The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-29 00:00:00

RETURN ORDERED.-INDIAN POSTAGE.

On the motion of Mr. HUME the copies of correspondence
between the Government, the Post-office, and the Court
of Directors, as to the postage between England and India;
and, of the orders of the Governments of Ceylon and Hong
Kong, fur the reduction of the postage between England
and those places to sixpence.

THE BRIBERY BILL.
The order of the day for the third reading having been
read,
Lc rd HOTHAM protested against the inference, that
because he refused to fall down and worship the bill which
the noble lord had set up, he was therefore anxious to per-
petuate any undue practices. If the noble lord had been
content with defining bribery and treating, affixing to the
offence any penalties that he might think fit, and provid-
ing a proper tribune!, there would be nobody in the house
more willing to support the measure than himself (Lord
Hethain). But the decisions of election committees were
not satisfactory to the nation. It was perfectly notorious
that the first thine. people asked was to which party the
three belonge.l and to which the two ? (Hoar, hear.) The
bill might 110 doubt do if, as h el been suggested to him
by his hum. friend, till men were W-alpoles ; but as it was,
persons with "robust consciences" would soon find the
insane of driving a coach and six through its provisions.
He should therefore oppose the third reading. He re-
garded the introduction of the clause to legalise travelliug,
expenses, the payment of cabs, and the atteeTt to intro-
duce reasonable refreshment, as fatal to the intention of the
good working of the bill, and as such ho should not regret
to see it defeated. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL sai t the noble lord had treated the
bill as if it were the first attempt at legislation on bribery,
whereas a great part of the bill was a me, e consolida-
tion of existing acts. The bill merely attempted to
place the law on a more satisfactory footing, and to de-
fine it more clearly where it was obscure. Did the noble
lord mean to say that the promoters of the measure ought
not to have made such an attempt? (Hear, hear.) He
told them this was an unjust measure, because it relieved
the rich at the expense of the poor. The noble lord said
the poor were punished by the bill, but the rich were not-
Now so far from that being the fact, the tendency of the
bill was to place penalties and hindrances more upon the
rich than they had hitherto been open to, while it did nut
aggravate, but in some respects diminished, those on the
voters. For instance, it dealt with undue influence, and
imposed a declaration upon candidates and members.
Hitherto the bribery oath had been taken only by electors,
but it was proposed to repeal that obligation, and transfer
it to the elected. Having pointed out the merits of the
bill, so far as it related to the appointment of an election
o cer and the publication of election expenses, the noble
lord went on to observe that complaints were general
throughout the country after the last election of corrupt
practices of every kind, both of bribery and treating. It
was said!, indeed, that they had prevailed to a greater
extent than they had ever been known befoi e, and upon
these being brought before the election committees a
great number of members were unseated by those tribu-
nals. Well, then, that being so, was it not their bounden
duty to attempt to apply some further remedy to these
corrupt practices ? The noble lord seemed to think that the
task of investigating controverted election matters ought to
be transferred from the election committees to the courts
of law, but when the constitution of those tribunals was
amended, as it was proposed to do by the bill to be bi ought
in next session, he for one should. be sorry to see such a
transfer made. At present election committees were too
often suspected of party or political bias, and he was afraid
if the trial of controverted election petitions was trans-
; ferred to the Court of Common Pleas, be was afraid the
judges would lose their character for impartiality, for not
i a year would pass before some of them would be accused
of acting from political bias. He could not, therefore,
think that the plan which the noble lord seemed to have
in view would get rid of the evil that was complained of in
reference to controverted election inquiries. This bill,
• however, was an attempt to correct the abuses which took
place at elections, and although the noble lord might be
exceedingly desirous of putting an end to bribery and cor-
ruption, he could not but think that if the house were to
adopt his suggestion, and reject this practical attempt to
correct such bribery and corruption, they would hardly
get credit for the sincerity which they deserved. (Hear.)
Mr. ROBT. PALMER had one fault to find with the bill.
It attempted to accomplish too much, but as it only was an
experiment, and as there would shortly be an opportunity
of practically testing its merits, he would suggest that it
should be made a temporary measure. A clause -might be
introduced to limit its operation to the let of August and
the end of the next session, which would admit of its
being tested at both borough and county elections.
• Mr. COBDEN confessed that many of his objections to
the bill as it now stood would be removed if some of the
amendments on the paper were carried. For instance, the
noble lord the member for Middlesex proposed that the
house should reject that part of the bill which allowed tra-
veiling expenses ; and if that motion were carried, it would
remove many of his objections. On the other hand, some
hon. gentlemen opposite proposed to negative the declara-
tion to bo taken by members ; and if that were carried,
he should be inclined to vote against the third reading.
In this state of things he thought the best course to adopt
was to allow the third reading to pass, which would then
admit of all these several amendments being disposed of,
and the final decision might be taken on the question that
the bill do pass.
Col. SIBTHORP said old birds were not to be caught by
such chaff as that. (A laugh.) The bill was a Treasury
clan trap, and was intended to prevent honest men prac-
tising Christian charity. (A laugh.) Talk of putting clown
bribery, indeed. What was it ? Where was it to be found?
If it was to he found anywhere it was amongst the occu-
pants of the Treasury Bench, and for-his part he should re-joice to see that bench regularly whitewashed—Ca laugh)—
it ought to be scoured three or four times with but water,
and then painted in oil. (A laugh.)
The bill was then read a third time without a division.
Mr. J. FITZGERALD then proposed to leave out clauses
17 to I inclusive, for the purpose of inserting other clauses,
which should provide that every candidate should appoint
some person to act as his agent, by whom all the election
be. Paid, and who should be required to
be called "The Election Expenses Book."
agent would have to furnish a true copy of the entries
contained in the book to the returning officer, with a de-
keAxetePpe tul r a seebs'e s(x)ik'poi ural to
d t
ion of ono month after the election the
cleration of their authenticity, while a similar declaration
would have to be made by the candidate. This mode of ac-
tion would get rid of the complicated machinery of the
bill, and at the same time secure that publicity. for the
election expenses which appeared to baits immediate object.
The bon. anti learned member then moved his first clause,
namely :
Every candidate immediately after he shell have
become such, and before he shall pay or agree to pay any
"
part of the election expenses, shall, by 'writing under his
hand, appoint some person to be his agent for the payment
of such expenses,
writing under his hand dismiss such agent, and appoint
and such candidate may at any time by 1

