The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-25 00:00:00

Dean

LONDON, TUESDAY _EVENING, MAY 26,

IMPERIAL PARLI &MEN T

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 24.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. C. W. GRENFELL took the oaths and his scat
'or Windsor.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills wets
considered and agreed to:—
Aberdeen Fire and Life Assurance Company.
Cheltenham Improvement and Health.
Forth and Clyde Navigation.
Glamford Briggs Waterworks.
Liverpool Corporation Waterworks.
Sheffield Bridges end Streets.
The following Bills were read a third time and
passed:—
Great Western, Shrewebury and Birmingham, and
Sere webury and Chester Railway Companies Ausal-
gametion.
Limerick Improvement and Market,
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (No. 2),
Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midlands Junction
Railway.
Marsden, (iisburne, and Long Preston Roads.
Pedmore and Rowley Roads.
Stroud and Bisley Road.
Tremor. Embankment.
The following Bills were considered and agreed to:—
Beaconsfield and Redhill Road.
Cambridge to Ely sad other Roads.
Eastern Union Railway.
Kettering and Northampton Road.
Kingston-upon-Hull Dues and Docks.
Kingston and Sheetbridge Roads.
Nene Valley Drainage and Navigation Improvement.
River Humber Conservancy and Kingston-upon-Hull
Docks,
The Bowden-park Estate Bill and the Manchester and
Salford EduceTien Bill were read a third time, and or-
dered to be committed.
PETITIONS.
Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from the Wes-
leyan College against the Militia Bill.
Mr. ANDERSON presented a petition from Orkney
against the Maynooth grant.
Mr. L. HEYWORTH presented four petitions from
four different temperance societies, praying the House
to inquire into the causes and consequences of intem-
perance.
Mr. NOEL presented a petition from Buckingham-
shire against the Maynooth grant.
Mr. COWAN presented a petition from a place in
Scotland in favour of ocean penny postage.
Mr. EWART presented a petition from Dumfries
against the Maynooth grant.
Admiral STEWART presented a petition from Dept-
ford in favour of ocean penny postage.
Alderman KERstaAw presented a petition from
a place in Monmouthshire against the Militia Bill.
Mr. LOVEDEN presented a petition from Aberys-
twith against the Militia Bill; also one from Cardigan
praying for the repeal of the attorneys' certificate duty.
FINSBURY PARK.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to know from the Right
Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had,
received the new estimate for the Finsbury Park; and,
secondly, whether he could hold out any hope of a Bill
being introduced for the formation of the park during
the present session?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Government had received the new estimate, but having
carefully considered it he did not feel that he should be
justified in bringing in a Bill for the formation of the
park this session, as the data which bad been placed
before him was not of a satisfactory nature, but the sub-
ject would continue to receive the attention of the Go-
vernment.--(Hear, hear.)
OYSTERS.
Sir GEORGE PECHELL wished to ask the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, whether any instructions
have been issued to the Commissioners of Customs (in
consequence of any representation from the French Go-
vernment), directing the commanders of revenue
cruisers to prevent vessels taking oysters in the English
Channel beyond the limits exclusively reserved to the
fishermen of this country?
Mr. HENLEY said an Act of Parliament was passed
in pursuance of a convention with France, which prohi-
bited the use of dredges between the 18th of May and
the Ist of September, but the fishermen of Dover and
Essex were opposed to the Act. and had memorialised
the Government to relax it accordingly, while the fisher-
men on the coast of Kent were anxious that the Act should
be strictly carried out. Under these circumstances, the
Government had no alternative but to see that the Act
was strictly enforced, so far as it related to dredging, but
there was no law against the lauding of oysters.—(liear.)
In reply to further questions,
Mr. HENLEY would have no objection to lay the
correspondence and the memorials before the House.
THE BARODA INQUIRY.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to know from the President of
the Board of Control the reason of the delay in pre-
senting the papers relating to the Baroda inquiry, and
the removal of Colonel Outram?
Mr. BERRIES said such papers as could be pro-
duced were in preparation, and they would be shortly
forthcoming.
