The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-04 00:00:00

EVENING-, JULY 4, 1949.

not. He would come next to the vote by ballot. With
the present constituency he was opposed to thl ballot,
although, to avoid the charge of inconsistency, he had
voted for it. He now came to the most im7ortant of all

—equal electoral districts. He held in his haul a digest
of the several cities, towns, and borot“hs in E :t land.

An HoN. MEMBER here moved that the House be
counted, but there being more than forty Members pre-
sent
the gallery was again opened.
Mr. O'CONNOR was reading an analysis of the re-
presentation, showing its inequalitier. He wished to
know whether they would stop in the present stage of
progress? He came now to no property qualificatifin.
They had fifty-three Members for Seotlanl, the Mem-
bers for the Universities, and the prodigal sons of
Peers, all without the property qualification; and what
right kad they to insist upon the property qualification
in other Members? No man could vote for a M-mber

without a qualification for those very Members who
were admitted to that 'louse without a qualification.
Could anything be more absurd? He now came to the
last of his propositions. the payment of Members.
Twenty-six Members sitting on the bench opposite re
ceived as much per annum as would qualify the whole
requisite number of Members. lie had alluded to the
six points, and advocated the Charter, because he be-
lieved that with it as law there would be neither idle la-•

bur, idle land, or idle money.—(Hear.) He believed
that the working classes were tit for the suffrage, and if
they obtained it they would use it properly.—(Hear.)
If ever this country should be driven to a physical revo-
lution, the press of this country would be answerable
for it. In his opinion the laws of the country should be
ever leaning to mercy, but they had so framed their le-
gislation in that House, that they placed the oth,r
classes in antagonism to the working classes. He had
now proposed his measures, and the proposition coming
from one who had been prosecuted fur advocaticg these

measures, he felt that they might have been brought for-
ward with a greater chance of success had they been pro-
posed by any other Hon. Member. He would conclude
with saying that he should ever be for the People's
Charter, and no surrender.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD seconded the motion.
Colonel TEIOMPSON said, as one of those who was
concerned in the modern origin of the Charter, he

thought he should be entitled to blame if he suffered
this motio❑ to pass without expressing his opinion. As
to annual Parliaments, he was in favour of annual Par-

Laments, on the principle that merchants balanced their
books at Christmas.—(Hear, hear.) But as to one prin-

eiple advocated by the Hon. Gentleman, that of the pay-
ment of Members, he begged to say that that was no

child of the modern auth-Ors of the Charter, and be, for

one, was opposed to it. He was in favour of vote by
ballot and the extension of the suffrage, and he should

