The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-23 00:00:00

POST HORSE DUTY.

Mr. HANDLE Y presented a petition from the Postmasters
on the Great Northern line of road praying for the reduction
of the duty on Post horses.
NEW POOR LAW.

Petitions against the Poor Law Amendment Act were
presented by Mr. GRIMSDITCH, from Macclesfield; and by
Mr. W. TURNER, from Bracebridge.
Mr. DUGD AL E presented a petition from a place in
Warwickshire, the name of which we could not catch, against
the suppression of the Sec of Sodor and Man.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented petitions fr, in
parishes in the county of Kerry, against several of the
provisions of the proposed Poor-law for Ireland, and in
particular against the clauses excluding Clergymen from
being appointed members of the B )ard of Guardians, against
the appointment of Magistrates ex officio members of the Board,
and against the rate-paying clauses of the Bill, which they
considered burthensome and oppressive.
Lord RAYLEIGH presented petitions from Witham,
Chelmsford, Romford, Tendring, Rockford, and Halstead, in
Essex, in favour of the landlords of small tenements being
rated, instead of the occupiers.
Mr. E. ELLICE presented petitions from places in
Fifeshire, against any further endowment to the Church of
Scctland.

.....
Mr. KINNAIRD presented petitions to the same effect
from Perth.

Mr. WILBERFORCE presented a petition from the
Chamber of Commerce of Hull, praying for a reduction of
the duty on Marine Insurances.
Mr. HAL SE presented a petition from Bishop Stortford
in favour of the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.
Captain EGERTON presented a petition from Chester
against the Poor-law Bill.
Mr. NV. PATTEN presented a petition from Lancashire
against the abolition of the Bishopric of Sodor and Man.
Sir J. HOB HOUSE presented a petition from the Cham-
ber of Commerce of Nottingham, against the Stamp Duty on
Marine Insurances.
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from different parts of
Oxfordshire, and from certain parties residing in Mauritius, in
favour of the claim of the Baron de Bode. The Hon. Baronet
then presented a petition from an individual of the name of
Owen, claiming compensation out of the French Compensa-
tion Fund. The Hon. Baronet also presented a petition from
the Clergy of Shrewsbury, against the abolition of the bishop-
ric of Sodor and Man.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from 8,000 inhabi-
tants of Liverpool, praying for an immediate abolition of the
system of Negro Apprenticeship in the West Indies.
TYNEMOUTH ELECTION COMMITTEE.
The Clerk of the Committees then appeared at the bar,
and handed in the reduced list of Members to servo on the
Tynemouth Election Committee. The following are the names:
George Poulett Scrope, Hon. Geo. Anson, Walter Frede-
rick Campbell, Right Hon. Henry Labouchero, and Charles
Denham Blandon Jcpbson, Liberals; Henry Gally Knight,
William Dowdeswell, Lord Viscount Adore, Wm. Edward
Powell, Chas. Baring Wall, and. Lord Viscount Clive, Tories.
Liberals, and 6 Tories.
Colonel WILLIAMS presented petitions front several
Dissenting Congregations in Abergavenny, praying for the
entire emancipation of the negroes.
DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from the ship-
owners of Maryport in favour of the Danish claims.
TRADES UNIONS.

Mr. SHAW presented a petition from operatives of Dublin,
denying the imputations which had been cast upon their
Trajdes' Unions, and praying for inquiry. The Honourable
Member was very indistinctly heard, by reason of the noise in
the House ; but be was understood to present also a petition
against the Irish Municipal Bill.
YOUGHAL ELECTON.

The Clerk of Committees gave in the revised list of the
Members ballottad to inquire into the petition against the
return for the borough of Youghal, as follows :
Lord Ernest Bruce, Hon. A. H. A. Cooper, Lord Vis-
count Northland, the Marquis of Granby, lion. H. B. Lygon,
and John Young, Tories; Hon. C. IN. D. Dundas, Hon. J.
G. C. F. Strangways, Richard Walker, the Earl of Surrey,
and Charles Standish, Liberals.-6 Tories, and 5 Liberals.
Mr. SHAW asked a question as to the intention of the Go-
vernment, in regard to the Royal Hospital, Dublin, to which
Lord HOWICK made a reply, which was quite inaudible
in the Gallery.
MR. O'CONNELL.—TORY COMMITTEES.

Lord MAIDSTONE said he was sorry not to sec the Hon.
aid Learned Member for Dublin in his place, as he wished
to put a question relative to something which the Hon. and
Learned Member had been represented as having uttered at
the dinner given to him last evening at the Crown and
Anchor regarding Election Committees of that House, and
be (Lord M.) hoped the Hon. and Learned Member would
afford hint an early opportunity of putting the question.__
(Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.)
IRISH GRAND JURIES.

