The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-29 00:00:00

Mr. W. PATTEN said, if the Hon. Member for K

kenny would allow the Bill to go through the second
reading, he would undertake that it should not pass another
stage till the intentions of the Government were known.
The SPEAKER said the Bill had already been read a
second time, and ordered to be committted ; and the only
question now was, to what list it should be committed.
Mr. W. PATTEN then moved the second reading of
the Warrington Small Debts Bill.
Mr. HUME moved the postponement of the second
reading to Thursday.
Mr. WALKER supported the second reading.
Mr. F. MAULE considered the better course for the
Honourable Member for Kilkenny to pursue would be to
allow the Bill now to be read a second time, and at
five o'clock to ask the Government what course they in-
tended to pursue. For his own part he considered a gene-
ral measure necessary.
Mr. HAWES thought it was clear if they were to have
a general measure the private Bills should be postponed.
He wished the Hon. Gentleman opposite, or some other
Hon. Member on that side of the House, would press the
Government to make some statement on the subject.
Mr. LUCAS said it was of great consequence to his
country (Ireland) that the general measure which, he un-
derstood, had been promised by her Majesty's Government,
should be introduced and carried through Parliament.
Mr. BRISCOE would take that opportunity of saying,
the country from one end to the other loudly called for an
improved system respecting the recovery of small debts.
That was a practical measure of reform that all parties
wished to see effected.--( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. WILSON
PATTEN, the Bill was read a second time and ordered to be
committed.

On the motion of Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER, the
Sidmouth Improvement Bill was read a second time and
ordered to be committed.

Sir E. WILMOT presented a petition from Warwick
against the Manchester Extension Railway Bill.
The Grantham Small Debts Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.

Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition against
certain clauses in the Barnsley Small Debts Bill.
On the motion of the Hon. Baronet, the Report of the
Committee on the Rishworth Reservoir Bill was consi-
dered, and certain clauses added.
On the motion of Lord SA NDON, the Liverpool Court
of Requests Bill, and the Liverpool Buildings Bill were
read a second time, and committed.
Mr. BA /iN E R NIA N moved the revival of the Committee
on the Aberdeen Markets Bill, with liberty to sit on
Thursday next.—Agreed to.
LONDON POLICE BILL.
Petitions in favour of the London Police Bili were pre-
sented by Mr. Cran ford from the wards of Farring,don-
Within and Aldersgate-Without ; by Captain Pechell
from the ward of Dowgate ; by Mr. Pattison from
the wards of Billingsgate, Bassishaw, and two other
wards ; by Mr. Barnard from Portsoken ; by Mr.
Harvey from the wards of Langbourn, Cheap, Far-
ringdon- Within, and Cordwainers ; by Mr. Litton,
from the wards of Cornhill, and Bridge ; and by Mr.
Hodges, from the wards of Towerand Farringdon- Without.
On the motion of Mr. DOTTIN, the Itchen Bridge
Bill was read a second time.

STROOD CHURCH.
Mr. HAYTER presented a petition in favour of the
Strood Church Bill.

Sir E. FILIVIER presented three petitions in favour of
parts of the
_l3lll.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from
Strood to the same effect.

Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition to the same effect
from a creditor to the amount of 2001,
Mr. BE RNA L presented a petition from certain Mem-
bers of the Society of Friends against the Bill, as they ob-
jected to any measure which imposed Church-rates.
On the motion of Captain PECHELL, the Brighton
Cemetery Bill was read a second time.

CITY POLICE BILL.
Mr. PATTISON, in the absence of Sir M. Wood,
moved the second reading of the City of London Police

Mr. HAWES was about to ask a question on the sub-
ject of the Secretary of the Home Department, when
Sir E. KNATCHBULL rose to order, as he consi-
dered the Hon. Member not competent to move the second
reading.
Sir T. FRE EMANTLE considered this to be a ques-
tion of precedence, as Honourable Members were called
on in the order in which their names were put on the list.
He did not object to the Hon. Member now putting down
his name at the end of the list.
Mr. PATTISON would withdraw his motion for the
present, and move again afterwards, should the Hon. Ba-
ronet not be present in sufficient time to do so.
On the motion of Mr. CLIVE the Norville and Ship-
ton Road Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Slamannan Railway Bill, and the Eycmouth Har-
bour Bill, were read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. T. BARING the Portsmouth
Harbour Bill was read a second time.

