The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1837.

first to publish the proceedings of that Committee. Another
Newspaper had been produced before the Committee to which
their attention was called, and he was one of the first to
say that he sanctioned the condemnation passed by the Chair-
miin publicly in the Committee, that whoever ventured to
publish garbled statements ought to be exposed to the oppro-
brium not only of the Committee but of the House.—( Hear.)
In the progress of the inquiry peculiar circumstances arose
which rendered the course he took indispensable. Out of the
twenty-four Gentlemen composing the Committee, twenty
were avowedly opposed to the course which the minority
deemed it their duty to pursue. But what was it which led
to the course which he bad taken, and which he was proud of
having taken ? He saw seated at the bar of the Committee
two or three of the Commissioners connected with the Poor-
law Inquiry ; he saw their intelligent secretary—he saw their
short-hand writer—he saw all the appliances of the powers of
office—he saw them not only taking down what was passing
in the Committee, but writing directly into the country to
make inquiries into the truth of the statements given in evi-
dence--crowding the Committee with witnesses to control
and counteract and reject the evidence which was previously
adduced ; and he (Mr. Harvey) immediately pointed it out
to the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and said that it was
not a candid or honourable inquiry, if on the one hand they
saw this great institution, the Poor-law Commission, with
all their agents and appliances, and the succour of the
Committee, making inquiries throughout the whole country
against a class of people who, poor of themselves, had no
means whatever of summoning witnesses at their own expense,
or obtaining the necessary communications ; he pointed out
also that there was scarcely any sympathy between them and
the Committee, and that unless the evidence were published
from day to day, and the truth were known, he said dis-
tinctly that the inquiry would become a matter not only of
hypocrisy, but of the grossest insult and injustice towards
those whom it was intended to protect. That course he had
taken, and when the subject was brought forward whether
the conduct of his Paper should be brought under the consi-
deration of the House, did he riot say that he would scorn to
shelter himself behind the printer, or any other species of ser-
yant who was earning a few shillings a week ?—did he not take
upon himself the whole responsibility, and say that if they
went to Somerset-house they would find him registered as sole
proprietor of the paper ? Did he not state that he was pre-
pared to encounter whatever penalty the law directed ? And
did he not add that it was absurd to have a law without the
power of causing its infringement to be prevented ? And
what did the Noble Lord ( Lord John Russell) do to assert
the integrity of the orders and regulations of the
House ? The Noble Lord came down to the Committee, and
after communications with the Committee and himself (Mr.
Harvey) as to the course which ought to be pursued, proposed
an express motion that the evidence which was recsised from
day to day should be published. But, said the Noble Lord,
the Member for Northumberland, " Was any body at liberty
to publish the evidence in whatever shape he pleased—would
the House sanction garbled statements and evidence given in
such a way I" He defied the Noble Lord to produce any
portion of the evidence he had published that was not verba-
tim the evidence that was given before the Committee, and
which, with the consent of the Committee, and the support of
the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, was allowed from day to day to be published. He would
then come to the third point, as his object was to show to the
House the hollowness of the pretexts on which the Govern-
meat had objected to him. In the former part of the evening
he had alluded to the eagerness with which they seized
Godsends, their everlasting floundering in mischief, and the
readiness with which they caught at straws which the cur-
rent bore past them. With what eagerness did they seize
on the ungenerous suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth. That Right Hon. Baronet said
that certainly he had his sentiments with respect to the pub-
lication of evidence, but he said that it was not his iiitentiess
to oppose the motion upon that ground; oh, no, the Right
Hon. Baronet said that his reason for supporting the Chan-
cellor of the exchequer was, " that he (Mr. Harvey) was a
gentleman much given to indulge in sarcasms, that he was in
the habit of coining forward and making contrasts between
the poor and the rich ; that he had ventured to say that all
persons who received the public money ought to be opened to
inquiry, and that he would subject them to the same sort of
test as the poor old widow be (Mr. Harvey) was so fond of