Colonel VERNER moved for leave to bring in a Bill
empowering the foreman, or any other member of Grand
Juries in Ireland, to administer oaths to witnesses on bills of
indictment.—( Hear, hear.) He had communicated his
intention of introducing this Bill to the Right Honour-
able Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, and
he had instructed him to say that it met with his entire approval,
and that it should have his full co-operation in endeavouring
to pass it through that House. Under those circumstances,
and anticipating that there would be no opposition to the Bill,
it was unnecessary for him to do more than to move for leave
to bring it in ; but if any Hon. Member wished for farther
explanations upon his part respecting the Bill, he should be
happy to enter more fully into details.
After a few words from Lord MORPETH, approving of
the measure, leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Lord MAIDSTONE gave notice of his intention of put-
ting to-morrow the question to Mr. O'Connell which he
had before alluded to, relative to the speech of that
lion. Member at the Crown and Anchor..--(Loud cries of
.4 llear, hear," from the Opposition benches.)
FRENCH CLAIMS.

Mr. MACKINNON rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had given notice, relative to the claims of Mr. Darcy
Talbot, on the French Compensation Fund. On a former
occasion, he had an opportunity of expressing his senti-
ments fully on this subject. It was not his inten-
tion to detain the House by entering at any length
into the merits of the case; but he would observe that
it was by no means a question of a political nature, and the only
object he ( Mr. M'Kinnon) had in view in bringing it forward was
to obtain justice for the individual in question. As several Hon.
Members now present were not in the House when he
brought the subject forward last Session, he should endeavcur,
in a few words, to state the claims which Mr. Darcy Talbot
had upon the consideration of the House.—(Cries of Hear.)
In 1793, the French Government had confiscated all the Bri-
tish property in France, and in 1815, in pursuance of a treaty, it
was stipulated that the claims of British subjects which could be
substantiated should be compensated. For that purpose a
certain number of Commissioners were named in Paris and
London to take the matter into consideration, and at a sub-
sequent period it was deemed advisable that a sum of money
should be granted for the purpose of liquidating those claims.
In consequence of circumstances, which it was unnecessary
now to refer to, Mr. Talbot was unable to bring forward
evidence in support of his 'claims before the Commissioners.
At a subsequent period another Board of Commissioners was
appointed to take into consideration all the claims which, upon
technical objections, had not been considered by the former
Board. To these Commissioners Mr. Talbot applied, and he
was told they would not take Isis claim into tonsiderseion,
unless he signed an agreement to the effect that he would
be satisfied with their award. At first he declined ac-
ceding to this unjust proposal, but being driven by
the exigencies of the case, he was obliged to ac-
cede to their demands and sign the paper. When
they got his signature, they pretended to take his case into
consideration, and paid to Mr. Talbot, not the principal of the
amount to which he was entitled, bat simply the interest.
Now, he ( Mr. Mackinnon) would submit to the House, that if
Mr. Talbot was entitled to the interest of the demand, he was
entitled to the principal also ; and he hoped the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would allow it to go before a Committee
of the House. Independent of these considerations, be
begged to recal to the attention of the House that the
Right lion. Gentleman, when in opposition, was of the opi-
nion which lie (Mr. Mackinnon) now stated, and distinctly gave
' to the House his advice that the claims should be admitted.
The claims of Mr. Talbot were rejected on mere technical
grounds—the Commissioners said they could not entertain them
because his application was made too late. That would have
been a very good answer to the claims, had there been none
of the money received from the French Government remain-
ing unappropriated. But there was a sum of between
200,0001. and 300,000/. in the hands of the Treasury which, if
the House did not interfere, would be appropriated in some
other way.—(Hear, hear, from the Chancellor of the Excise-
quer.) He was glad to hear the cheer of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, and he trusted that it was an augury that he would
grant the Committee which he sought. As this was the last
time this 'object would be brought before the House by
him, it was his intention to take the sense of the House upon
the motion ho should make..---( Hear.) What would be
thought :of a private individual in whose hands a sum of
money had been placed for the purpose of paying off certain
elehts, if that individual pleaded the Statute of Limitations as
a bar to claim, and afterwards pocketed the money ? Such,
however, had been the conduct
of the Government, because
there were between 200,0001. and 300,0001. of that remain-
ing unappropriated. He hoped the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would allow this claim to come under the con-
sideration of a Committee of the House, because in point of
justice, and in point of honourable feeling towards -those
who had been unjustly deprived of their rights, it
was such a claim as the House ought to entertain,

