBELL suggested an amendment for the purpose of discontinuing, instead of only suspending, the actions. The Duke of RICIIMOND said if the actions were discontinued, and nothing further done, then the " un known," might renew them immediately. After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL, _ _ The Bill passed through Committee, was reported, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow (this day), and their Lordships to be summoned. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mr. GREENE and others from the Commons, brought up the Joint-Stock Recovery-at-Law Bill, Metropolitan Buildings Bill, the Ayr Bridge Bill, and other Bills, which were severally read a first time. SL AVE- TRADE. The Earl of ABERDEEN said that, on Thursday, he would lay before the House the instructions which had been given to officers engaged in the suppression of the slave trade. The Marquis of NORMANBY presented a petition from medical gentlemen of the metropolis, praying the Legislature to take measures for improving the sanatory regulations of the metropolis, and especially calling at tention to the want of drainage, to churchyards, and crowded buildings. Lord COTTENIIAM presented petitions from per sons confined in the Queen's Prison, and in Whitecross street, praying for the abolition of imprisonment for debt. Lord WHARNCLIFFE laid on the table a return of the number of persons in prison for debt in England and Wales. SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR called the attention of the House to this Bill, of which he moved the second reading. The evidence had shown a state of constant and habitual brikry, more flagrant and corrupt than anything else that could be tbund in the history of Par liamentary elections. He therefore thought that, for the sake both of punishment and example, it was abso lutely necessary that the Bill should pass.—(Hear, hear.) His Lordship went through a detailed his tory of the Bills which had been previously brought up from the House of Commons. Counsel had stated that day at the bar, that the last Bill broke down in that House. But how did that happen ? Before the election Committee, the witnesses for the petition and against it proved enormous corruption each against the other side. But when theso.same witnesses came before that House to be examined, on a Bill for disfranchisement of the borough, and depriving those witnesses of the power of selling their votes, the two opposing parties coalesced, and their Lordships were unable to obtain sufficient evi dence to warrant them in passing "the Bill. The House of Commons, therefore, adopted the course of procuring a Commission to examine witnesses on the spot. The Commissioners found, on commencing their proceedings in Sudbury, a general determination not to answer any question—the witnesses standing on the point that their answers would tend to criminate themselves. At length, by obtaining the evidence of electors who had ceased to reside in the town, and of other persons, the Commis sioners succeeded in collecting a mass of proofs that the corruption of the borough was so extensive, so deep rooted, and so inveterate, that it was a duty their Lord ' ships owed to the country and to the Constitution to ' deprive the electors of the power of repeating these enor mities.—(Hear, hear.) His Lordship then gave (amidst much laughter) an account of the procceedings at the last election, which have already been frequently before the public. The result was, that there was a majority for the liberal candidates ;of ten for one, and six for the other. Here ;th© liberal bribery was successful; but he would be impartial; he would tell them that bribery was quite as bad upon the Tory side.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Tile same spirit prevailed on both sides; but the party that spent the most money obtained the most votes. The losing side paid 1,400/.; the successful side paid 3,0001. No part of the public-house expenses, and only part of the legal ex penses of the election, had yet been paid, so that the whole of these two sums, amounting together to 4,400/., was applied to those gross purposes. It was true that there were many of the better class of electors who did not receive bribes. But there was the remarkable fact to be kept in mind, that it was proved that the wealthier classes—that all the respectable men in the town were cognisant of those transactions, and gave their sanction to them. They were, therefore as guilty as those who received the bribes, feud should partake of the punish ment. Although the Commissioners were not directly ' authorised to inquire respecting former elections, yet a great deal crept out in the evidence which proved that a system of general corruption had long been established in the borough, extending to the whole constituency. He believed, therefore, that the disfranchisement was inevitable; and as to the question what should be done with the two votes, he would say that the House of Commons had taken the best course in this Bill— namely, to disfranchise the borough at once, and to con sider next year what should be done with the votes. He therefore recommended their Lordships to pass the second reading of the Bill. Lord BROUGHAM highly eulogised the perspicuous statement of his Noble and Learned Friend, who was the head and ornament of his profession. He agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend that this borough should be disfranchised as an example to others. But the disfranchisement of a borough was a grave matter, and he strongly objected to their Lordships passing such a measure without hearing evidence at the bar. His objection did not so strongly apply to the present case, as the evidence was taken not before a Crown Commission, but a Commission appointed by both Houses, and !sanctioned by the Crown in the face of an Act of Parliament. It was grievous to witness the frightful guilt exposed in this inquiry. There could be nothing more degrading or more criminal than to swerve from the discharge of a public duty for the sake of sordid lucre. These corrupt, venal, and degraded wretches were guilty of perjury as well as bribery—for, even though the bribery oath was not administered, they were as guilty of perjury as if they had taken the oath, for they would have taken it if required. He thought the most expedient course was to pass the Bill. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed. COUNTY CORONERS' BILL The House then went into Committee on this Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND said he had received some communications in answer to the objection which he had made on a former evening to the increased allowance for travelling expenses; but he still adhered to his opinion that the coroners should be paid by salaries like the other judges, and not, as it were, by the head, ac• cording to the number of inquests they held. The Marquis of SALISBURY moved the omission of the 21st clause, which relates to the payment of ex penses out of the county rates. The Duke of RICHMOND seconded the motion. After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL and Lord WHARNCLIFFE in support of the Bill, Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place. The amendment was negatived, and the Bill passed through Committee. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read ing of this Bill. There were a great number of chari table trusts in England which were entirely exempt from control. There were 13,000 trusts, which did not amount to more than 51., 14,000 which amounted to less than 101., and 17,000 which amounted to less than 20L It was quite impossible that the Court of Chancery could exercise any control over these trusts ; and yet it was monstrous that trusts, amounting to 300,0001., should be without control or protection. To remedy this evil, he proposed to give the Commissioners the power of ap pointing persons to inquire from time to time into the state of these trusts, to examine their accounts, and the manner of their administration. Another power which he proposed to give was that of appointing more trustees. All that he now asked, however, was that their Lord ships would read the Bill a second time, and he would gladly receive any suggestions for its improvement in the Committee. The Bishop of LONDON thought the country was greatly indebted to his Noble and Learned Friend for taking up this subject. But he hoped he would not press it through the Committee in the present session. The Bishops would be shortly obliged to go into the country, and he thought that no measure affecting the Chnrch ought to be discussed in their absence. This Bill would affect the Church considerably, inasmuch as the great majority of the educational trusts in the kingdom pos sessed incomes not exceeding 20/. a year. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he did not intend to press the Bill. Lord WROTTESLEY regretted that the Bill had been postponed to so late a period of the session. Lord CAMPBELL thought the measure one of very great importance, and that it would, with alteration and amendment, prove to be a great improvement on the present system. Still it was to be regretted that so great a measure, affecting upwards of 30,000 trusts, and 13,000,000/. of property should be introduced on the 22d of July. He had no objection to agree to the second, reading, un the understanding that no further pro gress should be made in the Bill until next session. The LORD CHANCELLOR only wished the Bill to go into Committee, that he might hear what alterations might be propo:z.en, but not to carry it through the Com mittee. As to the lateness of the session, he had pre pared the Bill at the beginning of the session, but he had not had the opportunity of bringing it forward sooner. The Bishop of LONDON objected to the Bill going into Committee in the absence of the Bishops, who were the best qualified to offer suggestions for its improve ment. lie respectfully requested his Noble Friend not to go further than the second reading. The LORD CHANCELLOR was understood to say that he would not proceed further in the'present session, unless with the assent of the Right Rev. Prelate, after consulting with his Right Rev. Brethren. The Bill was then read a second time. THE CATHOLIC BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL. Lord WHARNCLIFfE moved the order of the day for the third reading of this Bill, and the order being read, he proposed several amendments, which were agreed to. Lord AIONTEAGLE returned his thanks to the Noble Lord for the pains which he had taken with this Bill, and his care to give satisfaction to the persons for whose benefit the measure was intended. He would take that opportunity of expressing the great pleasure he felt at the intimation given in the other House with respect to the improvement of ➢iaynooth College. The improved education of the clergy would do much to elevate the character of the people. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. The Parish Constables Bill was read a second time. Several other Bills on the table were advanced a stage. The Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill was read a second me. The Colonial Postage Bill passed through Committee without discussion, and was reported. The Assessed Taxes Ccm;position Act also passed through Committee. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, JULY 23, 1844. ROMAN CATHOLIC PENAL ACTS REPEAL BILL. Lord BEAUMONT moved that this Bill be committed. The Bishop of LONDON said that the proposed Act was neither more nor less than an Act to restore the supremacy of the Pope in this realm.—(Hear, hear.) He assured the House, that if they were to pass such a measure—repealing the Act of Uniformity and thirty other Acts, and at the same time interfering with the pre rogative of the Crown—they would create great alarm throughout the country. lie moved that the Bill be committed this day three months. Lord BEAUMONT was surprised that at this time a Rev. Prelate could be found to oppose the repeal of those laws which still kept the scaffold and the axe suspended over the heads of his Catholic fellow-subjects. Until those Acts were repealed, no Catholic, however loyal, was secure of his estates. lie believed that there were people willing to bring into operation those obsolete Acts, as their Lordships had seen this day there were persons seeking to enforce- far less atrocious Acts. He had no wish to injure the Established Church, but if the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack would point out, amongst the Acts which he proposed to repeal, any that were necessary to the safety or the power of the Established Church, he would willingly leave them out of his schedule. The Commissioners of Criminal Law Inquiry, in their seventh report, strongly dwelt upon the necessity of abolishing those laws, and they quoted the eloquent language of Justice Blackstone condemna tory of those cruel and impolitic laws. The Bishop of LONDON explained. He agreed that many of those laws ought to be repealed. But the Noble Lord proposed to repeal some Acts that were necessary for the security of the Church. What he now chiefly objected to was the season at which the Bill was brought in—a season when it could not be adequately discussed, and when it could scarcely be expected that it would pass the House this year. Surely, the Noble Lord did not think that in the next, six months the Roman Catholics would be in a worse condition than they were now. It was certainly right that the liabili ties mentioned by the Noble Lord, although not enforced, should be done away with. But no inconvenience would be suffered by delaying it until the beginning of next session, when the Bishops, the rulers and defenders of the Church, would be present in the House. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had him self examined the Bill, and had referred it to the Com missioners of Criminal Law Inquiry, who struck out some of the clauses. He now believed that there was not a single clause in the Bill, as it stood at present, to which any reasonable person could object. He won dered that any one could say at the present clay that it was necessary for the security of the Church that any one who a second time denied the supremacy of the Queen should be transported. By that law every priest who said mass was still liable to the severest penalties. He would recommend the Noble Lord to withdraw his motion, and the Right Rev. Prelate to withdraw his, so that the Bill might be printed and every Member of the House be enabled to see what its objects really were. Lord CAMPBELL was sure that if the Right Rev. Prelate examined the Bill he would find that it was not liable to the objection which the Right Reverend Prelate supposed. He (Lord Campbell) suggested that the Bill should go into Committee pro forma. The Earl of WICKLOW approved of the Bill, which would give great satisfaction to the Roman Catholics, especially in Ireland, and could not possibly affect the Established Church. He was sorry that the Bill was now to be obstructed.—(Hear.) He thought that the lateness of the session and the absence of the Prelates were not sufficient reasons for putting off useful mea sures. Why were not the Bishops in their places as well as other Lords ?—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend de served the thanks of the Catholics and of all liberal minded men for bringing in his Bill. The Bishop of LONDON would press his opposition. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that after what had passed in the House, and what had been stated in a pub lic print, it was absolutely necessary for his own justifi cation that he should ask their Lordships to print the Bill. He thought the House might go into Committee pro ,forma, and the Bill be printed, that the House and the public might see what the Bill was. He had already declared that he had struck out every clause that would be doubtful. As for the absence of the Bishops, he did not see how it was necessary to be a divine, in order to judge whether the Church would be endangered by allowing a Catholic gentleman to send his son abroad for his education. . The Bishop of LONDON withdrew his amendment, and the Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be printed. The Soap Allowances Bill was read a second time. REGISTRATION OF CHAPELS BILL. Lord TEYNHAM moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to repeal so much of the present Acts relating to this subject which prevented religious service before registration. It was further de signed to allow a minister of the Gospel to preach in an unregistered chapel to a congregation not exceeding 40 in number. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the law allowed every family to pray together, and allowed visitors or persons accidentally present, besides the family, up to the number of twenty, to join in the prayer. The Noble Lord did not object to the registration, and why should not the registration take place before the building should be named as a chapel ? He saw no reason for altering the law, and opposed the Bill. The Bishnp of GLOUCESTER also opposed the Bill. and moved that it be read a second time that day three months. Lord TEYNTIAM replied. The motion for the second reading was negatived with. out a division, and the Bill was lost. Lord TEYNIIAM presented a petition from the pa rish of Marylebone, complaining of the operations of the Anatomy Act, as offensive to the feelings of the poor. The petitioners prayed to be allowed to prove their al legations at the bar. Their Lordships adjourned at Eleven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 22. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock. The Ayre Bridge Bill was read a third time and passed. FRANCE AND MOROCCO. On the order of the day for the House going into a Committee of Supply being read, Mr. SHEIL said he had already informed the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government that be should not persevere in the motion of which he had given notice, but that he should content himself with moving for certain papers, the particulars of which he should specify in the course of the observations which he intended to make. He was anxious to confine him self in the discussion of a mere matter of form to the facts, and to abstain from any superfluous comments on them. Any Gentleman who was of opinion that he en tertained the design, which would be worse than repre hensible, of exciting a feeling of animosity between two great nations did him wrong, and he should prove that he did him wrong by the tone which he should adopt. He felt that it was the deep interest of both countries to remain at peace, and that by their collision the world would be disturbed. At the same time he conceived no advantage could be derived from concealing from them selves the precise truth, or from their averting their eyes from objects which must of necessity at last force them selves upon their contemplation. On the sth of July, 1830, he risked abruptness, in order that he might avoid the greater fault of prolixity. On the .sth of July, 1830, Lord Aberdeen ad dressed a dispatch to Lord Stuart de Rothsay which was conceived in a most prudential and concilia tory spirit. He would take the opportunity of observ ing that the whole of the correspondence of Lord Aber deen at that period was distinguished by great sagacity and wisdom, but that between his conduct and his cor respondence there was an infelicitous contrast, for his conduct was marked with some infirmity of purpose, as he failed to obtain from the French Government the pledge which he was, beyond all doubt, entitled to de mand. It was remarkable that the prognostications of Lord Aberdeen had been verified by the events which were now passing. In page 942 of the State papers, Lord Aberdeen wrote to Lord Stuart de Rothsay, to ask for some explanation from the French Government rela tive to the expedition against Algiers. Prince de Polig nac returned an answer, which was by no means satis factory; and Lord Aberdeen again wrote to Lord Stuart de Rothsay on the 23d of March, 1830. In reply, Lord Stuart de Rothsay said he saw Monsieur de Polignac, and could not obtain from him any satisfactory answer, but that he would communicate with the Sultan. The Sultan had sent Ali I'acha to Algiers, but the blockading squadron of the French would not suffer him to enter. He then came to Boulogne, where he was obliged to per form quarantine, and he (Mr. Sheil) believed he never reached Paris. Shortly after the fall of Algiers, on the sth of July, Monsieur de Polignac was in captivity, and placed in immediate proximity to the guillotine, and the crown was torn from the brow of Charles X., and the throne of the barricades was given to that remarkable and sagacious man who now ruled the people of France —one of the most sagacious men in that country, fertile in greatness. The Duke of Wellington, with great sagacity, recognised him as the representative of the national will. But was it 'not a most extraordinary circumstance, that after the correspondence which he had read to the House, after the distinct intimation given by Lord Aberdeen, that he expected a stipulation that Algiers should not be appro priated by France, after he had stated with such clear ness his views as to the ultimate results on the commerce of the Mediterranean. Was it not most extraordinary that, after the lapse of four months, during which the French remained in possession of Algiers, and when ex tensive acquisitions were made in the country, that they should not have demanded, as a condition from the new Government, that which they had failed to obtain from the former, the importance of which had been so largely and so emphatically expressed? It was true that in the speech from the Throne in November, 1830, it was stated that no doubt was entertained by his Majesty's Government that Louis Phillippe would fulfil all his en gagements ; but it was most remarkable that there was no previous engagement with regard to Algiers. There was no arrangement binding in diplomacy that had never been obtained. The polished and well lubri cated statesman of France had, with his peculiar sinuo sity, escaped from the grasp of the pale Englishman. That was an important fact which could not be to much insisted upon, when they came to consider what had since taken place. The Tory Government of 1830 had recognised Louis Philippe when France was in posses sion of Algiers, and yet no engagement had been made for the abandonment of Algiers by France. The Whigs came into power in 1830 ; they found France in posses sion of Algiers, no stipulation having been made on the subject, and they found Louis Philippe recognized. He would now pass from 1830 to 1831. The administration of Lord Grey lasted to 1834. In that year the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite came into power, and his administration was succeeded by that of Lord Melbourne. Nothing was said or done during the whole of that time as to any recogni tion of the right of France to Algiers. That right was not denied, but it was not admitted. No exequatur was applied for for the English Consul. How far it was necessary to apply for an exequatur for him from France he would not stop to inquire. He passed from 1830 to 1831, and almost immediately after the new Government had been formed, and Lord Aberdeen had been restored to the Foreign-office, a most remark able conversation is found to have taken place on the subject of the Algerine business. Lord Aberdeen had himself given the substance of that conversation. No man could doubt the veracity of Lord Aberdeen, or of the Count St. Aulaire, or of M. Guizot. No doubt there had been a misapprehension and nothing more. But it was a singular circumstance that the French Ambassa dor should have so availed himself of that conversation, which Lord Aberdeen stated to have been perfectly ac cidental and fortuitous. What was the result of that conversation ? Why, immediately afterwards, the King of the French, in his speech from the throne, in Decem ber, 1841, stated to the Chambers, that he had taken measures for the purpose of protecting the security of the foreign possessions of France from what he called " external complications." M. Guizot explained to the Chamber the meaning of that phrase, which was that Lord Aberdeen had explained to Count Aulaire that he regarded the possession of Algiers by France as un fait accompli, and had no objection to make. There could be no doubt but that Count St. Aulaire had mis taken what Lord Aberdeen had said ; and on the 28th of January, 1842, Lord Aberdeen wrote a dispatch to Lord Cowley, in which he denied that he had stated that lie bad no objection to make, but stated that he had merely intimated that he h a d no observation to make, and remained silent on the subject. That dis patch had been communicated to M. Guizot, but M. Guizot had made no observation on it. A very import ant step had since been taken by the French Govern ment, and it was because he found that the measures adopted by France were distinctly affecting the com merce of this country with Africa that he felt it important to call the attention of the House to this subject. On the 16th of December, 1843, a most important re port of the Duke of Dalmatia had been presented to the King of the French, which appeared in the Moniteur of the 21st of December, 1843. The report of the Duke of Dalmatia was on the subject of the French possessions in Algiers, and recommended that means should be adopted to prevent foreign States from taking advantage of the commerce of those possessions, and that duties should be raised upon the textual fabric of foreign manufactures consumed in Algiers. An ordonnance, dated the 16th of December, 1843, containing a new tariff, was founded upon this report, and a duty of 12 francs and 10 cen times per kilogramme was imposed upon foreign printed calico, and a duty of four francs per ton w as i m p ose d upon foreign shipping. This imposed a burden of 30 per cent. additional upon our commerce. Now, let them look at the results of this tariff on British trade. In the Times of July 18, 1844, there appeared a let ter from their correspondent, dated Oran, July 5, in wfiich the writer stated that British commerce, which had formerly been flourishing there, was now annihi lated, except for coals ; that the port duties on British shipping was four francs per ton, and on foreign vessels it was the same, except on Sardinian vessels, which were favoured by treaty, and admitted at two francs per ton; and that the general effect of the tariff had been to raise the charges on British commerce from fifteen per cent. to thirty per cent., which, in fact, amounted to an ex clusion. What was the state of trade in Algeria before this? Mr. M'Gregor, in his admirable book on the " Statistics of Commerce," stated that in 1840 and 1841 1,846 French vessels entered the ports of Algeria, and only 200 English ones. Verily, the power of England in this region was at the lowest ebb. The Right Hon. Gentleman then read a report from the Moniteur news paper, which stated that from an ordinance recently issued by the French Government, the duties in Algeria on foreign manufacture were one-third more than in France, and that ordinance was not to be disturbed. He did not quarrel with France because of her conquest of Algiers. He did not dispute her title to that country—he did not wish to embark in a question which might disturb the peace of the House.