The Sun. — London, England, 1851-04-09 00:00:00

fourtir,,'; .3: Wan SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ( THIS DA Y.) ROUSE OF COMMONS. .The BrEALZia took the Chair at Twelve o'clock. THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passed: Great Western Railway (Arrangements with reference to the purchase. &c., of the Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth, Ste. Railways). Stockton and Darlington, Wear Valley, and Middles brough and, Redcar Railway Companies eAmalgh mation (No. 2). Uttoxeter to Stoke, near Stone, and from Millwich to Sandon Turnpike Roads. SMITHFIELD MARKET. Petitions were presented in favour of the removal of this market, by Sir E. N. Buxton, from South Essex; by Mr. U. Drummond, from Dorking; by Mr. Henley, from Oxfordshire; by the Dud of Arundel, from Surrey ; by Mr. 'Steedford, from Reading ; by Mr. Carter, from the Society for the Pre vention of Cruelty to Animals; by Sir George Grey, shtned by 30,000 of 'the merchants and bankers of the city of London; by, Mr. Christopher, from 500 graders of the county of "Lincolnshire; also from Stamford and .Boston. Petitions we re also presrnted against the removal of the market by Major Beretford, from Essex; by Mr. i)eedes, fror-h Hampshire and Wil ts hi re; by Sir IL Hal f Id, from Leicestershire; by Lord Burghley, by Mr. Stafford, from Northamptonshire; by Sir J. Duke, from 78,000 of the inhabitants of London. ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION. Mr. AGLIONBY moved that so much of the evi dence taken before the St. Alban's Election Committee as constitutes the charge reported by the Committee, upo'a which Henry Edwards has been committed to the cwatody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, be laid before this! • Fouse. Sir G. CLERIC thought that the course proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was not the best that could be taken in the matter. It would be quite suffi cient for th purpose if the short-hand writer were or dered to attend at the bar of the .House with his notes Of the evidence. Ater a short discussion the short-hand writer was . ordered to be in attendance at the bar to-morrow at five o'clock. METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET BILL. Mr. B. DENNISON withdrew this Bill, and in doing so begged to deny the insinuation which bad been cir culatCd abroad, that the Great Northern Railway had anything to do with this Bill. SMITHFIELD ENLARGEMENT BILL. On Sir JAMES DUKE rising to move the second ' reading of this Bill, a discussion ensued on a point of order, which was ultimately settled by The SPEAKER, who decided that, according to the rules respecting notices given at the Private Bill-office, the Hon. Baronet was quite in order; and Sir JAMES DUKE then simply moved the second reading of. the Bill. Mr. CHRISTOPHER then said that as the second reading of this Bill was persevered in. he should, with ~the permission of the House, recall the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced. In the first place, they would remember that this Bill had already been submitted to a Select Committee, and that on the evidence taken by it, the Government had decided on bringing in a Bill for the removal of Smithfield market to another locality. Only two members of the Corporation had ventured to oppose the introduction of the Government Bill, and he therefore thought that he was perfectly entitled to consider the two' Bills together. --(Hear, hear.) What did the Corporation propose? Why, nothing more than to keep the market in its present central situation, only with an enlargement. He was told by one of the witnesses in the Committee that this enlargement would be to the extent of about sixteen or eighteen acres, but on going over the ground by a correct admeasurement it was less than eight and a quarter acres, a space altoge ther below the necessities of the case. He was told something about baths and washhouses, but what was the benefit to be derived from them compared with the disadvantages which would be incurred by the continu ance of the market? The alterations proposed could only be effected by the expenditure of upwards of a million of money.—(Heir, hear.) Mr. Alderman SIDNEY begged to correct the Eon. Member.—(Cries of Order!' and the Hon. Alderman ultimately sat down.) Mr. CHRISTOPHER resumed, and said that accord ing to the published estimates the money required would be 1,043,0001. Now it should be recollected that a few, and only a few, but more than he wished to see, of foreign cattle came to Smithfield. Some, but not many, came from Sussex and the southern counties of; England, so that it became a paramount object that the cattle sold in the market should not be driven, as they now were, through the narrow streets and lanes of the City. If this enlargement was made it was very evident that the whole of the expense must come out of the pocket; of the tarmerit and graziers of the counties north of London. And even supposing that was not to be, yet still the mere alteration of the market could not serve the object which all admitted it was necessary to obtain. The Hon. ' Gentleman then read a resolution of the Select Committee, in order to show their condemnation of the mere alteration of the market, and the necessity for its removal. Now, ac cording to the best computation, on a full market day net less than 7,000 head of cattle and 30,000 sheep were crowded to ether on the inadequate space of a little mere than six acres of ground. Jr. was, therefore, manifestly impossible that the business could be properly Carried on, and the consequence was, that farmer or grazier was left entirely at the mercy of the butcher and salesman; and he had heard that on one occasion as many as 2,000 head of cattle had been driven aeay, be cause there ivas no room for them in the market. — (Hear, hear.) But even should adequate space bo af forded, that would not remedy the other serious evil of which both the farmers and the public bad to complain, viz., the deterioration of the quality of the meat.— . (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then read some ex tracts from butchers before the Select Committee, to prove thin point; and then went on to say that by the system now pursued the cattle were depreciated in qua . ,lity to the extent of 1/. per head. With regard to the agricultural districts, ho could only say that they had been induced to support the removal of the mar : . ket .under an erroneous impression, but be hoped the House would abolish the abominable nui settee and support the Bill of the Government. He concluded by moving that the present Bill be read a second time this day six months. Mr. FITZROY said before he went into a considera tion of the advantages or disadvantages of the Bill, ho should like to say a word or two upon the sttbject of the claim which the Corporation wet up to continue the market in their own hands. Now, how stood the fact ? When the market was originally established the whole population • of London was almost comprised within the walls of the City, but since then the population had been re duced to 120,000, and of those same 50,000 claimed the prescriptive right of keeping the market with all its attendant inconveniences within the City in opposi tion to the opinion of the majority.—(Hear, hear.) A - second class of persons who opposed its removal besides these was the market salesmen and money-takers; but ' he would first dispose of the City population before he dealt with the salesmen.—(gear') Now great stress had been laid by the Hon. Baronet the Member for the • • Cl itY upon a petition which he had recently presented on this subject, and with the permission of the House he would mention a few facts in connexion wish that petition. Ile had a right to ascertain whether or no alt the s i gnatures to that petition were ge nuine. wel, thee, b es id es t h ose w hi c h h a d b een attached to it under l an erroneous impression of its prayer, he had been given to understand, and the parties themselves were ready to that no less make an a ffi davit of the fact, then sixty-one names had actually been forged to the petition.—(Hear, hear.) Contrast, on the other hand, that fact with the petition which had been presented by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and they found that whereas the one was unworthy of credit while the other bore the names of every eminent house in the City, and some 2,121 of th e Lion, Baronet's own ward.—(He ar.) inhabitants of the He came now to • the second class of people who object to the removal, name ly, the salesmen and stoney-takers. That their individual interests would be injured by the re moval there could be no question, but the grounds which they. urged against the removal were unfounded in truth. They say it will not injure them, but it will destroy the trade; but so far from doing that, in his op inion it would consi derably improve and increase the trad e of the metro p olis.— (Hear, h ear .) New with reference to t he details of the Billit w assaid the e nlargement would be amplysuf fi c ie ntto accommodatethe Public.- but he distinctly denied that it wo u ld, f or although one of the witnesses examined before the Commission, Mr. Taylor, he believed, stated that 5 ' °450 b eats was the maximum number ever re quired to be tied u in Senithfield-rnarket, he found by the returns th at on the 16th of December lent there wer e 6,400 beasts actually turned and sold out, besides some 30 00 0 odd sheep, so that if the enlarge ment went upon th e an d he was told it did this, the u n d ersta n d i ng, g reater than maximum would ne ver be - 5,000, how could it be sufficie nt a ccommodate the daily increasio g t rade ofhe to e tro vo lt s ?—(Hear.) • , Then, agein, with respect to th e loss w hich annua ll y re , in suited foom the w an t o f room the market, that was not a question which concern ed but th e tradesman alone, it was a question that materially concerned the general public too. The annual loss from the deteriorationof the boasts was estimated in round numbers ateeh like 200,0001., and from that loss the public suffered severe l y, besides getting sometimes very bad meat into the bar gain: ga t n .—(ffear, hear.) But how was it proposed to carry . out this extewion? Wby in this way :_three en • trences were to be placed near Victoria -street, where only one would be required, lied one was to be placed to the north of the market, where at least half-a do:en would be wanted. The plan, therefore, was defective in the extreme, and since it was only proposed .to promote tile interest of the retail dealer in the neighbourhood of the present market, where one house in every five Was a tavern, he was quite confident the House would not pass the Bill in opposition to the • expressed wishes of —(fl the vast body of the community. hear • ) ear, • Sir CHARLES KNIGIITLEY was at a loss to know what his Honourable Friend who had just spoken had to do with the question, for he had never sent a single ex; or sheep to the market in his life.