The Hon. Member then moved that a Select Commutes be
appointed for the purpose of trAtino. into consideration the
ciaims on the French Compensation°Fund.
Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL seconded the
motion. _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
lien. Member was in error as to the main point upon which
be dwelt—that there was between 200.000/. and 300 000/1.
of this fund unappropriated; he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) corild give to this statement the most unequivocal
contradiction. The way in %%Melt the matter really rested
was this:—there was a balance of the French Indemnity
Fund which had been applied by the Government of Lord
Liverpool—the Treasury having by law the full disposal
of the funds—towards the erection of a Royal Palace.
Subsequently this appropriation was found to be objec-
tionable, and the money repaid by the Woods and
Forests; and afterwards, first by the Government of the
Duke of Wellington, and then by a decision of Lord Spencer,
it was appropriated under the sanction of a Judicial Com•
mittere, investigating claims, and deciding upon evidence.
tribunal was appointed for the investigation of these cases,
which was of the nature of a Board of Reference, in order
that the time and resources of the parties might not be wasted
in useless litigation. It consisted of a mercantile gentle-
man conversant with accounts, and two distinguished law-
yers. It was recommended by the Treasury, in order that
their decision should be final, that the same course should be
adopted as was usual in cases of arbitration between gentle-
men—namely, that the parties should all sign a deed of sub-
mission, aerceing, to abide by their award. Now, there was
not one of the claimants who did not sign the deed, not except-
ing even Mr. D'Arcy Talbot himself. No one complained
' of the injustice or hardship of it at the time. When the Hon.
Member brought forward a motion upon this subject last ses-
sion, Mr. D'Arcy Talbot had not informed him of the exist-
ence of this deed, or of its having been signed by him ; and
when he, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, mentioned
the fact to time Ilense, it was deemed perfectly con-
clusive, and the House negatived the motion. Why was
the Honourable Gentleman not informed by Mr. Talbot
that such an instrument had been entered into? The motion
was made in 1837. The agreement was signed in 1836, or in
1335 ; but Mr. Talbot got a gentleman:to bring his case for-
werd in the House of Commons, and yet concealed from that
Hon. Gentleman what was the substance of the case. The
Honourable Gentleman would have the House to believe
that there were unappropriated funds, and that it would
be cruel to exclude Mr. Talbot front them. There were no
unappropriated funds—they were appropriated to parties who
were entitled to claim under the minutes. He rested his ob-
jections on these grounds. The gentleman had been twice
heard ; he had been heard before a Committee appointed ex-
pressly to consider his case; that Committee determined against
him. He signed a paper agreeing to be bound by their decision,
and to consider it as final ; and yet, contrary to that decision,
he now appealed to the House. He trusted the House would
put a decided negative on the motion.
Mr. PR AE D considered the explanation of the Right lion'
the Chancellor of the Exchequer very unsatisfactory. lie
could not conceive any case where a party could be entitled
to the interest upon a debt, and not to the principal.
He confessed, also, that ho would like to see some evidence
as to the circumstances under which the agreement signed by
Mr. Talbot was obtained front him.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
such agreement was not a singular one in the case of Mr'
Talbot—it was enforced by the Commissioners in the terms
of the Treasury Commission under which they acted, from
every claimant.
Mr. MACKINNON said that for the reason he had for-
merly given he would divide the House upon his motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion 52
. .
Against it lOl
Majority against Mr. Mackinnon's motion
SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND.)
Upon our re-entering the Gallery we found—
Colonel CONOLL Y moving for leave to brine. in
11
Bill for the protection of the Salmon Fisheries of Ireland.
By the former Act, 4th Geo. IV., the police were prevented
from affording any assistance in the cases of Irish fisheries.
Now the object of this Bill was to enable the police
to detain the parties arrested for offences against the Act
in custody until they found sufficient bail, as by the
enactment the only remedy was a distress to levy the fin°
imposed, which often led to disturbances. The object of the se-
cond clause of the Bill was to prevent the destruction of salmon,
tie
until they came within the boundaries of the several proper s
which enjoyed the right of the fishery by charter or otherwize.
The benefit which would result from the clause was manifest,
as it was well known that extensive depredations had been
com-
mitted on the north and west coasts of Ireland, and he
former
had suffered largely by them. These were the main securds,_l!
which he proposed to establish by the Bill—the other ch!ns_e:
were merely subsidiary to them. He hoped that lie had
tisfied the House of the necessity of the measure, and that thea,
would now permit him to bring in the Bill.
Lord MORPETH did not mean then to offer any °Pt;
position to the motion, nor did he intend to discuss the men
of the measure. It was certainly desirable that the salmon
fishing of Ireland should receive protection in the se,"
manner as that of Scotland, legislation on which subject
was then going on.—( Hear, hear.) He was glad to see that
provision which prohibited the police from being gatne or fish-
keepers.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROCHE was of opinion that the Bill would prove a
great benefit to Ireland.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to call the attention
of the Honourable Member for 'Donegal to the opposition
lie was likely to receive from the mercantile interests,
unless in his Bill lie steered clear of their interests in such
rivers as the Liffey.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQMER
the slightest intention of opposing the Bill ; on the contra9';
he was glad the subject was brought under the notico
of the House.—( Hear, hear.) As it would be a matter
considerable detail, he would suggest to the Honoura.ifil
and Gallant Member, whether it would not be better to re cr
it to a Select Committee. bad not
After a few words in reply from Colonel CONOLLY, leave
was given to bring in the Bill.
BARON DE BODE'S CLAIMS. call
Mr. WARBURTON then rose, pursuant to notice, toßo
the attention of the llouse, to the petition of Baron de
do
d!
and Robert Bruce, which he had presented to the House
a former occasion, relative to their claims on the French. I_
demnity Fund. He intended to move that a Select Commttcn
he appointed for the purpose of inquiring into these elai.n!
The Committee which had investigated this subject on a for-
mer occasion had recommended that this course should be
adopted. The Hon. Member then entered into a lengthocu
statement of the facts and circumstances of the case
which had been brought forward in succession by Mr. Little-
ton, Lord Stanley, Mr. Ilill, of Hull (the latter during t"
sessions), and Mr. Gisborne. The Committee formerly al)":
pointed had recommended the Baron to bring forward proofs
In support of his claims, which had led him into an expends"
ture of not much less than three thousand pounds. The father
of the Baron was a German Nobleman, who had held a com-
mand of cavalry in the French service, had emigrated to
England, and married an heiress—a lady of distinguished fa-
mily in Staffordshire—and had invested the greater part of lair
fortune in the purchase of a fief in Alsace. When the French
Revolution broke out the Baron's father, to evade the effect
of the decree for the abolition of feudal tenures, adopted the
practice resorted to by many, of making out a deed of gift to
the next heir male (the present Baron), which he executed in
the most formal manner in open Court, the documents proving
which had been laid before the Select Committee of the House
of Commons. The Baron's father emigrated from Alsace in
1793. with all his family, to Russia, and died in 1797. The
abandonment of his domicile was considered sufficient legal

