The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1839.

present abandoned its intention of actually legislating on
the subject ; but had proposed an abstract principle,
without being prepared to recommend any executory
measure. Now his ( Sir Robert Peel's) whole experience
in Parliament had led him to distrust abstract resolutions
of principle—( Hear, hear, hear)—and above all he thought
them inexpedient with regard to our Colonies.—( Hear,
r hear.) The only advantage which the Noble Lord pro-
posed to secure by this abstract resolution was, that
it would be a pledge of the disposition of the House
to preserve Constitutional Government in Canada. He
(Sir R. Peel's) answer to that was that he had already
given this pledge, for he had consented to the conferring
of despotic powers on the Governor and Council of Lower
Canada only on the grounds of temporary necessity, and
had solemnly guaranteed a return as soon as possible to
the forms of Constitutional Government.—(Hear, hear. )
He decidedly concurred with the Noble Lord that Parlia-
ment had a perfect right to prevent the inhabitants of
Lower Canada from dictating to those of Upper Canada;
but was it not better first to see how the measure could
efficiently be carried into execution, instead of beginning
by asserting the abstract priuciple without adverting
to the way in which it was to be carried into opera-
tion?—(Hear, bear, hear.) The Government were
not by this course relieving itself or any responsibility,
while, on the other hand, the difficulties which naturally
surrounded the subject were, in a tenfold degree aggra.
rated.—( Hear, hear.) He regretted that the advise which
he had offered last Session had not been followed—to send
out distinct propositions to the Canadas—that if they
wished to maintain their connection with this country,
maintained it should be; that the Imperial Parliament felt
the impossibility of supporting any Government in Canada,
in opposition to the general feeling of the colony—( Hear,
hear)--that there was no desire, on the part of the
country, to continue the Government in Canada from
any paltry pecuniary motives—( Hear, hear)—but that
the British interests must firmly be upheld, if the con-
nection was to be preserved; and this country could not
be expected to incur the responsibility and the expense of
defending the colony, if, on every occasion, British inte-
rests were to be opposed or thwarted by the abuse of the
forms of a Constitutional Government.—( Hear, hear.)
Why, the Government had not advanced a single step in
its proposal to-night beyond what had been done in 1823 by
Mr. Wilmot Horton, who expressed himself in favour of
a legislative union, but did not know how to effect it.—
( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said he waited to know
the number of representatives each province should have.
He would not explain what the number should be or upon
what basis the union was to be formed. If they had the
information which was necessary, why not proceed to le-
gislate at once? If they had it not, why proceed with a
resolution which in fact said nothing ?—(Cheers.) If
local information were necessary, and he thought it was,
it must be obtained; and call those who were so employed
by what name they pleased, Commissioners they would
be.—( Hear, hear, from Colonel Sibthorp.) He was quite
unprepared to throw out a word against the prin-
ciple of the union ; and he was quite prepared
to give the Government any powers that were
necessary for maintaining the authority of the Crown
in those colonies, yet he would reserve to himself the right
to decide if they were to abandon legislation this Session,
whether it was right to fetter himself by agreeing to a
resolution such as that before the House. He would not
condescend to make such an important question a party
one, but at the same time neither would he compliment
away his own well-considered opinions.—( Cheers. )
Mr. C. BULLER had been totally unaware of any part
of the plan of the Government with respect to Canada
until he came into that House, and it would be peculiarly
indecent for him to offer any comments upon the resolution
at that moment. He was very glad that the Noble Lord
was in favour of a union between the two provinces—
he was only sorry that he had not gone further, and carried
out the report of Lord Durham, and united the whole of
the five provinces. He was sorry that the Government
had not adopted that report so far as to give a free repre-
sentative Government, with Ministerial responsibility as
full as it was in this country; without that it would be far
more charitable, far more truly liberal, to do away with
the farce of a representative Government, which was no
check upon the Executive. That debate would be heard..
by a delegate from one of the most loyal of our North
American colonies, Nova Scotia; he was here to complain
of the grievances under which they laboured. In the
House of Assembly in that colony there were three Execu-
tive Councillors. On the question of secondary delegates
there were two divisions—one 37 to 7—the other 35 to 9 ;
in each of these minorities the three Executive Councillors
voted. How could a representative Government go on with
such a Government minority, as that was about the
usual relative position of the popular party and the
Government? How could a representative Government
be carried cn when it was constantly opposed to the great
body of the representatives of the people? He cared not
a phi for the decision the Noble Lord came to.—
(Laughter.) He cared for the Colonies and he cared for
the manner in which the Representative Government was
given, but he told the Noble Lord that his resolution
carried responsible government along with it, for if he
united the Canadas, and there were a British majority of
the Representatives of a million of British subjects, they
would enforce responsibility. If they were to be governed
upon the same principle as Nova Scotia, against the
wishes of the people's Representatives, not one Session
would pass before the Supplies were stopped, and if they
were stopped by the United Canadas, where was the force
that could take it from them—living, as they did, next
door to the freest and most responsible government in
the world. He would support any plan of the Noble Lord
which proposed to unite the Canadas ; but why create such
delay in legislating upon the subject ? It had created much
alarm. After picturing the horrors of the civil war dur-
ing the last winter, he said, were they going to leave the
Canadians to a repetition of the same scenes of wretched.
ness, insecurity, and distress ? It was essentially necessary
that they should legislate upon the subject without delay,
for if the scenes now going on on the frontiers of Lower.
Canada were allowed to go on much longer, those, coupled
with the Boundary question, must eventually bring us into
a war with America. All that was wanted was a good, a
popular, and strong Government—no hesitation, and all
7hese deplorable scenes would at once cease.—( Hear.)
These Colonies existed alone by emigration from this
country; that had now been' put an end to, and the emi-
gration was now from Upper Canada to the States, and
was going on at such a rate as must soon depopulate the
whole of the fine province of Upper Canada. He called
upon every gentleman in that House to lay aside all party
feuds upon that subject, and unite in their endeavours to
give the colony a popular and strong responsible govern
men'