Petitions in favour of the City Police Bill were presen-
ted by Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. O'Connell, and
Mr. Litton.

STROOD CHURCH BILL.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved the second reading of
Abe Strood Church Bill.

Mr. BE RNA L moved as an amendment that the Bill
be read a second time that day six months, and he would
state the reasons that induced him to do so. The object
of the Bill was to raise a certain sum of money, and to
supply certain defects in an Act of Parliament passed in
1812. That Act was obtained for the purpose of
raising a sum of 7,0001. to make some repairs in the
cemetery of Strood, in Kent, and also in the parish
Church. In the course of time the parties exceeded the
powers of the Act, and instead of raising a sum of
7,000/. they raised a sum of 7.800/. on annuities and
loans. They now found it difficult to levy rates in
consequence of that illegality, and came before the
House to procure the present Act. The parties pe-
titioning for the Bill were only thirty-four in number,
out of 400 rate-payers. The petition which ne (Mr. B.)
had the honour of presenting that evening against the Bill
was signed by 219 rate-payers, including the minister and
two churchwardens—being a majority of more than six to
one against it. Out of the 30 trustees appointed by the
Act, there were only four in favour of the present Bill. He
contended that it was neither just nor pious to propose to
tax parish to an indefinite amount to defray the expenses
of a Bill like the present, as was proposed to be done.
The Bill also proposed to give the appointment of all the
trustees—nineteen in number—to the movers of the pre-
sent Bill, and that when any vacancy occurred, the trustees
should have the power of electing another. He would ask
was it proper that money should be raised for the purpose
of paying any expenses the lawyers might
choose? The
petitioners had not money to contend against the Bill in
Committee, and a abort Bill might be brought in to remedy
the omissions of the existing Act of Parliament, and to this
the petitioners would have no objection ; but they did
object to the parish being taxed to pay for the laches of
their legal advisers. Although there were several Dis-
senters in the parish, this Bill provided that no one should
be elected a trustee except a member of the Esta-
blished Church, and he was sure his Hon. Friend
would agree with him, that when heavy expenses were
thrown on any body of men, that body of men had a right
to have a vcice in the application of them, and that they
ought not to be called upon to pay expenses which were
not incurred by their own fault, but by the fault of the
Vestry Clerk.
Sir E KNATCHB ULL thought that the objections
of the Hon. Gentleman would be most conveniently dis-
cussed in Committee. The fact was, that some informality
existed in the present Act, whiclAvas necessary to be rec-
tified; and all he asked was that the Bill ought to be per-
mitted to go into Committee, in order that the clauses
might be discussed and decided en in a legal and proper
mariner.
Mr. 1108130 USE considered it extremely inexpedient
for the House to sanction the second reading of the Bill
in its present state. If he thought the Bill could be so
remodelled in Committee as to make it unobjectionable
he would consent to its being committed, but he did not
anticipate that any such result
could be attained.
Mr. HODGE S had a most decided objection to the
Bill. His name had been attached to the back of it with-
out his authority, and he trusted, therefore, that the House
would throw it out, in the manner proposed by his Hon.
Friend the Member for Rochester.