proof to warrant the seizure of the property, and the revolution-
ary authorities immediately took possession, and confiscated it
accordingly. The present Baron (who was born in F,ngland)had
the command of the Russian troops on the march to Paris in 1814,
when he heard of the convention promulgated for the benefit
of British subjects "unduly confiscated subsequent to the Ist
of January, 1793," and hastened to lay his claims before the
French Minister for Foreign Affairs (the Duke de Richelieu).
Various difficulties were thrown in the way of recognition of
the Baron's right as a British subject, and it was not till the
establishment of the British Commission, in 1816, that his
name was decidedly placed on the list for compensation, but
it was not till the 23d of August, 1821, that lie received lull
communication from the Commissioners respecting the nature
of the proofs they would receive to enable him to substantiato
his claims. He then found that a special objection was taken
Al"
to his case, as it was alleged that his father's property in l
sacs did not come within the apeeification of ,‘British pro-
perty unduly confiscated subsequent to the Ist of January,
1793," although the decree of the Convention against that
description of property was dated the 10th of October, 1793"
At the time the Commissioners rejected the claim of 13arloins
de Bode it appeared that tile Baron himself was out of ir
country, and no opportunity was given him to explain ,
re°u
contradict the evidence adduced against him. It appe
that papers, of the utmost importance to the Baron de De"' f
claim, had been abstracted from amongst the official papers of
the Commissioners, and given to the Chancellor of the Ex-
el.equer at the time. Nothing could be more like tampering..
with justice than the loss of those papers in the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's Office.
The CHANCELLOR of the li,XCHEQUER said that
it might be seen from the statement of the Hon. Gentleman
and the dates he had mentioned that the loss of the papers
took place in the time that Earl Spencer was Chancellor or
the Exchequer, and that the transaction applied to his Lord-
ship's office; whereas it was to him (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) that it applied, bat it was when he was Secre-
tary to the Treasury.
Mr. WARBURTON did not intend to apply personal
blame to any one; liut he should wish to have those papers
produced which the Committee called for, but which never
could be brought forward. He (Mr. Warburton) considered
that the Baron was entitled to have his claims fairly argued
before a proper legal tribunal. With respect to the amount
claimed he would say no more than that Mr. Finlayion, the
actuary, had made a calculation that about 300,000/. was the
sum. The lion. Member then moved for a " Select Com-
mittee to inquire further into the case of the Baren de Bode."
Mr. HAVES seconded the motion.
Mr. RICH rose to oppose the motion. He cams forward
on the present occasion in consequence of his having taken all
active
part in the investigations respecting the French Corpen-
action Fund, and could state to the House that two hundred
and fifty persons had proved their right to compensation under
that fund, and who had not yet had. the benefit of the award,
iii consequence of the constant repetition of claims for further
inquiry, as well as about 530 others, going as far back as 1820,
who would still be kept, owing to similar praceedings, out of
their just rights. After some further observations of a similar
nature, the Hon. Member stated, that the main fact of the case