another in his place; and it shall be the i;quty of such
can(lidate immediately after every suchappointtn, ent to give
notice thereof in writing to the returning 001, e:, and in
such notice to state the name, description, a4,,,(1 residence
of the agent, and within one week after every such ap-
pointment to cause such notice to be inserted i.n the news-
paper circulating it in the place where the electtion is held,
and no other than the agent so appointed shall I:lave autho-
rity to pay or expend any money for or in respect of the
election expenses."

Sir F. KELLY trusted that after the delibe6ate consi-
deration which the bill had undergone, the house). would
Dot at that stage of the proceeding assent to the Hoposed
amendment. The hon. and learned gentleman sought to
sweep away the whole system of the appoiutinefart and
action of an election officer, which had been recommended
for adoption by a select committee and subsequenrly ap-
proved by large and successive majorities of that house.
The election officer proposed by the bill would be 5.4 officer
independent of the candidates, and who must reiaider
faithful account ; whereas if the clauses of the h4,n. and
learned gentleman were adopted, there would be nothing to
prevent the agent of any candidate from receiving) money
for payments made for improper purposes when the, period
of responsibility had passed away.
After a few words from Mr. CANLEY,
The house divi.ted—
For the clause t 51.
Against it l. 89
Majority.. —33
Mr. FITZ(I.EII.A.LD said that this decisiolaj rendered it
unnecessary to go on with his other cl Loses j (Hear.)
Lord A. VANE-TEMPEST proposed to (insert the fol-
lowing clause after clause 32 :—" Every candidate, or in
his absence, the persons proposing and secoiidieg suPli per-
son, shall before or at the nomination, or r cr as
conveniently may be, make and subscribe o re-
turning officer the following declaration :- .r we
the proposer and seconder of A.B.] do a sin-
cerely declare, that I [or we] have given ra _ ith-
ful return of every agent or agents authorised or sun,. 9d
by me [or us] to make any payments of money or mon
previous to or at my [or his] election, and that a..
other than such agent or agents' so named have
had, nor shall in future have, authority or sanc-
tion by me [or us] to expend any tnohey or moneys, or in-
cur any expenses of or relating to the election aforesaid;
.and that I [or we] have faithfully :adhered to the require-
me its contained in clause 32 of this act. No person being
a candidate at any election, or who shall hereafter be
elected, who shall have made the declaration required by
section of this act, and have"conformed thereto, and who
shall not have appointed given any authority to any
agent or agents save ac Y ing to the provisions of section
—of this act, and wb, gall in all things have well and
truly conformed to .irovisions herein contained against
bribery and all of yvorrupt and unlawful practices, shall
be personally liaba.,.fitivilly or criminally, nor shall his elec-
tion be avoidad, kiy'reason of any illegal acts done by any
other person than himself or his agent or agents, named in
writing aei notified to the election officer, according to the
provisions of this act, unless such illegal act shall be proved
to 1‘4,7e been done by his authority or sanction : provided
always that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to
make valid any election which shall be proved to have been
obtained or effected by means of bribery, or any other
corrupt or illegal practices."