AUSTRIAN TREATMENT OF BRITISH
SUBJECTS.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to ask the Chancellor of the
cf Exchequer when the House might expect the papers
relating to the expulsion of British subjects from the
Austrian do:minions ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the papers were printed, and in a day or so they would
be laid before the House.
IRISH. RAILWAYS.
Mr. W. 0, GORE wished to ask whether, in the
event of railway companies having paid up a certain
es proportion of their capital, and complied with certain
2 conditions to b 33 named by the Government, the Govern-
ment was willing to make advances by way of loan to
I 0 railway companies in Ireland; and whether the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was prepared to state what the
conditions were which he required to be complied with
before making such advances?
The CHANGELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the conditions peecedent upon which loans were made
to railway companies were contained in the Acts of
Parliament by which the railway companies were
framed, and Government took care that for each loan
they made an equal sum was also advanced out of the
funds of the company.--(Hear, hear.) In this
manner the sum of 1,200,000/. had been
advanced; and he W. 381 bound to say that the interest
had been duly met ,and the instalments duly paid.—
Od (dear, hear.) Besides that 500,0001. had been advanced
Oa under a special Act to The Irish Great Western Com-
od pany; and if the Hon. Gksntleman could bring a fair and
proper case before the Treasury it should be as fairly
entertained.—(Hear, helve)
METROPOLIS BUILDINGS ACT,
sioner of Woods and Forosts whether he proposed to
,ns. Mr. OSBORNE; wishcel to ask the First Commis-
Od
lid bring in a Metropolis Buildings Act in the course of the
MANNERS said, it was his intention to
bring
?
Lo
to reconstruct the Court before whom
L'
131
ee
lin aßill
reonro
session
iOIIN
t an
building disputes were adjudicated.
ir- °SB r t NE—T his session?
Lord J. MANNERS—Yes, if possible.
CANADA RAILWAY.
Mr. M'CULLAGII wished to ask the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, whether the communications that
had lately taken place between her Majesty's Govern-
ment and the members of the Executive Councils of
Canada and New Brunswick who have come to this
country, relative to the formation of a railway from Bs
lifax to Quebec, have been brought to a satisfactory ter-
mination
Sir J. PAKINGTON said the negotiations to which
the Honourable Gentleman's question referred had now
terminated, but whether they had terminated sa-
tisfactorily he must leave for the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman himself to .determine.--(ilear'
hear.) The result, however, had been communicated
to the Governor of the colony. and it was, that the Go-
vernment could not recommend the Crown to allow the
Imperial revenu e to become the security for the repay-
ment of the sum required for the railway.
NEW ZEALAND COMPA.NY.
In reply to Sir J. GRAHAM,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said the Crown was pledged
not only by the Ne^W Zealand Act, but also by a corre-
spond
Colonial- office and the New Zealand Company,
once which had since taken place between the
which he men-
to secure certain rights to the corolaanY
tamed to the 11111 SO oil Friday. The correspondence had
already been printed, and was now to be found in one of
th° bleashooks.—(Flear, )
, wee
Mr. CAYLEY said great calamities were continually
takingplace EXPLOSION I
, from explosions in miees. One occurred
the meter (lay, when 60 lives were lost, and more recently
another happened, wben4s lives were lost. Now he wished
to ask, in whether any inquiry was,
being
the first place, N MINES.
made into the cause of these appalling calamities, and,
secondly, whether there would be any objection to ap-
point a Committee with the view of arriving at some
means by which. such accidents
ente could? d be rendered
less frequent, if not absolutely prev—(Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE said he had received information re-
spootiug the last accident, and some causes for it had
been suggested to him. However, an inquiry was now
going 011 into the matter, and it would shortly be ter-
m: nated. In the mean time he should have no objec-
tic u to the appointment of a Committee to investigate
the,
,Mr. CAYLEY gave notice then that to-morrow he
would move the appointment of a Committe.—(Hear.)
whole subject.--(Hear, hear.)