was whether the Baron had a claim upon this country or not,
either for property confiscated, or as having a vested right in
such property. His answer to this was, that the Baron de
Bode was not an Englishman, that he was never in possession
of the property, and that his interet is it had ceased four years
previously to the pausing of the Act.
Mr. WARD supported the motion, and contended that
the claim of the Baron do Bode was just as well founded as
that of the Duke of Richmond.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
there never was a more extraordinary case than the present,
tier more unfounded in point of either right or justice. This
claim was first admitted in 1819. The Baron de Bode was
then called on to support it with evidence, but, not being pre-
pared to do so, time was given him to collect the necessary
proofs. He had after lie had failed in other respects brought
his case before the Privy Council, the highest tribunal
known this country, and that tribunal had decided against
hint. lie certainly had applied to be allowed to bring for-
ward additional evidence, and he was refused to be allowed
to do so.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. Ward.) Why, surely no
person conversant with the principles on which our judicature
was founded could attempt to say that it would not be most
unjust, and a departure from all practice, to allow new evi-
dence to be brought forward in a Court of Appeal, or to ad-
mit any evidence which had not been before the Court of the
first instance, wheso decision was appealed from. Lord
Stowell, whose great knowledge of international law no one
would atterapt to dispute, presided when judgment was givers
in the appeal before the Privy Council, and that eminent in-
dividual, in pronouncing judgment, said that Baron de Bode
appeared to have been so much excited by this subject that he
seemed to labour under a strange delusion. The award of
The Privy Council took place in 1822. The Baron de Bode
attempted a re-hearing, which was refused. Ho was cer-
tainly bound to say that this refusal was not founded on the
merits of the case, but upon the fact that. the Privy Council
had not the power to grant a re-hearing. It was after this de-
cision that the Baron de Bode first appealed to Parliament,
end his first trial of the House of Commons took place twelve
years ago, when the case was brought forward by Mr. Little-
ton, who was well known to be both a personal and political
friend of the late Mr. Canning. Mr. Canning en that occasion
opposed the motion, and disallowed the claim. In 1834 a Com-
mittee was granted, and before this Committee the Baron de
Bode had the advantage of able Counsel ; and that Committee
having sat for three months they had agreed to a Report that
there had not been evidence before them sufficient to support
the case, and they suggested that further evidence ought to be
produced; and they recommended that the Committee should
be revived in the next Session of Parliament. In the begin-
ning of the Session of 1835 a motion fur the appointment of a
Committee was brought forward, and the House was counted
out. In fact it appeared that the House had tacitly voted the
case to be a bore. Subsequently in that Session the motion
was renewed, and lost by a majority of 177 to 59, and the
House determined not to re-open the case. Tho Right Hon.
Gentleman proceeded to read a letter from the Baron de Bodo
addressed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in which,
with much minuteness of circumstantial detail, the Baron do
Bode described an interview which lie had had with Mr. Fin-
layson, the Actuary of the National Debt, whom he repre-
sentedas describing himself on terms of great familiarity with
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who had estimated his
claims upon Government at 300,0001. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman also had a letter from Mr. Finlayson, giving a direct con-
tradiction to the Baron's statement as respected him, and stating
that his accidental acquaintance with the Baron do Bode arose
from his having interested himself in behalf of an unfortunate
Italian, whose ruin the Baron had occasioned by involving him
in securities far beyond his means. He had now bat few words
to say. The Hon. Gentleman had thought proper to indulge
in some inuendoes against bins. (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer). He had suggested that Government was guilty of
some fraud in withdrawing certain documents from the evi-
dence. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wondered how
the Hon. Gentleman could deal so lightly with personal re-
spectability as to insinuate against one whom he had known
for twenty years a charge which he would not have dared to
make directly.—(Hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON explained that the tampering with
justice of which he complained was the withdrawal of the do-
cuments by the Commissioners.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was ex-
tremely happy to hear this explanation, but he could assure
the lion. Gentleman, that neither from him nor any one else
'would he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) submit, in the
face of the House of Commons, to imputations of that deserip-
tion.—( Hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman's object was a Com-
mittee, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no objec-
tion ; he would second the motion, but he need not think that
the step now taken was for the first time. He (the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer) hoped that if the lion. Gentleman pro-
posed a vote of money, he would also be prepared to propose
a tax for its payment.
Mr. HUME said that the motion of his Hon. Friend was
not for a grant of money, but for an inquiry as to whether the
claims of the Baron de Bode were just or not. The French
Government had done its duty by appropriating 28,000,000 f.
for the liquidation of this and similar claims, and all that was