I Mr. HA YTER supported the Bill, considering it to
proceed, not only on the grounds of common justice, but
common honesty. Its object was merely to obtain a re-
payment of a sum of 7,000/., that had been obtained so
long ago as 1812. If expense was to be considered, less
expense would he incurred by this Bill than by rejecting
it ; and as any objectionable clauses could be considered
in Committee, he should certainly vote for its committal.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL and Sir S. Fiaonta severally ex-
plained, and the House divided. The numbers were--
Ayes 66
Noes
Majority against going into Committee —4B
Tho Bill was therefore lost.
CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
Mr. PATTISON moved the second reading of the
City of London Police Bill.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from St. Mildred
Ward, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. H A WES wished to shorten the discussion that
might take place on this Bill, first, by asking the Under-
Secretary of State a question, and then ascertaining
whether the promoters of the Bill were willing to ac .
cede to what he understood would be the pro-
position of her Majesty's Ministers. He therefore
now begged to ask the Honourable Gentleman below
him whether he was disposed to refer the Bill to a Com-
mittee up stairs, and the House would probably allow him
(Mr. H.) to state his objection to the Bill should that pro-
position be refused.
Mr. FOX :MULE said the Hon. Member for Lam-
beth had taken rather an unusual course. The natural
course would have been, first to assent to the second read-
ing, and then to have raised the question to what Corn-
' mittee the Bill should be referred. He thought it would
be more satisfactory to the public that the Bill should
be referred to a Public Committee, where all its details
could be fully and more fairly discussed.
Mr. HAWES said that perhaps his Hon. Friend, the
Member for London, would state whether he intended to
oppose that proposition.
Sir MATTHEW WOOD could assure the Hon.
Member that he should oppose every proposition that came
from any opponent of the Bill in every possible way.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, and addressed some ob-
servations to Sir Matthew Wood, but in so low a tone of
voice, that we could not catch even the purport of them.
Sir M. WOOD said that when there was likely to have
been a change in the Administration—(Tory cheers)—he
went to the Noble Lord to announce his intention of having
the second reading on the Friday, and understood that a
letter had been received from the Hon. Member for
Lambeth, stating that he should not oppose the second
reading of the Bill, but making it a condition that the
Under Secretary of State should be put on the Committee.
To this he (Sir M. Wood) consented. Not a word
was said about a Select Committee.—( Hear, hear.)
Was this Bill to go to a Select Committee
f chosen by the Hon. Member for Lambeth ?—( Tory cheers.)
Waa there ever such a thing heard of as a Private Bill
which was paid for by the Corporation of London, being
referred to a Select Committee ?—( Hear, hear.) He was
sure the House would treat this as they did other questions
of a private nature. After they had changed the Bill and
made it suitable to the Commissioners of Police, it was not
right thus at the last moment, to take such a step as that
now proposed.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL must deny that he had been
guilty of any breach of faith. Having consented to the in-
troduction of the Bill he certainly wished to see it passed.
It was for the House to consider whether the Bill should
be sent to a Select Committee or be dealt with
in the usual manner—so far as it was of public
importance. He thought that a Select Committee would
be the best tribunal, but he did not consider it of much
importance which Committee was selected.
Mr. HAWES would be enabled at once to clear him-
self from the unjust and unfounded aspersions cast upon him
by the Hon. Alderman. The Hon. Alderman was in that
House very loose in his statements.--( Cries of " Order,
order.")
The SPEAKER considered that the Hon. Member was
out of order in making use of an expression imputing to
the Hon. Alderman that he was very loose in the state-
mements he made in that House.
Mr. HAWF.S would at once bow to the authority of
the Chair, and would instantly recall the expression which
was thought offensive ; but, at the same time, he
would proceed to show that the Hon. Alderman
had then made a statement not founded upon
fact. The Hon. Alderman had stated that the Bill and all
its clauses had been approved of and agreed to by the Com-
missioners of Police. He would undertake to say that
there was not the slightest foundation whatever for that
statement. He positively assured the House that they
objected to the Bill and to every clause contained in it.
That was a fact, and he challenged the Hon. Alderman to
make good his statement. The whole question was a
simple one. A Committee of that House sat for two
Sessions. It was composed of every shade of opinion,
and their Report had been unanimously agreed to.
He would again repeat that the Committee sat two years
and took evidence, and on the evidence of the witnesses
produced by the Hon. Alderman himself, the Committee
tame to an unanimous determination to recommend that
a Bill should be brought in placing the Police under
one head—vix., the Commissioners of Police. That
report had been agreed to unanimously, and was in direct
