The Sun. — London, England, 1832-03-03 00:00:00

used taxes, adopted in the calculation of the Comaiis ioners for the borough of Helston, was an imputation upon the yeomanry of England." Now he begged to state that that 'Hon. Member who had made the communi cation was incorrect in assigning, the motive of his vete. He had voted in favour of the borough retaining in; privis not from conceiving that an imputation bad been casii upon the yeomanry, but on the score of the injustice or disfranchisement under the circumstances. The Him. Member complained of the practice of sending thes'e cow,. municrions to the journals, as being very inconrrnient and unfair, and expressed a hope that the individual who for warded the lists would either discontinue the practice or discontinue his inaccuracy.ilear.) Sir R. VYVYAN acknowledged that the paragre,'A was calculated to convey the impression that Minlitcrs had thrown an imputation upon the yromanry conntry. Lori S. RUSSELL said, that certainly nothing had fallen from him at all disresp.: , tfut to the yeomanry corps. Mr. CROKER, in refereute to the petitions with whioli he had been intrusted, zxpressed his regret that ci had been consignrd to his charge. being an anitginist of the Bill. He could have wished that tl.- had been placed in the bands of the Notile Lori Chancellor of the Ex chequer) himself, on whosc, Candour and good sense he would have willingy confided fur doing justice to the claims of the hormaglN. Lord VALLE - MR T said, that all the yeom airy of England must think that a great imputation had been cast upon them, and every man must consider the case of Helston an important one coneernic7 ; them. For those reasons he would pray the Government to re-consider the loesion. After a few woods from Mr. HUNT, in abuse of the yeo manry cavalry of the country in general, and of the yeo manry corps of Frome iu particular, whom he accused of running away from a trifling mob, the petition was laid in the table and ordered to b. printed. MANCHESTER MASSACRE. Mr. HL'NT gave notice, that on Mtn 'ay next he would move for the production of a navy of the correspondence between the Earl of Derby. Lor I Lieutenant of the county of Lancaster, and the Magistrates of Manchester, immedi ately previous to the 16%h of August, 1819 ; for a copy of the letter of Lord Sidanauth on the sane occasion, and also for a copy of various other corrtspondence, which he par. ticularixed, relative to the events of that ever-memorable and lamentable day. REFORM IN PARLIAMENT (ENGLAND) BILL, The Order of the Day was then read for the House re solving itself into a Committee of the whole House on that Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Right Hon. Baronet apposite, in the course of hie speech the other nights had referred to returns relative to the number ()frets? payers and houses in the metropolis, which had arstonisleel him (Lord John Russell) exceedingly at the time, and which he could not help considering as founded in some inaccuracy ; for he cou4 not conceive how it could happen the number of voters should be so much greater than the number of houses in the metropolis, when the right of voting was confined to the occupiers of 101. houses. He was therefore certain that the calculation of the Right Hon. Baronet must have been taken from some returns with which he (Lord J. Russell) was unacquainted. Upon inquiry he found that she calculation of the Right Hon. Baronet was founded partly upon the report of the Commiesioners upon the boundaries of the metropolitan districts, and partly upon documents derived from other sources ; and he trusted that he shouid be able to explain to the House 'now the Right Hon. Baronet came to his very extraordinary result, by referring to the sources from which the Right Hon. Baronet had derived it. The statement of the Right Hon. Baronet was, that there being in certain parishes of the metropolis a certain number of houses, the voters under the Reform Bill in those parishes would exceed the number of houses ; for instance, the Right Hon. Baronet said that in the parish of St. George and St. Giles the number of houses was 4,450, and that, deducting from it the uninhabited houses, there remained only 4,025 occupied houses In the parish, whilst there were 4,280 voters, as might be seen by the return of ac tual rate-payers theta on the table of the House. Now the present number of houses in those parishes was not, as yet, in any authentic shape before the House. He found that the census of 1921 gave the total number of occupied houses in that parish at 4,456. New if, instead of de ducting the empty houses from the total number of houses above 101,, you deducted the empty houses from the total varober of occupied houses, you would come to the Right H 0 Baronet's remainder of 4,025. But it was quite evidetit that sum could not he made applicable to the number,. voters created by this Bill. For there was one earn: cd ti titted in deducting the number of empty houses, not front the total number of houses, but from the total number of occupied houses, and there was another com mittee in taking the number of houses occupied and empty from the census of 1521. Considering the vast increase which had taken place in the list ten years in the metropolis, there was nothing strange in the circumstance that the number of voters now should exceed the num ber of houses which were then in existence. By the census of the year 1831, it appeared that the number of occupied houses in the same parish was 4,713, and of unoccupied houses was 230, making a total, exclu sive of those building, of 4 913. Again, in the parish of Paddington, the Right Hon. Baronet had said that, by the population return, the number of houses was 1,126, and that the number of rate-payers was 1,399. To this statement the answer was equally easy. By the census of 1821 the number of occupied houses was 1,139. From this number the Right Hon. Baronet had deducted the un tccupiesi, being 13, which left the number which he used —namely, 1,126. But by the census of 1831, it appeared that the number of occupied houses was 1,933, and of un occupied houses was 104, making a total, exclusive of 93 building, of 2,037. Again, in the parish of Sr. Pancras, the Right non. Baronet had said that the number of in habited houses was 8,425, and that the number of voters was 8,502. Now, to this statement he must give a similar answer to that which he had already given to the Right Hon. Baronet's statement respecting the comparative number of voters in the two other parishes. By the census of 1821, the number of occupied houses was 8,824. Froei these the Right Hon. Baronet deducted the un occupied 400, which left the number, which the Right Hon. Baronet used, ,421.. But by the census of 1831, it appears that the number ofmccupied houses is 12,369, and of unoccupied is 787. making a total, exclusive of those building, of 13,156. The Commissioners, however, proposed to exclude from the borough part of the parish north of the Regent's-canal, which was estimated to contain about 1,200 houses. This sum, deducted from 13,156, would leave 11,956 houses, which is considerably larger than 6,502, the number of rate-payers. The Noble Lord then pro ceeded to observe, that it was quite evident to him that the Right Hon. Baronet had fallen into the mistake which he had unintentionally committed, by referring to the census of 1821, instead of the census of 1831. From the statement already made to the House, Hon. Gentlemen would see that the number of houses bad increased so much in that time, that no conclusion could be drawn as to the number of voters now from the returns of the number of houses in 1821. Indeed, they might as well think of ascertaining the number of voters from- the number of houses in those parishes in 1511 or in 1801 ; since which time the number bad doubled