alluding to ; that he remembered very well that allusion and
the allusions of the Hon. Nlember for Southwark to the bas-
tardy clauses of the Poor law Bill ; that he drew distinctions
between the unfortunate poor and the offspring of the illegi-
timate connections of sonic high p.'rsons ; that such sarcastic
remarks were indecent and rendered the author of them unfit
to be a member of the Committee." If dullness was to be
the qualification that fitted lion. Gentlemee for Committees,
he congratulated the Treasury bench that they would hale
their hands full.—( Laughter.) He would say, then, on
those three grounds, that he discredited the assertion
which had been made by the Right Honourable the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he really was solicitous
that he should be on the Committee. He begged to
ask the Right Honourable Gentleman whence it was that after
receiving his reply, with respect to which he wished the House
to come to the same conclusion as himself, that it was impos-
sible to read it without perceiving that the writer intended to
set the rules of the House at defiance—if that were so, whence
was it—and did it not appear most extraordinary—that he did
not make some communication to him informing him that such
was his impression ? Surely he might have expected to base
heard from the Right Honourable Gentleman, sAnewhet in
this form :—" The Chancellor of tl e Exchequer presents his
compliments to Mr. Harvey, and begs to acknowledge the re-
ceipt of his letter, which, howcver he regrets to say is so far
unsatisfactory that until lie In ars further from -him, lie cannot
consent to place him on the Committee." Did the Right
Honourable Gentleman pursue that course? No. He resew ::d
his reply, and he ( Mr. Harvey) heard nothing from him on
the subject till to-night, ewe, t, indeed a communication made
to him by en Honourable Friend of his, the nature of
which he would state to the House ; but he would net give
his Honourable Friend's name, because he was not now.pre-
sent. That Honourable Gentlemen came to him and said,
I am authorised to inform you that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer is satisfied with your letter, and your name will
be on the Committee ; but do not be surprised if somebody,
not connected with the Government, asks you whether you
mean to publish the evidence or not ; so far as the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer is concerned he will raise no objection."
—( Much laughter, and cries of " Hear.") If he was chal-
lenged as to the truth of that statement, when the Honourable
Member appeared in that House he would bring him face to
face with the Right Honourable Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.)
His Honourable Friend inquired of him whether he would
give that assurance, and his answer was " No ;" for no earthly
consideration would ho consent to be placed in such a degraded
position.—( Hear, hear.) Having thus answered the per-
sonal part of the matter, there was one other remark
that he wished to make to show how irrelevant was this
attack on him, as it applied to him personally. It would
be in the recollection of this House that, in the spirit
which he believed engendered this opposition, some four
or five years back a resolution was passed which was aimed
directly at him as a Member of this House concerned in pri-
vate business.—( Hear, hear.) Had they found him—could
any Man get up in his place and say—could any professional
man, in or out of this House, say that they had found him, by
any means, directly or indirectly, endeavouring to controvert
or evade that resolution, which was a harsh and cruel resolu-
tion as regarded its effect on his private fortune ?—( Hear,
hear.) Ile bowed obedience to that resolution, as he would
to any other deliberately passed by the House.—L( Cheers.)
Did he allow his interests as a private individual to govern
him ? No ; he was superior to all these considerations. What
he esteemed as the rightful rules of Parliament while he was
a Member of that Assembly he would observe ; and he
would take care well to weigh the solidity of his opinions
before he presumed in any case to disregard its rules. If
he had been on this Committee—and he would not swerve a
syllable, he would not breathe a word, to induce any Gentle-
man to suppose that he was in the least relenting with a
view to conciliating one vote, or to calm a single apprehen-
sion—but he would say that, if he had been on this Commit-
tee, and his conduct would be the same on any Committee,
he never would violate a rule of this House if, in so doing,
he found himself in a situation of individual opposition.—
( Hear, hen.) But many of his Hon. Friends on the former
Committee, to which so much reference had been made,
thought that the evidence ought to be published, and finding
his views so supported, he stepped forward, and did that which
he considered it his duty to do, hazarding all the consequences.