contravention with the present Bill.--( Hear, hear.) Every
Committee that had sat from 1792 to the present time had
all agreed in recommending similar measures, and he would
add that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the
Corporation 01 the City of London, had recommended a
measure founded on the same principles.---( Hear, hear.)
The City of London professed to say that the Bill they
now introduced was a Bill founded on similar principles,
as the Metropolitan Police Bill. He (Mr. Hawes) would
undertake to show the House that such was not the cause.
The Corporation appointed a Committee, which was an-
nually elected-_they had the sole control over the police,
acting under the instructions of the Lord Mayor, Alder-
men, and Common Councilmen ; so that the police et a dis-
trict, containing 123,000 inhabitants, instead of being under
one head, was under the control of the Lord Mayor, Alder-
men, Common Councilmen, and the Committee annually
elected. The Bill was also defective on another point, and he
was surprised to find that the Bill did not state by whom the
men were to be appointed. It stated that the men belong- 1
ing to the police force should not canvas or vote at
elections, but the most important officer in the force I
was capable of having a seat in that House.
The Commissioners of the Police, the Magistrates of
\Westminster, were by special Act of Parliament prevented
from having seats in that House, and he would put it to the
House if they would permit the officer at the head of the
City Police to be capable of being elected a Member of
that House ; because, if the Police Commissioner might
become a Member of that House he might be engaged
in contested elections, and he would ask the House
if they thought it was right and proper that such an officer
should be so engaged. He was surprised to hear the
Noble Lord say that he saw no material objection to thin
Bill—( A laugh from the Opposition Benches)—when
one of the most important officers under it, and
who was to be in the receipt of a large salary,
had the power of sitting in Parliament. He hoped
that the House would not suffer this part of
the Bill to stand. The Police Commissioner was not a
Magistrate—possessed no authority as a Magistrate. There
was no positive law under which he could be recognised.,
and this officer would have the command of 500 men, and
not be responsible for his conduct to any one except to the
Corporation of London. If this officer wore to be appointed
a Magistrate, the City would withdraw this Bill, for
so jealous were they on this subject, that they would not
even permit the Aldermen to have the superintendence
of the police. Another objection to the Bill was,
that it did not place the whole of the police under a
Commissioner, because by one of the clauses it was
enacted that ward constables and ward beadles ''
slieeld be elected under the authority of the Aldermen and
Deputies, and wholly independent of the Commissioners
of Police of the City of London. This Bill, which the:
City had now introduced, was decidedly opposed to the
Report which had been presented to the House in 18:14, and
to the recommendation of the Corporation Commis,sioners.
It woad not be difficult for him to refer to various reports
to show that what he had stated was correct,
but if the House were disposed to give ur, the
report of its own Commissioners, and the C.overn-
meat ware inclined to give up the report of its
own Commissioner—it was impossible for a singT.o indivi-
dual like himself to stand up against it ; but wleen he saw
that the metropolis had been governed by ee system of
police without any complaint against them, and when he
well knew that slot expense of the present system of police
was one-third less than the system propr,sed, he thought
it was very much to be lamented thr.t the opposition
of the City of London was put forth in order to pre-
vent a uniform, sound, and excellent system of police
being appointed throughout the m ettopolis.—(Hear.) It
had been stated that very few by rglaries had been com-
mitted in the City, now he could prove from the Report of
the Commissioners themselves tb at such was not the case,
and he was enabled to show that clueing those very years in
which it had been stated that no rourglaries had been com-
mitted in the City a great nurehe r had taken place. There
was no part of the metropolis in wh, ich crime was more preva-
lent than in the city of London, a uld therefore it was that
the metropolitan districts were ern b
rA titled
at
leedtaliobresqhd therethatueirea
as
similar system of police should
existed in the\v i thregard surroundingrerd t
0. referring
d istr icts. —( Hear,the i 1
aln,ll
cheering.)
to a Select Committee, there a ere plenty of precedent' , for
that. The present, it was true , was a Private Bill ; 1
,ut it
related to public objects of gte :at importance. The Right
Hon. Baronet the Member ft e• Tani worth, when le intro-
duced the Bill with respect tc, the British Aline; ,m, pro-
posed that it should bo referred to a .9
...text Corn_
mittee, and he (Mr. H.) did not see why the same
course should not be adopted with the present Bill.
If he was compelled to divide the Het
ise on the second
reading, he should do so ; but if the Go, ernment were dis-
posed bona
.fide, for there had been so
ich change in their
opinions lately—( Cheering from the ( opposition benches)
—but if they were disposed bona fide to support the Bill
bensg referred to a Select Committee, then he should have
no objection to the second reading; not, he should oppose
it even if he stood alone.