and trebled, if it had not quadrupled. He thought that he had now said sufficient to show that the calculation of the - Right, Hon. Baronet was radically in error. With *aril to the precise num ber of voters who would becalled into existence in the me tropolitan districts by tfle'Reform Bill, it was impossirde to state soy thine reganding it accurately. He believed that it would be best ascertained by reference to the returns to the house duties. Still it ought to be recollected that among the rate-payers would be many who would have re sided less than a year, others who would be excused the rates, aed others who had made default in paying them. He thou g ht that when the number of these three classes of persons were added together, they would reduce the amount of nominal voters by one-third. He would not intrude further upon the House at present : but as the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet appeared to bins to have made a great impression at the time upon the House, he thought it right to make this counter-statement to remove it. Sir R. PEEL was obliged to the Noble Lord for the courtesy with which he had endeavoured to- se hint right as to the error which he supposed him to ~ ,eve committed. He wished that he could impress the Houk with his sense of the necessity of giving further time fur the consideration of the nature of the new constituency which it was going to establish in the metropolis by this Bill. With regard to the calculations which he had made, he had only this to observe—that he had always referred to the latest docu ments which he could find; and the latest document which he could find relative to the number of houses was the census of 1821. He was._of opinion, that they ought not to decide this question without full inform aion as to the number of houses in the metropolitan districts in 1831. On the former evening, to wbieh the Noble Lord had alluded, be had stated his apprehension that, by this Bill, the House was going to give a right of suffrage to the metropolis, more extensive than it would give by establish ing a scot-and-lot right of suffrage in all householders. The House was, perhaps, aware, that the number of families was larger than the number of houses in the metropolis. In the Tower division, for instance, there were 47,176 houses, and 69,337 families ; and in Christ. Church, Spital fields, 2,300 houses, and 4,752 families. Now, as this Bill permitted two or more occupiers- to vote for the same house, provided they each paid a 101. rent, it was clear that as there was a large excess in the number of families above the number of houses, there would also tit a large eteess in the number of voters above the number of houses in etch parish. He would ekemelify his meaning still further, by referrittg to the parish of 'Mile-end old town. He did not know what number of houses that paiish 'UM : ltained by the census of Nal, but by the zens',;s of 1821, it con tained 4,284. Nest-, iticording to the report of the CommiSsiorrert, how many voters were there in that parish 7 There were 3,017 occupiers of houses rated above 10/. ; there were 119 occupiers rated `above 10/. excused payment of taste; the'e ware 62 compounded for above 101., making a tetra'. of 3,188 occupiers above 101. But If t'.1 , 2 Lord would only take the trouble of leetltir at the last column, he would see that t' e 11l of houses rated under 10/., but .weeth wore, was 2,307; and observe that by, this !I'd it is the value of the house, and not the "Ltd, which establisbes the right of voting. In parish then, of Mile-end, there were 2,30r' houses rated under 10/., but worth more ; but the 'occupiers of these houses would be entitled to vote, be cause their real value was above 10/. Add, then, to the 3,188 occupiers of houses rated above 101., the 2,30'7 oc cupiers of houses worth 10/. a year, and you would have 5,485 voters in that single parish ) and yet by the census of 1821 that parish did not contain More than 4484 houses. —(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) Lo..k again at the parish of St. Pancras. By a statement in page 18 of the Commissioners' teport, it appeared that the total number of hortieS ih that parish in 1831 was 13,673. But the House was not going to take the whole parish of Sr. Pancras into the Marylebone bercogli ; for the northern part of it wa s morea a rural than a town character. The t'..ommissioners had therefore recommended t . O . :t the Regent's Canal should form the Pot - flrn boundary of the borough in that direc tton, especially as there were no legal boundaries of which they could avail themselves, and the canal formed a very eligible artificial one. The total number of houses in this parish, as lie had before sated, was 18,613. llow many were excluded by this artificial division he could not tell. There were, however, in the parish of St. Pancras, south of the Regent's Canal, 7,95/8 occupiers of hous es rated above 10/. ; 1,021 occupiers excused payment of taxes; 124 rated as lanolads, and 465 houses comruntied for. Besides theta there were 501 houses rated under lot., but worth more. Add these together, and you will find the; you will have 10,122 voters in this part of the parish alone.—(Hear, hear.) So far was the Noble Lord from having removed the. impression which these calcula tions had made upon his mind, by the speech which he had jest delivered, that he declared that the Noble Lord.', statement had actually increased the anxiety and apprehension with which he had previously contemplated the numerous constituency of this Bill. Now, did the House know what the right of voting was in the metro politan districts by this Bill ? The substance of the enactments of the Reform Bill, stripped of technicalities, was as follows :—ln every borough, every r..ale person occupying as owner or tenant, any house or shop, of the clear yearly value of not less than 101., shall be entitled to vote, if duly registered. But no person shall be re gistered in any future year, unless he shall have occupied the premises one year before the last day of July, nor unless he shall have been rated to the relief of the poor during his occupation ; nor unless he shall have paid before the 20th of July, all the poor rates and assessed taxes which shall have become payable from him previ ously to the 6th of April. Joint occupiers may vote, if where there are three occupiers, the yearly value of the house is 301. Every occupier may claim to be rated whether the landlord be liable to be rated or not, and upon paying the amount then due of the rates, if any be due, his name shall be put upon the rate. If the landlord is liable to the rate, and if the tenant, after chiming to be rated, shall make default, the payment of the rate of the landlord shall still remain liable. Here he would pause, in order to call the attention of the House to the different manner in which the occupiers of 101. houses were treated by this Bill, and by the general law of the land. The general law of the land looked upon their sol vency with a suspicious eye, for it held the landlords of all such tenements responsible for the rates and taxes accruing for them ; and in the metropolis, the rates of such tene ments were generally compounded for by their owners with the parish ; and yet it was to persons placed thus pointedly under suspicion by the law, that this Bill was going to intrust the elective franchise. But to proceed. The voter must occupy premises within the parish of the clear yearly value of not less than 101., and being duly re gistered within the provisions of this Bill, by which it was further provided, also, that the premises must be rated for the payment of the pours' rate during the period of his occupation. In this respect the 29th clause of the Bill was most material, from the provisions of which he supposed that it the landlord