The ATTOIINEY-GENERAL said that this was really
only the same clause as the noble lord had once before sub-
mitted to the house unsuccessfully. It was a clause
directly against the very object of the bill, which was to
make the law against bribery more stringent. The noble
lord's proposition would relax the present law, and open a
door to infinite fraud.

Sir F. KELLY supported the clause. It never could
have the effect of legalising an election which had been ob-
tained by bribery or corrupt practices. In cases where
the candidate had strictly complied with the law, and
some individual over whom he had no control had bribed
a single elector, if an election committee held that such a
person was an agent, the election was void. The object of
the clause was to prevent a candidate from so suffering
from the act of a stranger. •
Mr. BRIGHT considered that this clause would open a
great avenue to bribery, and remove one of the strongest
checks now existing against the improper proceedings of
agen ts.
Mr. HENLEY supported the clause.
The house then divided—
For the clause 79
Against it ll4
Majority -35

Sir F. KELLY then moved the following clause :—lf
any candidate at any election, or any member hereafter re-
turned to serve in Parliament, shall, before the passing
of this act, have-paid any money for or in respect of any
election hereafter to be hell, or any expenses thereof, such
person shall, to the best of his ability, deliver a full, true,
and particular account of such payment or payments to
the election officer, and may thereupon, instead of the de-
claration herein before contained, make and subscribe the
declaration following :—" I [A. B.] (to solemnly and sin-
cerely declare, that I have not knowingly made, authorised,
or sanctioned, and that I will not at any time hereafter
knowingly make, authorise, or sanction any payment on,
account of my election, otherwise than through the
election officer, save as excepted and allowed by the
' Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1851,' and other than
the payment or payments mentioned in a certain account
called `Reform Act Account,' delivered by me to the
election officer, nor have knowingly done, authorised, sanc-
tioned, procured,
.or promised, nor will hereafter know-
ingly do, authorise, sanction, procure, or promise any
act, matter, or thing contrary to the provisions contained
in sections 2 and 4 of the said act ;" and any person who
shall make and subscribe any such declaration knowing the
same to be untrue, or having made and subscribed such
declaration, shall, at any time thereafter knowingly make,
authorise, or sanction any payment contrary to the true
intent and meaning of such declaration, shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanour, and in Scotland of an offence
punishable with fine and imprisonment.
Mr. V. SMITH said the preferable course would be to
treat all payments made before this act as innocent pay-
ments ; and this case might be better met by inserting in
the declaration the words, " since the passing of tho Cor-
rupt Practices Act."

Mr. CRAUFURD said that notice had been given to
expunge the declaration, arid if this clause were carried
without that declaration they should be in a strange posi-
tion.

Sir P. KELLY said that if the declaration were expunged
he would withdraw the clause.

The clause was then agrees t to.

Mr. MINN" moved, after clause 38, to insert the follow-
ing clause :—" If any candidate shall be declared by any
election committee guilty, by himself or his agents, of
bribery, treating, or undue influence at any election, such
candidate shall be incapable of being elected, sitting, or
voting as a member of the House of Commons for the Par-
liament then in existence.

141 r. BENTINCK proposed to insert after the word
" agents," the words " with his cognizance."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the clause, but
objected to the amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
In reply to Mr. HILDYAItD,
Mr. PHINN said he had no objection to limit the clause
to the re•election of the candidate for the "place" for
which ho had been returned.