Mr. O'CONNELL—The Hon. Gentleman had given
them a sad picture of the brutal manner in which the poor
French Canadians had been treated, and yet the only pa-
nacea he offered them was to annihilate them for ever as a
party. They had been treated exceedingly ill by the Bri-
tish ever since the conquest of the province, and was it
I,ltely that the horrors they were obliged to endure last
winter would make them more contented with their
lot ? Had the Government proposed to have gone
on at once, and without inquiry, they would have
been denounced as too precipitate and harsh. Now, when
they were making inquiry on the spot—when they were
proceeding cautiously, they were taunted with leaving all
in uncertainty. He thought their plan was the wisest,
because what they did could not be undone in a day. His
carriedprincipal
intoo effect a
object was
th
toe
expensepr protestof th
againsteFrench. If there
was being
e
was to be a union let the French be put "on an equality
with the other inhabitants of the country, and share every
advantage which they enjayed.—(Cheers.) The word
" union" had no magic in it, and the arrangement proposed
would have no advantage unless on terms of perfect
equality and fairness to all parties.—( Hear, hear.)
Loid JOHN RUSSELL replied. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Liskeard had asked whether a representative Go-
vernment could be carried on with a representative Go-
vernment constantly in a minority. Ho could see no
wisdom in refusing to agree to measures which were
agreeable to the majority of the Assembly of the province
which was to be governed. The Right Hon. Bart. had
objected to the resolution because it was not immediately
to be followed by a Bill. He had said the Government
had been making inquiries, but proposed to take no step.
He (Lord John Russell) thought that a resolution in fa-
vour of the principle of union would be taking a most
important step, and that it would have great weight and
authority in Canada. If a Bill had been int,oduced, the
Right Hon. Bart. might have objected with greater force
that it was very well to adopt the principle of union, but
that the Assembly had protested against it, and therefore
it had better be postponed for another year. The Right
Hon. Bart. had said that it was proposed to pass this re-
solution and not to proceed to any enactment till 1342. It
was desirable the Assembly should not meet till 1842, but
the Union might be enacted a considerable time pre-
viously.
Se. R. PEEL did not wish it to be understood that he
had pressed for peremptory legislation. All he had said
was that the Noble Lord had always led him to believe
that peremptory legislation would be adopted.
The debate was then adjourned until Monday next.
METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
The Order of the Day having been moved for the second
reading of this Bill,
Sir R. PEEL said it bad been publicly stated that be
was of opinion that it would have been better if the city
police had been amalgamated with the metropolitan, but
that he had deferred to the general sense of the City,
whereas her Majesty's Ministers were so attached to the
principle that they were determined to adhere to it, and a
contrast had been drawn to his disfavour. Now he had
understood that the Bill was brought in with the consent
of the Government, which had taken nearly the same
views that he did; and he wished to know whether he was
in error, and the Noble Lord was not a consenting party to
the Aldermen's Bill, and that he concurred in thinking the
united system better than the separate one, but found the
objections so strong that he would not press it ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the Right Honourable
Baronet was correct in his statement of the case. He
(Lord John Russell) thought it would be better to have
one police for the whole metropolis, but when he found
there was such a strong dislike to the introduction of the
measure into the City, he was convinced that if it was
forced on them, it would not be productive of the advan.
tagcs contemplated. He therefore thought it better to
waive what he considered a great improvement. He
would take the present opportunity of saying that he pre.
sented a petition the other evening, when a great number
of members had left the House, very numerously signed by
the inhabitants of London, praying for a reform of the
Corporation of the City.--( Hear, hear.)
The Order of the Day having been read,
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the Bill.
Sir B. HALL said, that the City of London Police
Bill having been referred to a Select Committee, he was
most anxious to see the Report of that Committee before
offering any observations on the present Bill. He should
therefore defer the amendment of which he had given notice,
until the Bill should be going into Committee, when he
should take the sense of the House on the subject.
Mr. HUME said he wished his Hon. Friend, the Mem.
ber for Marylebone, had stated his objections, as he was
anxious to hear what could be urged against the Bill, since
all those allegations which had been uried against it were
unfounded, and it was represented as containing provisions

which were no where to be found in the Bill. It was
founded on tho Report of a Committee of which he had
been a member, and which had sat for three years. There
were only three clauses to which he objected—one of which
was the payment of the constabulary out of the Consoli-
dated Fund. He wished his Hon. Friend had stated his
objections, because it was of importance that the public
should know what the really was, and not be led away
by clamour. He was prepared to show that it was an
amelioration of the existing system of police, and if the
Government were to blame for this Bill, they were only so
for endeavouring to carrying out the recommendation of
the Committee.
Mr. FOX MAULE would not now enter into the dis-
cussion. No one except the Marylebone meeting would
contend that a Police Bill for the metropolis was not ne-
cessary ; and he thought the provisions would best be dis-
cussed in Committee. He would only allude to one accu-
sation against the Bill, which stated that it empowered the
police to enter houses ; the only power of this sort given
was in the 28th clause, by which they had the power of
entering gamin.. houses. Ile would take this opportunity
of expressing the gratitude he felt to his Hon. Friend the
Member for Kilkenny, for defending before the Marylebone
meeting a measure, the objects of which his own good
~ense taught him was necessary.
Mr. G. PALMER disapproved of the principle of the
Bill.