vote in favour of the Hon. Member's motion.
Mr. HUME thought that reforms, to be efficien
ought to be in accordance with the feelings of the coup.
try, and it was on that ground that he was opposed to
the Chartists. He could not, however, understand what
odium the Hon. Member could be subject to, as he said
he was, for advocating the principles he had put forth.
The standing toast of the Fox party and of the Whigs
for years had been, " That the people were the source
of all legitimate power." And he could not, therefore,
he repeated it, understand how the Hon. Member could
be subject to any odium for advocating the principles he
had enunciated. He would, therefore, support the Hon.
Member's motion upon general grounds, and I,e thought
the time would come when the Government would see
the necessity of altering the constitution of that House.
—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the working classes,
if fairly treated, would be found to be reasonable, and it
was lamentable that the men to whom this country owed
so much—the artizans—should be deprived of those
rights to which they were entitled. These men had be•
come Chartists from a conviction that justice had not
been done them, and he was anxious that the Govern-
ment should so act towards them as to make them as
satisfied with their condition as they were now discon.
tented.—(Hear, hear.) He asked the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell) to do that which he had often advocated—to
do justice to the working classes, and to place them in
the possession of those rights to which they were justly
entitled.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MORGANI J. O'CONNELL could not vote for
the abstract proposition of the Hon. Member for Not-
tingham, and which the Gallant Colonel and the Hon.
Member who had just sat down had stated should receive
their support. For his own pat, there were only two
of the principles involved in the, motion to which he
could give his support, namely—the abolition of a pro-
perty qualification, and vote by ballot. lie was of opinion,
however, that there should be a large extension of the
franchise; and considering the unsettled state of the
continent, it would be wise that the earliest opportunity
should be taken to give a large body of the people, who
were now excluded, the possession of the elective fran-
chise.—(Hear, hear.) He was ready to admit that the
Reform Bill, when it was introduced, was a large mea-
sure, but he thought it was unfortunate that a large and
valuable portion of the community—the working classes
—had been shut out of its operation; and he would ven-
ture to express a hope that the Noble Lord would ac-
quire the additional lustre of so extending the franchise
as to include that valuable class to which he had alluded
within its provisions —(Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. THOMPSON said, in mingling with his fel-
low-citizens out of doors, he found that a remarkable
change was going on among them, while in that House,
on the contrary, every disposition was shown to narrow
the rights of the people. From the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell) nothing, he believed, was to be expected.
Every declaration he made of resisting every attempt to
widen the basis of representation was loudly approved
of by the great body of Hon. Members, and it seemed
but too certain that the Noble Lord was resolved to
abide by his declaration of November, 1837. that it was
his determination to abide by the H form Bill of 1832.
There was no country in the world in which the suffrage
could be extended with more safety than in this coun-
try.—(Hear, hear.) The people of England are not,
in the United States, scattered in different localities, but
are united together in their different callings, and arc
anxious for their rights, which the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. F. ca'Connor) implies. He would call
the LVention of the House to the monstrous anomalies
in the representative system, and would refer to the
Tower Hamlets, which contains 419,730 persons, and
which sends only two Members to Parliament, while 65
English towns, containing only 419,259 inhabitants, send
93 Members to the House. Again, he would call the
attention of the House to the many boroughs where cor-
ruption prevails, in consequence of which he saw the
same Members returned at every election. This, he
considered, would be put an end to if the people had
those rights which the motion of the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. F. O'Connor) contended for. He recollected that
the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) advoeate:+, in 1841,
the necessity of suppressing corruption, and he consi-
dered that the same opposition to so vile a practice was
es requisite now as then. He felt fully assured that
there are among the people of England many who would
be fit and, proper to sit in that House, and would be
worthy of the interests and affections of the people, for
many of those men are most intelligent, and deemed fit
to be entrusted by their employers with their property
to a very large amount. He would contrast Manchester
and the other towns of England, that had been enfran-
chised by the Reform Bill, with Bury, Harwich, Hors-
ham, and Lyme Regis, which had been the cause of lay
ing on the table of the House piles of volumes, which
were not characteristic of the rights of the people, and
which tend to show the state of the country. lie should,
therefore, support the resolution, hoping that it would
obtain the majority of the House.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that he considered that the
motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, (Mr. F.
O'Connor), was not based on any distinct grounds. but
was mere abstract, and theoretical. When the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor), said that the interests of la-
bour were sacred, he did not mean to oppose that axiom,
bathe did not see how his motion would advance the inte-
rests of labour. lie should, therefore, oppose the motion,
because he did not think that it would tend to the be-
nefit of the people, or of the constitution.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that the lion. Gentleman
(Mr. F. O'Connor) had referred to his name, as having
been attached to the People's Charter. Of 01 tt act he
should say that ho was proud, because he believed that
the true principles of the Constitution were contained in
that document. He considered that the interests of the
people were not fairly represented in that House, and
also that further reform was requisite. He should,
however, say that he would be glad if the Government
would give them an instalment of the modification of
reform, such as the extension of the suffrage, it would
be most acceptable. He should, therefore, support the
motion.

Sir G. STRICKLAND said that, as an honest man,
he could not coincide with the Hon. Member (Mr. F.
O'Connor), though ho agreed with the Honouraule
Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). It was because he
felt embarrassed in consequence of his formor vote on
the motion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) that he
arose to speak, and he therefore felt it his duty to op-
pose this motion. He thought the ballot would be an
admirable ingredient in the system of representation;
but though he was anxious for an extension of the
franchise, he could not consistently vote for the motion.
Mr. W. J. FOX said it was objected to this motion
that it was abstract proposition, and would tie down the
House from modifying it. It was only an abstract ques
tion, as was every general proposition. He regarded
the motion as an assertion of the right of representation,
which was the great principle of the British Consti-
tution. To show how tar this principle was carried
out, he would refer to a paper moved for by the Hon.
Member for Marylebone, which gave the population
and the number of voters in the various cities and bo-
roughs returning Members to Parliament. He would
take two groups of boroughs from that piper. Taking the
first fourteen boroughs which returned 20 members, and
the last nine boroughs in the list, which also returned 20
members. In the first group each member was returned
by 172 electors out of a population of 3'366; and in the
next group each member was returned by 7,083 electors
out of a population of 107,824. Unequal as this was
with regard to persons, it was equally so with respec,
to property. It appeared that the diff•rence of property
r,presented was as between 6,200,00iL and 78.000/
He advocated a change in the representation, in ,;rder to
make the people satisfied and contented, to remove the se
gross inequalities, and to remove just grounds of com-
plaint.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that on a former occa-
sion he had slated his views upon this question, and he
would not have thought it necessary to address the
Hous' but for di,. allusion which had been made to his
opieions. The Member for the Tower Hamlets said
that he would resist every effort which might be made
to effect Parliamentary reform. That was not a fair re-
presentation of his conduct. The llon. N.l,•mber r.
to a sw-ech wheti he made in the year 1837. When in
that year he, as the organ of the Government, br ueht
forward the Reform Bill, the in,roductio.. of that mel•
sure excited great enthusiasm among the people, wed
great plum in the minds of others who were not
!aveurahle to the Bill, who were determined to upset
it. There were others who, although favour-
able to a reform in Parliament, entertained

