The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-18 00:00:00

taken respecting the Magistrates. What the circumstanot
were, he (Mr. G.) did not know, but he thought it
would have been better that the Noble Lord had for-
borne to make any charge against that Noble Lord,
until some of his friends had been instructed as to the
circumstances of the case.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had made no.
charge against the Lord Lieutenant of the county of War-
wick. He had merely stated, that he found generally
that the Lords Lieutenant of Counties, go, whatever
side of politics they belonged counnunicateg with the
Secretary of State respecting any peculiar circum-
stances which took place in their Counties.--(Hear,
hear.) That was the uniform practice, and he thought
that it'svould have been better that the Noble Lord
had communicated with the Home-office in the course 'I of yesterday rather than have reserved himself to make
a party attack upon the Government in his place
in Parliament.—(Loud and continued cheering.)
All he had said was, that the conduct of the Noble
Lord was not in conformity with the usual practice.
Mr. GOULBURN said, that was the difference
between the two sides of the House. His side forbore
to make any statements until ipquiries were made.
—(Cheers, and " Oh, oh.") He had had the honour of
knowing the Earl of Warwick for many years, and he •
ihul always known him to be a gentleman in every sense
of the word. He knew
o nothing of the circumstances,
h.cver ; and he thought the Noble Lord ought to
have u.•
'layed his statement until some of the friends of
the Noble.. Lord had been instructed with regard to
them.