Mr. HAWES wished clearly to understand the inten-
tions of his Hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone.
Sir B. HALL said he was anxious to see the state in
which the other Bill would leave the Select Committee,
and if it came out in an improved state, he trusted that
this Bill would be permitted to have the benefit of those
improvements.
Mr. WA KL E Y said the course pursued by the Go-
vernment on this question had been so irregular and un-
even, that he scarcely knew how to treat the subject—
( Hear, hear.) The object of the Bill had been originally
to include the city of London, so as to introduce one uni.
form system of police throughout the metropolis. But
the City had become alarmed at this encroachment on
their privileges, and had applied the screw to the Govern.
ment—(A laugh)—and had squeezed out of them every
desired to include the City in the provisions of the Bill.
Consequently the first fourteen clauses bad been expunged;
and he wished to know why the Metropolitan Boroughs
should be subjected to the provisions of this Bill. The
vestries still possessed some remains of their former
powers, but now every parochial constable was to be abo-
lished, and a police constable substituted in his place.
Why was this system of centralisation to be everlastingly
fixed on them ? Because the object was to place all power
in the hands of a Government in which the people had no j
confidence. He was sorry the Hon. Baronet had not
divided the House.
Mr. FOX MA ULE said, in answer to the objection of
the Hon. Gentleman, he would merely state that the
Police Aot for the Metropolis would expire this year.
Captain WOOD bore testimony to the admirable con-
duct of the police force, and to the extreme diligence of
the Commissioners in the discharge of their duties.
He objected to the Bill generally, although he thought
some of its provisions were highly necessary.—( Hear. )
What ground was there for superseding the unpaid magis-
tracy by the stipendiaries ? No complaints had ever been
substantiated against the efficiency of the unpaid magis-
trates; and there were grave constitutional principles upon
which it was highly desirable that they should be retained
—( Hear, hear.) On these grounds he should divide the
House against the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY said the measure to which the Gal-
lant Member who had just sat down, had objected, was in-
cluded in another Bill before the House (the Police Courts
Bill), not in the present Bill.:
Lord TE IGN M 0 UTH hoped his Gallant Friend (Cap-
tain Wood) would not divide the House against a Bill includ-
ing so many provisions, which had better be considered
carefully—( Hear, hear)--and, he added, that if popular
clamour were to be conceded to, the House might as well
suspend its functions. —( Hear, hear.)
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
On the Order:of the Day far the second reading of this
Bill being read,
•
Sir BENJAMIN HALL said he should take the sense
of the House against this Bill; to which, as to the one just
disposed of, he believed public feeling decidedly opposed.
This Bill would extend the jurisdiction of the Police Ma-
gistrates, who were to be increased to 27, over a circuit of
, 15 miles round Charing Cross—( Hear,hear)—at a great
additional expense to the country.—( Hear. hear.) The
Government were to have the power of appointing these
Magistrates, who were to receive salaries varying from
1,4001. to 1,7001. each—( Hear, hear)—with retiring al-
lowances of two-thirds of their salaries. Now, he saw no
reason for this extension of Government patronage. If,
however, the number of the Police Magistrates was
to be increased, and their jurisdiction so far ex-
tended, it ought to be with other Magistrates
than those who now occupied
,the police bench.
And what ground could be urged for excluding
from that concurrent jurisdiction which they now exer-
cised, the County Magistrates. The Report of the
Committee upon which the Bills were founded had stated
it would tend to diminish crime, and lessen the expense of
prosecutions. This Bill gave the new Magistrates the
power of convicting summarily in cases of larceny or steal-
ing from the person without violence, under the value of
40s. The returns of committals to Coldbath-fields showed
a great increase of crime as compared with the returns of
jury convictions. And both Sergeant Adams (the Mid-
dlesex Quarter Sessions Chairman) and the Chaplain of
the House of Correction, had expressed their decided
opinion against summary convictions ; the latter stating
that it too often led to the corruption, by improper associa-
tions, of juvenile offenders; and the former, that summary
convictions were frequently unjust, and in cases where
!juries would have acquitted. Before such extraordinary
powers.were oonsastsseekiro, asay—pionswitererfrostio' as.:
certained that prisoners would -receive equal justice, as
though th'ey went before juries- of their countrymen.--
(Hear, hear.) But there was high authority for saying
that summary conviction was as evil, and an evil never to
be incurred, except to prevent a greater—not on any ac-
count to be delegated to one magistrate, nor to less than
two.—( Hear, hear.) And unless the police magistrates
were of a superior class, it was a great injustice
to the parties who were brought before them,
and who were deprived of that trial by jury,
the advantages of which were in this country so generally
appreciated.—( Hear, hear.) He would not speak with
unnecessary harshness of the present police magistrates.
Many of them were highly qualified for their situations.—
( Hear, hear.) But some were utterly disqualified for their
office, and no person could read the police reports without
constantly seeing, with regret, cases which were merely
the medium of putting forward idle and ridiculous jesting
at the expellee of culprit or witness.—( Hear, hear.) And
was it not a matter of grave doubt whether, on such per-
sons as these, additional powers should be conferred ?
( Hear, hear.) A most startling proposition in this Bill
was, that any magistrate was to have the power of
sending a priscncr to trial without the interven-
tion of a Grand Jury.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The pri-
soner ought to have every chance allowed him, consistently
with the law. The Grand Juries were one of those insti-
tutions of the country which ought not to be lightly aban-
doned, even in the favoured metropolitan district. For
all these reasons he should move, that the Bill be read
a second time that day six months.
Colonel SIBTHO RP seconded the amendment, saying
that be did not approve of increasing the patronage of the
Noble Lord (J. Russell), who had already more than lie
could well manage, except for himself. There was no
end to patronage, inasmuch as every officer, even down to
the doorkeepers, were to hold office during the pleasure of
the Noble Lord, who might discharge them without any
cause. The Bill was full of expense—it was full of pa-
tronage and full of degradation to men who had conducted
themselves well ; therefore, he thought the best thing they
could do was to throw out the Bill, and so save the coun.
try the increased expense which it would entail upon them.
Mr. HAWES was glad that the opportunity had at
last arrived when he would have an opportunity of de-
fending the Committee upon whose Report these Bills
had been introduced. He was aware that throughout the
metropolis they had been called unconstitutional and tyran-
nical—( Hear, hear)—and his Hon. Friend (Sir. B. Hall)
had not only used but sanctioned
deserve.
ed
homeharsh
A s a language Member
respecting them that they did not
for one of the districts of the metropolis he felt that he
could not do his duty better than by sparing as much of
his time as he possibly could in endeavouring to improve
die
'police of the metropolis for the protection of the
poor classes as well as the rich, but more particularly the
poorer clauses, for
property was more insecure than
than that of the rich.---( Hear, hear.) A good police
upon a good sound principle was of much more importance
to the poor than to the rich. The Committee of which
he had the honour of being Chairman, to which honour
he was not nominated by a political friend, sat for two
sessions, as Chairman it was, he considered, his duty to
obtain the best evidence in his power; he had done so, and
had attempted but in vain to get adverse evidence. Through.
out the whole of the proceedings of the Committee there had
never been a division, although it was composed of gentle..
men holding all shades of opinion. The Report was con-
sidered line by line, he might almost say word by word ;
it was carefully considered for ten days, and at last was
unanimously agreed to. And he would take that oppor-
tunity of denying in the strongest manner that he had ever
sat in that Committee alone, either taking evidence or
doing anything else. Much objection had been taken to
the increase of expense—be denied that there would be
any increase of expense, for the Committee had recom-
mended that one Magistrate should be taken from each
office, and his salary divided among the other two, in order
that they might be enabled to command the best talent for
the office. But even though there had been an increase of
expense, he thought it would have been money well laid
out, for the purpose of improving the administration of
justice. Again it was objected that_ the Magistrates were
s to hefiyt
to superintend
made dependent upon the
for
romliefe
;Seachrdetaifryt.lot,
Surely
who
would not
appoint them
them as the Secretary for the Hoe
Department, was
.. mat all times amenable to
that House ?
who
Then it was charged against the Bill that
it would increase the patronage of the Home Secretary—
he denied it...4110re were now twenty-seven 141agistrates,
and the Bill said there should be no more than 27. Was
that increasing patronage ? The Bill did not give the
power than they now exercised, perhaFs
Magistrates more
well defined theas to powers they
uemmaryconvic-
tion—had illegally—it merely h might
againi.Ten,
considerednthatinththeegpraeiantte2r Iptahrtadofhethene
exercise according to
tion—had gentlemen
w
proved over and over
ea to which the Bill would apply, the confinement had
been much m Itch more extensive before trial than after convic-
tion, and it was recommended by the Committee upon the
ground of a very strong recommendation of it by the Report
of the County Rates Committee,
_alwhich had been drawn up
by the Right Hon. MemberT
for
awOrth. Within the
last five years it had been recommended by three Com-
mittees ofthat House, and one Commission. All the chimes
of the Bills were apparently harsh and stringent.—( Hear,
hear.) Now, were
Hon. Members aware that nineteen-
twentieths of them were the law of the land at the
presentenoment, and that the Committee had done no
more than bring them all forward into one