—( Hear, hear, hear.) He shrunk not from encountering
the difficulties which then presented themselves, his ex-
press purpose being that of vindicating what he considered
the rights of the community. As to the appeal that was
made to him. he would ask the Honourable Gentlemen
whom he had the honour of addressing not to regard this
as a personal question. What appertained to himself could
be of no moment, and, as a fleeting shadow, the House should
pass it over. But be did ask them to look at this question as
it regarded themselves.--( Cheers.) He did ask them to con-
sider well if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he might
be for the time being, was allowed to call on any Gentleman
he pleased to forego his judgment as to the course he would
pursue on a Committee, which, in all probability, would be
the next step, would it not be that their Committees, instead
of being composed of independent men, would be made up of
the mere slaves of the Government?—(Cheers.) He had
heard it asserted, and could fancy and believe it to be true,
that some gentlemen the Civil List Committee received an
intimation before they were put there, before they had the
honour of being placed on that Committee, which had no
power to send for " papers, persons, or records"—( A laugh)
—and with respect to which it was said the intention was that
it should be a powerless Committee, one that could do no
mischief—(Laughter)—he repeated, he could fancy and be-
lieve
it to be true that some Honourable Gentlemen, before
they were placed on that Committee, were asked, though they
might conscientiously differ from the Ministerial proposition,
to say nothing about the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancas-
ter. Ha could fancy the Government addressing gentlemen
thus before they were placed on the Committee " Your in-
tentions may be honest ; but they may be at variance with our
views, and we wish to know what you intend to do? ' A more
slavish principle it would be impossible to act upon. Surely no
one who valued his reputation as a man of judgment, or as a
man of integrity, and who wished to stand well with the
people of his country, would, for any consideration, allow
himself to be employed in such a degrading service. He was
not aware that there was anything left for him to say. The
Right Hon. Gentleman in the chair claimed for them at
the foot of the throne at the commencement of every Par-
liament that they should have liberty of speech. It ap-
peared now that they were not to have liberty of speech. It
was said that the liberties of this country could not be over-
thrown but by the corruption of Parliament; so he would
say, that the liberty of speaking could not be narrowed but
by their own narrow vies s.—(Cheers.) If, according to
the Right Hon. Baronet, because an Hon. Member ven-

tured cn the utterance of a sarcasm, or indulged in any
little playfulness of fancy, and thus enlivened the dulness
which had of late so remarkably characterized their de-
bates, ho was to be marked down as a person unfit to serve on
their Committees, they would soon be fit for nothing else but
Committees of which dulness was to be the principal quali-
fication. He wished to say further, that of all things he
should like not to be on a Committee such as the pre-
sent, as it would necessarily occupy a great deal of his
time, which would put him to much inconvenience by its
interference with his unprofitable engagements ; but if
the House thought that he could be of service there, if
it were believed that he possessed eny peculiar know-
ledge or information that could be advantageously brought
to: bear on this question, he should place his time and ex-
ertions at their disposal.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He would
ask the independent portion of the House—and when
he said so he considered he was addressing himself to
the whole House—he would ask them by their vote this
night to show that they were not participators in thss slavish
requisition of the Government. Ile would call on them to
vindicate their independence, and not allow it to be sup-
posed that in acting on Committees they consented to act
entirely under the direction of the authority which com-
posed them, or that the condition of their being placed on
them was that they were to sit in fettters, not being at liberty
to exercise their judgment as to the course they ought to pur-
sue. In conclusion, he would say that he would not accede to
the requisition of the Right lion. Gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer for any advantage which it might be in the
power of his official station to afford him. He begged to re-
mind the Right Hon. Gentleman that a man might be poor in
circumstances, and yet rich in the feelings of personal nide-
pendence.—( Cheers. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had intimated that there was
no great danger of his entering into any competition with
him on the score of sarcasm. Unfortunately there was
none. Nor was there any danger either of his entering into
competition with him on the score of misrepresentation, be-
cause misrepresentation was never more complete than was
that which he had endeavoured to palm on the House in re-
ference to what had fallen from him (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.) Many Honourable Gentlemen who had heard
his speech would imagine that he had presumed, by reason
of his official situation, to put him in fetters, or to curtail the
free exercise of his Parliamentary privileges. He denied that
such was the fact. As he had already stated to him, the very
reverse was the case. His application to him was not to be
considered an official applicarion at all ; but in moving the
Committee he had addressed him in precisely the same way
as he should have addressed him had he been a private Mem-
ber of Parliament.—(llesr. ) Did he ask him to comply
a ith any fancy of his, or to give up any fancy of his own ?