—(Hear, hear, from Sir R. Peel)—but he wished that from the past they might learn to make some configuration of the future—that they should take into consideration the events now passing on the coast of the Mediterranean, and which bore a close resemblance to those which pre ceded the conquest of .Algiers.—(Hear, hear, from Sir C. Napier.) The cause of quarrel between the Dey of Algiers and the French Consul was of a trifling nature. I What was the origin of that between France and Morocco ? That Abd-el-Kader, the hero of the desert, had sought refuge in the country of the Emperor, having been driven from his own dominions ; the Arabs of that nation, feeling the combined influence of nationality and religion, cherished him, and this was the cases belli. But had they not reason to look with caution on the shadows which events were casting before them, and by which the Mediterranean was now darkened ? It was manifest that the same course would be pursued in Morocco regarding our commerce as was pursued in Algiers, if the French gained possession over it.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. M'Gregor, in the second volume of his statistics, gave the strength and power of Morocco, and the commerce of this country with it. England, in 1839, exported to Mo rocco 299,0001. 163 English vessels were, in that year, employed in the exportation to Morocco ; whilst in that same year, only 12 of their vessels were engaged in the same trade. He did not ask the English Government to question the policy of the French ; but be wished to understand what precautions or steps the British Go vernment had taken, and whether our force in the Mediterranean was equal to what it was on former occa sions, when its weakness was made the object of cen sure. In 1838, the Duke of Wellington, whose autho rity was great on naval as well as on military questions, per ',tare aut terra, being in opposition, said the fleet was not sufficient. He (Mr. Shed) naturally looked to what the state of the British fleet in 1838 was in the Mediterranean :—ships of the line 18, frigates 29, sloops 39, brigs 29, wan steamers 22. The Duke added that there should be a squadron ready for any emergency ; and the present Prime Minister of England expressed himself to a similar effect. What was the state of the British navy, in 1841, when the Whigs left office ? It was as follows :—Ships of the line, 26 ; frigates, 36 ; sloops, 40 ; brigs, 37 ; armed steamers, 22 ; other war vessels, 36. Now let them compare the state of the navy in Sir IL PEEL had seen no account of it except that in the public journals. JOINT-STOCK BANKS BILL. On the motion fur reading the order of the day for going into a Committee on the Joint-Stock Banks Bill being put, Sir W. CLAY gave notice of his intention that he would move to strike out that portion of the Bill which conferred the power of unlimited liability, and that shareholders should be liable for their own shares only. He went on to show that all their experience proved that unlimited liability had not afforded that security which was expected from it, while all their experience, both as regarded the banks of England and Ireland, and the Scotch banks, was in favour of limited liability. Sir R. PEEL hoped the House would not adopt the extensive alteration proposed by the Hon. Baronet. He did not see why an exception should be made in favour of banks from the law, which was applicable to all partnerships.—(Hear, hear.) Apart from authority, he thought. that reason was opposed to the proposition of the Hon. Baronet. But surely all authority was against him. A Committee had sat on the subject of banks for three sessions, in 1836, 1837, 1838, which had exhausted the subject. A great deal of evidence had been given on the subject of unlimited liability, and it was all in favour of such a system. If the shareholders were not subject to unlimited liability, he feared that persons of large property and high name would have applications made to them to become partners. It would be said to them, " Become a shareholder for 1001., in the worst event you cannot be responsible for more than that." Now he feared that local influence would be used in this way, and would be sometimes used with suc cess, so that the bank would have the influ ence of a high name without the responsibility. He admitted that unlimited responsibility had not been always a security, but he hoped it would be under the regulations of the present Bill. For those reasons he hoped the House would not agree to the proposition of the Hon. Baronet. Mr. HAWES said the question was whether unlimited or limited security afforded the best security for sound banking. The Right lion. Gentleman was mistaken when he said that all authority was iu favour of un limited responsibility, for there was very high authority on both sides of the question. lie thought that a limited liability on the part of the shareholders, and an unlimited one on the part of the Directors, would answer ever) purpose, and afford ample security. The system of limited liability on the part of the shareholders would be a great inducement to men of fortune to join banks, and this would prove of great benefit to the public. Mr. MORRISON thought the principle of limited responsibility was most injurious. To show this, he need only refer to America, where the system had been found to work very disadvantageously. He felt that the present system was in an unsatisfactory state, and it would ultimately be found necessary to alterand revise it. Mr. P. M. STEWART doubted whether any Hon. Gentleman connected with any bank would support the proposition of the Hon. Baronet, nor did he think that the proposition of the Hon. Member for Lambeth would tend to increased security in our system of banking. He thought the principle of limited liability was a bad one, and he hoped, therefore, that it would never be adopted in this country. Mr. TURNER opposed the amendment. The amendment was then negatived without a divi sion, and the House went into Committee on the Bill. The first clause was agreed to. On clause 2 being put, Mr. GLADSTONE:said there had been a distinct un derstanding that the Joint-Stock Companies Bill should be proceeded with after the Railways Bill. Several gentlemen, on that understanding, had remained in town for the purpose of attending the Committee, and be therefore suggested that his Right Honourable Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should consent to report progress for the present, and resume the consideration of his measure after the Com mittee on the Railways Bill. The - CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was ready to adopt any course that would suit the convenience of the House. After a short conversation, it was resolved to proceed with the Railways Bill ; and the House having resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again this day. RAILWAYS BILL. On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Railways Bill, Mr. MORRISON said, that some few years ago the Government of the country appeared to be altogether opposed to any interference with railroads, in conse quence of which greater enterprise was manifested by capitalists to embark in railroad speculations. It would have been much better if the Government had shown this desire of interference some years ago. If the pre sent Bill passed, the public would be benefited to the extent of more numerous competing lines, but the pro prietors of existing railroads would be most materially injured. He thought, that if a tariff