of the premilies be liable to be rated or not, the occupier might clain to be rated, and on the tender of the amount due up (to the Gth of April might have a claim to and be entitled to vote. The clause did not say one word as to the rate which had been actually paid by either the tenant or the landlord. He called upon the Noble Lord opposite to consult some of the local Acts, and compare their provisions with regard to the regulations and qualifications for the right to vote on parochial concerns, and for the election of vestry. He would refer the Noble Lord in particular to the Act which regulates parochial elections in the parish of St. Giles, and compare in that Act the right of voting for parochial bfficers compared with the right pro vided by this Bill in voting on the choice of Members of Parliament. By the Act to which he had referred the House, no man in the parish of St. Giles was entitled to vote fir vestrymen who occupied any House, shop, or premises, and was rated at leas than 251. per annum— ( Hear)—and not to vote at all if the rates bad been com pounded. On the contrary, the House of Commons, in the present Bill, now said that they might compound for the rates either by themselves or their landlords, and be entitled to vote for a Member to serve in Parliament. And so jealous had been the vestry of St. Giles's in ob taining their Act, and so conscience were they of the ad vantages which would otherwise be afforded to in solvency, that, as well as in the instances he had already named, their Bill had also negatived the right to vote on parish affairs in any party who paid their rents less frequently than quarterly ; but the provisions of the present Bill went the length of saying, that if the occu pier was a weekly tenant, and his landlord had compounded for the rates, he had only to tender before the 6th of April the rates due, and he would he entitled to vote for a Mem ber to serve in Parliament for these very districts where the reverse existed in the case of parochial concerns. These facts were established by the report of the Commissioners appointed by the Government, every line of which was im portant. The Commissioners in their report also said further, that the landlord of property below a certain value compounds with the parochial authorities for the several rates to which his property may be liable, and the parish consenting to receive a sum considerably less than that which could otherwise legally be levied on the same property. It was thus manifest that the amount of rate was a most uncertain means of getting to the number of vote+. The Commissioners go on to state, that this compostion so made may bear to the real value of the property com pounded for, a proportion varying from one-half to four fifths ; so that it appeared a house might be compounded for at the rate of 5/., and would still entitle tbs. oc cupier to vote,—being really of the value of 101. When he saw that by the provisions of this Bill many per sons occupying the same premises might be entitled to vote, lie could not feel surprised that the number of voters should exceed the numher of houses. He could not think such a system would be advantageous to the districts of the great metropolis of the country, if these were to be the qualifications to vote for a Member to represent the inha bitants,—qualifications which he bad shown had been re jected with scorn by the parishes themselves, even in the regard to their parochial aff i ttre.—(Hear.) He was borne out in his statement by ttaireport of the Commissioners appointed by the Goverment for the purposes of this Bill,—a document which the more he considered the inure was he convinced that it was proposed to commit an im portant trust into the hands of those in whom it could not safely be reposed ; and he felt satisfied that when the House of Commons was about to give to one constituency 20 Members, they ought to consider well the qualification of that constituency. That the Noble Lord had convicted him (Sir Robert Peel) of any misrepresentation as to the nature of the constituency, he begged most respectfully and humbly to deny..-(Hear, hear.) Lord ALTHORP would not follow the Right Hon. Baron though his statement, but lie thought that the Right Hon. Baron was mietasken in the effect of the two clauses of the Bill, the nth and 29th, to which he had referred. The two el: he conceived to be explicit and disti nc t ; th e on ' t sting, that in every borough re turning Members e in Parliament, every occupier, as owner or tenan any premises within such borough, of the clear year ue . of 10/., should, if duly registered for twelve eaten. onths, be entitled to vote in the election of a rep .'"c tative in Parliament, provided that he be rated for the relief of the poor. The 29th section was a provision for the right of the occupier to claim to be put upon the rates himself, notwithstanding that the landlord might be liable to rates on the same property or otherwise. On the effect and intention of these two clauses he could not think there could exist any doubt. Sir E SUGDEN thought the latter clause was not only multifarious, but created a great enlargement of the law, as well as an extension of the general rule, as to the right of voting. He concurred in the view of the ques tion taken by big Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), and he felt strongly impressed with the opinion that nobody could read the report of the Metropolitan Commission 4 , 4 without being struck with the observations it contained. It was manifest that 22 Members would be given to me tropolitan districts (for he included the two Members for Middlesex, whose election was mainly affected by the town constituency), and this was eanted to a constituency created by thiis tne . .sure, occupying hou,es of the lowest desription, possessing no weight of properti or stake in the country. The House ought to hesitate before it put so great a power into such hands'. Lord ALTHORI. said a few wtA•ds in explanation, which did, not reach C. W. WY NN conceived that the 101. qualifira tion would be calculated to increase bribery and corny. tion at future elections, and he thought it was well worthy of the attention of the Noble Lord opposite to consider how far it was possible to introduce sonic measure for its prevention. He hoped the Noble Lord would bring in a Bill for that purpose as sotm as possible, as it would be ad vtntageous that it should be done during the discussion s on the present Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Bill now before the House was as likely to prevent bribery and corruptio n as any which had ever come before Parliament.—(Hear.) It was, however, his intention to bring forward such a measure as that allud e d t o b y hi s Righ t Hon. Friend: in deed the Bill was at present under revision. Mr. S. I)ENISON thought the present Bill would overthrow the provisions under the local Acts for the re-. gulation of rates. He begged to ask the Noble Lord if any alteration would be made in the amount of the qualification. Lord ALTHORP said that it was not the intention of the Government to make any alteration in the qualification clause, and he should not now discuss it. The House then resolved itself into a Cotnroittee on the Bill. The Chairman (Mr. BERNAL) put the question—that Finsbury, in the county of Middlesex, do stand part of schedule C, which was agreed to without any observa tion. Marylebone (Middlesex), Lambeth (Surrey), and Great and Little Bolton (Lancashire), were also put, and agreed to stand part of schedule C, without a comment. - On the nurstcon being put, that Bradford (Yorkshire: etand p in of schedule C. Lord G. SOMERSET (lid not wish to oppose this town receiving representatives, but he was desirous of asking on what grounds Bradford was to have two repre sentatives, when Huddersfield and Tynemouth, both