now asked by the present motion was an opportunity for the
Baron to prove his claim.
Mr. WARD wished to state thaehe had never taken his
opinion of the case from the statements of the Baron de Bode,
but from those of a very high authority—that of Mr. Wag-
staff, the eminent Barrister. That gentleman stated that lie
had had an interview with Mr. Finlayson, who admitted to
him that he had seen the Baron de Bode, and stated to him
that his estimate of his claim, with interest, was 305,000/.,
and that if he (the Baron) would consent to his (Mr. Fin-
layson's) arbitration he would see the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) It thus appeared
that the statements contained in the Baron's letter were sub-
stantially true.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the Exoneouee
and Mr. WARBURTON, the gallery was cleared for a division,
when there appeared—
For the Motion
Against it
Majority
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then brought forward his motion
for an instruction to the Poor-law Committee to inquire into
the truth of that portion of the third report of the
Poor-law Commissioners which refers to the vicious sys-
tem alleged by them to have been made by the existing
corporations founded under Gilbert's Act, and to report
thereon. Ho had two objects in view in making
this motion. First, ho wished to ascertain whether the
system adopted under the new Act was better than the system
acted upon by the incorporations under Gilbert's Act;
axd
next, to afford the Guardians appointed under Gilbert's Act
an opportunity of submitting the charges which had been
brought against them by the Poor Law Commissioners. The
Guardians under Gilbert's Act, did not wish to have their
Unions dissolved unless they first saw the likelihood of better
being established. The Poor Law Commissioners expressed
a desire to dissolve the unions established under Gilbert's Act
in the West Riding of Yorkshire without the consent of the
Guardians, and charged those Guardians with being corrupt
vicious idiots, and persons of neither education nor ability.
Now, if the inquiry which he proposed were referred to the
Committee sitting up stairs it would be found that the Guar-
dians thus calumniated in the report of the Commissioners, so
far from being what they were described, would, if summoned
from Yorkshire, furnish much useful and practical information
with respect to the working:of the Poor-law system.
Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the instruction,
as the question which it involved came properly under the
consideration of the Committee.
After a few words from Messrs. Hall, Pcchell, Goring,
and Brotherton, the motion was agreed to.
SUNDAY TRADING.
Mr. PLUMPTRE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
the suppression of trading on the Lord's Day, commonly
called Sunday.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE seconded the proposition.
Mr. B. II ALL wished to know whether the Bill was to be
exclusively confined to trading, es he could not agree to any-
thing which might interfere with the rational recreations of
the people ?
Mr. P. HOWARD hoped the Bill would be adapted to the
present state of society.
Captain PECHE LE wished to know whether, like the
measure of Sir A. Agnew, the Bill would i.kerfere with
fishermen or fishing-boats ?
Sir G. STRICKLAND said, as far as it was practicable,
it was desirable to put a stop to Sunday trading, and he hoped
leave would be given to bring in the Bill without every Mem-
ber Tieing in his place to speak upon it.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Sabbath was in no
country so well observed as in England, and be hoped the
Howse would be careful of calumniating the people of
England by unnecessary legislation on the subject.
After a few words from Mr. Chisholm, Mr. Warburton,
and Mr. 13orthwick, leave was given to bring in the Bill.
INTIMIDATION OF VOTERS.
Mr. SLANE Y moved for leave to bring in a Bill to pre.
vent threats or attempts at intimidation to voters, to influence
their votes for Members of Parliament. He did not intend to
make the Bill so severe that it should run counter to the ge-
neral principles of mankind. The Bill declared that intimi-
dation should be a misdemeanour, and the charge of such an
offence would be heard before two Justices of the Peace, or
the parties indicted before the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions.
After being heard before two Magistrates they might still take
their trial, when, if convicted, they would be liable to a fine
of 1001., which, under certain circumstances, might, at the
discretion of the Court, be mitigated to 501. ; and, the more
readily to get at the offending party, lie proposed that the voter
himself should be a witness, and, in ease of conviction, half of
the fine to go to hini.
After a few words from Mr. Warburton, Mr. Howard, Col.
Davies, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Hawes,
Lord J. RUSSELL should suggest that it. might be ad-
visable for the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury ( Mr. Slaney) to
preface his Bill with resolutions affirmed by that House. At
the same time he hoped that the House would not, by reject-
ing the first reading, give their countenance to the opinion
that they would net entertain a measure for the suppression of
intimidation.
Mr. SC ARL ETT thought that the protection for the voters
was most necessary at the polling places.
Sir G. STRICKLAND should vote for leave to bring in
the Bill.
Mr. JERVIS should vote fur, etting rid of the Bill alto-
gether, as bethought there was no way of suppressing intimi-
dation but by secret voting.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the Bill ought to be brought in, and not pronounced as worth-
less until the remedy it proposed was proved to be inefficient.
After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON and Mr. GILLON,
Mr. FORBES suggested that the Bill should have a
clause introduced to protect voters from intimidation by blows.
(Laughter.)
Mr. GORING opposed the:Bill.