THE REV. MR. BENNETT.e
Lord CASTLEREAGH said he had received a letter
from the Rev. Mr. Bennett, stating that there was not
one word of truth in the rumour that he had join d the Ro-
man Catholic Church; and adding, that he still held holy
orders in the Church of England, and had no intention of
leaving it. The Noble Lord warned the House agains
placing too implicit faith in rumoured conversions to the
Roman Catholic religion, and observed that the Roman
Catholic Directory contained the name of a clergynad
who not only adhered to the doctrines of the Establi h
Church, but was in possession of bis living.
jUjuEn.ResaisaTCi
ABOLITION OF GRAND JURIES.
In reply to Mr. FRESHFIELD.
There
e be
eet
The CHANCELLOR of the EX
nsation to clerks of the
saw no reason for giving comPe
but he wus not allowed
peace and to the clerks of the Centra our.
an oath to a witness in
in consequence of the Bill abolis _ •
Was some difference, however, with regard to the crier,
who received a fee of ed• for every witness who was
eaurt. The Government thought it would be a fair ar-
rangement to permit this functionary to levy a fee on the
teoxatmakineeadnbyeffeoerefothr eariunidstjeurriyu,g
administration of oaths to witnesses in court, and if a
clause were proposed to that effect, they would give it

SEPT

NOVE:

SEPT

OCT,

MILITIA DILL,
TA reply to Mr. }3lilGla

The CH ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he 1 which they could' proceed to disfranchise the county?
believed that it was clearly understood that the report i There was a machinery for disfranchising boroughs—
on the Militia Bill was to be brought up ou Thursday. 1 but that machioery would not do for counties. How.
Of course the third reading could not take place until ' ever good, therefore, the amendment might be, it had
after the holidays. not been well considered with reference to the powers of
THE WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS. , the Act upon the House. If the Honourable Gentleman
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
) would insist on having counties inserted it would be ne-
was his intention to move the adjournment of the House cessary to have other machinery. It required a differ-
for the holidays on Friday next until the Thursday the Noblet machinLord that an ery for countamies,endment and heot qusuch importance
ite agreed with
following. ought not to have been brought forward in this manner
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
A messenger from the Lords brought up the follow- without notice. The machinery in existence was
inade-
ing Bills, to which their Lordships have agreed:— tnd he would stele the Hon. Gentleman if in case
, ,
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. corruption should be proved, he was prepared to distran-
British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Company, chise, say the West Riding, and thus leave a consider-
without amendment, able part of England unrepresented ? He did not clasp-
rove of the principle of the amendment, but as the ma-
Somersetslaire Central Railway, with amendments. p
Also, An Act to amend the Law relating to the cer- chinery of the Bill would not apply to counties he hoped
tifying and registering Places of Religious Worship of theL HOn. MGROSVENOR ember would not press itibery was not rin-
Protestant Dissenters. ord R said b
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. known in ceunties; he would instance West Gloucester;
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill, for a question was not long ago brought belore the
whether a certain Noble Lord had not, by
Colonel SIBTHORP said he telt it his duty to Committee,
oppose the further progress of the Bill. He was the way he interfered in an election for that division,
surprised to find the Government had taken up committed a breach of privilege.—(llear,) He approved
and adopted such a measure as the present, which of the amendment, and, if pressed, would vote for it.
was originated by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Mr. W AKLEY said, after what had just passed, if
John Russell). It was a trap artfully invented by the the Right Hon. Gentleman could not adopt the amend-
other side of the House, and he warned the went at once, the proper course to take would be to ad-
Government against the man-traps and spring- journ the debate. Tnere must not be this invidious dis-
guns which were placed in their way. The Honourable btween bouroughs and counties. The Right
Star Chamber was a farce to the tribunal which was to Gentleman • said counties were pure; well,
be appointed under the Bill. There was to be a body let them be kept pure by having something like his Hon.
of commissioner's," composed perhaps of briefiess bar Friend's amendment hanging over their heads. But he
risters, who were to go to various parts of the country did not agree in the opiniou of the Right Hon. Gentle..
and prey like vultures on the innocent and unwary. man. He believed as much or more corruption existed
Such attempts at legislation were unworthy of any in counties as in boroughs; and he firmly believed that
assembly, especially when a great portion of it consisted bribery in counties would soon be practised on a far
of Members who called themselves Liberals. A more larger scale than ever before attempted, beirouse)thlde
inquisitorial, unchristian-like, and dangerous measure stake in the present instance was so great. vv, u
he never saw. Instead of doing any good, it would lay move the adjournment of the debate—(No, no)—unless
a trap for innocent men, and encourage perjury. The the amendment were put.