Bill, so that a man might know to what penal laws he was
subject, a matter upon which very great ignorance prevailed
amongst all classes? Any one who would take the trouble
of looking through the Report would find the object was to
cheapen, simplify, and expedite the administration of the
land; and there was no recommendation which had not for
its object the benefit of the poorest individual as well as of
the richest.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir E. KNA TC HB UL L supported the second reading
of the Bill ; but he thought it could not be so well con-
sidered in a Committee of the whole House as in a Se-
lect Committee, to which he trusted it would be referred,
on account of the great mass of business before the
flouse.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think that these Bills
ought to be referred to a Select Committee, because no-
thing would be gained by it.—(Hear, hear.) It would
be better to refer them to a Committee of the whole House.
There were two classes of persons for which a more strin-
gent provision of the law was required. One was pawn-
brokers.—( Hear, hear.) Thieving was carried on in a
great degree by young persons who would not be able to
dispose of the produce of their thefts if pawnbrokers were
not in the habit of making themselves receivers. The
other was the keepers of gaming houses. That evil was
increasing year after year, and was one of the worst kind
that could affect a community.—(Hear, bear.) He
trusted these Bills would be allowed to pass.
Mr. T. D UNCOMBE trusted the Hon. Member for
Marylebone would not press his amendment, *as the Hon.
Member for Lambeth had answered the greater part of his
objections.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the details might
be so arranged as to be satisfactory to all parties.--
( Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. M AUL E expressed his thanks to the Hon.
Member for Lambeth for the clear and lucid manner in
which he had explained the subject. The Bill which the
country owed to him as chairman of the committee, he
(Mr. Maule) could not easily express, and he was sure
the country would be grateful for the pains which he had
taken to amend the laws relating to the police._-( Hear.)
Mr. WA KLE Y trusted the Non. Member for Maryle-
bone would not divide the House, but allow the Bill to go
into Committee, as the feeling of the House was against
him. There was one clause on which he wished make a
remark. Whenever an opportunity offered for the intro-
duction of legal members into any office it was re e: for-
gotten, and these locusts were to be found eating the
periwinkles in all classes of society.—( Laughter.) Why
should they be bound to choose from barristers of seven
years' wending when there were thousands as well or bettor
qualified to fill the situation? This clause was most ob-
noxious in principle, and he trusted it would be rejected
by a large majority. He also objected to the increase of
salary, and should move that those proposed to be 1,0001.
should be reduced to 8001., and the other from 1,4001. to
1,000/.—( Hear.)
Mr. CLAY could not concur with the Hon. Member
who had just sat down. No justice was so bad as bad jus-
tice, and it was incumbent on the public to give such re•
muneration as would enable them to find such individuals as
would discharge the duties in a competent manner.
Certainly persons not belonging to the legal profession
might sometimes be duly qualified to perform judicial
duties. But such cases were unfortunately rare, and the
judicially educated mind would generally be best qualified
for the decision of judicial questions. He considered the
Bill to be one calculated for preserving the liberties, as
well as protecting the property of the public. Summary
jurisdiction in criminal cases was much required. But in
civil cases still more so. For numerous instances daily
occurred in which the most flagrant injustice could not be
remedied by the magistrate, who was obliged to refer the
applicant to the expensive process of an action. For such
cases the bill before the House afforded a prompt remedy,
the absence of which tended much to breaches of the peace.
He was not disposed to believe that in the enlarged juris-
diction of this Bill, the county magistrates could properly
be permitted to co-operate. In the principle of the Bill,
therefore, be entirely concurred.
Mr. D ARBY said there were many provisions in the
811 l of which he highly disapproved. Especially did he
object to the doing away, so much, with the trial by jury.
Ho also objected to the provision for fining persons 51. in
cases of felony. As to the summary jurisdiction provisions,
they were all very objectionable. He objectedto the privilege
given to a person summarily convicted, that his first con-
viction was not to be taken into consideration on a second
conviction, as it would be, if convicted, at Quarter
Sessions. He thought it would be better to send the B
to a Select Committee.

Mr. FOX MA UL E explained.
Sir E A RD LE Y WILMOT thought it very inconvenient
:hat one Bill should be alluded to in a discussion on a diffe.

rent matter. He would address the Solicitor-General,
who would recollect that he had brought forward
a Bill empowering inferior Courts to reserve points of law
for the decision of a superior Court. that Bill was lost in
the Lords; and he would ask the Solicitor-General, into
whose hands he had given it up, whether it would not be
advisable to introduce it into some of these Bills.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the Judges,
he understood, had given it as their opinion that this
power did exist, but he would consider the suggestion of
the Hon. Member.

•
Lord G. SOMERSET objected to, sending this Bill
to a Select Committee, being of opidion that all the
clauses ought to be discussed in the face of day. He
hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not divide the House ;
because, although he disapproved of many of the clauses,
he thought it ought to go to a second reading.
Sir B. HALL stated, that after all that had fallen from
Hon. Members he should not divide the House.
Mr. T. WOOD was sorry that the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet would not persevere in his Amendment.
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed.