What he had asked him simply to give up was that which had
been declared by a resolution of the House to be the right of
the House. If the House took a just view of the matter,
that which was claimed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
was not his, but a violation of the privileges of Parliament. He
begged to take the earliest opportunity of contradicting in the
most distinct manner in which it could be contradicted, that
he ever gave authority to any Member of the House to make "
a proposition to the Hon. and Learned Member. He gave no
such authority to any Member of this House, nor to anybody
out of the House. Many Hon. Gentlemen had appealed to
him—it was a matter of common notoriety that many Hon.
Gentlemen had appealed to him—on the subject of the Hon.
and Learned Member's name being put on the Committee, and
is reply he stated frankly and unreservedly to them that which
he stated now, viz., that his objection was not to him perso-
nally. He contended that he had offered the best test ho could
of his sincerity, the test he offered to-night when he told
him that if he would state that he would conform to the
Orders of the House, be would be the first person to move
that his name be added to the Committee. Was there then, the
shadow of a pretence for charging him with insinterity ? He
Legged Hon. Gentlemen also to bear in mind he had asked him
to give the pledge required not to him, but to the House itself.
Ile said that he felt great difficulty in having a Special Com-
mittee for a special purpose of inquiry ; and, therefore, he
named another Committee already in existence to inquire into
the subject ; but when he found that that Committee did not
attend he was obliged to name a new one, and the very first
name that suggested itself to him was that of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Southwark.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
Southwark said that he would not be a party to the publication
of g odsled reports. Now, he found in a copy of the True Sun
which he held in his hand, the following observations, intro-
ductory to one of that Paper's Reports:of the Poor-law Com-
mittee's inquiry :—" The great length to which the evidence
extends precludes us from giving it entire, but ec give such
portions of it as appear to us to bear on the practical question
of the operation of the Poor-laws."—( Hear, hear.) If the
House was in favour of placing the Hon. Member on the
Committee, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would
not be responsible for any inconvenience which might
result; if any charge was made on Saturday which might
be satisfactorily answered on Monday, but which by being
published on Saturday evening might lead to incalculable
inconveliiences and misunderstanding,—and if in the end all
the House should be invoiced in a contest of privilege—the
responsibility would rest on others, not on him. Above all,
one word to Honourable Gentlemen opposite. It might suit
well with their views, being opposed to the present Commit-
the from the outset, to render it as distasteful to the
public as possible, and thereby inoperative for the purpose
of justice ; but let them beware that in gratifying
their private feelings in this instance they might be
destroying public reliance generally in Committees of
this House. Ile had now no more to say. He had dis-
charged a painful duty, in the course of which it had been
his lot to engage in a contest with a gentleman for whom he
had aleraj a euterteined the kindest feelings of respect and
regard ; but whatever might be the sacrifice which he would
have to submit to, whether the sarcasm of the Hon. Gen-
tleman himself, or that of lion. Gentlemen on the opposite
side of the House, the responsibility of whatever might fol-
low would rest with the others, not with him.—(Hear. )
The gallery was then cleared for a division—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the insertion of Mr
Harvey's name
Mr. C. BUL LE R moved that further time be given for
completing the recognizances of the sureties to the petition
, against the return for Sligo, a clerical error having been
committed in them, by which the name of one of the peti-
tioners was substituted for that of one of the sureties.
Colonel PE RCE VAL contended that the recognizances
ssere void at twelve o'clock. He should rest satisfied with an
appeal to the justice of the House.
Mr. COOPER (as we understood) concurred in the view
taken by the Elea. Member who had just addressed the House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was of opinion that the
Parliamentary day had not expired at twelve o'clock, and that
it was quite competent to any Hon. Member to make the mo-
tion which had been proposed.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said he must once again rise, to
call on the House to adhere to the strict rule. The Act of
Parliament was express, that the recognizances should be per-
fected within fourteen days, and no one, lie thought, could deny
that, in point of law, the duration of a day was from twelve
o'clock to twelve o'clock.
Mr. P. TIIOMSON observed that the application in Gom-
pertz's case was made after one o'clock, and it was not con-
sistent on the part of those who supported that application
now to resist this.