Hon. and Gallant Member moved that the Bill be read ' After a few words from Mr. W. WILLIAMS in fa-
d third time that day six months. your of the amendment,
Mr. GEORGE HUDSON said he should vote Alderman SIDNEY said he knew from his own know-
against the third reading, believing that the Bill ledge that in the West Riding it was matter of agree-
proposed to deal with the constituencies of England ment between the contending parties to give tickets of
in a most unfair manner. He was quite satisfied refreshments, and also to pay the expenses of voters to
it was not to the advantage of the country to pass such a and from the nomination, and to and from the hust-
imeasure, and he hoped, when it reached the House of ings on the day of the poll. He knew also that in the
Lords
it would be kicked out. He could not conceive a elections for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge
greater insult to the constituencies of England than the it was the practice to pay the 'poorer clergymen their
present Bill, because it assumed that most boroughs travelling expenses who came from a distance to vote,
were corrupt. Did corruption exist to such au extent and also their expenses at Oxford or Cambridge during
as to require such a wholesale and sweeping remedy ? the poll. If the House agreed to the amendment he
He believed not, and be therefore hoped the House would 'should certainly move that the universities be also in-
not pass the Bill.chided in the Bill.
Alderman SIDNEY sae, no reason whatever why the Sir A. COCKBURN said there was only one reason
constituencies of the country should be subject to the
why he objected to the amendment, and it was that
injustice which was to be established by the Bill. stated by the Noble Lord near him with reference to
The effect of the measure would be to the time and stage at which it was proposed; otherwise
encourage a set of persons who had neither money nor he concurred with the Hon. Member as to the propriety
r character to lose to come before the commissioners
bfor of applying the principle to counties as well as to
the purpose of giving evidence against the purity ohf
10-: towns, He believed treating prevailed to a considerable
roughs. He was no advocate of corruption, but he s
ou d extent at county elections; and he also believed that
oppose all Bills of this kind which were founded on such other influences existed, which the sooner the attention
an unnecessary assumption as to the existence of evils, of the House was called to them the better. When he
and which gave powers far exceeding any that had ever found it admitted and avowed that a Noble Lord, a
been granted under similar circumstances. member of the House of Peers, had entered into a oor-
The House then divided, when there appeared— ! rupt contract in direct violation of the privileges of that
For the third reading ... ... 281 House and of the rights of the people, and that his no-
Against it ... ... ... .• • 6 , mines to a seat in that House had been denied the privi-
Mejority ... „.
„, ---275 , lege of soliciting the sieffrages of the electors in his own
Colonel SIBTHORP then moved the following county, it was tell time the attention of the House were
clause:—"That it shall be lawful to pay to every out- called to the subject. He fully concurred that the prin-
t) u l dg i
voter residing within the prescribed distance of each city, ciple of the Bill should be applied to counties as well as
or borough, or having any other right according to Act boroughs, but he felt the danger of admitting any amend-
wssbedinlithwe of Parliament of voting for such city or borough, such mhaedntpa(
Committee.vethe Bill a new character) after it
allowance in money, not exceeding 55., as may appear,
under existing circumstances, reasonable for travelling Mr. HORSMAN said that there was nothing in the
have Bill about disfranchisement. It only provided that when
or other incidental and necessary expenses as may
been incurred, or to which he or they may have been corrupt practices existed the House might address her
liable in carrying into effect the exercise of his or their Majesty to issue a commission of inquiry. He did not
elective franchise on the day of polling at such election." see why counties should be.excluded.