—(Hear, and laughter.) Now, the opinions which be had to give to the House on the sub , ject wore all founded on experience. For forty years he had been in the habit of sending cattle to London. On THE SUN, tho average he had sent 100 in the course of the season, and during that period he had never had a loss or accident of any kind whatever.—(Hear, hear.) The inhabitants ot 4 Smithfield did not want the market re- moved, they did not complain of its being a nuisance, and he should be glad to know what business anybody else had to interfere in the matter?—(A laugh.) He was told that fine ladies were alarmed by the horned beasts, and that nurses and children were continually being run over.—(Hear, hear.) Why, how could that be, when half the beasts were driven to and from the market before these fine ladies could be out of their beds, while, as for the nurses and children, they had no business in the streets leading to Smithfield, they ought to confine themselves to the squares and retired parts of the town.—(A laugh.) The fact was, there were some people who wanted to make their fortunes by the removal, and that was the real secret of this opposition. The question resolved itself into this-whether they should sweep Smithfield market clein away out of the town, and compel parties to drive cattle right through the town from certain directions, in order to get to it? He thought, himself, there was a great deal of mock humanity connected with the present subject. He should give his decided opposition to the present measure— (Laughter)—he meant his support to the proposition of the Ci,y authorities.—(Hear.) Sir 11. 'VERNEY said the question ought to be considered as one affecting the public interests. Was it or was it not true that the existence of Smithfield-market in the heart of the metropolis rendered the air impure, and poluted the water of the Thames? There could be little doubt, he thought, that such was the case. The Hon. Member for Lewes said the market was originally intended for a city of from 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants; but now that the population had grown to two millions, accom modation of a different character, and a site capable of ex tension were required. The Committee reported that one of the great objections to Smithfield-market was, that it was not accessible by rail. This was a matter of great importance, and in framing an Act of Parliament ought not to be lost sight of, because it was found that animals were very much injured or deteriorated in value, when they were brought to market by railway trucks instead of being driven.—(Hear.) There was also another question of very great importance which ought to be taken into con sideration, viz., having a large and ample area.—( Hear.) It was quite clear that by the plan of the city of London, Smithfield was not capable of sufficient extension, so as to meet all the objections which had been urged against it on the point of size. What they wanted was a space of be tween 50 and 100 acres. In consequence of the present crowded state of the market, and the long way the cattle bad to be driven, bullocks lost in value between 10s. and 205., and sheep 55., yet the owners of cattle were so completely at the mercy of salesmen and butchers, that they were compelled to resort to Smithfield. He would support the motion for referring the Bill to a Committee of the House.—(Hear.) Mr. W. WILLIAMS was of opinion that the time had come when a change ought to be made in the site of Smith field-market. According to his recollection the subject had been in agitation for more than thirty years, and he thought when the question was now about to be finally settled, that this Bill, as well as the two other Bills should be referred to a Select Committee.—(Hear.) He was not prepared, however, to give his consent to the Government Bill as it now stood, considering that it gave powers to a Commission with regard to the selection of a site, the levying of tolls, and the appointment of officers, which ought not to be reposed in any body of men, especially as such vast interests would be entirely at their mercy.—(Hear.) If a site were selected near Hornsey or Highgate, all the cattle from the southern counties would have to drive right through the metropolis, and thereby occasion greater annoyance and inconvenience than the inhabitants were at present subject to. He would suggest that markets be established on both sides of the river, and that they should be held on alternate days. He approved of the City Bill so far as it proposed to take the entire cost of the new market out of the funds of the corporation, but he thought that the best course to pursue would be to refer all these Bills to a Select Committee. Mr. KER SEYMER said he could offer no stronger reason for sending the Bills to a Committee than the tact that two Hon. Members who addressed the House did not know on which Bill they were speaking.—(Hear.) He hoped the assertions as to the want of reform in the corporatienghwould not have the effect of prejudging the question. He was himself inclined to think, after divesting himself of all prejudice, that the City had brought forward the best Bill.—(Hear.) No one was more opposed than he was to continuing Smithfield-market in the centre of the metropolis, but when he came to examine into the question in detail he found that it was not to be so summarily disposed of. He denied that the Times was correct in designating, as it had done this morning in a leader, that the discussion was between the promoters of a cattle-market as it ought to be, and the defenders of the City market as its is. There was no provision in the Government Bill as to preventing cattle being driven through the streets. Now, as to the abolition of private slaughter-houses, if the City plan were adopted, the improvements which would be carried out under it would get rid of some of the most disgusting and abominable collec tion of nuisances which existed in the world.—(Hear.) Sir J. DUKE denied that the whole of the inhabitants of Fleet-street were in favour of the Government Bill ; on the contrary, the parochial authorities of that part of the City had expre,sed to him their decided objection to that measure. The nuisance of driving cattle through the streets the City proposed to meet by having a new market walled round, and preventing any cattle being driven out of the gates after eight o'clock in the morning. If the market was removed from its present position the trade of many respectable gentlemen who Thad carried on business there for more than half a century would be entirely destroyed. One-third of the whole cattle sold at Smithfield were driven over Blackfriars-bridge, and if the market were removed to five or six miles north of London, the evil of cattle traversing the streets would be increased instead of diminished. He considered that the system of establishing abattoirs, as proposed by the Government, would have the effect of increasing the price of meat. He was ready to agree to refer the Bill to a Committee if the ,q - embers were not noini' , aced by the Government, but by the Select Committee of the House. If such a Committee came to the conclusion that the City plan did not remedy all the evils complained of, give ample space, and prevent cruelty to animals, he, for one, would not persist in supporting it.-Z(Hear.) 21r. C. LE ‘VIS entered into a statement of the steps which had been taken by the House in regard to this subject, and said the question now before them was, whether it was expe dient to perpetuate the market iii the heart of the city, or ex pedient to remove it to a more convenient sp in the suburbs. The Corporation of London had had an opportunity offered to them of taking the management of the new market, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department had written to them on the subject; but, after some consideration, they had refused to have any thing to do with it. On that refusal the only proposition they could make was to appoint especial commission on the subject, which would sit and report to the House. With regard to the tolls the City proposed to carry out this plan of theirs by imposing an additional toll ; and to this fact he begged to direct the attention of those who insisted that the proposal of Government would, if carried into effect, raise the price of meat ; but he thought if any increase in price was likely to take place it would be the r , sult of a plan which laid an additional tax that must be ultimately paid by the graziers. The question before the House, which he called upon the House to decide, was whether it was expedient now for the first time to clear away twelve acres of an intolerable grievance or whether they would perpetuate it. He thought the House was the best tribunal for deciding the question, and not a Select Com mittee. In conclusion he might state that Government had no interest in this question as a Government ; they had fixed en no site, and had no preference for any one more than another. Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said no one was more ready to allow that Smithfield-market in its present state was an intol lerable nuisance; that its limited area had often been the scene of great cruelty to the animals brought there ; and he would bethe last to ask for its perpetuity. In the new plan, however, of the city of London, all these difficulties and ob jections would be obviated ; there was space enough in the new market to tie up twice as many animals as ever had yet been brought. The driving of cattle through crowded places, which had been so much complained of, would be removed, and he thought:that the public would have no more reason to complain. With regard to the letter of the Secretary of State, offering the Corporation the management of the new market, the Corporation had refused it, because they had felt them selves to be trustees of the properties of the citizens of the metropolis in general. He wanted to know what was the reason that Government could give for bringing in this Bill ? He asked them in what respect they had abused the privi leges which they had inherited. The Hon. Member for )lhrthamptonshire had stated that though as a grazier he had sent cattle for 40 years to Smithfield, he had never in the whole course of his experience known a single case of injury to his cattle. He thought that that assertion was emphatically indicative of the state of the case. The members of the Government might be intimately acquainted with all the necessities of diplomatic relations, but it was altogether out of their province to manage a great public market like this, for they might just as well attempt to create a man by Act of Parliament as to ensure the success of that market which they now proposed. He would now call the attention of this House to what the Corporation of London had done, and what had been the result of their proceedings. They had, at an expense of 200,0001., removed Fleet-market from the streets of London, and had built a new market; but Farringdon market, as it was called, had never paid either dividend or interest.