SUMMARY JURISDICTIONS BILLS.
On the motion for the second reading of the Summary
Jurisdictions Bill,

aiosykar--,,50MR416 14 trafd fits4ivlshed-to'_know why
one of the provisions of the 13111 "rues for the purpose of
disfranchising clerks to justices. It was throwing a slur
on the most respectable men throughout the country.—
(Mr. Fox Maule intimated that the clause would not be
persevered in. )—Then he wished to know who put it in
—and if it had been persevered in he should have di-
vided against the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that these
clauses had not been introduced per injuria, and he
thought that on the second reading, the principle of the
Bill should be discussed, and the description of particular
clauses reserved for the Committee.
Mr. PRYME thought the Bill was exceedingly valu-
able, but objected to giving Magistrates a power of juris-
diction in felony without the intervention of a jury.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL was glad to hear the respect
expressed by the Hon. Member for trial by jury, and
hoped he would recollect what be had said when he
brought forward his motion relative to Grand Juries. He
should vote for the second reading of the Bill, although he
objected to some of the clauses, and should bring forward
his objections in Committee if they were not altered.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL defended those clauses
authorizing the frequent holding of petty session, and also
the clause prohibiting holding sessions at public houses,
which was the law in Ireland. With regard to the objec-
tion of the Hon. Member for Cambridge, if that were a
good one, it was scarcely worth while to go into Corn-
mittee, as he considered that the clause giving Magistrates
summary jurisdiction, in cases of felony committed by chil-
dren, was one of the most essential of the Bill.
Mr. PRYME explained.
Sir R. INGLIS objected to the clause calling on the
Justices to make a rota.

Mr. HEATHCOTE also objected to the clause.
Mr. JONES said there were several boroughs cx.
empted from► the jurisdiction of county magistrates, and
he wished to know in what situation they would be placed
by the provision of this Bill. He objected to the late
hour at which this Bill was brought on. He never saw a
more bungling affair than the present, and would recom-
mend the Law Officers of the Crown to look it over before
pressing it to a second reading. He was opposed to the
principle of the Bill.
Mr. BRISCOE wished that a clause skould be intro-
duced, authorising magistrates to provide for expenses at
Petty Sessions.
Mr. DARBY objected to any further expenses being
paid out of the county-rate. He disapproved of the Bill,
and was certain that it would be impossible, in many places,
to get a Petty Sessions every fortnight. It must depend
upon the convenience of the Magistrates.
Mr. WALLACE said he was surprised that any person
should advocate holding sessions in public-houses.
Sir E. WILMOT said most, if not all, of the clauses of
this Bill would require alteration; but ho hoped the House
would allow it to go into Committee, there to be fairly
considered, for it really was most important that some
measure should be adopted, to put an end to the contami-
nation of infant offenders by allowing their summary con-
viction.---( Hear, hear. )
Captain PECHELL strongly animadverted upon the
holding of sessions in public-houses. As to the clerks of
Magistrates, he thought that the best clause in the Bill ;
and, if the Attorney-General abandoned that clause, then
he (Capt. Pechell) would abandon the Bill—( A laugh)—
for it was very important that the Justices' Clerks should
be prevented f;om engaging in political elections.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER objected to apecuniary fine for
the commission of a felony in any case whatever.—(Hear.)
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.

Secondly,—You commit a greater blunder still—still
a more criminal mistake ; because you exclude from co-
operation with you all the middle classes of society.
Your Orators denounce the middle classes as the ene-
mies of the operatives. How can you be so foolish as
to listen to these orators ? The middle class have the
same interest in good and cheap government that you
have. The middle class are much too numerous not to
include an overwhelming majority of persons, who, in-
stead of sharing in the public plunder, are themselves
the sufferers by that peculation and plunder in which
the oligarchy rejoice. Nay, in truth, they are, al-
most totally, and certainly to a very considerable ex-
tent—identified with yourselves. An industrious and
successful operative becomes at once a member of the
middle class ; an unthrifty or unsuccessful middleman
necessarily leaves his family to mingle upon equal terms
with the operatives. The weight of taxation presses
on the middle class with a comparatively equal pressure
as it does upon the operatives. An immense majority
of the middle class are excluded from the elective fran-
chise, and they could not obtain an extension of the
franchise without its necessarily reaching the operatives.
Why, then, be so unwise as to calumniate, traduce,
and vilify the middle classes? They are the muscle
and sinew of the political body—Ton may be the blood
and bone ; but the combination of BOTH is essentially
necessary to strength, and even to vitality.
You do all you can to throw the middle classes into
the hands of the anti-Reformers. Surely you must be
enlightened enough to know, that there never has been
a salutary alteration in the institutions of any country
that was not brought about by the aid, and with the
co-operation, of the great majority of the middle classes.
And yet these are the persons whom your orators and
leaders vilify and disgust.
Thirdly,—Yon exclude from any co-operation with
you all Reformers; whether of the aristocracy, or of the
middle class, or of the operatives themselves, who do
not agree with you in everything, and go the full length
of your Charter. You are intolerant of any difference
of opinion. He who does not agree with you in every-
thing is not allowed to agree with you in anything. You
affect to look for liberty ; but you begin by establishing
a tyranny over others. They must not dare to differ
from you, else they are excluded and denounced. You
do not by them as you would be done by, for you take
roan them that freedom of mind which it is your boast
to claim for yourselves.
Fourthly,—There is another species of tyranny that
has disgusted your friends and increased your enemies.
You have refused to allow public meetings to be held for
any purposes but your own. You have either oven
powered by your numbers or confounded by your cla-
mour meetings held for useful, legitimate, and reform-
ing purposes. Moderate Reformers are not allowed to
assemble to carry their own views into effect. You—
the Chartists—controul and prevent them. A few vio-
lent persons can easily disturb and break up a public
meeting, however well organized. The clamour of a
minority can, at all times, prevent the speaker of the
majority from being heard. Of this facility you have
availed yourselves ; you have, in Birmingham, inter-
rupted a lecturer who discussed the horrors of war, or
some other useful topic, to an audience unconnected
with politics. In another place, the Chartists over-
powered a lecturer against the Corn-laws.
This is a tyranny, which, of course, daily augments
the number of your enemies, as of course it renders
your success impossible. If the Legislature were to
pass an Act prohibiting all meetings except those fa-
vourable to the dominant party in the State, every one
of you would exclaim against the tyranny—the atro-
cious tyranny of such an enactment. And yet, with-
out law, you do precisely the same thing, and vitally
disparage your claim to a participation in real legis-
lation.
Fifthly,—Your orators talk sometimes disguisedly,
and with caution, but not the less intelligibly, and at
other times openly and without disofee, of effectuating
your
.purposes by physical force and violence. The oft-
repeated expression of one of your speakers has ac-
quired a proverbial familiarity, as well as the terseness
of a proverb, "peaceably if we can, forcibly if we roust."
Now, this is the extreme of absurdity and criminality.
It conies literally within the law of high treason ; and if
your strength were sufficient to create apprehension in
the suind of the Government, many of the dupes of such
doctrines as I have stated would incur imprisonment or
transportation, or perhaps death ; especially when fol-
lowed up, as such language has bswn, by a recommenda-
tion to take arms. But these doctrines are absurdly
criminal in another point of view. In the present com-
plicated state of society in England, there is nothing that
could inflict such horrible misery upon the operative
classes as a revolution by violence. The operatives
five themselves, and support their families upon
weekly wages. They have no reserve of stored pro-
visions or saved money. The only mode in which
they can support their families is by the receipt of weekly
wag, s. Suppose, then, you were successful in raising a
sanguinary rebellion, the master manufacturers would of
necessity be compelled to stop work ; all the manufacto-
ries would necessarily be closed ; wages would cease,
and the means of paying wages would be taken away.
What could the hundreds and thousands of operatives,
and the millions of whom their families are composed,
do for provisions ? It is true, that they might subsist
For a week or a fortnight upon the plunder of the other
classes, and involve all those classes in equal misery
with themselves ; but after that short period where
could they find subsistence? After wages had ceased
n plunder Lem exhausted, where could subsistence be
found ? Ycs, success in your plans would produce the
most unmitigated misery to yourselves ; and you arc
embarked in a career in which, nnder the yretence of
seeking redress of existing grievances, you would plunge
yourselves into misery, indescribable and remediless.
But you cannot possibly succeed. In any attempt at
violence you would be opposed by all just and reason-
able operatives themselves ; by the middle classes, strong
and vigorous, and abhorrent of any change that would
endanger the social state ; by ell the power and wealth
of the aristocracy ; by the concentrated force of the
armed yeomanry ; and by the organization, skill, and
resistless power of the entire British army.
Sixthly,—See what an accumulation of opposition to
tlie cause of reform you would create, if you were suffi-
ciently strong. You would make men tremble for their
property, and therefore range themselves against you—
you
would make men apprehensive for their lives, and
therefore hostile to your purposes—you would organize
against you the wealth, the strength, and the intelli-
gence of the State—in short, if a vicious ingenuity had
been exercised to find out the best method of prevent-
ing reform, it scarcely could have alighted upon any
scheme so effectual as encouraging the doctrines of the
torch and dagger, and physical force Chartists.
I do not say these things to you in any spirit of hos-
tility or of anger. I say them in deep sorrow and
niourriful regret. You have grievances which ought to
be redressed. You have rights which ought to
asserted and achieved. And if you would but listen
to your former and your once successful leaders—if you
would but follow their counsel, and aid their efforts—
much -of what you justly complain of would be re-
dressed, and much of what you desire would be
attained. You would be on the secure road to obtain
the entire.