of lid. or 2d. per mile was levied on competing lines, it would have the effect of causing a reduction of fares, if that was the object of the Bill. The best objection to the Bill was, that it was unnecessary. With re gard to third-class carriages, he thought that public opinion would soon correct the abuse of delaying poor persons travelling in the third class. He was best acquainted with the Great Western Railroad, and he thought that a great improvement might be made in the third-class carriages. He also thought that the comfort of those persons who travelled in the second-class car riages was also too much neglected. Another abuse was that some carriers were favoured more than others by the directors. He thought that lists of the prices of carrying goods ought to be left with the Board of Trade, and that they should adhere to those price. He did not think that railway companies ought to be liable to a penalty of 10/. for parcels which might be lost. On grounds of public policy, he thought that such a pro vision was necessary with regard to stage coaches ; but railroads were circumstanced so differently that he thought they ought not to be made subject to a penalty for lost parcels. He had great faith in the atmospheric principle upon railways, and he thought it would soon become exten sively adopted. He did not thoroughly approve of the Bill of the Government, because it passed by three lead ing points—revision, tariff, and lease. Mr. WILLIAMS did not think this Bill went far enough in protecting the public. He thought greater powers ought to have been taken by the Board of Trade with respect to the revision of railways ; and he thought that the provisions of the Bill ought to have been ex tended to old as well as to new companies. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, would consent to extend the clause relating to third-class passengers to all existing companies. Third-class passengers had hitherto been treated in the most inconsiderate, unjust, and cruel manner, by existing railway companies, and he hoped therefore, that all companies ought to be made to come under the operation of the third-class passen gers' clause in this Bill. He thought, too, that power should be given for the revision, by the Board of Trade, of the carriage traffic on a railway, as well as the pas senger traffic. Colonel SIBTHORP had no hesitation in saying that the present Bill was a very similar Bill to that which was originally before the House. More than half the clauses had been struck out, and the Bill was most par tial in its operations. The Bill would have the effect of establishing a monopoly in favour of existing railway companies. Mr. V. SMITH had expected that some statement would have been made by the Right Hon. Gentleman with respect to the alterations which he had proposed. Great alteration had been made, and he thought that only one day for their consideration was too short a time especially without any explanation by the Right Hon. Gentleman. _ POOR-LAWS. Mr. M. SUTTON moved the order of the day for bringing up the report on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, for the purpose of postponement. Captain PECHELL complained of the course taken by the Government in postponing this measure. He thought it was unfair to lion. Members who had that morning attended in their places, believing that this Bill would be brought on. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Bill had been postponed to suit the convenience of many lion. Members. Mr. HAWES deprecated the custom of postponing Bills of great importance to the latest period of the session. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Government had done all they could to accommodate Hon. Members, and he thought it was unfair in the Hon. Gentleman to complain of the course they had taken. The Railways Bill had been fixed on Friday night for tlvelve o'clock to-day. Captain PECHELL did not think this explanation satisfactory. The Right Hon. Gentleman had got out of his difficulty by stating that which was not tt:e tact. The CIIA.NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER called upon the Hon. Member for an explanation. Captain PECHELL said the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that the Railways Bill was to be brought on at twelve o'clock. This was not the fact, for it was put down in the order for one o'clock. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer owed him an apology for the course he had taken. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I owe he Hon. Gentleman no apology, and therefore shall ender him none. The Bill was then postponed till Wednesday. After a pause— - - Capt. PECIIELL rose and said, he wished to ask the Speaker what business they had to proceed with, as it was useless to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The SPEAKER said the next order on the paper was put down for one o'clock, and at one o'clock he pre sumed they would proceed with that order. Capt. PECHELL said he would move, then, that the House do now adjourn. He did this, in order again to protest against the course which the Government had taken. They had not discussed the Bill in a factious spirit, nor attempted to delay the Bill, by dividing on many oc casions on which they might have done so. The Bill stood on the paper for twelve o'clock, and now they were told they could do no business till one ; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when called on, could say nothing either by way of explanation or apology. He wished to know if the Right lion. Baronet could explain why the Bill had been delayed ; and having stated thus much, h• would withdraw his motion. Sir R. PEEL said that it was notified on Friday night that the Joint-stock Companies Bill would be proceeded with to-day, and he regretted if any inconvenience had been occasioned to Hon. Gentlemen by any error in the notice-paper. Mr. HAWES said, the mode in which the public business had recently been conducted was utterly incon sistent with the proper discussion of public measures. They had but just received notice of amendments in the Joint-stock Companies Bill ; he might be told they were but verbal amendments, but these amendments were often very material in their effect. Sir R. PEEL said these amendments were introduced for the purpose of giving effect to the view, and wishes of parties affected by the measure. The conversation then dropped. MARINE EXPLOSION AT BRIGHTON. Captain PECHELL said he had seen in the public journals an account of proceedings that had taken place in the Channel, opposite Brighton ; a gallant officer (Captain Warner) had succeeded in totally destroy ing a merchant-vessel anchored off that port. Consi dering all the circumstances that had taken place on a former occasion, when the Right Hon. Gentleman gave some explanation of the correspondence between the Government and the gallant officer, he wished to know whether what had just taken place was done with the knowledge or sanction of the Government, or whether it had received any authentic information with respect to it ? Sir R. PEEL said he had not seen any other account of the proceeding than that which appeared in the public papers. The experiment had not been made at the ex pense of her Majesty's Government, or in consequence of any communication with it. Her Majesty's Govern ment had had a former communication with Captain Warner, and had proposed to allow the gallant officer a certain sum for the purpose of making the experiment under the superintendence of officers from the Board of Ordnance, but Captain Warner declined the offer on ac count of the insufficiency of the sum proposed to be al lowed by the Treasury, and he understood that on this occasion the vessel had been provided and the experi ment made at the expense of private individuals, and not under the sanction or control of the Government._ _ Capt. PECHELL asked if the Government had re ceived any official re4port of the experiment ? The House then went into Committee on the Bill. On clause 1 being proposed, Mr. GLADSTONE rose and said he would take that opportunity of explaining the alterations which had been made in the Bill. lie did not think that the public in terest would be prejudiced by the abandonment of the clauses which had been struck out of the Bill. The Hon. Member for Lincoln appeared to imagine that in the Bill as it originally stood the option of revision and purchase was made applicable to existing railway companies. He could assure his Hon. Friend that such was not the case. That part of the Bill remained exactly the same. His Hon. and Gallant Friend came forward with great sympathy for the poor, and took objection to this Bill on that ground. Now the Bill in this respect remained unaltered; and