Mr. H. HINDE must deny the law to be as the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman (the Attorney- General) had laid it
down. The votes in that House made a clear distinction be.
tween the business done previous to twelve o'clock and that
done afterwards. The business taken after twelve o'clock
was entered, not only in the votes, but in the journals of the
House under a separate date.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, the President of the Board of Trade was mistaken
with respect to the Gompertz case. The petition in that case
was not presented until the 4th, so that, in point of fact, the
time had not expired.
Mr. R. STE U ART thought that the application ought
to be granted, as in a similar case in which he was a party in
1831, the House adopted a similar course.
Mr. ELLIS denied that the House had power to act con-
trary to the provisions of the Act of Parliament, which stated
that if the sureties were not perfected before twelve o'clock
on the fourteenth day, the petition fell to the ground.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could not concur with
his Hon. and Learned Friend (the Attorney-General), that
the recognizances were void because of this mistake,—( A
laugh.) The condition of the reeognizanees was, not that the
parties should prosecute the petition, but that if the costs and
and expenses were not !paid by the petitioner the instrument
should be void. It was true that if three or four parties were
bound, and that any one of them paid, that was all that could
be required. There was nothing in the Act which limited
the duration of the day to twelve o'clock, and his opinion
was that, if the petition were presented at five o'clock in the
evening, the parties would be entitled to count from that
hour.—( Cries of " No, no, there can be no fraction of a day
in law.") At all events, the application was quite in time, if
made before the adjournment of the House.—( A laugh.)
Mr. GODSON said that the question which they were
called on to decide was one of very great importance, and
was whether a Parliamentary day differed from the legal defi-
nition of a day. He was, he must say, surprised at what he
had heard from his Hon. and Learned Friends. According
to their view, if that House were to sit till seven o'clock in
the morning, the Parliamentary day would endure seven hours
after midnight ; but he must say that no lawyer, that no man
of common sense in the country, would agree with the con-
struction which they had put upon this Act.—( Hear, hear.)
Suppose that these recognizances were now to be received,
and that the Fetitiod turned out to be " frivolous and vexa-
tious," what would be the consequence ? Why, that when
they were attempted to be enforced the parties would snap
their fingers and laugh at them, denying their validity, because
they had not been perfected within the period of fourteen days
limited by the Act. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CO URTENAY said that, accustomed as he was to
Courts of Law, he had never heard worse law than had that
night been propounded by the Solicitor-General. There was
no person conversant with the practice of Quarter Sessions
who did not know that whatever form an Act of Phrliament
directs must be followed. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
had spoken of the fraction of a day, but there was r.o tyro at
the bar who did not know that there was no such thing
known to the law as the fraction of a day. As a constitu-
tional lawyer, he was surprised at the doctrine that had been
put forward that they might dispense with an Act of Parlia-
ment. Why, what were the charges against the Stuarts, or
against the Long Parliament, but this, that one part of the
Legislature dared to take on itself to dispense with an Act of
Parliament, and that House was now asked to exercisticeatrh.a;
dispensing power which every writer on constitutional law con-
curred in describing as the greatest act of tyranny ?__(

Mr. C. BULL ER said that there was no' neglect in this
case, as happened in the Ipswich case, for as soon as the ob-
jection became known the petition was presented. The Hon.
Member for Cavan seemed to mistake the object of his (Mr.
Buller's) motion. He did not mean to ask the House to pass
any resolution about the validity of the recognizances, he
only asked them to enlarge the time. A great deal had been
said about the strictness of the law, but the same law gave
them the power to extend the time for entering into the re-
cognizances, and if they were to be precluded from exercising
that power what was the use of possessing it at all ? The
Hon. Member here referred to the words of the Act of Par-
liament, which provide that where the recognizances shall not
have been entered into within fourteen days the Speaker shall
report the same to the House, and the order for taking the
petition into consideration shall be discharged forthwith, un-
less on special cause shown, or unless matters shall be specially
stated, on oath, as shall give the House reason to see that the
time ought to be enlarged. Now, it would be competent
for him, when the Speaker announced that the recognizances
had not been properly entered into, and when it should be
moved that the order be discharged, to get up and move that
the order should not be discharged until witnesses had first
been called to the bar to prove certain facts that would en-
able him to show the House a sufficient case for the exercise
of this indulgence. According to the opinions of the Attor-
ney and Solicitor-General, the recognizances were good, but
it was held by others that they were bad. Now, he did not
want a decision on this point ; all he asked was that the House
should enlarge the time.