See how many points there are on which we tho-
roughly agree. We agree that the elective franchise
should be as extensive as is practically possible. We
cgrce that the voters should be protected from tempta-
tion to corruption, and, above all, from intimidation, hr

EVENING EDITION.

--.......—f
I the ballot. We agree that the duration o Parliarne‘‘ ,
should be diminished. We agree that the proper:
qualification should be abolished. We agree that tb ~
' representation should be by districts of equal popula.
tion. In short, we agree upon all the groat essential!
of a complete and satisfactory reform. We differ only
as to the means of carrying out these principles.
My experience has taught me that the most practical
modes of success are those which are essentially peaee-
able and plainly constitutional. My reason tells roe
that any other mode is essentially dang,,erous ; and my
conscience informs me that any forceitble attempt is in
its nature criminal.
In plain truth, physical force could not possibly be
successful, except in the event of the overwhelming ma-
jority of the nation being of one opinion on the subject
of reform ; and if that majority were sufficiently nume-
rous to render physical force safe, it would also be sutii-
ciently numerous to render any violence unnecessary.
If the topics which I have thus addressed to the
Chartists of Birmingham have any influence over their
minds, the period appears to have come when the ra-
tional and sober part of the operatives ought to separate
from the men of violence and of blood ; and to rally
round their old, well tried, and honest leaders, the Att-
woods, the Scholefields, and the Muntzes, and the other
men who led them formerly to victory. Let a new asso-
ciation be formed. Let a fresh council be nominated ;
let tile association come forward as the friends of " peace,
law, and order ;" and as the harbingers of peace, of
union—aye, and of success.
Let me discuss with you the basis of suds an associ-
ation