The amendment was negatived without a division. Mr. FLOYER said, he was as much opposed to cor-
Mr. -ANSTEY moved the inaertion, at page 1, clause rupt practices at elections as any ono, but all the cases
1, line 9, after the word " that," of the words following, referred to in this discussion bad, with perhaps one ex-
" any judicial proceedings have been had in some court ception, been cases of treating, which, though against
of record of competent jurisdiction by which it hath the strict letter of the law, were not attended with any
been ascertained or made to appear, or that." great demoraliaatim He did not think the House
Sir A. COCKBURN opposed the amendment. ought to depart from the usual course, by introducing a
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL, the clause at that stage with reference to treating, which
motion was negatived without a division. did not extend beyond giving 'a dinner to a poor elector
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, he could not see why this who had come a long way to vote. He should certainly
Act should not extend to counties. He should move object to the extension of the Bill to counties.
certain words which would hare the effect of remedying Mr. HUDSON confirmed the statement of the Hon.
that defect. He considered that quite as much corrup- Member for Stafford, with reference to the elections iu
tion was to be found in counties as in boroughs. Take, the West Riding. In all contested elections in that
for instance, the 501. tenants at will county voters. It division of the county, it was a regular thing for the
was well known they were thoroughly: dependent on candidates to give 2s. 6d. and. ss. tickets to their voters.
their landlordg, and as bribery was considered to be the He should not vote at all on the Bill, bat he thought the
giving of some "valuable consideration "to influence a universities ought to be included.
vote, what could be more complete bribery than to pro- The House divided, when there appeared—
mise a tenant at will the " valuable consideration "of For the amendment ~„ 109
•••
continuing him in the possession of his farm if he gave Against it ... ... ... -* 71
his vote according to the dictation of his landlord? Then, Majority for the •
amendment —3B
with respect to treating, it was notorious that as much On the motion of Alderman SIDNEY the universi-
treating took place at election time in counties as in sities were also included in the Bill.
boroughs. He begged, therefore, to move the insertion On the question that the Bill do pass,
of words which would have the effect of bringing cowl- Mr. STANFORD said before the Bill passed he
ties within the operation of the Act. wished to state, in a few words, his opinions respecting
Colonel SIBTHORP hardly knew how the Hon. it. Ho conceived that no greater humbug could be per-
Member could reconcile his present proposition with petrated than for the House to pass such a measure,
the vote he had recently given on his (Colonel Sib- when Hon. Members themselves had the means in their
thorp's) motion. As far as his own actions were con- own hands of• putting an end to them. 'There could be
cerned, he declared he had never controlled a tenant's no doubt that at any general election there was from a
vote; and, believing tenants were an honest class of men, million and a half to two millions of money paid in en-
he would not sanction any motion which tended to cast couraging these corrupt practices, and he hoped the
a reflection on them. electors themselves would take the matter into their own
Captain HARRIS was ready to support any well-con- hands, and by their just and reputable conduct spurn
side red measure for putting down bribery. Ile could the practice which had brought so much disrepute on
not discover any valid reason, if inquiry were to take the constituencies of the coantry. It was clear that
place, why counties should not be included. He believed the great object of gentlemen coming into that House
there was as much bribery in counties as in boroughs, was either to enjoy the sweets of office, or to
not from landlords intimidating their tenants, but from live in hopes of tasting the honey. Any man who
such associations as the freehold land societies, the . ob - acted upon principle, or spoke his sentiments honestly.
jest of which was to bring
.the holder, as far as his vote would be voted an ass (Laughter.) The clause which
man- t e ob e Lord the Member for London admitted into
was concerned, into subjection to tbe committee of hN I •—•
',gement. This and other matters ought to be looked the Bill destroyed any merit that it had. The Bill
quite would n
into. He believed that one side ofy tahaetHeoautsheewr.as
the onl not prevent corrupt practices at elections, and
put down briberyh by every by that House setting an example of purity to the
y way to prevent corruption by the people was
a s
Mr. machr.toHboe
wchAarigwed
wwoiuthldbpriub
peop'e.
said., ife protection. to 201. and Mr. WAKLEY said he had heard means.
cessary in England, it was doubly speeches in that House, but that deliveredmbeyn Mr. S. CRAWFORDtyheqffueoear.