Sir MATTHEW WOOD said that such alterations 4
had been made in the Bill as r
.ppea rc dto the Noble Lord,
and the Under-Secretary, ;
,n the rr eetings they had had
with the Commissioners, Ili cessa.l7, ' fhe Hon. Member for
Lambeth wished to have the Rill ref erred to aCommittee,
fine shJnr hi reading the names of
gateidnthlecmleiand
%,mhaodebaaje
dice Committee. He
(Sir M. Wood) bel:r/ At or. ‘ the 1;,
(eyed 1 the Ns ,nuurable Member for
'tiairman c f tb .at ,Committee, and dis-
charged his duties as sup 1 vaoict. assiduously, but he
Lambeth was C
believed
himsoli. the Ch(Greatailaughrman wa i very often there all day by
ter -..)
a distinct ',e
Mr.in WES—I 'hope
the Ht iuse will allow me to Fire
ter, and
a'lle .
inof° Order. nant de, )
alai to that statement.—( Laugh-
Sir M. -WOOD belie
which ',lad. been referred t ve'l
carried unanimously, there
were only five Hon. Men o was
present, and he had a list
fibers of thorn in his hand.—( ' and laughter.) The
that when the very report
dear, hear, Noble Lord appeared to ' too strong.
had used, in regard to ti • f faith, were,
breach o
l ft the room mita
Ile could assure the Not 'e
d that be e
)le Lor Sir Matthew)
the impression that th, Government
think the wordsw be
euld support tt es