•
First—dismiss the words " universal suffrage" fret!
your political vocabulary; simply, because, vehile were
the one hand they create alarm, they do not moon
what the persons who make use of them really intend.
The true meaning of the words " universal suffrage" le
—that every human being should have a vote—females
as well as males—minors as well as adults. Now, no-
body really intends that ; for even the Chartists them-
selves exclude from what they call " universal suffrage"
—first, all the females, -although they compose /ono
half of society, and although females are allowed to
vote at the Eest India House in the disposal of the fate
of one hundred millions of our fellow-creatures in the
East Indies, and in the nomination of those who have
the disposal of the public property, to the amount of
millions in the Bank of England ; yet the Chartists
exclude them—and properly exclude them—from what
they improperly term "universal suffrage."
Secondly—Chartists exclude from their "universal
suffrage" all grown men of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty,
although these persons include fully one-tenth of the
male population of the country.
Thirdly—Tice Chartists exclude from their " unit'er-
sal suffrage" all persons convicted of disgraceful crimes.
Fourthly—They equally exclude all idiots and
unatics. Titus, therefore, the " universal suffrage" of
the Chartists is an expression not conveying an accu-
rate idea, and should be dismissed at once upon th tt
account—namely, its want of truth.
Let us substitute for " universal suffrage" other
and truer words, namely, " household suffrar;" and
let us see whether this sbbstitution be nbt absolutely
necessary, or, at all events, highly useful to ascertain
the district in which alone the voter should exercise
the franchise.
It is clear that a man should not acquire a night of
voting by merely coining into a district—that a resi-
dence of at least six months should be necessary in
order to qualify the voter ; that is, six months' residence
in a house within the district, enabling the person who
makes out the list of voters to identify the individual
with a particular house or residence. Thus, there-
fore, the residence being essential to qualification,
a particular house must be described as that in
which the qualifying residence takes pktce. This is,
therefore, a quality of the franchise strictly requiring the
description of " household suffrage."
Here arises a most important question ; whether
household suffrage is to be limited to the occupier of an
entire house ; or to be extended to several persons, each
occupying in severolity part of the house. It is plain
that it is equally household suffrage ; whether it is
limited to the occupation of a whole house, or includes
each separate part of the house. My answer, there-
fore, to the question is, that household suffrage,
within the very terms, may include—first, all male
adults who occupy an entire house. Secondly,
male adults who occupy only a portion of a house,
and who either are, or have been married, so
as to come within the class of heads of families. Thirdly
—all male adults occupying only part of a house, but
having served a regular apprenticeship to any trade.
This would include all operatives being journeymen, and
fourthly, all male adults occupying only part of a house,
but being teachers or professors of any science or branch
.of learning.
Thus, household suffrage, in this view, while it has
the advantage of ascertaining the six months' residence
of the voter, to be within the electoral district, world -
include the two categories of male adults. First—those
supposed to belong to the class of beads of families, ei-
ther by ocetryinge an entire house, or having married.
And, sec..oriny—a class of individuals, qualified by the
educated labour of apprenticeship, or the education of
science Gzr literature.
I respectfully submit to every intelligent and honest
Chartist, that when I include in household suffrage all
heads of families (whether occupiers of entire houses, or
only lodgers) ; and all journeymen in trades ; and all
teachers of literature or science—l go as far as die words
" universal suffrage" could, for practical purposes,
carry me. And, secondly, that until we shall have ob-
tained this my " household suffrage," it will be idle
and ridiculous to quarrel upon the question whetter the
suffrage should be carried further or not.
Get this much first, and do not wrangle about the
supposed residua, until you ascerttin whether practi-'
cally there will be any.
The second basis of the new association should be
ballot—the honest ballot. Whoever votes by ballet,
his vote is his own, and he can bestow it as he thinks
fit. It is almost the only mode of securing egsinst cor-
ruption. It is, literally, the only mode of prevemtin
intimidation.
A third principle of the new association ought to be
—fixed triennial Parliaments ; that is, Parliaments not
liable to dissolution within the period of three years.
Ido not, I confess, like annual Parliaments. The
elections would be matters rather of impulse than of i
mature selection. They would be too frequent acid too
common to have that weight and that importance which '1
triennial elections would ensure.
The fourth basis of the new association should be I
the abolition of the property qualification. Any man
competent to be an elector, should be competent to Ise
elected. There is no property qualification in Scotland,
or for the Universities. Why should there be a pro- ,
petty qualification in England or in Ireland ? I3esideS,
what stronger proof can th ere be given that a man is
qualified to sit in Parliament, than that he is the free
choice of a free constituency ?
Fifthly, The representation ought to be by electoral
districts of, as nearly as possible, equal population. The
present system is ledicroue. Some towns, with less than
two hundred voters, have as many representatives as
Birmingliem or Manchester. This absurdity ought to
be abolished as speedily as possible.
What I propose is this—that the old and faithful
leaders of the people of Birmingham should conA forward
and organise a new association—cell it by iliat name-,
they phase—union, society, or club, or by the more •
lengthened name of " Precursor of Reform Associostion."
Let all that are honest and intelligent (and they must
be numerous) rally round their old friends, and select,
in addition to them, new ones, to manage their political
affairs. Let not only die words " peace, law, auid order,"
be upon the banners, but let the spirit of peace be urdia
their lips and in their hearts. Let good order regulate
all their movements ; and let there be no violation of '
the law—save by their enemies.
So shall they succeed. If they begin even with small
numbers, let theni neither despair nor cease to agitate.
Right, reason, and justice are with us ; and there is no
magic in politics like having right and justice at our

It is a monstrous ,iniquity that the elective franchise
should be in the bands of so small a proportion of the
people of England. It is scarcely endurable that, in
this great country, there should be a toaster class hay-
ing votes, and, therefore, by thearselvai and their re-
presentatives, making all, the laws ; and, on the other
hand, a slave class, having nothing to do with the laws
hut to obey them, and to suffer their pressure and in-
fliction.
The Reform Bill has failed. It did not fjo far enough.
It has created a capriciously-selected class of voters,
obnoxious to intimidation, and liable to corruption. It
has increased the bribery, the perjury, the villainy of the
unreformed system. It is disgraceful to the country, and
insulting to its people. It would have been already
stripped of its abuses, and improved in its principlies,
but for the diversion in its favour that has been made by
Chartist violence.

Reformers: of Birmingham, of every class, I address
you. In your country's cause, listlessness and apathy
are crimes. RefL2ct upon the advice I give you. It is
not material from whom that advice ocmcs. It is mate-
rial to consider its nature and tendency. If you unite
again, you will 'become certainly strong, and probably
irresistible. If you continue in division, or sink into
apathy, you will degrade yourselves, and injure your
country.

I have the honour to be, your faithful servant,
Londun, May 30, 1839. DANIEL O'CONNELL.

al that
I.—Thc long intery
LIVERPOOL, JUNE
has elapsed since we had an arrival from New York is
almost without parallel. The latest dates from that city
are to the 26th of April, received a fortntght age. Throe
packets are now due, and the steamer Liverpool has also
been
Iota: teen days, nod most likely mill he the first ar-
rival we shall have; if so, she will iming news twenty-four
days later than that last received. One of the patt
e i:1 has been out thirty-two days, anc,ther twer,t,., ,
p
days, and the other nineteen (Ri, twenty _e

CHRISTIANA, MAY 18.—The great PsTatienal
Festival (the 25th (Anniversary of, the Constitutieqn) waB
celebrated in the u3ual manner, pith music, entertain-
melds, &c,

-
THEATRE ROYAL, COVENT GARDEN.
The Public is respectfully informed, that the
PRESENT MANAGEMENT WILL TERMINATE
WITH THIS SEASON ;
The following Programme is therefore given •f its final ar-
rangements :
The Historical Play of KING HENRY V., from the Text
Shakspeare, will be produced early in June.
•' TO-MORROW EVENING, Jurra 5.
Will be performed,
THE LADY OF LYONS, or Love and Pride.
Claude Melnotte, Mr. Macready ; Colonel llamas, Mr. Bartley;

Pauline Deschappelle;;Mks Helen Faucit.
After which,
FRA DIA VOL°.
Marquis San Carlos, Mr. Frazer ; Lorenzo, Mr. Burnei
Zerlina, Miss Rainforth.

ROYAL SURREY THEATRE.
The New Grand Opera of " The Love Spell," has been tri-
umphant in the extreme. The rich, flowing Melodies—
beautiful Scenery—and the acting and singing of Miss Ro•
mer. Mr. Templeton, and Mr. Balfe, meet with undivided
approbation of elegant and crowded audiences.
THIS EVENING, JUNE 4,
Will be performed a New One Act Drama, called
THE MAIDS OF HONOUR.
After which the Grand Opera entitled
THE LOVE SPELL.
With all Donizetti's Original Music of " L'Elisir d'Amore,"
Adige, Miss Romer ; Nemorina, Mr. Templeton ; Dulcamara,
Mr. Balfe.
To conclude•with the successful Drama, called
ALICE GRAY, THE SUSPECTED ONE.