of which exceeded Bradford in the number of houses and the amount of assessed taxes, were only to receive one Member. With respect to Huddersfield, he was ready to admit the selection of its Member would be much influenced by the interest of one individual ; but he could not imagine why these towns should be excluded from this schedule. He c'euld not but think it had originated in caprice. Lord J. RUSSELL said, that with reference to the number of 101. houses, Br edford had the superiority over Tynemouth and Huddersfield. With respect to the Noble Lord's second observation on the propriety of taking the assessed taxes as the ground of representation, it would be found to be incorrect. The amount of assessed taxes by itself would not form the best criterion of the im portance of great manufacturing towns—of those towns to which representation ought to be given. Very wealthy, en terprising, and intelligent persons resided in those towns— hut sti:l they were not of that class who swelled the amount of the assessed taxes. To prove the correctness of his principle, be would direct the attention of the Noble Lord to two places. There was Birmingham, a place which it was allowed on all hands ought to be represented, paid 28,350/. assessed taxes, while at Brighton, against granting any representative, to which strong objections lead been started, the amount of assessed taxes was 31,8001., being a difference in favour of the latter place of upwards of 3,0001. Now the Noble Lord would see the inconsistency, if instead of Leeds, Alanchrsfer, and Birmingham, Minis ters bad, on account of the superior amount of assessed taxes p till by Brighton, inserted Leeds, Manchester, and Brighton, to the exclusion of Birmingham. Besides, it could not be overlooked that population was generally the great test of the wealth and importance of manufacturing towns. Lord G. SOMERSET—If the Noble Lord rests on the principle of population, then there is no reason why Tyne mouth and Huddersfield should not be placed on a footing with Bradford.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. J. HOPE wished to know, if population were to he the basis of representation, why Ministers had not taken into consideration Aberdeen with a population of 58,000, Dundee 42,000, and Paisley 37,000 ?—(Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL answered that the rule was not founded on the strict principle of population alone. Sir G. CLERK said, if it were the determination of his Majesty's Ministers that the House of Commons should still consist of 658 Members, apportioned to 'isa different parts of the empire as they were at present, then it would become necessary for all those who thought that the share of representation which was given to some portions of it was insufficient, to come forward and state their opinion, before a decision took place with respect to all the places to which it was proposed to grant represtation.a,... (Ifear, hear.) It was right that they should state their sentiments and feelings, before all the seats were given away. There were 140 seats to be disposed of under this Bill, and it was proper to inquire how many of , here ought to appertain to Scotland. The population of Scotland amounted to 2,300,000, being considerably more than a 1-6th part of the population of England and Wales. H e contended, then, that the proportion of these 140 seats which Scotland ought to have was 1-7th, in addition to the 45 Members which that country at present sent to Par liament.—(Hear, hear.) That would give to Scotland 65 Members. If his Majesty's Ministers held out to him and others the expectation that the total number of Mem. hers would not be limited to 658, but that, while England received the full portion of representatives which her popu lation and wealth demanded, they would also grant to Scotland such a representation as she was entitled to, then he certainly should be sorry to provoke any discussion on the Scotcls Reform Bill. But if no such assurance were given, he thought it would be right for the Scotch and the Irish Members, though they were in the midst of the Committee on the English Reform Bill, to put forward the claims of their respective countries --(Hear, hear.) Colonel CONOLLY was anxious to call the attention of the Irish Members to the subject which had been intro duced by the Hon. Baronet. If Ireland did not receive that justice, which under the existing Bill was so palpa bly denied, he thought that the Irish and Scotch Members ought to join for the purpose of asserting the rights of their respective countries.—(Hear, hear.) This should be an " imperial measure" doing justice to all sides, and not proceeding on a principle of partiality.—(Hear.) Mr. C. FERGUSSON said, if Ministers declared it to be their intention to adhere to the proposed distribution of 658 Members, it would, from that moment, become the duty of the Scotch and Irish Members to make their stand, in order to prevent representation from being given to places that did not deserve it, while it was refused to others where it was most needed.—(Hear, hear.) Ministers themselves admitted that they had continued representation to places where it was pernicious. Why, then, might not that representation be extended to the great and populous places in Scotland or, Ireland ?—(Hear, hear.) Ministers hid taken four Members from schedule A, and placed them in schedule B. Why might nut those four Members have been given to Scotland and Ireland ?—(Hear, bear.) Again, they had taken four Members from schedule B, and placed them in schedule C. Here were eight Mem bers—a number that would satisfy Scotland ; and where, he would ask, could they find more wealth and intelligence than in that country ? In a plan of general Reform, where they were removing some old representations, and creating new, he contended that no distinction ought to be made, either with respect to England, Scotland, 'or Ireland.— (Hear, hear.) To each justice ought to be done, and he would never cease to declare that, under the Bill as it at present stood, justice would not be administered in Scot• land.---(Hear, hear.) Mr.44UME !bought the fairest course of proceeding wool to divide the country into " electoral districts"— (Latter)—and if such a proposition were made, he hoped he should have his Hon. Friend (Mr. C. Fergusson) with him.—(Hear, hear.) They were told that Scotland was not sufficiently represented, and that the metropolis had too many representatives. Now the population of Scotland was 2,300,000, and it was proposed to give her 53 Members ; and the metropolis, which contained a po• pula'tion of 1,500,000, was to have 16 Members. Was it not evident, then, that Scotland was more fully and nu merously represented than the metropolis ?.._(Hear, hear.) Look to the a mount of population, taxation, and property, and it would be found that the district of the Tower Ham lets was able to buy 50, nay, 100 of the boroughs about which, night after night, there had been so much useless debate.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill did not, he confessed, entirely please him ; but he would suppo r t it rattler than go on as they had done.—(Hear, hear.) He must say the whole Bill was an anomaly.—(Laughter and cheers from the Opposition.) Aye, but was the representation of the people never an anomaly before ?—(Hear, hear.) Cer tainly the Bill was an anomaly, but they might, perhaps, make it a little better.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposi tion.) In his opinion, if Ministers had had reasonable men to deal with, they would have produced a much bet ter measure.