- :

,~-

EVENING EDITION

econd reading, but when he came down to the House 1 papers relating to the transaction received at the police
found the Under-Secretary supporting the Ho,- ..lem- offices should be sent to the Secretary of State for the
-• ft: Lambeth in a very excluiive manner.—( Lea a c ) Colonial Department, with a request. that he would in- -
Mr. FOX :tIA UI, i', aaa iit -au h-eti hi- Inteotion to tute inquiries. Of course, he ( Lord John) could not an-
support the 1111, aee.:use he approved generally of the saver particular statements until that inquiry was ma e t
various clauses. hut- on looking over the clauses of but this he must say, now this question had.been as ed,
the Bill be found the suggestions that had been with regard to the general conduct of the Child' en's
made, of giving controul to the public officer of the Home Friend Society, that he did believe that Society bad been
Department, together with the Magistrates of the City of most attentive to particular cases.—( Hear, hear.)
London, were altogether omitted. However, that might, MINISTERIAL MEASURES.
no doubt, be rectified. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then said, that as to-morrovr
Sir ROBERT PEEL said this was a matter of very was the Restoration, be should move that the House at its
great importance, and he thought the public *sere under rising do adjourn till Thursday next ; and in so doing he
great abligations to the Hen. Member for Lambeth for would state the course he meant to pursue with regard to
the course which he had pursued with respect to the Me- some of the measures which it had been stated would be
tropolitan Police Committee.—( Cheers.) It was a most introduced by her Majesty's Government. His Right
laborious inquiry, and the motives of the Hon. Mt mber Hon. Friend had stated the course intended to be pursued
were perfectly disinterested, and nothing could be more in regard to Jamaica. With respect to Canada, a message
fair than the couria which he had pursued as Chair- had already been brought from the Crown, and it had
man of the Committee. Supposing the attendance had been ordered to be taken into consideration. In answer to
in rather lax, the Chairman had a right to presume a question from the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, he had
that there was a general confidence in the discharge of stated it was his intention to move for leave to bring in a
his duties, and concurrence in his views.—( Hear, hear.) Bill. Considering the whole state of affairs with regard
If they had disapproved of his views, nothing would have to Canada, and considering the importance of ascer-
been more easy than to have attended and overborne his taining the general opinion of the House with re-
views, and therefore the absence of attendance could Bard to the main principle which would be involved
hardly be urged against the Chairman for making ‘ll that Bill—the course he should pursue would be to
a report in conformity with his own suggestions. propose, on Monday next, the consideration of the Message,
He ( Sir Robert Peel) was not able to give with the view of laying on the table of the House a resolu-
a very full attendance, but he concurred in the recommen- tion or resolutions, affirming generally the principle of the
dation contained in the Report. He regretted, when he Union, and the groundwork of the measure to be proposed.
brought forward the Metropolitan Police, he had not the ad. He should merely lay the resolutions on the table on that
vantagerecommendedby the Committee, because he thought day, and move the postponement of the consideration of
it would have been a very great advantage. There was a great them for a week, with a view, on the day on which they
opposition to that measure, and therefore the Government should again be brought before the House, of asking the
from prudential motives consented that the City should opinion of the House upon them. Should they be affirmed
be excluded. But let the question be argued abstractedly, he would then move for leave to bring in a Bill. The County
without reference to the ancient privileges of the Corpora- Courts Bill stood for Friday, and he should certainly on that
lion, and let it be asked could any system be perfect in day move the first reading. On Friday next also his Hon.
which a small district was exempted from the general and Learned Friend the Attorney-General proposed going
operation of t,he measure, in which a small portion into Committee on the Registration of Electors' Bill. It
in the heart of the City, of fifty-eight thousand_ or sixty was very likely that they would shortly bring forward the
thousand persons should be governed by its own police, Bill relating to the Metropolitan Police, and likewise the
denying the right of the jurisdiction of the other. If he Bill respecting Factories.
were asked abstractedly whether he thought that was bet- Lord SAN DON inquired on what day the Prisons'
ter than one police extending over the e; utile, he should Bill would be proceeded with?
say it was impossible it could be so.—( Loud cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said on Friday or Monday.
He felt convinced that it would be much better to have With regard to the District Prisons' Bill it appeared to him
one uniforiialaace for the whole metropolis than to have it would be necessary to introduce those clauses which be
two acting independent of each other.—(Cheers.) At had on a former night consented to strike out, and which
the same time he thought many of the advantaAes of he then doubted were in strict accordance with the title of
such an uniform' system would be lost by the plan the Bill.
being forced upon the citizens against their almost Sir R. PEEL thought the Noble Lord had forgotten one
unanimous wish. tie had hoped that the City would itself very important measure, which was the Elections Petitions
' have seen the great advantaees of the plan, but as they had Trial B. 11.—( Hear. hear.) He thought some experiment
emit at so late a period shown so decided an oppoi- with regard to that measure ought to be made before next
iion, he thought their feelings ought to be consulted— session. The Bill might go through Committee and the

e honoured such feelings, though -the City bad not been
o careful of the rights and privileges of other corporations.
-(Cheers and laughter.) With respect to the proposi-
' ling the Bill to a Select Committee—he acted
Having agreed to the second
g of a Bill ho would not send it to a
yittee nornina:ed for the purry,7,e of frustrating that
Bill.—(Cheers.) Let them rolke the Bill as per-
; posiihle in Committee, and th,:t Committee ought
composed of rn:)re than the -Middlesex lis!.—for in-
a, it would be monstrous to cxcludc froth that Corn-
connected will the IT)rne-cffice.—
:, Bill go to a and impartial Corn-
th:it they wore bone fide to

pon oim prim

Cora

carry

) Let
the

prinizii)ic in a spirit of.fairness.

desirous of enfurcing his opinions

be still ret :inei them, but he must
3 that Right lion. Geatlemau to
rtil Co,nrnittetr...