—(Hear, hear.) Then there was Billingsgate, which unquestionably was overcrowded, and an attempt had been made to supersede it by the establishment of the market at Hungerford, but that was precisely in the same position. It had never paid a single dividend to the share holders, and he believed that it was let to a company of French speculators, with a view to supply the great number of persons from abroad who were likely to be present in London during the ensuing few months.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") He would next refer to another market which had been attempted at Islington. An exten sive area had been laid out for the sale of cattle. It was opened and cccupied for the first six or seven months, but ever since that time it had been closed. —(Cries of "Divide, divide.") He would now turn to another subject which had engaged much of public attention. It was asserted that the present Smithfield-market was injurious to public health. they had prisons, hospitals, schools, and a large workhouse in the immediate neighourhood, and yet he was prepared to show, that d ur i ng th e late lamentable visitation of cholera no place in London had been more free from disease than Smith field. It was alleged that a cattle market in the centre of Londone eten e w xi aslik ee ely to be prejudicial to the general welfare other similar by the existence establishments. slaughter-houses, of No. knackers'-houses, there were few er of such establish w me l n t ts w i a n s the th h e neighbour hood thatour hood of Smithfield than in l b anye e other part of the crowded dis tricts in London. It s h ou l d e t -y o e deprive ore rpthe was Houle derived of from this o ho l n l s e s cted that a revenue of m in ar t k h e is t,a sa n r d o then f - e lB re mto attempt Governments rive them o f th ose r i ghts which they had enjoyed for so many centuries? The Corporation had I.pro vided against the continuancee of the nuisances of w hi c h com plaints was granted,liadbee to obviate,nmade.Th in f e Corporation aerysys to s o v k ilh powers, wich if the Bill could possibly be suffered from the continuance of the market in Smithfield. The Hon. Alderman spoke amidst great inter ruption, and continual cries of "Divide." H UME said that he would not be misled by the Hon. Alderman. If the Corporation of London were able and willing to do away with the nuisance, which plainly arose from the existence of the cattle market in Smithfield, they should have proceeded in a different way. Let a full inquiry be instituted, and let the whole of the question be referred to a Committee up stairs, not a Committee of two or three, but of a suficient number of Members to ascertain all the particulars. This was a matter that affected the whole country, and with a view to accomplish the object which he had just intimated, , he should vote for the second rea ding of the Bill. Mr. WAKLE Y said that although he was opposed to the Bill in its present shape, he should vote fo r its second reading, with a hope that it would be referred to a Committee, in order to come at all the particulars. Therehad been many attempts to subvert Smithfield -market, for they had had several private members who had proposed their own plans, and now they had Russell ftlgl lAugh)—engaged iu the work.— LONDON, (Hear, hear.) He remembered that the Hon. Gentleman the Under -Secretary for the Home Department, who seemed to have the principal care of the Govern ment Bill, was once a poor-law commissioner, and that when in that office he had tried to discover upon how little a poor man could subsist.--(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) lie rather feared him now, and was apprehensive that it the cattle market was removed out of town, that the price of meat would be increased; and that, in fact, they would have a small quantity at a high rate, and he should, therefore, vote for the second reading of the Bill, with a view to have the _ . whole affair investigated before a Committee. Sir GEORGE GREY said that Hon. Members had spoken as if the two Bills were intended to serve the same ob- ject, whereas they were essentially different in character, and led to very different termini. He thought the duty ought not to be imposed upon a Select Committee of de ciding between two such opposite principles. The Hon. Alderman opposite had allowed that Smithfield in its pre sent state was an intolerable nuisance, and the Commission had reported that no amount of enlargement could do away with these nuisances ; the course then was quite clear. He might remark that this was not the first time that the enlargement of Smithfield-market kid been mooted, for he found that in 1809 the Board of Trade had refused to agree to a project for its enlargement on the ground that even then it would be insufficient for the accommodation of the metro- polis. Mr. STAFFORD having personally visited the whole neighbourhood of Smithfield, and gone over almost every one of the nuisances existing in and about it, now called upon the House to support the present Bill, on the ground of self preservation, because if they passed the Government measure they would leave all these nuisances untouched, and give the City the opportunity of building over the small area, which would then be left unoccupied. He thought, at least, if they did pass the Government measure they ought to take care to make such arrangements in Com mittee with the City as would obviate this objection. The Noble Lord, he believed, was invited to dine with the Lord Mayor this evening, and he wondered how it would be when the Noble Lord rose to reply to the usual post-prandial com pliments. He must tell them that, though he had the greatest respect for their generous hospitality, yet, as re garded their privileges connected with Smithfield-market, those certainly he must deprive them of. He was surprised at the intrepidity of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State in proposing another, and he hoped it would be the last. This was a question beyond humanity to animals, but one which conduced to the removal of a plague-spot from the metropolis, which affected the souls and lives of thousands of their fellow-creatures. Mr. W. MILES thought that the speech of the Hon. Gen tleman was merely a prop to a falling cause he had appealed to their humanity in favour of their fellow-creatures, and entirely thrown away all consideration for the beasts. One argument which would induce him to vote against this Bill would be to do justice to the farmers and graziers of England, and to rid them of the interposition of middlemen between them and their customers. . Mr. B. OSBORNE said this was not a butcher's question, nor a grazier's question, but one which affected the supply of meat to many thousands of individuals. He should support the motion fur referring the Bill to a Select Committee. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said the real question was, whether the plan of the City, which the Government Com mission had admitted to be a great improvement, was not deserving the consideration of the House. H the Bill were rejected on the second reading, it would preclude any improvement in Smithfield-market this year. The Government scheme would entail a large expense on the country, while the Corporation were ready to carry out the improvements of the market at their own cost, and to sacrifice an income of 5,0001. a year to meet the expense. Sir B. HALL considered this entirely a Corporation ques tion. It was only after the reports of sanitary commissioners and a strong expression of public indignation against the continuance of Smithfield-market, that the City authorities ever thought of introducing the present Bill. There was not one clause in the Bill to compel the Corporation to carry out the plans they proposed, and he was not disposed to give power to an irre sponsible body, who might use it to the injury rather than to the benefit of the public. Mr. MACKINNON opposed the Bill. Mr. M.A.STERMAN supported the second reading of the Bill. He considered that the Government measure would create greater inconvenience to the public, and besides tend to the destruction of private property. Lord J. RUSSELL said tie considered it his duty to op pose the second reading of the Bill. It had been correctly stated that it would. -affect the interests of upwards of two millions of people. He had not taken any hasty or inconsiderate view of the question, because when the Committee reported against the continuance of Smithfield-market he said he thought the question was a doubtful one, and deserved further inquiry. A commis sion was subsequently appointed to take the subject into their consideration, and they arrived at the same conclusion; and the question now before the House was not as to the merits of competing Bills, but whether Smithfield-market should be removed from a central part of the metropolis to some dis tant point in the suburbs.—( Hear, hear.) The Commission mentioned several sites, but they did not venture to say which was the best. L3oking at the great and increasing population of the metropolis, it was impossible to find a site within the limits of its boundary capable of being sufficiently enlarged not only for the wants of the present day, but for the next 50 years, without taking a large amount of valuable property, the cost of which would have the effect of increas ing the toll charged at the market.— (Hear, hear.) It was quite evident that a market established in the reign of Edward 111., in the very heart of London, was unfit to meet the necessities of our great population.