Mr. AG L lONBT could not think, as at present advised,
that the House had any power to enlarge the time. He
wished that some Learned Friend could convince him that
he was mistaken in his construction of the Act. What he
felt a doubt upon was that the application for the enlarge-
ment of the time ought to be made before the expiration of
the fourteen days. He thought the words, "if the time
shall not have been previously enlarged," &c., were to be un-
derstood as requiring the application for the extension of the
time should have been made before the expiration of the four-
teen days.
Mr. MAULE said that the Act of Porliament, which re-
gulated their proceedings, ought to be so construed as to
enable substantial justice to be effected. He would not en-
gage in the discussion of the difficult question whether they
should cull the present time to-day or to-morrow.—( A laugh. )
He would suggest to the Hon. Member for Liskeard to take
the question upon the motion that the order for taking the
petition into consideration be discharged.
Mr. C. BULLER would adopt the suggestion, and take
the discussion on the report of the Speaker. It seemed that
lii3 mistake was that he had applied not too late but too soon.
He would move that the petition be printed with the votes.
After a few worils from Mr. FR SII FIE L
Colonel PE RC E VAL was at a loss to know in what posi-
tion the House stood.

Mr. C. BULLER—There would be nothing conclusive in
having tho petition printed.
Colonel PERC E VAL understood that the name Patrick

Nelson had been substituted in the recognizances for that of
John Gallagher. According to the Act of Parliament it was
necessary that three days' notice should be given, and that the
parties should justify the sureties before the proper officers of
the House. The petition only reached town to-day, so that
of course the notice had not been given of the substitution of
the name of the surety, nor could it now be given within suffi-
cient time.
Mr. C. BULLER had merely moved that the petition
should be printed. He wished it to be printed in courtesy to
the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they felt disinclined to make
use of it he had no wish that it should be printed.
Sir R. PEEL said the question would to-morrow be in the
same position in which it appeared to have been some time
since. The Speaker would make a report to the House, and
on that report the House would be called on to decide what
was to be done.
The question that the petition be printed was then put from
the Chair, and agreed to.
DUCHESS OF KENT'S ANNUITY BILL.

Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice that he would more, in a
future stage of this Bill, that the annuity granted to the
Duchess of Kent should be .22,0001. instead of the proposed
grant of 30,0001., and that in case her Royal Highness shall
marry without the consent of Parliament, or in case she shall
reside out of Great Britain for more than twelve months at
any one period, or IA ithout an interval of at least six months'
residence in this country, such grant shall, in any such case,
become void.
The Report of the Duchess of Kent's Annuities was pre-
sented to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
agreed to.
The Houses of Parliament Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
The second reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ire-
land) Bill was fixed for this day.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and at
Half-past Two o'Clock the house adjourned, to Twelve
o'Clock this day.

PARLIAMENTARY DI VISION.

PENSIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.

MONDAY, DEC. 18

- - , -
Order for nominating Committee read ; Motion made, and Ques-
tion proposed,—" That the Committee do consist of twenty-one
Members :" Amendment proposed to leave out the words
" twenty-one," in order to Insert the words " twenty-two," in-
stead thereof :—Question proposed, " That the words 'twenty-one'
stand part of the Question :"--The House divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, 122.
Adam, Sir C.—Clackmannaushire Labouchere, Right Hon. Henry—
An,fint, Colonel—Stoke-upon-Trent Taunton
liakcr, Edward—Wilton Lambton, H.—North Durham
Ball, Nieho!as—Cloninell I.efevre, C. Shaw—North Hants
Baring, F. Thornhill—Portsmouth Lemon, Sir Charles—West Cornwall
!laniard, E. G. —Greenwich Loch, James—Kirkwall
Bin ington, Lord —Berksh re Lock l.art, s. M —Lan,rkshisc
Beaniish, F. B —Cork Mackenzie, Thomas—Ress-hire
Belfast, Earl of—Belf,st M`Leod, B.—lnverness
Bernal, Ralph —ltoeloster Macnamara, W.—Clore Co.