-.,

FP

bested that :he Honourable
Lta Ui ! try upon a new foundAtion,
was willing t curifilo in him in this
dined to extend his coatlenee

htf uSTgbt

r..—(A 1an,2.12.-)
Sir ,:n4l. WOOD suggested that the Seercfary.of State
the i3roo-r person to select the Committee.
II A i;ti E. S wmild mOve as an amendment that the Bill
be rcferrb'd to a S,ket Committee, and as neither the Noble
I;)rtl nor the I-Zht Hon, Gentleman seemed inclined to
rht! C.mroittcp, he would to, morrow mention the
FS of GintiTrneri ff.-,m both sit a• of the House, who

I oar,

z`, ti-!ct cl.;;stittre a ft,

Cioailnittee, to irhom

sense of the House could be taken upon it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed that that was a Bill
which well deserved the attention of the House. He hoped,
however, the Right Hon. Baronet would support him in
a motion he intended to make, that in future Orders of the
Day should take precedence of Notices of Motion, on
Thursday. except on special occasions.
Sir. ROBERT PEEL had so strong an idea that it
was time they did something (Loud cheering and
laughter)—that he confessed his first impression was in
favour of the proposition of the Noble Lord..--( Hear.)
BUDGET.
Sir- E. KN AT C HBUL L said there was one other sub-
ject that used to be considered of importance, but which
the Noble Lord had altogether overlooked. He should be
glad to know when the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would in;,ke his financial statement ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
thought it was probable that in the course of a fortnight,
when be intended to move certai❑ resolutions on the sub-
ject of the portage of letters, founded on the recommen-
dations of the Committee of last year, he might take that
opportunity of bringing forward his general financial state-
ment. It was only within the last ten days that
the Government had been in possession of accounts show-
ing the expenditure in Canada during the last year, with-
out which accounts it would have been :impracticable on
his part, and inconvenient to the House, to have made his
financial statement.
• POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

Vt., I

refc.,rrefi

ni.2ndiri,ent va; then put and agreed to without a

,1

a .^(~

Otr-171 EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
ODGES said that the routian for the second
fill t as for yesterday, and he hoped
o o!-iertion to raking it to-day. However,
7nlations were fatal to this pro-
m, ebjeetion to let it

'v2 r. r 3

r

thc, Di y for r.!

B Y (.1

d to iir:y departurc from the

Mr. DARBY inquired when the Noble Lord intended
to bring in a Bill to amend the Poor-law Act, and what
the nature of that measure would be?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL answered that his intention
at this period of the Session was merely to propose a Bill,
the main feature of which would be to continue the power
of the Commissioners for a year beyond the time they
would at present :ast.
NATIONAL EDUCATION.