—(Hear.) He considered this a great public question. It was the duty of the House to provide for the wants of upwards of two millions of people ; before long that number would be increased to three millions ' and it was their duty to provide for the improved health of the vast *lumber of persons living in so confined a space. There were besides other reasons concerning the well-being of the metropolis which might be alleged against the continuance of the market in its present position; and much as he regretted differing from many members of the Corporation, he felt bound to oppose the second reading. Mr. MOWATT objected to sending the Bill to a Com mittee, because lie was opposed to any course which would give the slightest acknowledgment that there was anything to justify the continuance of the market in the centre of the metropolis. The existing market had been condemned not only by public opinion, but by the decisions of every Com mittee which had sat on the subject since 1805.—(Divide ) Sir H. HAL FORD explained that the farmers and graziers of Leicestershire deprecated the removal of the market to a suburban district, though they were in favour of its enlargement and improvement. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the second reading ... 124 Against it Majority ... ... —122 SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL. Sir GEORGE GREY then moved the second reading o this Bill, observing that it was the intention of Government to refer it to the consideration of a Select Committee of nine Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. Mr. HUME objected to the motion. It was too late to refer this Bill to a Select Committee after the House had rejected the other. After a few words from Mr. C. LEWIS, Alderman SIDNEY gave it as his opinion that this Bill ought to be made a public measure. He begged to ask if the Bill had not up to the present stage been conducted by Parliamentary agents, and at the public expense? Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to reply in the af firmative. Alderman SIDNEY thought that was contrary to all pre cedent. Sir GEORGE GREY repeated that it was quite regular. Mr. A. STAFFORD wished to know if Government were prepared to take steps to keep Smithfield an open space, in the event of the market being removed, by purchasing the land ? Lord J. RUSSELL said the Government had certainly no idea of purchasing the site. Sir JAMES DUKE would not put the House to the trouble of dividing, but in justice to the City both Bills ought to have been referred to the Committee. Mr. DUNCOMBE would be glad to know whether this Bill was to be treated as a public or a private measure. Sir GEORGE GREY said the Bill assumed the double character of a public and a private Bill, which would have to be considered both by a Select Committee and a Com mittee of the whole House. The SPEAKER explained that when the Bill had been disposed of by the Select Committee, it would be considered in a Committee of the whole House, and thenceforward it would become a private Bill. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked if the opponents of the Bill, who were the owners of the market, would have an oppor tunity of giving evidence before the Committee? The SPEAKER said if the owners of the market petitioned against the Bill, their petition would be referred to the Select Committee, and if the Committee thought fit the petitioners would have an opportunity of proving their allegations. Sir W. JOLLIFF -. wished to know if the Bill, or the no tices which had been given under it, would embrace a new site for the market? The SPEAKER not having seen the notices, could not answer that question, but the Bill would have to be con fined strictly to the object which the notices embraced. Mr. HENLEY said from his own knowledge an immense number of cattle were driven over Blackfriars-bridge, and therefore a sufficient accommodation was required on the south side of the Thames. He wished to ask the Govern ment to answer the question as to whether any notice bad been given to the landowners in the southern counties respecting the alteration which was now proposed? After a few words from Mr. DEE DES, Sir G. GREY replied to Mr. Henley that the Government were not pledged to any particular site, but that they would take that or those sites which appeared most eligible for the market. Due notice would of course be given to the landed proprietors and their tenants. In reply to Mr. BAILLIE, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that whatever site might be selected it would be kept open. Captain HARRIS begged to remind the Government that the access from one part of the metropolis to another for cattle was exceedingly difficult, and that some guarantee should be given to the public that no inconvenience would arise from the change. He thought that a better Bill should be introiuced, and this one altogether done away with. Mr. S. WORTLEY would observe that by the charter of the city of London no market could be established without the consent of the Corporation within seven miles of Smithfield. Mr. HUDSON said he regretted that they had re jected the previous Bill, and the only plan which could be advisedly pursued was to defer this Bill till next year. Mr. Alderman SIDNEY arose amidst great opposition and cries of " Spoke, spoke." The motion for the second reading was then put, and The House divided, when there appeared— For the second reading Noes ... •-• ••• Majority .. •„ The Bill was accordingly read a second time. On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. HUME on his legs, declaring his opinion that the course which the Government ought now to take was to abolish the Corporation of London, for if there was one thing more than another which was the duty of a corpo ration, it was the management of its own market.—( Hear.) But the Government would not let them. (Hear, hear.) Where was this system of centralisation to end?—(Hear, hear.) Ile objectal to this vote, because it was tantamount to a deelaration that the Corporation of London was unfit to manage its own affairs.—(Hear, hear.) He had always been of an opinion that the best site for a market was the centre of the town, and looking at the improvements that the Corporation had made and were preparing to make in Smith field, he thought it was most unjust for that House to inter ' fere with them.—(Hear, hear.) He had this consolation, however, that there was no chance of the Bill passing this session.—( Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL did not think the City would be much obliged to the Hon. Member for suggesting that its corpora -1 tion should be abolished. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. HUME had made no such suggestion. He simply expressed an opinion, that rather than pass this Bill it would have been better, or at all events it would have been more consistent, had Government taken the charter away from the corporation altogether. Lord JOAN RUSSELL eaicl it vote uelyereally admitted ... ..• 230 ... 65 ...---1,5 WEDNESDAY EVENING, that the present market was exceedingly inconvenient to the public, and since the corporation had declined the offer of Government to provide a new market elsewhere, Govern ment had no alternative but to provide one themselves. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said, though this was not a ques tion of abolishing the corporation, yet it was a question of abolishing the property of the corporation. and he thought the simple and expressive words of " a robbery" would best convey the real character of this Bill. He hoped therefore that if this Bill passed, clauses would be introduced into it for compensating the Corporation for any loss they might sustain from the removal of the market. bir. STUART WORTLEY wished to know from the Speaker, if the Corporation of the City would have a right to be heard by counsel before the Committee ? The SPEAKER said, if they petitioned against it they would. Mr. CHRISTOPHER was glad the House had pronounced against the continuance of Smithfield-market. It was a public nuisance, and as the Corporation had refused to re move it, Government was bound to do it for them. The public must and would have a more convenient market. Sir JAMES DUKE did not object to the public having a more convenient market, but what he and the Corporation did object to was, that the Government wanted to shut up their: ancient market in defiauce of right and justice. If the public wanted another maket, and the Government was disposed to find it for them, all well and good, but don't let the Government at the same time attempt forcibly to close Smithfield. _ Mr. A. STAFFORD was quite convinced this Bill would not be passed by the Upper House, and the consequence would be that Smithfield would have to remain in its pre sent inconvenient state for another twelvemonths. How much better it would have beeen had the House passed the Corporation Bill, and allowed the present market to be con siderably enlarged and improved without a moment's delay. Alderman SIDNEY renewed his application to Govern ment to make the Bill a public measure, and let the whole House decide upon it. Sir G. G KEY said the forms of the House would not allow them to pursue that course. The Bill was then ordered to be committed, and a resolu tion passed directing the Committee of Selection to nominate nine Members to sit on the Committee. STROUD AND GLOUCESTER 2 URNPIKE-ROAD BILL. Sir W. JOLLIFFE moved that the order of the 4th of April, for the third reading of the Stroud and Glou cester Turnpike•road Bill, be read and discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee. Agreed to. ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION. Mr. E. ELLICE said he was directed by the St. Alban's Election Committee to apply to the House for leave to adjourn until twelve o'clock on Monday next. Agreed to. RELIGIOUS HOUSES BILL. On,Aba order of the day being read for the second reading of this 13111, Mr. LACY moved that it be postponed until the 30th of April. Mr. GRATTAN hoped the House would treat the Bill with the contempt it deserved, and kick it over the bar. It was an insult to all Roman Catholics. Mr. REYNOLDS suggested if the Hon. Member was in earnest in proceeding with the Bill that he should post pone it until a further period, in order to enable Irish Members to be present. The Bill was an insult to all Roman Catholic ladies who occupied these religious houses. Mr. LACY was perfectly in earnest in bringing forward the Bill, and should proceed with it as long as he lived and the House gave him power to do so. Mr. O'FLAHERTY said he was anxious that the Bill should be discussed in the House, because he considered that it wasa foul libel on religions houses, and that discussion would place them in a true light before ►he public. The order of the day, after some further discussion, was then postponed until the 14th of May. EXPENSES PROSECUTIONS BILL. The amendments to this Bill wereconsidered, and agreed to. COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDERS BILL. The ameadmeats to this Bill were considered and ageed to, ANNUAL INDEMNITY BILL. _ __ Leave was given to bring in this Bill on the motion of Mr. C. LEWIS. The Bill was subsequently brought in. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned at Six o'clock. ELECTION COJIMITTE.-( THIS DAY.) ST. ALBAN'S. The Committee sat this morning at half-past twelve. Mr. Sergeant KIIIGLAKB made an application to the Com mittee to proceed with the inquiry into this case. He con tended that the Committee had no right under the present Act of Parliament to make any special report to the House except at the time when they reported their final determination. The Learned Counsel quoted all the authorities on the subject, each of which he contended supported his view of the case. He could find no precedent of a Committee making any special report while the proceedings were going on. Mr. E. JAMES followed on the same side. He contended that the Committee had no right under the 83d sec:ion of the Act, except in cases where witnesses had refused is answer, or had been served with the Speaker's warrant, and had not obeyed. The case was analagous to a trial at Nisi Prius, where, if the necessary witnesses might be kept away by one of the interested parties, the case would still go on, and a verdict be given, although the judge would direct proceedings to be instituted against the offending per. eons; and he contended, therefore, that the Committee had no power to delay this inquiry. A.r. Sergeant WR&NGHAM opposed the application. After hearing the arguments of Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Merewether, in opposition to the application of the sitting Member's Counsel, The Committee announced their resolution of applying to the House for leave to adjourn the inquiry until Monday. The Committee then rose, at three o'clock. BANK OF ENGLAND,—.(THIS DAY.)—A. Court of Proprietors was held this day for the election of directors. The proceedings commenced at ten o'clock, and at four o'clock the following gentleman were declared duly elected :—Thomas Baring, Esq., Henry Wollaston Blake, E:q., Edward Henry Chapman, Esq., Robert Wigram Crawford, Esq., %I , illiam Cotton, Esq., Benjamin Buck Gre .ne, Esq., John Oliver Hanson, Esq., John Benjamin Heath, Esq., n irkman Daniel Hodgson, Esq., Henry Lancelot Holland, Esq., Thomas Newman Hunt, Esq., Charles Frederick Huth, Esq., Alfred Latham, Esq., George Lyall, jun., Esq., Thomas Nasterman, Esq., Alexander Matheson, Esq., James Morris, Esq., George Warde Norman, Esq., John Horsley Palmer, Esq., Sir John Henry Pelly, Bart., Henry James Prescott, Esq., Thomas Charles Smith, Esq., Thomas Matthias Weguelin, Esq., Francis Wilson, Esq. EXTENSION OF THE MUNICIPAL CONSTITUENCY. On Monday a meeting of the inhabitants of Billings gate Ward was held at Fellowship Hall, St. Mary•at- Hill, for the purpose of taking into consideration the present defective and unsatisfactory state of the muni cipal constituency, and to adopt suckmeasures as might be expedient. The meeting was called by a requisition of 35 of the inhabitants addressed to the Alderman of the Ward. The chair was taken by Mr. Alderman SIDNEY, M.P., who expressed great satisfaction at the opportunity of being able to forward any measure which would tend to enlarge the present limited roll of freemen electors, and quite agreed with the wording of the requisition, that the right of voting for aldermen and common councilmen of London ought to be extended to all citizens paying scot and bearing lot within the city of London. Mr. MURRAY, the ward clerk, having read the requi sition, Mr. BOUSFIELD moved, " That the present roll of freemen electors, within the city of London, is limited and capricious, excluding many persons, wbo, by occu pancy, and residence, should be entitled to vote for municipal officers, and that in the opinion of this meet ing the Act of 12 and 13 Vio. (one to amend the 11th Geo. L), has tended to lessen the municipal constituency, contrary to the avowed object of such Act, and that the same, and the above recited Act, ought to be repealed." Mr. BEMAMIN seconded the motion. Mr. BowER admitted, as the advocate of the rights of the existing freemen of the City, that he could go a reasonable way in support of this resolution for extend ing the roll of freemen; but he could not ag ree to any one being permitted to come to resid e in that ward for a short period, and thereby obtain all the privileges of those who, by long residence and the payment of fines, have become possessed of the right of voting for municipal officers. It was necessary to have a foundation for the corporation of the city of London, and some kind of payment for that purpose. There was another difficulty, which was, how they should get the Government to give up their portion of the fines. The CHAIRMAN—They will give up theirs if you will give up yours.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BOWER was sorry to say that the City had fre quently attempted to induce the Chancellor of the Ex chequer to give up the fines, but they had never been successful.—(Hear, hear.) He concluded by moving an amendment, which was in the spirit of the resolution, but did not go quite to that extent as to granting the quali fication. far. SANGsTER agreed on the necessity of extending the roll of freemen, which he thought highly necessary for various reasons, but insisted on more qualification than a residence of a year and a day within the City of London. A misunderstanding had got abroad in respect to this year and a day, for it did not in ancient times per se constitute a freeman, but was the limited time within which a man could take up his freedom of the City, and thereby save himself from servitude. Mr. Ssngster con cluded a very able speech by seconding the amendment. The enamour; then put the amendment, which was lost, and the original motion was carried. Mr. BERLEY moved a resolution to the enact " that every person occupying premises in the city of London for the period of a year and a day, paying scot and bear ing ht, is a citizen, and entitled to all the benefits and privileges, and subject to all the duties thereof." He took a broad view of the subject by saying that either the corporation should have an Act to compel all citizens whatever to take up their freedom, or repeal the tax altogether, for at present it became an act of necessity on the poor retailer, whilst ~the wholesale man or the merchant evaded the payment. It was asked by Mr. Bower how the present freemen were to be indemuified, to which he would reply that they had taken up their freedom as a trading speculation, and they must put up with its consequences.—(Hear.) He maintained, from history, that the municipal rights of a citizen were anterior to the establishment of the city companies, and, therefore, ought not to be curtailed by these companies. Mr. BowER said, that persons could qualify at present without belonging to any company.—(No, no.) The CHAIRMAN signified that they could do so, but they did not enjoy the whole of their privileges. He thought those who had been thought worthy of being appointed electors for Members of Parliament, should he equally admitted to vote for the alderman and common councilmen of the city of London.—(Applause.) Mr. GRAVES had great pleasure in seconding the re solution. An amendment was proposed by Mr. SANGSTER, but was not seconded. Mr. SANGSTER quite agreed in the movement for ex tending the freedom of the City, and was glad to see it , commenced in the ward of Billingsgate, which, according to their chronicles, had always been forward in the cause of freedom ; indeed it was to that ward the public was first indebted for having reporters ill the Howie of Commons, so fearful were the citizens of their rights being invaded by Parliament.—(llear, hear.) Mr. FOSTER moved—" That a ardmotes he held in this ward, according to ancient user, for the purpose of enrolling such citia , ns as have obtained their right of voting, and for other purposes." Mr. NicsoLsoN seconded the motion, whiclewas agreed to unanimously. • Mr. CARR moved—" That a petition, founded on the above resolutions, addressed to the Aldermen and Cip mon Council of the City of London, be prepared bfrhe ward clerk, and that it be entrusted to Mr. Alderman Sidney for presentation."—(Applanse.) Mr. BESLEY seconded the motion, which was agreed to unanimously. After some observations from Mr. Foster, Mr. Con ston, Mr. Young, and others, a vote of thanks was passed by acclamation to the worthy Alderman for presiding. The CEIAIRMAN, in returning thanks, hoped it could not be thought by any gentleman present, that he would be a party to do anything which would tend to lower or weaken the corporation, of which he was a member, more particularly when he saw a grasping Government intent upon invading the privileges of the citizens of London.—(Great applause.) Ou the contrary, this ex• tension of the suffrage would go to strengthen the Cor poration, and to toe preservation of their municipal rights. A large constituency on the basis now pro posed would give power to the citizens to withstand any nefarious attempt on the part of Government, which now only took advantage of their weak position. As their constituency had been reduced from 50,000 to 6,000 —(lfear)—so by this measure would it increase from 6,000 to 50,000, which was the number of municipal elec tors in the time of Charles ll.—(Cheers.) He should sup port the petition for the best of reasons, first, because it would give satisfaction to the 10,000 or 11,000 non freemen, and, secondly, because such an extension of the freedom would. tend to strengthen the Corporation of the city of London, in doing which they might say to even a powerful Government, " Touch us if you dare." The meeting then broke up. THE LONDON GAZETTE, April 8. BANKRUPTS. George Smellio, silversmith, High-street, Shadwell, to surrender April 17 and May 15, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee, Coleman-street buildings ; Taylor and Collison, Great James-street, Bedford-row. Robert „reach, butcher, Thorney, Cambridgeshire, April 17 afd May 15, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee, Coleman-street-buildings; Robin son, South-square, Gray's Inn. 