Illackett,C.—South Northumberlandi Maher, John—Wexford Co.
Bridgeman, Hewitt—Ennis IMaide, W. H.—Carlow
lir,ekle:iiirst, J.— Vaecles held Melgund, Viscount —Hythe
Bryan, John—Kilkenny Co. Mildinay, P. St. John —Winchester
isuliver, E. L.—Lincoln Morpetb, Lord—Yorkshire
Byng, George—Middlesex Morris, D.—Carmarthen
callaglian, D.—Cork City Murray, Right Hon. J. A.—Leith
Campbell, Sir John—Edinburgh Muskett, George A.—St. Alban s
Clements, Vise.—Leitrim Co. O'Connell, M. J.—Kerry
Give, Edward B.—Hereford Ossuiston, Lord—N. Northumber.
Courteous., P.—ltridgew,,ft••-er land
Costlier, HNV on. W. F._lie tford Paget, Frederick—Beaumaris
Crawford, W.—London Palmer, Charles Fyshe—Reading
Dalrymple, Sir A.—Brighton Palmerston, Viscount—Tiverton
Denison, W. J.—West Surrey P4rker, John—Shetlield
Divett, Edward—Exeter Peel, Right Hon. sir 11.—Tamworth
Duncan, Lord--Southampton l'hillp-itts, John—l lou ester
Dundas, Frederick—Orkney iPonsonby, Hon. John—Herby
Ebrington, Vise.—North Devon !Price, Sir R.—Herefordshire
Eliot, Hon. J. C.—Roxburgi,shire Relington, 'l'. N.—Dundalk
Ellice, Capt. A.—Harwich Reid, Sir J. Rae—Dover
Ells, John—Newry Rice, Right Hon. T. S.—Cambridge
Eric, Win.—'oxford Rich, H.—Knaresborough
Fazi:kerley, .1. N.—Peterhorough Richards, Richard—Merionethshii e
Fergusson, Right Hon. R. C —Kirk- Rolfe, Sir B- M.—Penrhyn
cudbriglit Rose, Sir George—Christchurch
Fitzalan, Lord—Arundel Rumbold, C. E.—Yarmouth
Fitzroy, Lord C.—Bury St. Edm. Russell, Lord John —Stroud
Fleetwood, I'. IL—Premon Russell, Lord—Tavistock
Fremantle, Sir T.-11iickinham Sheppard, Thomas--Fromo
Freslifield, J. W.—Penryn Smith, J. A.—Chichester
Glai'stone, W. E.—Newark-on-Trent Somers, J. P.—Sligo '
Goddard, Ambrose —Cricklade Stanley, E. John—North Cheshire
Gordon, Robert—Windsor Steuart, Robert —Haddington
Greene, T. G.—Lancashire Stewart, James—lloniton
Grey, Sir George—Devonport Strangways, Hon. John—Dorset
Hallyburton, Lord D.—Forfarshire Style, Sir Charles—Scarborough
Hastie, Archibald—Paisley Surrey, Earl of—West Sussex
Hay, Sir A. L.—Elgin Tattered, H. W.—Banbury
Hayter, \V G.—Wells Thomson, Right Hon. C. P.—Man.
Henniker, Lord—East Suffolk chester
Hebhouse, Right Hon. Sir J. Cam Tracy, Henry H.—Bridgenorth
Nottingham Tufnell, Henry—lpswich
Hobhouse, T. B.—Roehester Verney, Sir H.—BuckinghamHodgson, tt.—Be. wick Wall, C. Baring—Guildford
Hollond, Robert—Hastings White, Andrew—Sunderland
Holmes, Wm.—Berwick Wilshcre, William—Yarmouth
Hope, G. W.—Weymouth Wood, Charles—Halitax
Hoskins, K.—Herefordshtre Worsley, Lord—Lincolnshire
Howick, Visc.—Northumberland Woulfe, Mr. Serjeant—Cashel
Hutton, Robert—Dublin Yates, J. Ashton—Carlow
Inglis, Sir It. It—Oxford University Young, John—Cavan
Irving, John—Antrim Co. TELLERS.