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that it was the wish of the Ministers to make the best bargain they could for the public, and, therefore, the Bill should have his constant support. Sir. C. WETHERELL said, that if the principle on which Members were to be given to the metropolitan dis tricts—a principle to which he would never accede—were to be adopted, he could not see why Scotland and Ireland Should not participate in it, and why additional Members should not be given to Edinburgh and Dublin, as well as to the metropolis of England; The old proportion be tween the three kingdoms appeared to him a most just one, while he would maintain that the nets prOportion to be established under this Bill would be a most unjust and unfair or.e. Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN said that the Hon. Gen tleman had deviated altogether from the question imme diately before the House, which had nothing to do with Scotland or Ireland. It would he impossible to carry the Reform Bill, if it had omitted to give Members to the great, populous, and wealthy disti lets of the metropolis of the empire. One fact would suffice to demonstrate the justice of their claims to repre3entatives, and that fact was this,that the greatest number of voters that had ever polled at any general election fir all the boroughs in sche dules A and B did net amount to the number that bad pulled at the last contested election for the city of London. Mr. BRUCE spoke against the giving Members to the metropolitan districts, and contended that Scotland had a better right to them Sir G. MURRAY begged to say that lie agreed en tirely with the Hon. Meibber for Kircudbeight, in think ing that if his Majesty's Ministers intended to persist in their determination of keeping the numbers of the House exactly as they were at present, now was the time for the Members from Scotland and Ireland to urge the claims of their respective countries to a larger proportion of Mem bers, and that if they did not do so, they would neglect their duty towards those whom they represented. They had heArd to-night from the Hon. Member for Middlesex, as indeed they had heard before on a former occasion from the Noble Lord, the Chancdlor of the Exchequer, that this would not be a final measure.—(Hear, hear.) Lord ALTHORP—Wben did I say so ?---(Hear,liear.) Sir G. 'MURRAY considered that the lion. Member for Middlesex was not a light authority on the subject, for though not precisely the author of the Bill, he was one of its most strenuous supporters.—(hear, hear.) He could not recollect at this moment, the exact date of the debate, but had it distinctly in his recollection having heard the Noble Lord say that it was as far his Majesty's Ministers then deemed it expedient to go.—( Hear, hear.) The expression made a strong impression both upon the House and upon him (Sir G. Murray) at the time ; and he was per feetly convinced that it would turn out to be the case.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) The measure was obviously too strong for Ministers; they could not restrain it, and it would inevitably go far beyond the limits within which they wished to confine it. He quite concurred with the Hon. Member for Middlesex, in the opinion that this measure of Reform was but a stepping stone to other mea sures of that descriptiou which he had not the least doubt would follow in succession after it had been passed. The Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded to contend that the principle of enfranchisement upon which this Bill pro ceeded, as regarded England, was that of population, but the Noble Lord opposite, when more Members were asked for Scotland and Irel ind on the same grounds, most inconsistently resisted the application, and asserted that it was nut on account of population that additional Mem bers were given. Now, lie (Sir G. Murray) would main tain that the same principle should be exactly applied to England, Ireland, and Scotland, and that no unfair dis tinction of this description should be made. The discon tent with respect to this Bill was becoming as strong in Scotland as it w is in England. Lord ALTHORP was not going to give any opinion respecting the Scotch representation, but only to express his surprise that the Right Hon. and Gallant Member should have stated that he (Lord Althorp) had declared this was not a final measure, when he must know that he could not have made such a statement. In the hurry of the debate he might have said, " under present circum stancest"—(Cries of " You said from the present.") Un doubtedly not ; he now remembered that he said "at present." He (Lord Althorp) did not believe that there was a single gentleman in the House that could think he meant to say it would not be a final measure. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that he did not mean to say he enter tained such an idea, and he complained of his imputing to him those words. Sir G. MURRAY undoubtedly did not mean to impute to the Noble Lord any such idea or intention, that this was not a final measure ; but the Noble Lord entertained some peculiar opinions on the question of Reform, such as in favour of the vote by ballot, though he acquitted him of any wish to introduce his own opinions into his mea sure. At the same time, the Noble Lord had expressed himself to the effect, that " at present he could not go further." Admiral ADAM declarvd that Scotland was perfectly satisfied with the present measure. Gdonel LINDSAY denied that Scotland was satisfied. Sir R. FERGUSSON observed, that those persons who now declaimed against the small number of Members for Scotland were the very persons who had said that Scotland was properly represented under the present system— (Hear)—and that it had grown up to its present flourish mg state under its former representation.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. KEARSLEY said, that the Noble Lord had de clared that he was incapable of making such au observa tion as had been imputed to him ; but he (Mr. Kearsley) knew that gentlemen on that (the Treasury) bench were capable of making any observation, and of saying any thing.—(A laugh.) One of them had said, that for the sake of the Reform, he would say black was white.—(A laugh.) Admiral ADAM declared that his only motive for sup porting Ministers was their conduct in bringing forward this Bill, which he should support. Mr. CROKER said that the Hon. Admiral seemed to be content to vote for a Bill which he could not have read. H e would state the way in which the debate on Bradford hail been raised. Bradford had now two re presentatives ; in the former Bill it had but one. Some gentl-men thought, that according to the scale of repre sentation originally adopted, it should have but one, and that it the present opportunity passed, and the House sanctioned the removal of Bradford and other places from schedule B to schedule C, they would be completely blocked out, and would not be able to add a single. Member to Scotland or Ireland. This question was not raised unadvisedly—(" Hear, hear," from the Treasury bench) —nor improperly—(A laugh)—for there would be no other opportunity for such gentlemen to express their sen timents : this was the only time in which it was open to them to enter on this discussion with reference to the in terests; of Ireland and Scotland. It was impossible that the rule of the Noble Lord could be satisfactory to the country. Blackburn, with a population of 27,000, with 4,800 houses, 600 101. houses, and 2,300/. assessed taxes, was to have two Members ; whilst Salford, with 50,000 inhabitants, 9,500 houses, 1,300 101. houses, arid 9,000/. assessed taxes, was to have but one Member. Blackburn, Bradford, Macclesfield, and Oldham, with 123,000 inhabitants, 3,900 10/. houses, and 9,244/. as sessed taxes, were to have eight Members, whilst Chelten ham, Salford, Rochdale, and Tynemouth, with 118,000 people, 5,500 101. houses, and 35,9001. assessed taxes, were to have but four. It was impossible that anomalies Ike these in the Bill could be satisfactory to the country. The principle ought to be clear and intelligible, and it was impossible for the Noble Lord to show that there was a principle of any kind. In the former Bill there was a principle, but now they were all at eea, and towns of 19,000 souls were placed on an equality with towns of 180,000 souls. If the Noble Lord believed that Liver pool would be content with the same number of Members as were given to Bradford, he would be deceived. Sir J. JOHNSTON said, that Scotland was perfectly a itisfied with the number of Members given to it. There might be some points in which improvement might be de sirable, but as a whole they were satisfied with the Bill. _ . . ...._ , Lord J. RUSSELL said that as the Members for Scot land had been satisfied with the present number of objection as to the number now given. If Scottish repre sentatives,Mem- it was scarcely competent for them to raise an of Bradford, he had no objection ; but he did object to their Mem bers chose to take up the question of Scotland and not that d o ing so without some notice, and wearing out the night with unprofitable discussion.