'William Cox, stockbroker, Blomfield-terrace, Harrow road, April 16, at eleven, and May 20, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee; Rye, Golden-square. James Thomas Hobson, corn merchant, Welling borough, Northamptonshire, April 19, at eleven, and May 29, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Ni cholson, official assignee, Basinghall-street; Lawrauce, Plews, and Boyer, Old Jewry-chambers. William Robinson, dealer and chapman, Brompton, April 19, at twelve, and May 29, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Pennel, official assignee, Basinghall street ; Bennett, Furnival's Inn. George Frederick Jones, surgeon, East Ilsley, Berk shire, April 15, at eleven, and May 20, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee, Ab church-lane; Baylis and Drewe, Red Cross-street. cieorge Stockbridge, draper, Oxford-street, April 15, at two, and May 20, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee, Sambrook-court, Ba-einghall-street; Lawrence, Bread-street, Cheapside. James Hill, linendraper, Holcombe Bogus, Devon shire, April 16 and May 12, at one, at the Exeter Dia -1 trict Court. Hernaman, official asssignee, Exeter; Force, Exeter. John A`Lean, commission merchant, Liverpool, April 17 and May 22, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Bird, official assignee, Liverpool ; Littledale and Bardswell, Liverpool. THE COUNTRA MARKETS. IPSWICH, APRIL 8. We noticed an increased supply of wheat at this day's market. The millers took off some quantity, and the trade was firm at last week's rates. Barley was in small supply, did not meet a very ready sale, and was a trifle cheaper than last week. Other things as of late. PER QUARTER.' PER QUARTER. Wheat, red Ditto, white. 4ss to 48s Oats oos to 00s Barley, malting ~. 21s to 27s Rye Ditto, grinding ... 21s to Oos Malt Beans ... 2Bs to o , ls Flour, per sack ... Oos to 00e AVERAGES FOR THE WEEK ENDING APRIt. 5, 1851. Wheat Barley Oats ........ ... ... Beans. 7 ~ 26s Od Peas . Od HULL, Alma, 8. Messrs. Taylor and Bright's Circular states :—At the beginning of last week there was more activity in the wheat trade than for some time past, and prices were made which had been previously unattainable. Towards the close, how.. ever, the demand somewhat subsided. At to-day's market we were tolerably supplied with wheat by our farmers, which was taken by millers at last week's prices. For foreign wheat there was a moderate inquiry. Of barley we have some foreign arrivals, but the market has lately been very bare, and both grinding and malting qualities are in fair request at full rates. Oats somewhat more inquired after, and the turn dearer. Rather more business passing in beans, but peas are neglected. Linseed remains firm, but not much doing. Hull-made cakes rather dearer ; foreign in moderate demand, and prices un altered. Rapeseed is dull, and somewhat lower. Nothing doing in cakes. The following are the present prices of grain :•—• Wheat, English, red 36 to 401 Peas, white and yel. 27 30 Do. white ...... Dantzic and Ko- Linseed, Black Sea 4B 50 nigsberg 42 46'Do. Petersburgh ... 42 48 Pomeranian and Do. Riga& Archngl. 38 —42 Hamburgh 37 40 Do. Konigsberg .... 38 42 Danish, Holstein, & Per ton Friesland 3 l a— 37 Lins. c,Hull 71 5 s Od to 717 s Russian and Odessa 34 38 Do. fine foreign Oats, English Do. Danish l6 18 Rapeseed Do. Friesland lB 2/0 1 Rape cakes...Bo3 Od to 003 OJ Do. Russ. & Odessa 00 00 Tares, English ......353 —00 s. Barley, malting 25 28 Do. foreign 23s —36 s Do. grinding 2l 22 Guano 6/ to 10/ lUs Beans 25 28 Bones, do 97s 6d to OOs Od D0.. foreign CORK, Asma 7. Barrels. _ _ . Currency. O White wheat oos Od to OOs Od OOs Od-20 stony 2 Red wheat Hs 6d to OOs Od 00s Od-20 do 4 Barley l2s 4d to 00s Od OOs Od-16 do 0 Bere l'6 Oats ... is 5d to II s 6d lOs 4d —l4 do 26 Pigs 32s Od to 36s Od 00s Od per cwt Quantity sold at the Highest Prices:- 0 barrels white wheat; 0 red; U barley; 0 bere ; 6 oats; 3 pigs. Quantity of Grain and Number of Pigs sold last week:— Wheat, 10. Barley, 278. Oats, 1,707. Pigs, 211. Coax.—Flour—First lls 6d to 12s Od ; extra 12s 6d ; seconds, lOs 6d to I Is Od; households 9s to 10d Od; thirds, 7s to 8s per cwt. Oatmeal 105 to 10s 6d; Indian meal 75 6d to 7s 9d; wheat. meal, 9s 6i to lOs per cwt. Indian corn 71 2s 6d to 7110 s per ton. Bran 60s to 00s Od per ton. Hay—Farmers 30s to 445; average 38s ; dealers 44s to 49s Od; average 00s per ton. Str aw— Farmers 30s Od to 42s Od; average COs; dealers 42s Od to 00s Od; average 005 Od per ton. Bread—Wheaten loaf 5d to 6d ; household loaf 4id to 5d per 41b. Fresh butter, 10d to 12d per lb. Eggs-3s 10.3 to 4s Od per hundred. Coals— Ne-vnort 14s Od; Lydney 15s ; Landore 14s ; Neath Culm, 13s 6d per ton. Tallow 37s Od to 38s per cwt Whisky, 25 o. p., 5s 9d per imperial gallon. Meat —Beef 41d to bid; mutton 5d to 7d; veal 4d to 5d ; pork 4d to Od ; bacon 7d to 8d ; sausages 5d per lb. Hops 61 lOs to 0/ Os per cwt. Bangor slates 3/ 2s 6d to 315 s per ton. Bark—Barbary 71 Os to Si Os; Valonia 15/ to 01; French 61 Os ; Spanish 01 per ton. Fleece Wool 14s to 15s per stone. Hemp 32/ to 34/ per ton. Fish— Scotch herrings Ifid to 00s ; red ditto, 26s to 00s per barrel ; Newfoundland, 11/ 5s to 00/ pet ton. Timber—Memel, 803 per ton ; red pine, 31 lOs ; yellow ditto, 21 15s per ton; deals, 12s to 155 per ICI Hides— Market 24s to 345; salted 2bd to 34s per cwt ; calf skins 3id -to 3id per lb. Potatoes, white 8d to 10d ; Minions, lud to 13d. Guano—Peruvian, 11/ 105 Ichaboe, 8/ to 9/ Os per ton. Tar—Archangel, 19s per barrel. LAUGHARNE.—The excitement consequent upon the return of Elizabeth Gibbs to reside in this picturesque watering place, continued unabated for more than a week after the Assizes, and many of the families who are located in Laugharne seriously contemplated removing from such disagreeable proximity. This circumstance still further aroused the popular indignatio7, and on the night of the 27th ult. Gibb's effigy was duly suspended upon a gallons, which was erected in front of her dwelling, and afterwards set fire to, amid the exultation of the mob. On the following evening, a lengthened mock funeral procession paraded up and down the street where Elizabeth Gibbs re sided, which, by the bye, has bad its cognomen metamorphosed into that of 'Scape-the-Gallows street. These reiterated annoyances induced her to leave the town, and accordingly on Wednesday she passed through Carmarthen on her way to Merthyr, again exciting the disgust and indignation of a tu multuous assemblage, who crowded to satiate their curiosity by gazing on the woma❑ whom the law had pronounced innocent of the murders which excited their horror.— Welshman. AN ANCIENT LADY.—The taking up of the census created no little sensation here yesterday. It is said the ladies were particularly annoyed with that column in which their last birth-day was required. One venerable lady we must adduce in honourable contrast to these, who has given in the round figure of 705 as her age.—lnverness Courier. SUSPENSION OF A CLERGYMAN OF THE ESTABLISHED Cit.ttcir.—A strong sensation has been excited in the town of Gravesend in consequence of the suspension for six months of the Rev. Mr. Blew, minister of the church of St. John, by the Bishop of Rochester. The report in the district is that the Bishop was originally applied to on the subject by Mr. Duval, churchwarden of the church of the Most Holy Trinity, and subsequently a correspondence took place between Lord Ashley, Mr. Duval, and the bishop. The result has been the suspension above mentioned. It appears that the church of St. John was originally erected by subscription and let out at different times to different clergymen, and that Mr. Blew ultimately became the pro prietor by purchase. The Rev. Gentleman had succeeded in bringing a large congregation to the church, had formed a school, choristers, &c. The gravamen of his offence is the having subscribed an address to Dr. Wiseman, got up . by certain clergymen of the High Church party, in which those whose names are attached regret the manner in which he has been received in England; address him as " your Eminence," express respect for his person and office as a " bishop of the church of God"; and state that the " clamour of the many" in his case " is not to be regarded as the unequivocal voice of religion and of the Church of England." SOMNAMBULISM IN Llvartroor..—On Wednesday night a lady was discovered walking along St. Anne-street in her night dress. She was fast asleep. Some gentlemen prLsing by got a car and conveyed her home. Liverpool Mercury. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall has pre sented the Rev. James Hutchinson, late preceptor to Princess Mary of Cambridge, to the rectory of Great Berk hampstead, Hertfordshire, rendered yunt by the death of the iieY. James Croft 4. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS, April S. Thu Lotto CHANCELLOR took hi 3 a[..at oa tho Wool sack at Five o'clock. MU PINY BILL AND MARINE MUTINY BILL. On the• motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, these Bills were respeetively committed. COUNTY COURTS EXTENSION BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented some peti tions against this Bill. Lord BROUGHAM, in moving that their Lord ships do resolve themselves into committee en this Bill, contended that the Bill would not render necessary either a large increase in the number of those judges or a greater increase in the salaries of existing judges than they had already ample funds to meet. Now, the average number of days during which each county court judge had sat was 157 days in the year, and not one of those who had sat above the aver age had sat more than 167 days in the year; therefore, allowing ample time for vacation, they could give a much greater number of days to the public service. There would be, therefore, no necessity to make any large increase in their numbers, although such increase might be necessary in the metropolitan dis tricts, and perhaps in some few others. The fund at present in hand for fees would be amply sufficient to meet all increased charges, for these courts were not only self supporting, but g_ eve a considerable surplus. The fees accruing in 1848 for judges were 87,66 IL; and for clerks 87,2821. They had now nearly 120,0001. a year accruing from these courts, out of which they had to pay 60,000/. a year to the judges, and to the clerks 5001. a year each, except in some few in stences in which the clerks still received fees. Under the present arrangement there was a great surplus, and under a better arrangement, making all the clerks de pendent upon a salary, the surplus would be still greater. If the business increased, of course they would have to increase the salaries of the judges and of the clerks, but every addition of business brought an increase of fees more tban sufficient to meet the in crease of expenses in these courts. Their .Lordships then went into Comtnitte on the Bill. On clause 1 being proposed, Lord BROUGHA NI proposed that as the arbitration clauses and the reconcilement clauses were those most likely to meet with opposition, they should be postponed to the last. After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR the course proposed was agreed to. On the proposal of the clause giving to the county court judges a jurisdiction in Equity, The LORD CHANCELLOR objected to the clause, on the ground that the county court judges were not fitted by practice or experience to decide the difficult class of cases to be brought within their jurisdiction by this clause. He then contended that persons in the country must necessarily have their agents iu London, and he should also add that county court solicitors would be called off from their other duties to advocate causes before the Master of which they knew nothing whatever, and in their examination of witnesses whom they had not met before, they would labour under con siderable disadvantages before the Master. He did not think that such a system would prove beneficial. In a word, he thought that from the facility of railroads and steamboats, that the expense of bringing witnesses to London would not be a very material object to litigants, and he should also say that he considered the county court judges incompetent, and that they could not trans act their duties without London agents. If the Master should make an error there was every facility for having the subject examined again, whereas if the county court judges should be erroneous, there would be considerable difficulty and expense to both parties. He should, there fore, propose that clause be omitted. Lord BROUGHAM believed that his Noble and Learned Friend did not see the purport of the clause, from the opposition which he offered, and for that rea son he wished to explain its meaning. Now, be would have his Noble and L-arned Friend understand that the Lord Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, or the Master of the Rolls, waq, by this clause, as well as by the 77th of the Bill of 1833, empowered to send any case to the county courts, and OR that point he was supported by his noble and Learned Friends Lords Lyndhurst and Cottenham, who expressed it as their opinion that such a mode of proceeding would greatly tend to relieve suitors in the Court of Chancery from considerable ex- pense and delay, to which they must necessarily be sub• ject in the Master's office. He should also say that the value of the decision of the judges in the county courts should not be measured by their salaries, which he re gretted had been reduced, but he hoped that there would not be a further reduction. He would then say that it the clause was rejected he would not further press the Bill. Lord CRANWORTH coincided with his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham), and considered that it was just that inquiries should be made, and that the witnesses, on being examined by the Lord Chancellor or ♦ice-Chancellor, or Master of the Rolls, should then be sent to the county courts, and for that reason he per fectly concurred in the utility of the clause. fie should also add, that there would be considerable facility and cheapness occasioned by it, and that if there were a few disadvantages, there would be a preponderating majority of advantages, and he therefore considered that that clause would be a step towards improvement. Lord CAMPBELL wished to give his adhesio❑ to the clause, for though it might be said that he was a postulant f.r equity, he could assure their Lordships that he had made an irrevocable vow in favour of com mon law.—(Laughter.) He should, in addition, say that it was always contemplated that matters of that description should be referred to the judges in county courts. After a short explanation from Lord BROUGHAM, The LORI) CHANCELLOR did not consider that there were any grounds for such a clause, becsuse, in the case of infants and lunatics, the ju tes in county courts were not competent to decide; yet, as his Noble and Learned Friends had concurred in the benefit of the clause, he did not intend to divide the House. It had been said that such inference could be made when any inquiries were necessary, but the matter to be judged of was in many cases of the most intricate description, and, therefore, he considered that it would be improper to invest the county court judges with any such power us those clauses contemplated. It was said that the questions of pedigree and such like, which would come before them under these clauses, were of the most simple nature ; but fifty years' ex perience had taught him that such was not the case, for even in those questions of pe digree which arose among the relatives of tradesmen and classes in that grade subjects of great intricacy often occurred, and generally speaking he would say that those county court judges were not capable of judging re specting them. The Bill of 1833 seemed to suppose that inquiry was necessary before any such reference should be made, for it was expressly stated that if it should appear that it was advisable evidence should be taken in tho country, such and such should be done, hut before such could appear, there must have been inquiry, and therefore he conceived these clauses were detective, in not providing for such. He would not, however, divide the Committee after what had been said by those Noble and Learned Lords who hail taken part in the debate, although he still retained his opinion as to the evil ten dency of those clauses. Clauses from 13 to 25 inclusive were then agreed to. On clause 26 being read, which repeals the clause in the Act of 1846 which provides that nu barrister can ac cept of a fee in any county court without being in structed by an attorney, Lord CAMPBELL moved the rejection of the clause. As regarded the superior courts there was a sufficient guarantee from the etiquette which prevailed amongst the members of the bar, that no barrister would conduct a case unless instructed by an attorney, and as regarded them no enactment was necessary; but so far as those county courts were concerned, were there no enactments , prohibiting the practice it would lead to the greatest abuses, for it would introduce a class of practitioners into those courts of a lower grade than that now prac tising. Lord BROUGHAM did not see the justice of passing an enactment on the subject as regarded those county courts, while there was no such enactment restricting the practise in any of the other tribunals of the country; and therefore he thought the clause in the Act of 1846 unjust towards those parties. The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the clause. Should it pass it would give rise to a class of practition• ers in those courts which no judge wished to see any where. After a few words from Lord Crisziwoxim and Lord BnoucinAst, the clause was withdrawn. On clause 27 being read, which, in conjunction with clause 28, authorised parties with consent to bring actions in the county courts of any description whatever, The LORD CHANCELLOR said he considered the latitude given too much, as, were the clauses adopted, it would place the county court judges in such a situation as that they could not possibly perform their duty. Lord BROUGHAM said these clauses were explana• tory of a section in a former Act, which gave similar powers to those bestowed by these sections. They were intended, especially clause 27. merely to remove doubts that had arisen as to the operation of the Act of 1846. It was intended by this to save parties expense. Lord BEAU M.ONT considered they ehould endeavour, as far as they could, to carry out the Bill of last year, but not to go beyond that. Lord CAMPBELL remarked that the section of the former Act of which this was explanatory had not been acted upon, and he believed never would be acted upon. After a few words from Lord CRANWORTR and Earl GREY, Lard BROUGHAM considered it would be the greatest possible advantage to enable parties to go before the judges and at once determine their dispute. Clauses 27 and 28 were then struck out. Clauses 29, 30, and 31 were agreed to. Clauses 32 and 33 were postponed. Clause 34 was agreed to. On clause 35 being proposed, Lord BEAUMONT opposed it. He thought that such a clause would deprive suitors of the remedy pro posed to be given to them by the other parts of the Bill. Their Lordships th en di v i ded, when - there appeared, for the clause— Contents 4 ••• ••• Non - contents... ..• 14 •.• ••• Majority against the clause ... —lO The clause was then struck oat. C Clause 36 wa s p ostpone d . 37 was agree d to . The remaining clauses of the Bill were struck out. Lord BROUGHAM then proposed an additional clause, authorising the appointment of more judges. On the suggestion of Lord CAMPBELL, Lord BROUGHAM consented to the postponement of this clause, giving notice of his intention to bring it forward upon a future stage of the measure. The Noble and Learned Lord then said ho would maintain the opinions which be had already expressed—that the clauses struck out, if adopted, would have greatly im prved the W 1110 elnoco rolatin to the • • - -•- bll,,hcaent of courts of reconcilement, he conceived that these courts would be a wry irrroant s tep made W . wares an extension and radLal improvement of our ; ; cl;cial tribunals. Whatever bad a tendency to br ' n : parties b< , fore judg.