501. tenants was cc
necessary in Ireland. He should support the amend- Member who had just sat down was the queerest he
had ever heard. The Hon. Gentleman had complained
,went. considered that the freehold land so- that there was no purity at elections. Well, surely, they
tending the all knew that the only w
promoters of those means of the ballot.—(Heaayr,tohpearerv.)entTtaehis
beavlillbtw
would
franchise, clerics had done much good in the way of ex •
it would b. e for the
franchise, and
whether it was true, as asserted, that
societies to say
their holdings under the base
the members held
vote at the service of the tenure Lions, provided they had large constituencies.—(Hear,
of placing
their V some error in the Hon. society. He hear.) The Honourable Gentleman. said that any man
hoped there was and Gallant that would 'express himself '
in an independent manner
k He thought it was not f • •
Member's realer • air to go to in that House would be called an ass.—(A. laugh.)
ut first hearing bee opin.
a division witho . ion of her Ma- Had the Honourable Genteman been speaking his own
jesty's Ministers on the important question involved in sentiments?
the amendment.
RR/9 said, the Ho Mr. STANFORD—Yes.
Captain EIA
b. nil and Learned Mem- Mr. WAKLEY—Then what are you ?—(Laughter.)
with statingsaidthat
t at which was incor- He was told that the Honourable Gentleman had
rect. what he
from freehold
was advanced to pledged himself to form an intimate alliance with
persons holding landwag
in
land societies, that the purer portion of the borough which be
while the
a money be at the course. of payment the vote of represented.—(Laughter.) But the Hon. Gentleman
the party was to
hat he had been informed.
was w Gentleman was, however, to be excused, for he understood
mr, ineaaE was connected with a freehold land so- the fault was not his
riots, and it was a calumny
say own.—(Laughter.) Yet there
to
the society in clues- could be no great complaint of advances not having
tioa interfered with the votes of individuals in any Y. parties wa been made from other
The whole object of the society was to extend theran- after the character which f to carry out the alliance,
the Hon. Gentleman
chise.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Gallant Member h f himself. ' They
given
~ e o bad at that side of the House tested
hoped,
would at some future day name the
did as he stated, because until shooth done glad 1 f la
applied to all land societies. Hd bea umny motion or t e ballot. Well, would it be credited, on
to hear last occasion when the motion for the ballot was before
what Government had to say against extending the Bill the House, the lion. Member for Reading voted against
to counties. Well, bow
Mr. BRIGHT would speak it?—(" Hear hear," from Mr. Stanford.)
particularly with respect were they to have purity of election without the ballot?
to the freehold land society in Birmingham and other —(Hear, hear.) From the speech of the Hon. Gentle-
societies in Manchester, and would assert that nothing of man he presumed he was taking leave hearhis political
the sort as stated by the Hon. and Gallant Member oc. friends and of that House.—(.. Hear, "fm Mr.
culled in those societies. He believed the Hon. and Gal- Stanford.) Well, the Hon. Member had only himself
lant Member knew nothing of the subject except what to blame for this, because he would not vote for the
he collected from the newspapers devoted to his own party. ballot.
There was a land society, to be sure, promoted by a Con- The Bill then passed.
servative party with which the Hon. Member for North POOR-LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE, BILL.
Warwickshire was connected, from whose doings the Lord D. STUART, on the order of the day for going
Hon. and Gallant Member might have possibly obtained into Committee on the Poor-law Board Continuance
his impressions.—(Hear,) He denied that bribery existed Bill, moved that it be an instruction to the Committee
in large borough constituencies, such as Manchester, that they have power to make provision for amendiug'
Liverpool, Bcc., or that any petitions had been presented the said Bill if they should so think fit. He Considered
in consequence of alleged corrupt practices. So, if the the question they had to consider one of the utmost im•
plea for exempting counties on account of the large con- portence to a great portion of the public, for it was a
stituenoies was good, why then the Bill was improper fact that at any rate wherever there were parishes go-
and unfair as far as large borough constituencies were moron by
local Acts a deep interest was felt in the
concerned. If one rule was to be applied to boroughs motion which he had to submit; and he thought that
and another to counties, it was tantamount to saying whoever was in favour of the principle of local self- go-
that one rule of virtue was required for counties, and vernment should support that motion. He believed
another for horonehs. . the foundation of all the power, wealth, that
prosperity, and
Lord J. RUSSELL would explain why in this Bill freedom of this great country, and the ri b.ple which
counties were not inserted in the first instance. There had made England the wonder and envyP of the world,
were numerous cases of bribery. brought against bo- wasth principle for which he had to come d. As re-
roughs, but none with respect to counties; so therefore garded the present state of the law, he considOred that he
it was thought fit to apply the Bill to cases which had could establish three propositions—first, that' it certainly
led
been inquired into, but not to extend it beyond. them. to litigation; secondly, that the existing law, as inter-
There was this further reason why no distinction was preted by the Poor-law Board,
was not in baitmony with
made in the Bill between large and
insmall con- the intention of its originalthat
the Bill the promoters; and thirdly,
stituencies—because it would be difficult system could not be regarded salutary belie&
as or
to draw a line, and to decide what towns should vial. Its uncertainty was Illustrated in the case of St.