TO dORRESPONDENTS.
If " A Wesleyan Minister in London" will authenticate
his letter we will give it insertion.

*, 44#
t,
y 4474,1%.,,... 44"..1.111,XL.:

Zln nix,.

LONDON:
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1839.

Again a considerable number of petitions in favour
of the penny postage were presented last night in the
House of Lords ; and on the Duke of RICHMOND pre-
senting one his Grace made some observations which
are worthy of public attention. The Duke, it will be
remembered, has been Postmaster-General, and during
the time he filled that office he had the reputation o
attending closely to his duties. Last night he advo-
cated the full, complete, and entire adoption of Mr. R.
limes plan for sending letters at the lowest rate. He
is for allowing every person to send letters without a
stamp if he pleases, the unstamped letters to be charged
more for delivery than the stamped letters. There are,
we believe some objections to this suggestion, arising
from the delay it would cause in delivering the letters ;
but there are none we believe to his suggestion of al-
lowing persons to send their letters by any conveyance
they please—stage-coach, steam-boat, or carrier, pro-
vided they are enclosed in stamped covers, and
the revenue is not injured. Parties, he said,
ought to have the option of choosing the
mode of conveyance. These are liberal and, we
we believe, just views, and the Duke of RICHMOND
deserves the public thanks for his enlightened advocacy
of the uniform penny postage.
Lord BROUGHAM pointed out some misrepresenta-
tions of his language and conduct, in the Observer,
adverting to it as a breach of privilege, but his Lord-
ship, though he forcibly corrected the misrepresenta-
tions, made no motion on the subject.
At the close of his observations the Marquis of
LONDONDERRY made a few remarks which will pro-
bably excite as much laughter in the public, remem-
bering the relations which formerly existed between
these Noble Lords, as they excited in the House.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE called the attention of the
House to the Archbishop of TUAM, JOHN M'HALE
having signed a requisition to the High Sheriff of Mayo
with his Catholic title, which was also signed by the
Protestant Bishop of Tuam. The Noble Lord and the
Earl of WICKLOW were horrified at this violation of the
law. Lord MELBOURNE said it was a matter for the
Irish Government, and so the matter was dropped.
JOHN M'HALE, like the rest of the spiritual Powers,
sets the secular authority at defiance. Probably the law
forbidding his assumption of a title, like the excessive
postage, is tempting and easily evaded, and ought never
to have been enacted.
Lord BROUGHAM, after a long and eloquent speech,
in which he dealt most unmercifully with the poor
sellers of beer, moved the second reading of his Bill
to Imo an end to the beer-house system. The
Marquis of WESTMINSTER was the only Peer who
opposed the motion ; and all the rest of the Peers were
as much in favour of it—because, as they said, it would
benefit the poor=as if they were labourers themselves.
• The pretended care of the Peers for public morality,
while they keep up the plundering starvation Corn-
laws, is an arrant piece of hypocrisy, not surpassed
by the typocrisy of the piiesthood. We regret to see
Lord BROUGHAM lending his great talents to such an
odious crusade on the part of the rich and noble, and on
the part of monopolizing publicans, against the comforts
and enjoyments of the people. If they did not use the
beer-shops they would not be in existence ; and that
they are in existence, and are much used, is a decisive
proof that they are acceptable to the lower classes. To
accuse them of being accessary to crime is a poor fallacy ;
except as they are naturally and necessarily the resort
of the lowest classes. The Peers might as well accuse
the fustian jackets or smock-frocks worn by the labour-
ers of being the cause of crime as the beer-shops, for
both have this in common, that a great many bad cha-
racters use them. Before the Lords put down beer-
shops let them look at the lobbies of the theatres, at the
saloons of the opera, and other places of fashionable re-
sort--as the hells of St. James's, and its neighbourhood,
and let them ask whether these places do not cause
more criminality than the beer-shops, where the
poor man goes to cook his steak and take his pint of ale
with his companions. Out of such one-sided, partial,
pettifogging, miserable, meddling legislation Chartism
has grown up, and is justified ; and if the Peers wish to
give countenance and encouragement to the Chartists,
they can do nothing better than proceed with such
measures as the Beer Bill. As was very natural in the
Peers, they were all against the p3or, and for the Bill.
Lord MELBOURNE, we are happy to see, did not pledge
the Government to support it. The Bill was read a
second time and referred to a Select Committee.
In the Commons numerous petitions were presented
in favour of a uniform penny postage.
One petition, and we must mention it with great
honour, was presented by Mr. BLACKETT from 84
farmers and 286 agricultural labourers, for the abolition
of the Corn-laws. These are the classes to convince
of the iniquity of those laws, and a very few petitions of
this description, aiding the towns-people, would suffice
to get rid of the starvation iniquity.

Lord MAHON presented a petition from Bedford,
complaining of some officer interfering with the right
of petitioning ; and the Noble Lord proposes to call
the attention of the House to the subject this day.
Sir ROBERT. INGLIS presented a petition from Mr.
BURGE to be heard against the Jamaica Bill, and is
to move that Mr. BURGE be heard. More opposition
According to Mr. FRENCH there is a scarcity of
potatoes in Ireland. Why do not the landlords send a
supply, instead of bringing corn away, and so lower the
price? Sure, as the Irish might say, they are the
fathers of the country, and ought to feed all the people.
Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to a question put by
Sir R. INGLIS, was obliged to admit that the Slave
Trade was still carried on to ay great an extent as ever.
He only waits for some papers on the subject in order
to move foe leave to bring in a Bill giving power to
our ships to stop the trade carried on under the Portu-
guese flag.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved resolutions concerning
Canada, declaratory of the necessity of uniting the two
Provinces. After explaining the views of Government
on the subject, stating that it did not propose to enact
the details of any measure, but merely to affirm the
resolution, he moved that the debate on the resolutions
be adjourned till Monday. After some few observa-
tions from Mr. HUME, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Mr.
CHARLES BULLER, objecting to the resolutions, which
we have not room to notice, the debate was accor-
dingly adjourned.
Tho Metropolitan Police Bill was read a second time,
as was the Metropolitan Police Courts Bill, after some
Opposition on the part of Sir B. HALL. The Summary
Jurisdiction Bill was also read a second time. The
Borough Courts Bill went through a Committee.
The House did, we believe, more business last night
than any previous night of the session. It adjourned at
a Quarter before One.

We hear a good deal of Toryism in Parliament,
and read a good deal about plans to put it down ;
but with us, putting it down there is a very secondary
consideration—we wish to see it put down in the
country—banished from the manners of the