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) had taken a peculiar mode of getting at his result, by combining various'places which were under peculiar circumstances. Salford was desirous of being considered a separate borough, and from its proxi mity to Manchester it was not con4dered expedient to give it more than one Member. He bad before said that po pul ttion was the principle of the measure. Sir G. CLERK said that the qu es ti on h a d not b een raised for the purpose of unnecessa r y d e b ate. I t was shouldttpb) h eaerr i t u o g of l fl decided, t t hbee as Sc o tl an d . Members of convenient, when the quest i on of the whole num ber th e H ouse was to consist was to that the nu m b er o f S cotch and Irish Members consider e d at t h e same time. There was no empire whi c h nee d ed so much add i t i onal re presentatives Mr. SCOTT said that justice had not been done to Scotland. Mr. SHEIL could not understand why the advocates for Scotland took their position in Bradford.—(Hear.) He thought that the proper time for Caledonian energy to show itself was when schedules A and B were under discussion.—(Hear, hear.) In the last Reform Bill, the number of boroughs in schedule B was 41, in the present snly thirty; and those gentlemen who called themselves the friends of Scotland and Ireland would have taken a better opportunity of showing their regard to those couo tries, if, instead of attempting to deprive the large town of Bradford of representation, they had moved that eleven in significant boroughs should be added to the present sche dule B.—( Hear, hear.) Colonel PEEL was a representaiive of one of the elev,n boroughS which were excluded from schedule B of the present Bill ; and be thought that there was a vast diffe rence between disfranchising a county town, and enfran chising new places. Sir G. CLERK said that the reason why the Scotch Members did not urge their claims during the considera tion of the schedules A and 13 was, because the Hon. and Learned Member for Louth had himself preoccupied the ground; and he must soy that on that occasion the 11,.n. and Learned Member acted with great inconsistency ; f after making a statement which must have convinced every candid mind, the Hon. and Learned Member thought proper to withdraw his motion, lest it might embarrass his Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. SHELL said, that if be had been inconsistent with respect to the case of a pirticular borough, the reason way that he might be consistent in his adherence to the great principle of Reform.—( Hear, hear.) He had been de ceived, however, in supposing that the Scotch Members opposite would support his proposition, and the Right Hon. Gentleman himself was one of those who on that occ sion preferred his party to his country.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Oh !") Mr. HUNT declared his opinion that the present Re form Bill would not he a final measure. The question was then put and carried, that Bradford Yorkshire stand part of schedule C. The same question was put and carried with respect to the following places :—Blackburn, Lancashire; Brighton, Sussex; Halifax, Yorkshire; Macclesfield, Cheshire; Old ham, Lancashire; Stockport, Cheshire ; Stoke-upon Trent, Staffordshire; Stroud, Gloucestershire. The list of the new boroughs contained in schedule C. having been thus gone through, Lord J. RUSSELL proposed that the Committee should now return to the postponed case of the borough of Dart mouth. He therefore moved that that borough sand p irt of schedule B. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked the Noble Lord whether he had made any new calculation as to that borough. Lord J. RUSSELL was very imperfectly heard. understood the Noble Lord to say that the case urged on behalf of the borough was, that the taxes p mid were of greater amount than what was stated in the assessment delivered by the collector of the Commissioners. If this was the fact, a fraud had undoubtedly been committed by the collector ; but the importance of the borough had been calculated from the assessment which it was legally bound to pay. If it could be proved that the assessment on which the calculation was made was not the proper assessment, there would then undoubtedly exist some ground for removing the borough from the place it now occupied ; but, as the case stood, Ministers could not, though Dartmouth might appear to suffer some hardship, break thromzli the general rule laid down for all boroughs. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY contended that Dartmouth ought to he taken out of schedule B. There were evi dent mistakes in the papers on the table respecting this borough. By Lieutenant Drurnniond's return, the num ber of houses was stated to be 632, and the borough had been accordingly placed in schedule B. But if the calcu lation had kern made on the actual number of houses, which was 767, the borough would have escaped altoge ther from disfranchisement. He contended that upon the principle of the Bill, Dartmouth ought to be allowed to retain its Members. He had taken some trouble to ascer tain the number of the 101. houses, and he fund that it was 211. It was pretended that Dartmouth was not en titled to have two Members when tried by the test of the amount of the assessed taxes; but the fact was that the collector of Dartmouth had, for several years, been carry ing on a system of embezzlement, arfil the inhabitants of Dartmouth really paid 2001. a year more than the amount returned to the Tax-hffiee. Considering th it Dartmouth was faitly entitled to retain its Metnhers, he should op pose the motion that it stand part of schedule B. Lord J. RUSSELL said, that he had made inquiries on the subject, and he found that Dartmouth would not under a new valuation, pay a sufficient amount of assessed taxes to bring it within the operation of the principle upon which Ministers had acted. The collector to which the HAI. Baronet had alluded had defrauded the inhabitant, of D irtmouth, not the revenue. Mr. HOLDSWORTH maintained that there had l , t—n no new survey of Dartmouth, and therefore it was imps. sible to say what amount of assessed taxes it would pay. He thought a caw had been made out for allowing the bo rough to retain its Members. Captain BASTARD said, it would be very unjust to disfranchise the borough merely because a dishonest tax collector had made f dse returns to the tax-office. Mr. CROKER thought it was quite apparent that it was the revenue. and not the inhabitants of Dartmouth, hat bad been defrvided by the collector, for the later never would have paid for windows, servants, houses, aad other things, if they had not possessed them, Lord ALTHORP said that upon consideration he could not consent