and what should not be included. ThePancras of which he should have thep; and al to
son why counties 'were not included was simply his belie'f on the other points which had: mentioned,
that which he had stated. lie saw no objec- spin might quote high authorit S R b OPeel was of
y. ir ,er
in counties a
' if complaints of bribery rose--;
Lion—-n on that the power of the Poor-law card should
bringing them into this Bill; but he certainly objected
not extend to parishes governed by local A ts, and had
to insert such words at that moment, as the lion, always thought that where there were im ease masses
Member had not given notice of them, nor had he pro- ofpopulationwell governedunder local Acts it would not
posed their insertion in Committee. 'There were r t e control of'
three be found expedient to place them nude
notices of amendments, but not a word about this one, the He hoped Hon. M .
e bars would
commisaioners.
He considered the amendment was so important that itagree • hthat opinion of Si; R. Peel's. as it not, on
ought not to be adopted without notice. Let the Hon.it
face of " opein moreo likely that such parishes as
. the it, mach
s would be .01 and
Gentleman give give due notice, and then
the question Marylebone and St. Panora
might be fairly discussed whether counties d bathe '
if they were 1113 er e management
ought to moniously governed,.
be included. authorities—onen who, from their position in
of the local aut
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would every parish, must know the wants, wishes, !and require-
remark, in reference to the amendment ofthe
Hon. ments s—than if goverueil by any me-
Member for Finsbur' litan board? Why, in these parishes ';which he had
y, that, in any Bill for an inuir tropo
into the conduct of conatit • • • inquiry with their enormous and continually increasing
constituencies, to limit that qy cited,
a particular class ofpopulations, the management of the workhous-
constituencies would be odious. , owherethe ,e es was al-
toi-.1 nu this was
His sincere belief, however, was that there was no ne- Mirs.e; a . IA 4re popularly
the not conceive .
cessity for extending inquiry to countie®, as the county elected. He GO than ally pOor-law board
commission could be more •
constituencies were pure.—(Hear, and laughter.) He or
c than the represen • fisted to 'manage these
did not believe bribery was practised in counties—and 6
frair: than whom he
tatives &losen bit the palish-
he was satisfied if his opinion were not founded on good
loners,could be found. He hd
believed no more intelligent men
faith, they would have had complaints brought betor
of uaelitioned, as r a result of
the present uncertainty the law, that it had given
boroughs had been much exaggerated—Clifl—sanot 6o- local board of directors.seme well-known ca es where the
bribery was mainly confined to a- limited a
estflon of the been brought into or -guardians of the poor had
roughs. He did not quarrel with the sag
geht, however,; There was thf. collision with ,:,the Clonitnissioneri.
Hon, Member. He thought the f 1 e !icis e ohnogyv ,
if adopted, j properparochialcase et St. Pa 'eras, whind the v.stry, or
not at present to adopt it, but to cons'
jeurv44atig
ated a cas 'of t . authorities, haying dismi4sed.the master
it would apply. Suppose the Roused
briberytie commission use reitiatate him at the request of
and suppose eers and
of bribery at a country election, .byy ,____.
~even, as was said,, to afford the
bad they machinery
and corruption were preyed, any vvmmleelorters all explanation of tho i oirotimatancee