Mr. KEMBLE wished to ask the Noble Lord whether
it was his intention on Friday fortnight to propose the re-
solution relative to Natio:lel Edeca.ion, of which he bad
already given notice, but which he had postponed to that
day or whether he intended to make any alteration in the
terms of that resolution ?—( [leer, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S intention was, on Friday
fortnight, to propose the motion in the terms he had al-
ready stated; and, as some wrong impressions had gone
forth, he would state the grounds on which he had post-
poned that motion. He certainly thought that both the
intention of the. plan and the ground upon which it was pro-
posed had been entirely misunderstood, and he wished
therefore, to lay some papers on the table of the Housa,
for the consideration of Members, before the vote was
come to upon his motion, in order that that misunderstand-
ing might in some degree be cleared up.
Mr. KEMt3LE presumed those papers would be laid
on the table for,liwith
Lord .1011 N RUSSELL—Yes.
The motion fur adjourning over to-morrow was then
agreed to.
THE, PARRETT NAVIGATION PETITION.
Sir C. BURRELL rose to call the attention of the
House to the R- port from the Select Committee on the
Perrett Navigation Petition, alleging forgery in the peti-
tion against the Bill. The Committee, which sat for ten
eould have been over in a very short time but for
the pre,tentation of that petition. The Hon. Baronet went
into several details. but from the low tone of voice in
which he spoke, he was nearly inaudible in the gallery.
He concluded by moving that Betiimin Lovibond, having
been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, be
taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. FR ESIIFIEL D seconded the motion.
The SPEAKER then directed the Sergeant to take
Mr. Lovibond into custody, and,bring him to the bar.
The Sergeant-at-Arms retired, and in a few moments
returned with Mr. Lovibond, who was placed at the bar.
The SPEAKER then informed him that his conduct
had been under the consideration of a Select Committee,
who had reported that the petition which he had presented
to the House was not the petition which was actually
signed, and that he was cognizant of the fraud which had
been practised in the House. He wished to ask what he
had to say in his defence?
Mr. Lovibond read a long statement, from which it ape
peered that he had been retained as solicitor to manage
this Bill. That soon after his arrival in London he sent
down a petition to Langport, to Mr. Morris; that a petition
afterwards came up with several signatures, in
which several alterations had been made; and that
there not being time to communicate with the par-
ties, the alteration complained of had taken place, and he
was advised by his Parliamentary Agents that he should
be fully authorised, under the circumstances, in presenting
the petition. It was true that he was cognizant of the
names of some of the parties having been signed in their
absence, but he considered there was no impropriety in it,
as he had a retainer from them. No inconvenience had
resulted to any one by reason of the alteration. If he had
infringed the privileges of the House, he begged to express
his deep regret, and to state that it was wholly uninten-
tional on his part; he submitted entirely to the House, and
threw himself on its lenity.
By Mr. HUME—The Parliamentary Agents were
Messrs. Jones and Walmesley. They were both present.
By Mr. MILES—The signatur. s were appended to one
petition, and afterwards cut off and appended to another.
By Mr. HUME—The real signatures of the parties
were,sent up.
By Mr. DARBY—The signatures were obtained in the
first instance without any petition having been drawn up,
but on a statement that it was an opposition to the Com-
pany's imposing any further tolls.
By Mr. JONES—There was in the second petition
an allegation not included in. the first, but I did not intend
it as an allegation—only as an argument.
Witness was ordered to withdraw.
Sir C. BURRELL said in justice to Mr. Walmsley he
must positively deny the statement which bad just been
made by the witness, that Mr. Walmsley bad authorised
the course be had taken. He moved that Mr. Walmsley
be called in.
Mr. WYNN said the House had delegated the matter
to the Select Committee, and Mr. Walmsley had already
denied .the statement of the witness. and it would scarcely
be necessary to have the statement over again.—( Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL concurred that the evidence of Mr.
Wa msley was sufficient on tnis point. Even if it were
not se, however, Mr. Lovibond's own sense of propriety
might have induced him to refrain from the Course he had
taken. The statements of the Committee had been quite
borne out by the witness himself, and he thought that the
witness should be called in and reprimanded by the
Speaker.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir C. BURRELL considered this course would be
too mild for so serious an offence, and that Mr. Lovibond
should be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at.
Arm s —( Hear, hear.)
Mr. PEASE thought the offence was not so heinous as
might at first be imagined; a reprimand at the Bar of the
House would be a severer punishment for a gentleman in
Mr. Lovibond'; situation : and would fully satisfy the jus-

rit ceelsl

S worill'inive that th' Bill be read a