to exclude Dartmouth from the schedule. The Comittee then divided, and the numbers were— For the question 2,05 Against it l, 6 Majority for Ministerg --99 Before the gallery was opened, the Chairman had put the questio❑ that the borough of Totness stand part of schedule B. When strangers were admitted we found— Mr. CROKER giving notice that on the bringing up the report he would move that the yeomanry cavalry ex emption duty be included in the amount of the assessed taxes of Thetford. Colonel DAVIES complained that a number of Hon. Members voted in the last division who had not heard the debate. He had voted in the minority on that occasion, because, according to the principle of the Bill, Dart mouth ought to have been preserved. No doubt his name would appear in certain prints as " one of those Mem bers who usually supported Ministers," but had on this occasion voted against them. Ministers were acting Incon sistently in allowing Totness to retain its Members, when it did not contain near as many 10/. houses as Dart mouth ; but he had heard it whispered that Totness was to be made a close borough. Lord ALTHORP expressed his surprise that the Hon. Member should indulge in insinuations. -He ought to have known that he and his colleagues were incapable of acting from unworthy motives. The question that Totnesa stand part of schedule B, was then put and negatived. After a long conversation concerning the propriety of proceeding with schedule D, Lord ALTHORP moved that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'clock to Monday next. (The Member who spoke after Mr. Baring, in answer to Mr. Heywood, on Lord Grosvenor's motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the silk trade, was Mr. E. J. S , anley, M.P., for Hindon. JOURNAL or A NOBLEMAN.--This amus ing work, a Second Edition of which, we understand, is already called for, contains the Narrative of the Author's Travels in Poland, Turkey, Wallachia, Transylvania, and Hungary, with an Account of his Residence at Vienna during the Congress, and of the distinguished personages there assembled. From his rank and fortune, the author possessed every facility for obtaining a ccess to t h e first circles in every place he visited, and h e must b e al l owed to have used his advantages 'well. Considered as the progresses of a man of fa s hi on , v i s i t i ng an d convers i ng with the people of fashion of other lands, these volumes are extremely entertaining, and will be certain of obtaining the attention of a large class of readers. In the course of a recent discussion in the Chamber of Deputies, it was stated that the number of horses in France amounts to 2,500,000,0ne half of which, or 1,250,000, are mares. Of these 600,000 are adapted for brood mares, but in fact there are rarely more than 200,000 foals born per annum. o was the o c sitting u ped of with theh C A most singular incident occurred on Mofi day durin grt cused of th e ft it was disturbed by loud cries " A thief . a thief !" from the audience, and imme diatel y two of the brothers W s h at the Cu Municipal Guards brought forward a man, about fifty te trialo Court o of f A two i lz)th years of age, wearing the riband of the Legion of Honour, u who was accused by one of the audience of stealing a h a t. The Court immediately exercise d its privilege, and ceeded to put the accused upon his trial. Upon being in terrogated, he said his name was CLAUDE AcausTe ESDEZAR, and acknowledged the theft, but plead e d ex . treine distress as the cause o f it. On being questioned as to his right to wear the Order of the Legion of Honour, he s t aid that it was given to him during the Hundred Da)s, Cr having followed the Eurzeoft to Elba as Surgeon. major. An attendant of the Court deposed that be had frequently observed the prisoner in the witness room, whence several hats had been stolen, but he imagin-d him to be a witness, and had no supi c i on o f hi m. The Court pronounced him guilty, and sentenced him to a year's imprisonment. The Advocate -General reserved his right to prosecute ESBEZAE for wearing the decoration of the Legion of Honour without being legally ataho rized....French Paper, AYLESBURY, ALtacm 2. The Judges have this evening concluded the business in this county, and will to-morrow open the Commission in Bedford, Mr. Baron Gurney having disposed of all the Civil Bill cases last night, both Judges sat to-day for hearing the remaining criminal ones. The calendar, as observed by the Judge in his address to the Grand Jury, has been unusually heavy this Assizes ; hut, notwithstanding there are nmic to die, no prisoner has been sentenced to severer punishment than transportation. The number of prisoners tried for sheep-stealing, gild also for horse-stealing, was unually large, particularly for the foirrir offence; in the case of Ranee, who was tried yesterday, as it was proved that the prisoner had resisted the constable with a weapon, and had wounded him, the Judge deferred passing sentence till this evening. The Jury recommended the prisoner to mercy, and his Lordship attended to the re. commendation and sentenced the prisoner to transporta tion for life, addressing him at the same time at consider able length. The son of the prisoner, who was produced as evidence for the defence, was at the same time severely lec tured by the Judge upon the contradictory testimony which he r gave. Those of the prisoners who had not received sentence • were placed at the bar, mid severally sentenced to imprisonment and transportation. A case of poaching was the most interesting tried tc,day.— The defence was conducted by Mr. SYUYey TAYLOR, and, Di his address to the Jury, he commented, at some length, upon the extreme severity and injustice of the Game Laws. The JunGE, on the other hand, in summing up, defended their jus tice and necessity. The two prisoners were found Guilty,—one sentenced to 14 years' transportation, and the other to one year in the House of Correction and hard labour. A case of attempted arson was tried before Mr. Baron GUR NEY, but the evidence failed, and the prisoner was acquitted. The people in the Court showed a strong disposition to applaud when the verdict of acquittal was returned. The Assizes terminated about five o'clock. NORTHAMPTON, MARCH 2. THE SIBBERTOFT MURDER. The Jury having been sworn, William Grant, aged 4d, wall placed at the bar, and arraigned on the Coroner's inquisition, and on an indictment charging him with the wilful murder of Mary Wright, otherwise Mary Cheney, at the parish of Sibber. toft, near Welford in, this county, on the 30th of August last. Mr. Serjeant GOULBURN and Mr. HUMFREY were Counsel, and Mr. MARSHAL of Kettering, one of the Coroners I for the county, was solicitor, for the prosecution. No Counsel • appeared for the prisoner. Mr. Serjeant GOULBURN briefly stated the principal facts which he proposed to call witnesses to sustain. It having been intimated to the Judge by Mr. Grant, the humane Governor of the county gaol, that the prisoner was very deaf, he directed that gentleman to stand by the prisoner and repeat to him the answers of the witnesses as the case pro. ceeded. Mrs. Maria Manton examined—l am the wife of Mr. John , Manton, of Sibbertoft, and knew the deceased, Mary Wright; she was in my service, and had been with me ten or eleven months. I know the prisoner, who is a gardener, living at Sib. bertoft, he used to come to see the deceased occasionally, and he also worked sometimes in our garden. I have asked him se. veral times when he has come, what he wanted ; and he used to reply, " You know what I want—l want the girl I love." He used those words when he called about three weeks before her death. I told him I should not call her, and he said he would not go out of the yard until he had seen her. I then went and called her, and she came down and spoke to him. As