therefore if his Hon. and Gallant Friend was satisfied with the original Bill, he must also be satisfied with the present one. There was one material relaxation in the term of the option of revision or purchase—that was, that the right of purchase should not accrue until after twenty-one years, instead of fifteen years, after the passing of the Act of incorporation, as originally intended. This he thought was a very material alteration. Another change in the Bill was, that the right of revision being once exercised should not be again exercised within the further term of twenty•one years. The Bill in its pre • sent state provided that when a railway should be pur chased, it should be taken at the value at which it might be estimated at the time of the purchase. He thought this was an improvement in the Bill. Then, again, it was provided that if the railway, at the expiration of twenty-one years, should be making more than ten per cent., the transfer should be effected by the pay ment of twenty-five years' purchase. The Bill also provided that in the case of a branch liable to the clauses creating the option of purchase, joining a main line that was not liable, if the Legislature should think fit to ex ercise that option with respect to the branch line, it should be in the power of the company holding the main line to demand of the Government to take the main line also on the same terms. He thought this was a just provision. It was not the object of the Bill to pre judge the question of expediency at all; that question would be left open for the future consideration of Parliament. He could not agree with the Hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Morrison) in thinking it expedient that a maximum charge on railways should be established by Govern ment of id., 2d., and 3d. per mile for the three kinds of passengers. He felt that the announcement of such an enactment on the part of Parliament would toll the knell of speculation in this country. The Hon. Gentleman re marked that the cost of construction was now greatly re duced, but he must also remember that the great channels of communication had already been constructed. He did not think that there was any other point upon which it was necessary to offer any explanation. Mr. WARD expressed his satisfaction with the pre sent Bill. He felt that the objectionable parts of the old Bill had been withdrawn, and he expressed his satisfaction with the course which the Right Hon. Gen tleman had taken. He believed that the Bill would be as satisfactory to railway proprietors as it would be conducive to the interests of the public. Mr. GLADSTONE took that opportunity of ex plaining that on a former occasion, in alluding to the petition of the Birmingham Railway Company, he had not intended to say anything disrespectful to the solicitor to that company. He had also alluded to a circular as having been written by Mr. Burke. He had afterwards found that that circular was not written by Mr. Burke. _ _ Mr. lIAWES would offer no further opposition to the Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman having modified the Bill in the manner ha had done, showed a determination on his part to consider the interests of the public. Colonel SIBTHORP maintained that this clause did not look to the interest of all parties, nor did it apply the stringent clauses to all railways. Mr. BERNAL, in consequence of the alterations in the Bill, would not take any further pact with respect to it. The objections he had taken to parts of the Bill still remained. Mr. V. SMITH, in consequence of the alterations that had been made in the Bill by the Right Hon. Gen tleman, would give the measure no further opposition. lie thought the clause of option ofpurchase onthe partof the Government ought to be retained for the purpose of keeping the rail Ways under check. He also thought that something ought to be done with respect to the comfort of the poorer classes who might travel by railroad. Mr. P. HOWARD supported the Bill. Sir E. COLEBROOKE supported the Bill, although he thought more advantages might be given to the public than was proposed by the present meaasure. Clauses 1 and 2 were then agreed to. Clause 3, after a few observations from Mr. GLAD STONE and . Mr. VERNON SMITH, was agreed to. Clause 4 was agreed to with some verbal amendments. Clause 5 was agreed to without alteration. On clause 6 being proposed, Mr. THORNELY ob * Servcd that the clause only en acted that third-class trains should be run on week days. Now he had no wish to interfere with railways which refused to run any trains on Sundays ; but he thought that in cases in which railway companies ran first and second-class trains on Sundays they ought also to be compelled to run third-class trains. Mr. GLADSTONE could not consent to any altera tion in the Bill, which had been drawn up in strict ac cordance with the recommendation of the Committee. The question had been argued in Committee, and he, for one, would be no party to compel companies to run particular trains on Sundays. He was aware of the dif ficulty of enforcing the observance of the Lord's day by legislation, but he would never h o ld ou t a b onus t o a violation of the Lord's day. He was aware that railroad companies were compelled to carry the mails on the Lord's day, but that was a case of necessity. But the Government would be setting a bad example to the people if, without necessity, they were, by compulsory legislation, to enforce the running of trains on the Lord's day. The respectable work ing man, who wished to change his place of abode, would rather give up a working day, and the wages of a working man, than travel on the Lord's day. The ob servance of the Lord's day was a great support to reli gion in this country, and it was the chief support to re ligion in Scotland. — Mr. WARBURTON observed that his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had not expressed any desire to compel railway companies to run third-class trains on Sunday, but if railway companies ran first and second-class trains on Sundays, they ought to be placed under the same restrictions with regard to third-class trains as they were on working days. The old Acts of Farliament always made an exception as to the observance of Sunday in cases of necessity. Now, a poor man might have a re lation at the point of death on a Sunday as well as a rich man, but it seemed, according to the idea of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the poor man ought not to be permitted to travel to see his relations unless he could go in a first-class train. He thought that wherever railroad companies ran first and second-class trains on a Sunday, they should be compelled to run third-class also. Mr. THORNELY said that where railroads were now closed on a Sunday he had no wish to compel them to run trains. But that was no reason why the poor man should be compelled to remain at home, or pay first or second-class fare. He proposed to insert in the clause the words " On any day on which passengers are con veyed." Mr. V. SMITH said the proposition of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was perfectly reasonable. It only amounted to this, that when trains did run cheap train should be run also ; so that what was done for the rich man might be done for the poor. Colonel SIBTHORP supported the amendment, on the ground that they ought not to make distinctions be tween the rich and the poor. He, however, suggested that the clause should be postponed. Mr. GLADSTONE would move that the Chairman do report progress, as it was now (pointing to the clock) the hour for proceeding with the regular public business. —(Cries of " No, no," and " Divide.") Mr. SHEIL said the meaning of the clause as it stood was, that Dives might travel on the Sunday, but Lazarus might not.—(Laughter and cheers.) The amendment was read from the chair amid loud cries of " Divide." Mr. DENNISON hoped that the Government would give way on this point. An immense number of the working classes did travel on the Sunday, and while it would be a great boon to compel the running of a cheap train with the others, it would be a great injury to de prive them of it. Mr. COLLETT was understood to support the amendment. Mr. HODGSON suggested a difficulty in detail, the mail trains being compelled to run at a speed of not less than 27 miles an hour, while the cheap trains ran at 12, and there would be a difficulty in compelling a third class train to be attached to the quicker one. After a few observations from Mr. ENTWISLE . and Sir W. GUEST, the House divided, when there appeared-- For the original motion 4l For Mr. Thornley's amendment 73 Majority against Ministers —32 On clause 6 being read, Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the limitation of speed to twelve miles an hour. He did not see why the third-class trains should not travel at the same rate as the first and second. He would divide the Committee on the question of toll. He would move that the maxi mum be one halfpenny instead of a penny per mile for third-class passengers. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, the motion having been, negatived without a division. On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill being put, Colonel SIBTHORP said he would divide, but the motion was negatived without a division. The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses up to 23 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 24 being proposed, Col. SIBTIIORP complained of the manner in which this Bill was hurried forward. How was it possible that they could give sufficient consideration to twenty-eight clauses which were only delivered to members on Saturday. It was not giving them a fair opportunity for discussing a Bill of this importance, which, moreover, was a new Bill, to begin it at half-past two, and run it through Commit tee by half-past five o'clock. They had no end of dis cussions on the Fine Arts. They did not care twopence for the poor people, and however much he might respect the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade, he must say it was not a proper mode of legisla lation to run this Bill through at such a railroad pace. He protested against it, and if he lived to enter the House another session, he would see if Hon. Members would not support him in urging Ministers to brin g for ward important measures at the beginning of the session. Mr. HUME withdrew the clauses of which he had given notice. Sir T. FREMANTLE move a clause for regulating the conveyance of the military by railway. Lord INGESTRE expressed a hope that in all future railway Bills a clause would be introduced enact i ng t h at all locomotives should have six wheels. Mr. EWART postponed his clause for the public examination of candidates for situations on railways. The House then resumed, and the Chairman brought up the report. Messengers from the Lords appeared at the bar, and brought up several Bills. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, the Joint- Stock Companies Bill was read a third time and passed, in order to send it up to the Lords as soon as possible. POOR-LAWS. In answer to a question from Col. SIBTHORP, Sir J. GRAHAM said he proposed to take the report of the Poor•law Amendment Bill on Wednesday next, as an order of the day, to come on in its turn as one of the regular orders. METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passedL The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that it was his intention to proceed with the Joint-stock Banks Regulation Bill to-morrow (this day at twelve. Sir J. GRAHAM, in answer to a question from an lioN. MEMBER, said, that he should proceed with the South Wales Turnpike Trusts Bill on Wed' tesday, at twelve o'clock. CAPTAIN WARNER, Captain PLUNIRIDGE wished to know if the Noble Lord opposite was aware of the result of Captain Warner's experiment, and whether as a naval officer he would state his opinion of it ? Lord INGESTRE said that a large ship had been destroyed by Captain Warner, on Saturday last, of} Brighton. He had done so publicly, and such being the case, it must have come to the knowledge of his Gallant Friend, but he was not at liberty, according to the forms of the House, to state how it was done. It would, perhaps, be better that he should read a document he had then iii .his hand. The Noble Lord then read a document, dated July 21, 1844, certifying that the operations on the John o' Gaunt, 300 tuns, conducted by Captain Warner, on the 20th instant; were under their manage. ment and control ; that the explosion did not take place by combustible matter either on board th e ship or otherwise ; that Captain Warner was on b oard the Wallace steamer at a distance of 300 yards ,; that it took place in consequence of a signal from the writers on the shore, and that the time could not be known by Captain Warner. They further declared their belief that, since the vessel had left Gratvesend, Captain War ner h a d no t b een on b oar d of it. Signedby Lord Ingestre and Captain Henderson. Sir C. NAPIER wished to know whether t' ere was not a torpedo inside of the vessel. Lord INGESTRE said he had read the certificate, and that he was prepared to make oath of it. ART-UNIONS. In reply to a question from Mr. EV/ART, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER; said he was aware that a Bill on Art-Unions had bec n intro duced into the other House, bat he was not awa re what were its provisions. THE CASE OF DALMAS. In reply to a question from Captain poLmET,, Sir J. GRAHAM said he had no hesitation in stating that he did advise her Majesty, in mercy, to grant a reprieve in the case of Dalmas, but he should cbject to laying on the table the information o n w hi c h a had given that advice. • 1841, when the Whigs left office, with what it is 111. 1844, when the Tories are in :—Ships , of the line, 9 ; frigates, 32 ; sloops, 34 ; brigs, 31 ; armed steamers, 32 ; other vessels, 10. What was the answer the Go vernment returned in the other House of Parliament when asked why there was not a greater naval force in the Mediterrenean, there being four French ships of _ line and frigates capable of colitaining 12,000 men there ? The Earl of Haddington replied that iinfor tunately a concentration of naval force was required 01! the coast of Ireland. He did n ot contend with the Earl of Haddington who had been transferred from the cad of the Orange flag to that of the Union—lick. He not complain of Lord Haddi n gton's desire to keep. ' -' - strong force in Ireland ; b u t h e ex claimed against ta policy which perverted the affections of a people whez un ler different treatment, would be a bulwark of str en g to instead of a source of weakness.—(Hear.) nothing against the French, who were a noble,_ high minded people ; nor against that Minister of Fran_ e ' who was even pre-eminent among those gifted nien.ai He would sal whom he was surrounded, not only for his great g er / intelligence, thought, and writings, but for honour an hon es t-- y.(He ar, h ear.) The Right Hon. G ell tl,e lni f t then vindicated the conduct of Lord Palmerston. wa,e , a . was said, had compromised the interests of Ellgl an . o He was happy to witness so much profession of diploinatl endearment, but he could not discover that anythitata material had been gained. On the contrary, it w° ace appear that the right of search, which had been on conceded by M. Guizot to this country, had been recently withheld ; for had not British influence been lost in Spain ?—had the rscurial bec ome an app n° ur tenance , Me Tuileries ?—(Hear, hear)—and in barbarie States, had not the power of England been reduced t ° the " vaaishiug point. ?"—(Hear, hear.) lie had d t e ;, The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving - return, showing. the amount of British ships ill th!. 3 . 7 e o i diterranean in July, 1844, and also that the new scale duties imposed on English shipping and English I na ''' . factures in Algiers be laid on the table of the House. Sir C. NAPIER seconded the motion. • Sir R. PEEL commenced by saying that he vvouldn; observe upon the expressions of regret of the Hon. Gentleman, who said he felt himself compelle4oni. a sense of duty to bring forward the present /3 1 11 0 , He did not think it was at all prudent in the Right i _ ll Gentleman to bring forward the motion at a time wn ti l e they were doing all they could to prevent any whichll°' collision between France and Morocco—anything er might be injurious to the integrity of Morocco, or cool, promise the politic a l or commercial interests of country. He must say that 'the discussions in this the other House of P ar li amen t h a d, b y exciting !tuns.„ feelings of the people of th e t wo coun t r i es , gr eatly ki peded the efforts of the Gove rnmen t s o f F r ance " 13 England.--(Hear, hear.) He would not of course i°, l ; pute to the Right Honourable Gentle m a n any desir e o ', stir up those feelings of enmity, or embitter 0. 11 ! 1 2; 1 40 cities. He must of course acquit the Right Honot re Gentleman, but he must say that no course was nl be calculated to promote those evils than that which rrhe Right Hon. Gentleman pursued.—(H ear , hear.) " he Right Hon. Baronet then allud e d t o th e terms of the original motion, which he supp os ed th e Right 1. 6 Gentleman had changed in c o nsequence o f his 44 Robert Peel's) observations, on Friday 11 .,,tbc on the extraordinary nature of th a t mo ti on . The . 