BRIGHT thought that if a person were convicted of
bribery, it was not too much to exclude him from sitting
for any place during that Parliament. (Hear, hear.) There
for
awneortehcears. e s
Twhheeyr et
hAe
nwas unseatedchanged
places, or oaniiedp
re
aee.
ea'papne(aireßd
in
Parliament within a fortnight.
The clause was theu agreed to, with the limitation in.
troduced by Mr. Phinn.
Mr. MULLINGS moved the following clause :—" On the
trial of any issue joined, or on any inquiry arising in any
action for recovery of any pecuniary penalty under this
act, the parties to such action, and the husbands and wives
of such parties respectively, shall be competent to give
evidence in the same manner as parties, and their hus-
bands and wives, are competent to give evidence in actions
and suits under the act of the 14 and 15 Victoria, chapter
99, and ' The Evidence Amendment Act, 1853,' but sub-
ject to and with the exceptions contained in such several
acts : provided always, that any such evidence shall not
thereafter. be used in any indictment or criminal proceed-
ing under this act, against the party giving it."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said be had no objection
to the clause, because if ever there was a case in which the
party interested should be allowed to give evidence, it was
in procee,tings of this kind. But, as it was his intention
to introduce a clause in the Common Law Procedure Bill
which would make this principle general, it would render
this clause unnecessary ; that was to say, supposing it was
agreed to. Under these circumstances, perhaps his hon.
and learned friend would not press his clause. If he did,
however, he would support it ; but he would suggest the
insertion of the word " admissible" for the word " com-
petent."
_

-13:enRral.
evidence fur every
t-heMAntGooOrnUeyE,
b tter wait till the general clause was introduced by
particular w aso pp opposed to
(aoaro varying
Itt the
would
de
bo
of
Mr. HILDYARD was opposed to the clause. He know
a recent case where a a'entleman declared that he would
rather
badgered by the lawyers. (Laughter.) They were carry-
-11".Y I,ooo+. than be put into the witness-box to be
ing this warfare against themselves to an extent that com-
promised the dignity of the house. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY took the same view as the right hon.
but thon
gentleman (Mr. Goulburn).
Sir F. KELLY hoped his hon. and learned friend would
persevere with the clause He thought it was a privilege
competent
:ntdhecormulie,ei oughte.:o be made general.
Mr. V. SMITH inquired whether the witness would
be
compellable to appear before the tribunal ?
Sir F. KELLY—He is compellable.
Mr. V. SMITH—Then I shall divide against the clause.
The house accordingly divided—
For the clause llB
Against it lO7
Majority —ll
The clause was consequently adopted.
Mr. BENTINCK complained of a great injustice which
the fourth clause was calculated to inflict by making any
member, candidate, or agent who might before, at, or sub-
sequent to an election give any refreshment, or exercise
the commonest rites of hospitality to any voter, liable to
a penalty, and the vote bf none effect. He moved to add
a proviso, that unless such treating shall have taken place
within a period of six months- either previous, or subse-
quent to an election, the penalty shall not apply.
J
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the law, as it now
existed, prohibited treating before, at, or subsequent to,
ass election, but unless it had refer° .co to the election, no
offence was conitnitted, and no penalty attached. And
the law ill this respect would be the same under this bill.
Mr. ARCHIBALD HASTIE must, if this amendment
were not adopted, vote against the declaration, which it
would he impossible for any gen tle.tuan, who at any time
exercised the commonest hospitality- towards any person !
who voted for hint, to subscribe to.
Mr. V. SCULLY opposed the amendment, under which
he said it would be quite competent fcir a candidate to
carry on treating to any extent if he waited till six mouths
after the election.
The house divided—
For the proviso
Against it
Majority
Mr, HILDYARD rose to move that clauses 6 anil 7 he
omitted, and also so much of the proclamations in scitei lute
B as were referable to the above two clauses. He reminded
the house that these claus ,s would transf r the jurisdiction
over these seats to a petty jury in an assize town. ThiA, lie
begged to observe, was completely against the oiliniou of ,
one of the most distinguished of their deceased statesmen.
Mr. J. FITZGERALD seconded the amendment.
Sir F. KELLY contended that the apprehensions of both
the mover and the seconder of this amendment were grossly