Mr. SC HO LETIELD hoped that the House would
L bear with him for a few minutes in the peculiar
circamstances in which he was plaoed.—(Hear, hear.)
He had every confidence that when the conduct of the
Magistrates was inquired into, the
house would be
a satisfied that no neglect could be charged to them. The
• question would resolve itself into a mere mutter of time.
, His information was, that a very active officer of the
. town, named Redford, took a coach the .moment the
I riot began, and went to his son's house, who
was the
Mayor of the town, and brought him down a distance
of a mile and a half, which certainly would not occupy
more than three-quarters of an hour, and they were
upon the spot, accompanied by a very active Magistrate
before half past nine. If the outbreak took plea e:
at half-past eight, and Dr. Booth was down at hall -
past nine, there could have been no great neglect or
omission on the part of the Magistrates. As to
the police not being allowed to come out, it should
be borne in mind that the Magistrates were censured
for the conduct of the policy on a former occasion, and
they did not wish them to act without the Magistrates
being at their bead. These occurrences had come quite
unexpectedly upon the Magistrates. He believed that
the statements made as to the injury done to the town
were most exaggerated. He was satisfied that the
Magistrates would be able to give such an explanation
as would convince the House that they had not ne-
glected their duty.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACKINNON wished to ask whether the
inquiry should extend to the conduct of the Magistrates ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to reply
in the affirmative.
Mr. W. ATT WOOD did not understand from the
statement of the Noble Lord, that the powers in the
hands of the Magistrates were not considered amply
sufficient, for it was not considered that there was
any necessity for appointing any particular party who
should control the peace of the town, or be entitled
to interfere to prevent such outrages any person who
should act independently of the Magistrates. If
prompt and vigorous measures had been taken at the
first, none of these scenes would have disgraced the
town. The supineness on the part of the Magistrates
led the mob to believe that they sympathized with
them. Now what was the scene that took place at
Birmingham in the Police-office ? Why, a discussion
took place between the Magistrates and the persons
who were at the meeting at which these disturbances
had taken p'ace. Was it therefore to be wondered
at that the mob, finding their first outrage not put a
stop to, should attribute it to a disposition on the part of
the Magistrates to sympathise with their political feel-
ings ?—(Hear, hear.) He regretted to hear that no
further measures had been taken by the Government to
secure the peace of the town, but that it was left to the
Magistrates, whose supineness had been already evinced.
Mr. HUME thought that what had been stated by
the Hon. Member showed that he was in the confi-
dence of the mob.—(Laughter.) He should like to
ask the Hon. Member from whom the letter carne to
which he had referred—(Cheers from the Ministerial
side of the House)—because he thought it important,
when Hon. Members stated that they were in the re-
ceipt of letters, showing that those who wrote therm
were in the confidence of the rioters, that they should
know who were the parties inculpating the Magistrates.
If he understood the Hon. Member rightly, he had
stated that those who had written to him blamed the
Magistrates, and they ought therefore to know who it
was.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member had asked
the Government why something bad not been done
with respect to the supineness of the Magistracy in
looking to the peace, of the town. With respect to
that, he did not apprehend that any course could be
taken to displace the Magistracy, till proper inquiries bad
been instituted. He thought that the charge made by
the Hon. Member was not one that ought to be brought
forward in that House. He should like to ask the Lord
Lieutenant of the county, who had most important
duiies to perform, whether he was at his post—(Hear,
hear)--whether he was in the town after he heard of
these disturbances taking place.—( Hear, hear, and
ironical cheers from the Opposition benches.)
What were those cheers for ? What was the duty of
a Lord Lieutenant, if not to maintain the public peace
of his district ?—(Cheers.) When the riots bad taken
place in Wales, the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Clive) had
been actively engaged. Why was not Earl Warwick ?
If the state in which the town of Birmingham had been
left was disgraceful to the Magistrates, it was ten times
more disgraceful to the Noble Earl.—(Ministerial
cheers.) Before complaihts had been made so uncere-
moniously of the Magistrates, it should have been seen
whether no other parties had been to blame. Whether
the Magistrates had been supine or not would hereafter
be known. But of this he (Mr. Hume) was sure, that
the Lord Lieutenant had neglected his duty, for he was
in London during the whole of these transactions.—
( Hear, hear.) The first step which the Noble Lord,
the Secretary for the Home Department, should have
taken would be to direct Earl Warwick to go to his
post. It was the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to ascer-
tam if the civil force required assistance. He (Mr. H.)
trusted tilat justice would be done to accuser and to
the accused.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said as these riots had
taken place in Birmingham, where there were regular
Magistrates, it was not necessary, in his opinion, tor
Earl Warwick to have been on the spot. There was
a force, civil and military, in the town, which must be
under the controul of the Magistrates. who must be
resident in the town, or within seven miles of it,
without which they would not be eligible. There were
no less than 24 Magistrates in the town, eleven of them
county Magistrates, men of most respectable character,
and of all shades in political opinion.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said he trusted
the Noble Lord would have explained tha fact that
Earl Warwick, not being a Magistrate of Birmingham
—(Hear, hear, from Lord J. Russell) would have no
power whatever in the town. He was sorry to hear
the Hon. Member for Birmingham use terms eaten-
1-ted to convey an impression that the rr.ob had friends
—that they had been impartial in their selection.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD explained. He of course
could not deny that the proceedings were of the most
atrocious character.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. PRYME was not aware of any statute giving
corporate Magistrates exclusive jurisdiction in a town.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, however that wag, he was
glad the discretion of the corporate Magistrates had
not in this case been interfered with—(Hear, hear.)—
and he must add that nothing had occurred derogatory
to the character of Earl Warwick.
The motion was then agreed to.
STAMPS.
On the motion of Mr. GILLON, a return was or-
dered of the number of stamps issued for the last trvelve
months, up to the 24th of June.
JOINT STOCK BANKS.
On the motion of the same HON. MEMBER, a return
was ordered of the number of Joint Stock Banks at
present in existence.
FACTORIES.
Mr. BAINES inquired of the Under Secretary of
State, whether it was his intention to go into Commit-
tee on the Factory Bill this evening, and, if not, when
be proposed doing so.
Mr. FOX MAULE said it was not his intention to
go into Committee on the Factory Bill this evening.
The amendments he proposed to make to the Bill, in
consequence of the last division, would not be ready till
to-morrow. They would, therefore, be distributed
with the Votes on Friday, and he proposed to proceed
with the Bill on Saturday next.
Mr. GOULBURN said it was very inconvenient
that Members should attend night after night.
Mr. BAINES said he had never neglected an op-
portunity of bringing this measure under the considera-
tion of the House, but he would take the first oppor-
tunity on a supply day to bring the question under the
consideration of the House.

SOLDIERS' PENSION BILL.
On the motion of Sir HENRY PARNELL, the
House resolved itself into Committee on the Soldiers'
Pension Bill.

Captain PECHELL said this was called the Sol-
diers' Pension Bill, but sailors bad a great deal to do
with it. It appeared to him to be a Bill to take away
the pensions of soldiers and sailors.
Sir H. PARNELL said it was a Bill to regulate
the assignment of pensions.
Captain BOLDERO said that the Bill ought to be
called an Army and Navy Pension Bill, and not a Scl-
diers' Pcn•ion the title was calculated to deceive
officers of the Navy—he contended that it was calcu-
lated to take away soldiers' pensions. He objected to
the clause which allowed the guardians of the poor
to make deductions from the pensions of soldiers