far as I could observe, he appeared to be courting her, and to be fond of her. I recollect Sunday morning, the 28th of August, the prisoner came to my house that morning, Mary Wright was standing out of the door, and I saw the prisoner speak to her, and ask her how site did, in a kind manlier ; she said, " I don't know." His mother was recently dead, and he asked her to follow her to the grave, as her funeral was to take place on that day; he said it was his mother's last wish she should ; I refused to let her go; the prisoner then went away. On the following Tuesday, I sent Mary Wright for some barm to Mr. Bates's, who lived about a quarter of a mile distant ; she not returning home for some time I went into the yard to see if she was coming. I could see through the gate up part of the road, and saw the prisoner and Mary Wright; they were about two hundred yards off when I first saw them, and they stopped when they got about fifty yards from me ; they appeared to be talking together ; I called out, Mary, and she turned her head ; at this instant I saw the prisoner put his hand down towards his side ; he seemed as if he took some. thing out of his side pocket ; he struck his hand towards the ground, and he then struck Mary Wright upon the breast and then a little lower down ; there was a man with me of the name of Burdett who ran out of the gate with me ; we called out " murder;" the prisoner I think could hear Burdett call out, he did not offer to run away, I saw the deceased fall on the ground, the prisoner fell also, I heard Mary Wright scream murder : the prisoner seemed to rise upon his knees, and when I got up he was kneeling upon her, I went within three yards of them, I then returned again towards the house, I was so confused. When I got up he was cutting her throat, I could see he had a knife, it seemed to be a pruning knife. I saw blood running from the wounds, I called for assistance. In running back to my house, I looked behind, and saw Mary Wright walking, and the prisoner with a great many men round him. William Holdhan—l am a grazier at Sibbertoft. I knew the deceased and the prisoner; the latter from a child; he latterly assisted his father as a gardener; he was formerly a soldier. On the 30th of August, about a quarter_past seven in the evening, as I was going up the street, I saw two persons on the ground. I found them to be Mary Wright and William Grant. Grant was kneeling upon her; I saw him strike her several times. When I got up to them, I struck the prisoner on the back part of his head with my milking yoke. The prisoner said," What are you going to be about ?" I said, " You rascal, what have you been about ?" He replied, " Oh, I have done for her!" I pulled the prisoner off': I could not then . . tell but that Mary Wright was dead ; but with assistance she got up after a consi derable time. The prisoner said, while I was holding him, " I have done for her, as I always said I would. I told her grand. mother and mother they should sup full of sorrow, and they now have it by spoonfuls." The poor girl died the next day, The prisoner made no defence.—Verdict—Guilty. He is to be hanged on Monday. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. B OW-STREET. Yesterday, a respectably dressed man, who gave the name of Richard White, was charged before Mr. MINSHULL, by a pub. lican named Savage, who keeps the sign of the Coach and Horses, Charles-street, Drury-lane, with having run up a score amounting to Ns. sd. at his bar, and afterwards absconding to evade the payment. The defendant, having by some means learned that the com plainant was about to dispose of his business, came to the house and pretended that he was looking out for a public-house, and would have no objection to treat with the complainant for his. He subsequently called again, and spoke in high terms of his property and connections. He then went over the premises with the landlord and his broker, examined the stock, fixtures, &e., appeared mightily pleased with every thing he saw, and finally ordered beef-steaks, porter, gin, &c., with which he libe. rally regaled the broker and another party, taking good care however not to forget himself. The landlord, deceived by his appearance, and hoping to find in him a liberal bidder for the house, supplied him with every thing he called for. The sus picions of his wife, however, being at last excited, he made out the defendant's bill, but on going to the parlour to request pay ment of it, he found that his customer had bolted. He subse quently met him in the city, and had him taken before the Jus tice at Guildhall, who referred the matter to this office. The defendant, in a broad Scotch dialect, and with a most plausible manner, declared it was all a mistake, that he would scorn to cheat any man, and that the Rev. Mr. Irving, the man of the unknown tongue, would willingly speak to his character. Mr. MINSHULL—What business do you follow? Defen dant—l am engaged in the Scotch whisky and ale trade, and have an establishment at Leith, and another in Pinners'-hall, Broad-street, city. Mr. Savage, the publican, had made inquiries at Pinners'. hall, and found that no such person lived th ere , an d moreover, your Worship, he added, when I g ave th e p r i soner i n charge, the city officer knew him well, and said that he had had him ,aenthcoeupldefrinahkies ndoutel:inagndofshpeimak. before for '2.s. 7d., he having bilked another publican by a simi. lar trick. The defendant, raising his eyes in apparent astonishment, and dropping them suddenly again, as if in submission to his fate, exclaimed, " Awed, awed, ye are a' against me, but ye could not get to say one word to his t k r i l l l e . a s in ha l a o p u i: k ed r n se o d c w e u a t f ed u n , e e m s e s a i , l n }o . ur Worship, at Guildhall, rejoined the Worship the Alderman, you dragged me away in sic an unqua. and the man,Al Alderman r g m i lified manner. M r. Savage,Defendant — Hoot Hovendon, the police inspector, here. came forward, and said that there was reason to believe the prisoner had stolen! Is. fid. from a prisoner with whom he had been confined in the cell at the station house, on the preceding night. The inspect for stated that on being taken to the station, on the charge of Mr. Savage, he was searched, and no money whatever was found upon his person. In the morning, however, he produced a shilling to procure some refreshment, and a sixpence was sub sequently found in his possession. One of the prisoners had complained in the morning of having been robbed of the exact sum. The prisoner accounted for his possession of the money, by stating that he had borrowed it from one of the constables. This was flatly denied, however, by the constable himself, and the prisoner was ordered to be remanded. LAMBETH-STREET. yea O rs n Thursday, Green, whose about 40 real name is Michael M'Donough, was placed at th e b ar b efore Mr. TICKLE, a county Magistrate, charged w i t h h av i ng ofa l g ir , s , d v a h y . n g i a g v h e t h a is n re a s im pe e c a t s ab T le ;o lo m ok as in G g fraudulently obtained a cheque from Messrs. Exley, Dimsdale, and Co., extensive merchants, of Trinity.square, for 2'ol. In the course of Thursday, the prisoner called at the count ing-house of Messrs. Exley, Dimsdale, and Co , and presented to one of the firm a strong letter of rec ommendation, purporting to be from their correspondents, Messrs. Ewing, May, and Co., a highly respectable house at Glasgow. He also presented a bill of lading for 100 casks of tallow, represented to have peen shipped by Thomas Greer and Co., on board the Mary, of Bristol, at Belfast for London, and consigned to Messrs. Exley, Dimsdale, and Co. The prisoner at the same time represented himself as the principal in the firm of the consigners, and re quested 2201, advance on the property, connoting of Course to