Mr. JAMES should oppose the introduction of the Bill,
because it was a complete delusion of the public.
Colonel SIBT HORP said that unless the Bill contained a
clause to prevent intimidation within the walls of the House
as well as without it would be ineffective. He alluded to the
reports current as to the conduct of the heads of the Govern-
ment towards several of their subcrdinates in the recent divi-
sion on the Ballot question.
Sir G. SINCL AIR should oppose the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the Hon, Mem-
ber for Shrewsbury would be very hardly dealt with if leave
were not given to bring in the Bill. He (the Attorney-
General) did not agree with the details of the Bill, but still he
thought that it was entitled to a fair discussion.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK would oppose the intro-
duction of the Bill, because he thought it unnecessary and
futile.
The House then divided, and there appeared—
For the Bill 5O
Against it
Majority —27
CALL OF THE HOUSE.
Sir WM. MOLE SWORTH moved that the House be
called over on Tuesday, the 6th of March. It had been im-
puted to him in various quarters that he had not been serious
in giving notice of the motion he had on the books, respecting
the removal of the Colonial Secretary; because, as he had at
one time been one of the most steadfast supporters of her Ma-
jesty's Government, he would not be supposed now to have
any view of risking its stability. But he begged to say to
those who imputed this to him that he was totally indifferent
to the stability of any Government which had at its head the
Noble Lord the Member for Stroud. Ever since the speech
of that Noble Lord at the beginning; of the Session, he (Sir
W. Molcsworth) had been as indifferent to the fate of the
Ministry as he was to that of the Grand Turk or the Emperor
of China. The object of his motion was to relieve the Co-
lonies from an imbecile Administration, and, so far as any
party question was involved, to exhibit to the House and the
country how many Members—Whigs, Radicals, and Tories,
would be found prepared to negative a measure of such great
importance, which every one of them in their conscience knew
to be true.—(oh, oh.)
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
Agreed to.