Kirk, Peter—Carrickfergus Seymour, Lord—Totness
Knight, H. G.—Nottinghamshire Smith, It. Vernon—Northampton

MINORITY-
Aglionby, H. A.—Cockcrmouth
Abager, Captain—Surrey
Atwood, W.—Grcenw;ch
Attwood, Thos.—Birmingham
Bentinck, Lord G.—Lynn
Borth wick, Peter—Evesham
Broadwood, henry—Bridgwater
Brotherton, J.—Salford
Browne, IL:D.—Mayo
Brownrigg, J. S.—Boston
Buller, Charles—Liskeard
Castlereagh, Vise.—Down
Chalmers, Patrick—lnverbervie
Clay, W.—Tower Hamlets
Codringten. Sir E.—Devonport
Copeland, W. T.—Stoke.upon-Trent
Craig, W. G.—Edinburghshize
Denistoun, J.—Glasgow
Dick, Quintin—Maldon
D'lsraeli, B.—Maidstone
Douglas, .I.ir C.—Warwick
Duckworth, Samuel—Leicester
Duke, Sir James—Boston
buncombe, Thomas—Finsbury
Easthope, J.—Leicester
Etwali, Ralph—Andover
Belden' John—Oldham
Finch, F.—Walsall
Gaskell, Jas. M.—Wenlock
Gibson, J.—Belfast
Gibson, Thomas—lyswich
Godson, R.—Kidderminster
Gore, Ormsby—Salop
grimsditch, T.—Macclesfield
Grote, George—London
Hall, Benjamin—Marylebona
Hawkins, J. H.—Newport, I. Wight
Hindley, Charles—Ashton

—NOES, 71.
Hinde, John Hodgson—Newcastle-
upon-Tyne
Howard, P. H.—Carlisle
Hughes, W. B.—Carnarvon
Hume, Joseph—Kilkenny
Humphery, John—Southwark
Jervis, J.—Chester
Jervis, S. - Bridport
Leader, John T.—Westminster
Lennox, Lord J. G.—West Sussex
Lushington, Charles—Ashburton
Maclean, Donald—Oxford
Marshall, W.—Carlisle
Molesworth, Sir William—Leeds
Parke, R. T.—Preston
Pattison, James—London
Pechell, Captain—Brighton
Philips, Mark—Manchester
Polhill, Frederick—Bedford
Protheroe, Edward—Halifax
Pryme, George—Cambridge
Round, John—Maldon
Salwey, Colonel—Ludlow
Sibthorp, Colonel—Lincoln
Stewart, John—Lymington
Stuart, Lord J.—Ayr
Talfourd, Mr. Serjeant —Reading
Thompson, Ald.—Sunderlan3
Tollemache, Hon. F. G.—Grantham
Vigors, N . A.—Carlow Co.
Warburton, H.—Bridport
Whalley, Sir S.—Marylelome
Williams, William—Coventry
Young, Geo. Fred.—Tynemouth

TELLERS.
Sinclair, Sir G.--Caithness-shire
Wakley, Thomas-. Finsbury

THE BENCH AND THE BAR.—One of the most
intrinsically valuable portions of this work is that which exhi-
bits the origin, constitution, and peculiar powers of the various
courts, and from which much useful professional information
may be obtained; but the volumes will be as much read for
their amusing nature as for their utility ; for, notwithstanding
that the law itself is considered barren of popular attraction,
yet both those who administer and those who practise it,
afford rich materials for the exercise of the writer's descrip
tive powers, of which he has availed himself with his usual
tact and dexterity. Among the numerous portraitures of ju-
dicial characters, those of Lords Lyndhurst and Denman are
perhaps the best. These sketches are, indeed, very interest-
ing specimens of the author's observant talents and power of
characteristic delineation, relieved by anecdotes of the most
sparkling kind.
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOSEPH HOLT, the
celebrated Irish Rebel General, will be published by Mr.
Colburn, of Great Marlborough-street, in the course of the
present week. The manuscript of these volumes, we under-
stand, was procured by Sir W. Betham, from Joseph Harrison
Holt, the son of the writer, not long after his father's death,
when young Holt sold his little property at Kingstown, and
proceeded with his family to New South Wales, to join his
elder brother. It was written in 1818, and revised by Holt
in the course of the following year.