exaggerated, if not wholly unfounded. The clauses objected
to were carefully considered in the select committee, and
ultimately the decision arrived at was, they were essen-
tially necessary for the proper working.of the bill. All the
objections which had been raised against the clauses were
amply provided for by other parts of the bill,and there could
be no doubt that ample punishment was provided for all
those offences which had been suggested by the hon. and
learned member for Weymouth.
Mr. PHINN agreed that these clauses were of doubtful
utility, but still as they were thought necessary for check-
ing bribery and corruption, perhaps it would be best for
the house to incur the inconvenience of confirming them.
The clauses recognised no new principle ia law of Pariia-
meat, because there already existed on the statute book
enactments of a similar nature.

Lord J. RUSSELL said there was so much force in the
arguments of the hon. and learned members who had moved
and seconded this amendment that he did not feel justified
in asking the house to proceed further with these clauses.
(Hear, hear.) They were open to evasion and abuse, and
perhaps the best course to take was to abandon them.
After a few words from Mr.SOTHER ,N and Mr. V. SMITH,
the amendment was agreed to, and the clauses were struck
out.

Some verbal amendments were made in the clause. for
the purpose of rendering it more stringent and conclusive.
The clause prohibits the use of banners, bands, fl.gs, cock-
ades, &c.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved an amendment to clause
eighteen f4,r the purpose of providing that in respe"t of the
boroughs where the writs are suspended —viz., Cambridge,
Canterbury, Barnstaple, Clitheroe, and Hull, the election
officer shall be appoi.iteil for the ensuing year within six
days after the passing of the act.
This amendment was agreed to.
Mr. V. SCULLY thought that in England, Ireland, and
Scotland, a judicial person would be a fitter person than the
returning officer, to make the appointment of the election
officer. He proposed, therefore, as an amendment, that
the appointment should be made in England by the
County Court judges, in Ireland by the assistant barris-
ters, and in Scotland by the sheriff substitutes ; and, as
in most English counties, there were several County Court
judges, he proposed that in such cases the appointment
should be vested in tl,o senior judge,
The ATTORNEY-GL:zERAL did not consider the pro-
posed alteration an improvement. As regarded the allega-
tion that returning officers were in some cases partisans, he
must observe that there was no complaint against them as
a body for the manner in which they discharged their du-
ties. To place the appointment in the hinds of judges
might have the effect of injuring their judicia:,character.
It was in order to keep them free from any imkutation
that they were not allowed to sit in Parliament.
Mr. CRAUFURD opposed the amendment so far"‘...: it
applied to Scotland.
Mr. J. BALL said so many returning officers in Ireland
were partisans, that it was in his opinion desirable to give
the candidate a power of appeal against the appointment
of an election officer.

The amendment was negatived without a division.
Lord R. GROSVENOR rose to move to insert the word
"not" in clause 26. This would render the payments for
travelling expenses illegal. He could not again travel over
the reasons for this amendment, further than to say that
he thought that without it a wide door would be opened
for illegal practices.

Lord-J.RUSSELL would not re-argue this question.
He could only say that if the amendment were carried, it
would amount to a virtual disfranchisement of a large pro-
poi tion of the poorer electors. Hence he thought it his
duty to support the clause.
The house divided—
For the amendment
Against 147 —72
[As the tellers were advancing to declare the numbers at
the table, it was noticed that one of the hon. members for
West Surrey was reclining at full length, and fast asleep—
it was nearly 1 o'clock—in the side gallery, having evi-
dently been there duritr, the whole time of the division.
When this fact became known throughout the house, hon.
members, after some tittering, began to cheer—why it
was not easy to discover, unless it was as a complement to
themselves for their superior wakefulness, after 13 hours'
work, when compared with the hon. gentleman in the gal-
lery. The cheering speedily awoke Mr. Evelyn, who,
after staring very hard at the members below (whose eyes
were all turned towards him), hastened from the gallery,
evidently wondering why—like Byron—he had awakened
one morning, and found himself famous.]
Mr. CAYLEY moved the following proviso :—" Pro-
vided always, that unless the distance of the voter's resi-
dence to the nearest polling booth exceed one mile and a
half, the conveyance of a voter to the 'poll shall not be a
reasonable and legal expense within the meaning of this
act."

Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the hon. gentleman would
not persist in his motion.
Lord R. GROSVENOR said the clause was so exces-
sively mischievous that he should be willing to vote for
any mitigation of it. (Cheers.)
The proviso, however, was negatived without a division.
On clause 2" (the refreshment ticket clause),
Mr. V. SCULLY moved the omission of the words "on
the day of nomination or polling," otherwise the clause
would legalise the giving of refreshments on another day.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resisted the proposal, and
the motion was not agreed to.
On clause 37,

Mr. HENLEY proposed to omit the declaration of mem-
bers. (Cheers.) He doubted whether hon. gentlemen
really knew what it was that it was proposed they should
declare. If the clause passed they would have to state that
since they had been children they had never been guilty,
and that if they lived to be a thousand years old they never
would be guilty of 736 distinct offences—every one of which
might also be committed by other persons on their behalf
(Laughter.) Besides this, they would also have to declare
they had not been and never would be guilty of 72 offences
relating to their own elections. (Hear, hear.) He thought
that if any one could take a declaration like that, he would
have a much larger swallow than men in general. (Loud
laughter and cheers.)

Sir J. PAKINGTbN was favourable to the principle of
a declaration, and intended to propose an amended form.
Lord J. RTSSELL said that that form was clearer than
the one in the hill, and he would agree to its substitution.
The house divided—

For the amendment
Against it
Majority

126
. 86
.--40

The declaration, therefore, was struck out of the bill.

On the question that the bill do pass.
Mr. ROBERT PALMER asked the noble lord whether,
as he was unable by the forms of the house to move a clause
he had intended, and he thought it desirable that the bill
should be made a temporary measure, there would be any
objection to make it a temporary measure for one or two
years ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said he had no great objection to
that proposition ; but he could not pledge himself what
course would be taken in th 2 other house.

Mr. HENLE Y moved the bill do pass on this day three
months.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, though the declaration had
been struck out, he thought it of so much importance that
the experiment of the election auditor, as proposed by the
bill, should be tried, that he should be sorry that the bill
should be lost, and he should oppose the motion of the
right hon. gentleman. •
After a few words from Mr. CRAUFURD,
The house divided.
For the passing of the bill
Against it • lOO
Majority -7
The bill was then passed.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, it was ordered
that the house at its rising adjourn to Monday at twelve
o'clock.

SUPPLY.
The report of supply was brought. up.
METROPOLITAN SEWERS BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, and the
clauses were agreed to with amendments.
MARRIAGES (MEXICO) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
CINQUE PORTS BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
The following bills also passed through committee :
Acknowledgment of Deeds by Married Women, and Mid-
land Great Western Railway of Ireland (Baronies Con-
tributions) Bill.
JUDGMENT EXECUTION BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,
Colonel DUNNE opposed it, and the house divided—
For going into committee 4
Against it 52
Majority —4B
BLEACHING WORKS BILL.

On the motion to postpone the second reading of this
bill till Wednesday next,
Mr. CHEETHAM protested against its being proceeded
with at this period of the session, and without inquiry on
the subject. He moved that it be read this day three
months.

Lord PALMERSTON said the bill could not proceed
this session without further information, and he thought
it had better be decided that it be decently interred for the
session.

Mr. C. FORSTER, who had charge of the bill, consented
to its withdrawal ; and, after some further discussion, the
order was discharged.
MILITIA (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee pro forma.
NEWSPAPER STAMPS.
Mr. CRAUFURD moved for a return of the number of
stamps, at one penny each, issued to each newspaper pub-
lished in the cities of London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, re-
apectively, for the second quarter of the year 1854, speci-
fying the name of each newspaper, and the number of
stamps issued to each (in continuation of Parliamentary
Paper, No. 238, of the present session},
Mr. WILSON opposed the granting of the return, and
the motion was postponed till Monday.
MILITIA.
Mr. S. HERBERT obtained leave to bring in a bill to
suspend the making of lists and the ballots and enrolments
for the militia of the United Kingdom.
The house adjourned at ten minutes to 3 o'clock.

LAW .TNT ELLIGENGE.-July 27.

The receipts include the traffic on the Orleans and Central Or-
eans and Bordeaux. and Tours and Nantes.