010 10 Hon. Gentleman bad moved for a Select Committee inquire under what circum s t ances th e F renc h had e o f come possessed of Algiers, and how far the extension French conquest was consi s t en t w ith th e i n terests - this country. Why, what would be said in this coup if Select Committees were appointed in the F. d .r ell ,: g Chambers to inquire how far our conquests in Lt i ° ,;;, Kong: were consistent with French interests.—(' the hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman then explaine d nature nature of the communications which had taken P'`',3 o between Lord Stuart de Rothesay and the Prinee cu r Polignac on the invasion of Algiers by the French un Charles the Tenth, in which the Prince gave full es% ance to the English Minister, after the success ef French arms there, that acquisition of territory t; not the object of French invasion, but redress fer i as injury, and there was every reason to place the fr„„ s , credit on that assurance. In July, 1830, the Bourn, - e s and the Conservative Government which 15 "' out of office a few days after, at once „ cognised the Governme n t o f L ou i s Phil"Pte• A new dynasty was placed on the Throne with the go 0 will of the French people. The continental Powers tq ; wavering as to the course which they should nul l— ne li and this country s ee i ng th a t th e w ill o f th e Fre: of people was unequivocally expressed as to the chang ni l dynasty, gave an example to the contin en talPowerni recognised the change which took pl ace . The Hon. Gentleman would advise them to take that eMo tunity of obtaining satisfactory explanations from Frim - A 00 with regard to Algiers. Commu n i ca ti ons h a d pass' 0 -• that subject between the British an d F re nch .Gov the ments after that event. Lord Aberdeen moved for ue n correspondence in the House o f L or d s i n 1832, wet Lord Grey was et the head of the Government, bli t 'op the request of Lord Grey, he withdrew his motion, Ae e the 15th of November, 1830, Lord Grey came into e e , with both the Noble Lords whom he saw opposite. TUt were in possession of power for eleven years ; they in all the facts before them ; and yet they acquiesceu .„„ the military occupation of Algiers by the Frelle b e ie; (Hear, hear.) No remonstrance was made agains t ,.* t he occupation. They stated that if the conquests 05. di French in Africa were limited to the territory of Algle A , it would not endanger the harmony and goad underste n ' ing which existed between the British and French m G ° '„, vernments." He did not m ean to the f 4 "; 1 : Government for that, se e i ng h ow dbelsairabe le it to maintain the government of Louis Pil e i ; Lippe in France, and th at tho d e mand i ° fulfilling the engagements of Mons. Polignac would l e ; cite irritable feelings on the part of the French Pe ° P ers But did not the acquiescen ce i n th e p ossess i o n of AT ife , by the French, for eleven years, make the greatest Ga rence in that question.—(Hear, hear.) And the late eP vernment had notice of the int en ti on of France to Iw4 possession of Algeria ; for, in answ e r to a question Pt'. by Marshal Clausel to Marshal Soult, in 1833, i nt e ti French Chambers, Marshal Soult sa id that the Fr,, ne ',„ o .. Government were in favour of the colo n isation of Jibe via ; that up to the present moment they had nn t slightest intention of evacuating Al ger i a , a nd that or whole course of their condu c t s h owe d t h at t h e y 011° 4 plated its permanent occupation, and that theY, e ir nothing to fear from any one wh o m i g h t meditate tore, disturbance. disturbance. The British G overnment were , there'd aware of the intentions of France as to the retentie .. . n l; ! 5 $ Algeria, and yet they ma d e no remonstranc e sg7„pe ! it. But, consid er i ng t h e pos i t i on of Louis riw to , to he did not think th e G overnment o f E ar l G re y oc Melbourne had ac t e d unw i se l y i n agree i ng i n the (* so t pation of Algeria. They made no remonstrance', der their Consul no w , as f ormer ly con ti nue d, t o net"' re' an exequatur. The Right Hon. Gentleman th en ferred to an ordinance of the 16th December las t ' ~d posing a duty on the introducti o n o f B r iti s h good` , , P t io imposing discriminating duties with regard to O il e d and French ships. This ordinance was not dir e , of against British ships in particular, but against thossai,l all other nations ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman r ilr n that the important thing was th e p r i nc ipl e of the " be. nance. But he would prove that was decided long fore. - Mr. SHEIL—In 1835. le' Sir ROBERT PEEL—Yes, the Right lion. aent lio man did not allude to the ordinance of 1835 e Mr. SIIEIL—They are two distinct facts. ac e Sir ROBERT PEEL s a id h e a d m itt e d t he or an d of 1843 was more important, but as to its w ording stl eo the principle involved, it W as th e same as th e orcli. l t his I°' of 1835. He deeply re gre tt e d th e exerc ise od power by the French, and that regret had been s i g i l l ogit t to the French Governm en t.—(H ear .) Th en the the Hon. Gentleman paid a great compliment t° le King of the French and the French Pe%isa and he said he w as a f ra id th e sa me °° We i would be pursued with regard to Morocco whi e 'oer pursued with respect to Algiers. The Right tleman had a great advantage over him in this rr' s aa He could not speak his opinions with that latitua% t er freedom which he could indulge in with regard to i s it nal politics, for after the experience of the las t ,ro' weeks he found that he co u ld no t d o so withou,, t r S OV yoking feelings among s t th e F renc h p eop l e , an d wee jetting the French Government to taunts that theY a rtr mere instruments in the hand s o f th e B r i t i s h Gr°,'th e ment, and subjecting th em t o suc h accusat i o ns ZiciP Right Hon. Gentleman b a d di recte d towar d s the P' Government.--(Hear, hear.) But they had publicors clarations made in the fac e o f E uro pe, an d if t h te ll f of no avail—if there w as no respect for nationa l, —treaties would have very littl e effect. De ei n a , r h q h o ; had been made in the face of Europe by the FlT' t - c , vernment similar to what had been notified j `", British Government, that the French had ll° ue- Xl °/1 proceed to hostilities —that they were most of we to maintain peace, and had no national calls ° ° Olt or conflict with Morocco. He saw by the te roel l- to ' Hon. Gentleman th at h e di strusted these sti",", - l After the elabor a t e comp li ments wh i ch h e had ibe.°,o the King of th e F renc h an d to the French pe ople' V not think he ought sirous to sneer at tho s e declaration s ' i 0 Right Hon. Gentleman seemed de •of 0 3111 10' his popularity with the French people when h ; Sous e visited P ar i s , w ith ou t l os i ng his patriotism in t ' of Commons.—(Laughter.) Mr. SHEIL—I did not sneer. I said nothinglitiesoll, Sir R. PEEL knew that the Right Hon- Gen na tli o said nothing, but the Right Hon. Gentleman war or n , rally so eloquent, that a shrug of his sit" crop g ill sneer on his face was as expressive as l a nguagt 3 _ n i a recl_a other.—(Laughter.) Monsieur Guisot had cic__,, n t the French Chambers that the French Govern7,,tby, no views of conquest with regard to More the terifila had no views of territorial aggrandisement, as ge 5 , 0 tory of Algeria was quite sufficient for France . so rt, ‘;', o that they disclaimed cherishing any views of tu,' A forot7, B they merely demanded from the Emperor oL o tier that they should live in peace and their I, l troo po_7, secure. They demanded th a t the assembling oi ia be P';'f _ the agents of Morocco or Abd-el.Kader r iglits n a vented, that those officers who, contrary to tiled Ivy u nations, had attacked them, should be I 'l were 41 punished, and that if the Emperor of Morocoy_ oolt. sirous of giving an asylum to Abd-el-lacler,orto hot.; be directed to repair to the interior should sea -coast, and that a fixed residence.s st e re t be assigned him, and that guarall d n ot a` t he be given that from a friendly state he wn ch were th e his attacks on another friendly state. _o_u nanii t in on' intimations giren by the French Governor Rightforce• most frank and unreserved manner. . 1 nac al er e Gentleman had adverted to the state of the!_ cted . TP O6 and taunted them with their leaving it ire e nco ntrY the y was no doubt, that seeing the revenue o h t e tti' coon tr Y' insufficient to meet the expenses of the a s as ient ed thought it'right to husband the publichanr n ot n e ,f i e sva 4 as possible ; but he thought that they In 1838 s erfi e° the exigencies of the public service. _ ffic i e nt ~e t set l* now speaking of grants for the c vice and the revenue service) —in 85,0001'. of the navy, discarding the estiTat l e B3 this effect of the naval service Was 3,0 fsort e ,ePsta.l,6s;atteyeforoi 4 "'c.~