-3—wbatever had a t e : dency to enable the judge t o beer t h e whe t, case wita, out the assistance of legal practitioners—woo the greatest possible importance to carry out. „ mischief done by these practitioners of the la d in this country was incalculable. Ii he were ti 4e ,.l his reason for introducing this novelty into our legiPt, institutions, be would refer to the advantages r esu t . • log from these courts in various countries on the Coadilf, nent. Unless human nature in this country was be ferent to what it was in other countries, the effect of the jurisdiction of those courts of reconcilement would tt , Id be h ol e most extensive, matt important, and beneficial. ',"O France, where theseqclurts had succeeded less than is the north of Germany, Switzerland, and above ta l i Denmark, he had the highest legal authority in this country for stating that the average number of case s ry 1847 and 1848, broue•ht into these courts, w as ve t o nearly 1,000,000 in the year. And of this numb er less than 780,000 were am icably set tl e d through t ;i3 friendly advice of th e judge ; and only 270,00 0 casegvil which ther e was no reconc ili a tion ett,cted. Th e g l ;al majority of the eases decided involved claims to sore " k g 1,000 francs, or 401 Th e number of cases inv ea '" larger claims amounted to about 60,000 in the year' A d The first twelve ClaUde.9, which, we believe, r efer- 0 to these courts of reconcilement, and which had 1 / 1 1 0 postponed for consider a tion until the remainder of i; Bill uses disposed of, were then put and negatived Wit out a division. Their Lordships then adjourned. APRIL 9 ; 1851. , • HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 6. CHURCII-RATES. *st' Mr. TRELAWNY then rose to move for the apP°' 01 is meat of a Select Comm ttee to consider the J ew . t i church-rates, and the difference of practice which eit in various pima of the country in the assessment 6 10 levy of such rates; and to report their observatioes,eol the House. It was seventeen years ago since the sulli el ; was last investigated, and since then men of the hig o , character had from time to time pronounced against thefoi while no less than three proposals had been wade, 6 1 their abolition. It might be objected to this, th ° ". n g the present moment the Dissenters were not agitant the subject, and therefore there was no neceasitY '?l% this Committee; but it should be remembered that 0 , large towns the ratepayers managed to establish 0?0; minal rate, or by the election of popular churchwer, ue t o they got rid of many of the abuses that attach ed „„: the system. Ho admitted that for some time P h y: halo had been said on this subject, but t h " e i in his opinion was precisely the reason why ought to institute the inquiry he asked for, because "" 0 time of excitement they were not likely to arrive et 0 ,1 impartial decision, whereas in a ti m e of quietude fi e Ivaco they had not only ample opportunities of considf:c, lug such questions as this, but of calmly and 8 ° 65 - c e torily disposing of them. There was a wide differ °l) ,,d between tithes and church-rates—the former were ler ', on land, and the latter on persons. When the o° ° :,,, considered what great social evils arose from the P'fr sent mode of levying church-rates, he thought little s , jection would be offered to his motion for the aPPnrilllto Tent of a Committee to inquire into the subject, en" devise a remedy for those evils. ipQ Mr. HARDCASTLE seconded the motion. Leokilo to events which h a d t a k en pl a ce lately, he rejoiced tip/ thin question had come on for discussion this yea r of stead of last. A question of this nature, invialv l °'te it did the whole principle of church-rates, requir° 7 o thought, muchinvestigation, an d was d e s e rving of a , " t o trouble which it might occasion. As it affected 00 Church of England, it could only have reference t e to l security of the payment of tithes. It appeared " t e the Dissenters who were liable to church 0 0 3 had about 10,000 meeting houses in Ellesti and Wales. The members of the Church hi'"„ if the other hand about 12,000 churches. Well, th oo t he they were to take into consideratioa the real facts ° f or ease, they must look to the amount paid by the . oc l centers towards the church-rate, and the for which those rates were levied. It C O t ie not be denied that the object really was to repsi! o si edifices; neither could it be denied that these e r° had been built by our ancestors, so that the present or quenters of the church would not be ig e pressed even if they were obliged to s t esl port the edifices themselves. It appeared t o the Dissenters paid about one-sixth ° f sti church -rates, and he believed that if the conir t4 fil collection of church-rates were to be abolished n ° "oe would arise, for it was his impression that not onli A "lti members of the Church, b u t th e Dis s enters also °v ol e readily contribute to a voluntary rate for the pre se ibs l tion of ecclesiastical buildings. He did not eo° 1. there could be any di rec t connex i on in Pr i , ll ; 6 t) between church•rates and ch urc h-ti t h es . —(Hear, Tithes were a permanent and fi xe d c h arge v arying "Oil with the average price of grain. Church-rates war like most varied and unequal of all payments—scarcoli 7,01 0 in any two parishes, and dependent mainly on the cti Ilf of the churchwardens. It would be remembered hY House, that in consequence of a vary remarkable sP e of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, the G el „ e ttio ment had appointed a Commission for inquiring lo t die' best mode of subdividing parishes into ecclesiastic al by tricts. In the report of that Commission, he fou ed t ell' opinion very briefly expressed with regard to el.'" the rates, which was deserving of attention, considering the persons who composed that Commission. They vl re h lef' Archbishop of York, the Bishop of L on d on , L o rd il s rlf Sir E. Buxton, Mr. Dale, Dr. Cooke, and a g ende' 4 o who, though he filled a private station in society, ihr ° ,;o l l the medium of ihe press exercised extensive ieflu e ibil, Mr. Robert Seeley. The Commissioners said l° t O l report, " the present state of the law on the subj ec ol l church-rates is vague, defective, and unjust." f opinion, he thought, amply bore out the object Hon. Friend, who had moved for this Committee. Commission went further, and described the lrl ec l u e :0 0 / of the rat e s in different p a rish e s, as a very `'grt r oo hardship," and a `• serious grievance" to the rnerwi e - etd . the Church. If so to them, how much greater 'Ole ship and greivance must it be to the Dissenters ? t ii ' levy bee of church-rat , son them amounted, in h i fipti ° persecution, for they were made to pay for the r°; o oi, nance of doctrines and institutions to which. in Tato u j cases, they were conscientiously opposed. He, tr - 0 0 0 , that the Committee would be appointed, and that 4 be able to suggest a plan by which the principles ° f fl at' and religious liberty would be vindicated, and ibis '00; tion placed on a satisfactory basis in future. P i v e r leo' eluded by seconding the motion of his lion. "" near him. Lord J. RUSSELL said be would not then s tate n t o far he might be disposed to differ from the argtint, se, his Hon. Friend who made the motion, and of tl'ooeP condor also, with respect to church -rates; but itl i ffeo o to him, from the statements which had been re a d um' the reports of the Commissioners, and from eT r ol 7l6 stances well known to them all, that it was ( 199 : tho , that there should be some attempt made to Settivood, question of church -rates, and some improvemonliffli in the existing law on that subject—(Hear.) P:401 C l these opinions, he really thought that that prof's' 0 0 " • o so ~e his Hon. Friend felt a Committee to inquire ies consider that matter, would lead to much practi c e vantage.—(Hear, hear.) , h ore' Mr. HUME called attention to the s t a te of Eche,i, l ll e;; where the attempt to collect a nnu ity-t ax from JP time had led to acts of violence, and cbliged the e"„d to out of the military. The Noble Lord had n rollni ° oe ,lo/ , bring in a Bill to settle the question of ministers 4 0 1 in Ireland. The amount of that tax there was yi lre rti ‘ 11 MU It was about the same in Scotian°, pe Edinburgh contributed nearly the entire anien°oo o : l the case was nearly similar in Montrose, wher e rates were compulsory under an Act of Charl es P;Il ws was quite sure that the welfare of the Church wc) " th r more dependent on the settlement of that qu estio° ill most others. There could not be any difficulty 913 , ° , SS ° as there were ample funds already belonging •- Church which would supply any deficiency. Lord J. RUSSELL s aid it s e emed to him to hecsil sirable, and he hop e d it might be practicable, tee some measure for amending the present 8 31', .tr, ministers' money. But with respect to the annniefl" he should observe that every effort that had Ilitivotr been made to arrange the matter in a satisfactorf ner had proved utterly unavailing. Sir R. H. INGLIS said that whatever °Wei might entertain to the proposal for a Committee. tat f 0 quire into that subject, he certainly could not obje fi v e to it so strongly as to a resolution pledgin g the 1 4 e ti v e0 any particular course of action in the matter. Th e i l e f 4l been told that 600,000 persons bad petitioned for t 03 moval of those rates. But in his opinion that in ci : e o lo ; s t a nce had very little to do with t h e mer it s of C u ti - e ter e , z i He believed that three times th a t num b e r of s i" might be procured for a n y pet i t i on h av i ng for its ° the removal of a tax of any description whate ve f e . o s the Hon. Gentleman who had seconded the inr 4 A ' - i s el h told them that these 600,000 individuals formeu h f fr a i g small portion of the persons who were affectedZotl•l them that they l th grievance. p one portion of his speech the Hon. ." .1,( 4 man had said that the Dissenters constituted one"',li to , ti c g o land nstit u ; itne constituted oneanother . tou p r o th r ti o o f n ot the e i t p h: p hq ositel io e : t ! and the Bon. Gentleman had further stated that, e e '. o c l . „'' ' ing the manner in which the payment of the tair tributed, he thought the sum paid in the form of e t c/ 0 , 1 " rates by Dissenters might fairly be taken e ( 511: 0 ' sixth of the whole amount collected. But h e 'ion 1 11 Inglis) contended that conjectures of that deecriPt no way affected the real bearing of the quesli° li 'd i O O , the property of this country had been bough t .- - of P r W subject to that charge, and the present oweers oeliao perty could not be fairly exempted from its 11 0 t P r , On a former occasion the Honourable Gentlet fV," Member for Manchester had complained that t h ' of t o t Mr. Russell, the rector of the parish churc"ouse, Bishopsgate district, had entered a meeting-13 0 0 0 , the Society of Friends, and had there seized t be t i sro t , c ,el and benches in liquidation of a claim fur chur, e , stor e But the Honourable Gentleman had incorrectuhal P ) ; the facts of the case. The tithes of that parish P - e ggfr t , merly amounted to 2s. 9d. in the pound, and th e t bist,ts gate of the sum which would be raised under Pp rangement was between 5,0001. and 6,0001. a-Y e " eitiO i in the year 1835 an Act of Parliament had becil rower under which those tithes were abolished, an d e l :01; were given to raise a ce rt a in sum for church P" o bje - e , That sum amounted to 8 5001. a-year, and vo s tho P r o d to certain deductions. The amount at whic h r etel l 0 , mises to which the Right Hon. Gentleman ha d to :lt 3 o were rated for that tax varied from 1/. 1 43 . 9d. of t a-year ; and in the case in question the s eize et let; tne be seats and benches had not been made in the d t sr le et house, as the Honourable Member would have e. to suppose, but in the adjoining dwelling-h°,osto fle; should be remembered that that tax did not attacnof po e l, l particular individuals or to any particular pinne 9 esrd es an individual grievance; and yet the or° n oes „ ship, but to property, and could not therefore be :::$ 0 13 r wealthy body of which the Hon. Member for Ita. ho WWI crutuueut had thought proper W refiit4 _,1~.x_.._. Th E t onne ,rit 0 11l th e tic