ROXBURGH ELECTION.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved that the poll-books
produced before the Roxburgh election Committee be laid
upon the table of the House, and that the Sheriff Clerk be
discharged from further attendance.—Agreed to.
Sir C. DOUGLAS gave notice, that after the Select
Committee now sitting upon the Poor-law Amendment Act
shall have made their report, in ease it shall not recommend
any alteration of the Regulations which, under the present
powers of the Commissioners, exist with regard to the abso-
lute refusual of out-door relief in money ; the quality of the
food given in the workhouses; and the separaticn of the sexes;
he would move " that it is expedient that those powers should
be taken into consideration by this House, with a view to their
modification."
On the motion of Mr. PRINGLE, leave of absence was
granted to Sir W. Rae and Lord Ramsey respectively, for a
month each.
The House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'Clock.

THE WORKING MEN'S ASSOCIA

TION TO MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR.

SIR,-In the Northern Star of last week you were pleased
to make an unprovoked attack on our Association. Alluding
to the appeals that have,been made to the House of Commons
on behalf of the unfortunate cotton-spinners, you said that
" the first step in this deadly course was taken by the Work-
ing Men's Association." And then you proceed to say that
you attended our meeting to point out the fallacy of our
proceeding—and it would seem, because we did not yield
to your dictation, we have grievously offended. Sir, we are
exceedingly obliged for your unusual bit of candour in
specking out the venom of your spleen ; your language has
been hitherto cautiously enigmatical, abounding in inuendos,
wishing by the hacknicd phrase of " Whig-Malthusian,"
" working-class coadjutors," and such like terms, to con-
vey a slanderous meaning ; your courage never till now em-
bodied in plainer language. Now it so happens that you
do not speak truth when you say that the first step in this
" deadly course" (which you arc pleased to call it) was
taken by us; for the Committee of Trade Delegates were
the first to petition Parliament on the subject, and their
motives in that step were doubtless as pure as our own_
that of endeavouring to remit the sentence of the unfortu-
nate men. Indeed, the odious colours in which the press
depicted the proceedings of Glasgow—the horrid recital of
oaths, secrecy, murdering, and fire-raising, said to have been
committed by the Cotton-Spinners' Association, had created
in many of our minds (as we have no doubt it had in those
of thousands) a strong impression of their guilt, until the
trade delegates from Glasgow had fully explained to us the
whole of those horrid charges which were gleaned toge-
ther over a period of twenty years to suit the purposes of
their prosecutors. And we appeal to Messrs. M'Nish, Cuth-
burtson, and Campbell, whether they were not urgent in
their desire that the whole affair should be fully investigated,
in order to prove the innocence of the men, and to remove
the foul calumnies which a corrupt press had fastened on the
Cotton-Spinners' Association; and through them, to a great
extent, on Trades' Unions in general. The feelings which
conscious innocence inspires caused them to court the fullest
inquiry into their affair, and we appeal to every reflecting
mind whether we were wrong in seconding their praiseworthy
exertions. But, Sir, it is your evident intention to impress
the working classes with the belief that the inquiry into
Trades' Unions in general originated with us. So far from
this, we appointed a deputation on the 9th of January. last to
wait on Mr. O'Connell whenever he came to town, to know
his reasons and intentions regarding the inquiry he had threat-
ened to make several weeks previous, so that we might be
prepared to meet any evil arising from a partial inquiry in a
House of Commons constituted like the present. Indeed, as
most of us are members of Trade Unions, we have the mo-
tives of self-preservation to be tremulously alive to every cir-
cumstance that may in any way injure or impair the usefulness
of Trade Societies. But when the black charges of conspiracy
and murder arc made against a Trade Society, and when the
lives of five men are jeopardized by prejudiced public feelings,
we think it little serves the purposes of justice or humanity to
shrink, or advise shrinking from that investigation which
would serve to dispel the one, and save the other from destruc-
tion. Sir, you might have beat the big drum of your own
vanity till you grew sick of its music, and revelled in your own
selfish idolatry, till commonsense taught your audience that
the sacrifice was greater than the benefit, had you been pleased
to excuse us from worshipping at your altar. But no, your
own vain self must be supreme—you must be " the leader of
the people," and from the first moment that we resolved to
form an Association of working men, and called upon them
to manage their own affairs, and dispense with leadership of
every description, we have had you, and patriots of your feel-
ings, continually in arms against us.
You have made three or four attempts to get up Associa-
tions in London, where you might be " the leader"—not
brooking that; working men should dare presume to think
of principles, instead of public idols. You have failed in
all your attempts. You have christened public meetings as
" great associations" to suit your purpose—you have dubbed
yourself " the missionary of all the Radicals of London," your
constituents being your own presumptuous boastings—you are
" the founder of Radical Associations ;" Heaven save our igno-
rance !—or blot out the memory of Cartwright, Hunt, and Cob-
bctt—you tell the country that you alone have organized the
Radicals of London—and tell the Londoners the wonders
your genius has performed in the country—you carry your
fame about with you on all occasions, to sink all other topics
in the shade—you;are the great " I All" of politics, the great
personification of Radicilism, Fergus O'Connor. Could self
idolatry do more without blushing than you did in your paper
of last week ? The mechanics of London met to hear the
statements of the Glasgow delegates—their eloquent and
pathetic talc annihilated the prejudices formed by a corrupt
press—you intruded yourself on that meeting in opposiiioa to
a resolution that none but members of Trade Societies should
speak. In your expressly wade report, your sympathy to the
cotton.spinners gave about a dozen lines of what all others
said, and about three columns of your own speech—whole
sentences in which, by the bye, you had not the courage to
speak, though you had the vanity to insert them in your paper.
We beg to remind you that these sentiments have been
called forth by your slanderous attack on us; you, would have
it believed to our prejudice that we have been neglectful of the
interests of working men, because we choose another path
from yours. But time will show, and circumstances soon
determine, who are the real friends ; whether they are " the
leaders of the people," who make furious appeals to their
passions, threatening with fire and sword—or those who seek
to unite them upon principles of knowledge and temperance,
and the management of their own affairs.
We remain, Sir, your obedient servants, the Members of the
Working Men's Association.
Signed by the Committee in their behalf,
WILLIAM ISAAC S, type founder.
JOHN CLEAVE, bookseller.
EDWARD THOMAS, warehouseman.
HENRY MITCHELL, turner.
RICHARD CAMERON, brace-maker.
JAMES LAWRENCE, painter.
THOMAS IRELAND, warehouseman.
JOHN ROGERS, tailor.
WM. DIXON, surgical instrument-maker.
JAMES JENLINSON, engraver.
ARTHUR DY S ON, compositor.
ROBERT HARTWELL, compositor.
HENRY HETHERINGTON, Treasurer.
WM. LOVETT, Secretary, 6, Upper North
place, Gray's Inn-road.