apprehensions of more extensive democratic changes.
Those parties put the question to Lard Grey. NNho was
the htal of the Government, which was also put to Lird
Althorp, the representative of the Government in the
llJuse of Commons, " whether this was to be the com-
mencement of other measures, calculated to destroy the

entire system or ropreseatation, or whether thil Bill then
introduced was that upon which they meant to stand ?"
Lord Grey, speaking in the name of the Government,
gave an assurance upon these interrogatories that Go-
vernment had no ulterior objects beyond the Bill then

beought forward. Upon this assurance many persons,
who would otherwise have been oppi,6ed to the Bill. give
their adherence to the Government and enabled !hem to

carry that tnevure Into effect. Some five years atter.
wards he (Lord John Russell) was asked to ove his con-
sent to an entirely new scheme of representation, when
he stated that though there might be defec's in the Re.
form Bill, he was n)t prepared so soon after the passing
of that measure to propose a new scheme; but that a
time might conic when public opinion midit d-mat,d an
alteration, based upon the principles of that Bill, which
should receive his best consi;ter,tion, and to _ which

he could give his consent. The HonOurablo Member
said, that by that declaration he had precluded him
aelf from supv)rting any rneaitire or reform. He after-
wards wrote a letter to his constitu.nts, in which he

stated that he vras not oppoiud to giving greater erasion
to the political privilegi-s of the working clasps. and
that aoy m,asure of tuat kiwi, duly matured, would
meet hi 3 c ,n,ideration.—(liear, hear.) He had hue')
now for 30 years connected with the cause of reform in
Parliament, and he would now state his opinions on the
motion when the Hon. Mt-unber for Moutrose brought

forward his motion, which he considered rather obscure.
lie then thought it was a step which would tend to the
six points of the Charter. He was not, therefore, sur-
prised that the Hon. Member should support this motion.
The Hon. Member for Nottingham lays it down that the
people are the legitimate source of power, and that the
labourer was entitled to the first fruits of his lab Our.
The labourer receives his wages for which he contracts,
and there the matter ends. There was an opinion which
prevailed in France. and which might still prevail there,
that no capitalists should enjoy undivided property. but
that every man who was engaged in tla: undertaking
should participate in thn profits. If the Honourable
Member meant that, he would at once declare he
would not consent to it. The Honourable Mem-

bar snid that taxation witk)ut representatio❑ was

tyranny; if he said that b,,cause a man had not a vote,
ho would not agree to ir. That system of representation
which was most for the benefit of the people was the
best, and should not be rejected upon abstract principles.
The Member for Montrose said that every man who had
not a vote was a slave. He did not agree with that opi-
nion. He often heard the boast made, and that by the
people of this c.,untry, that he was a free- born English-
man, but he never understood that to mean that he had a
right to vote tor a Member of Parliament. What be-
came of women, if every one who had not a vote was a
slave? It could not be said that they were unfit. Miss
Martineau would surely be competent to vote. The
same objection might be made with regard to serving on
juries, which was limited to a certain amount of pro-
perty, and being deprived of the qualification, it might
be said that a man not entitled *o serve on juries was a
slave, and it might be further extended to the disquali-
fication of being judges, for which certain qualifications
were necessary to be called to the bar, and to have a
legal education. The object of the motion was to
give every man of lull age a vote, but if that was
the case they would enjoy as muchl liberty as they
did at present, as if universal suffrage was the rule. A
House of Commons so elected would not harmonise

with the other parts of the Constitution. The whole
constitution depended upon a moderate exercise of the
privileges of every part. It the Crown exercised its
prerogative capriciously ; if the Lords rejected con-
tinuously Bills sent up from that House; or if the
House of Commons refused the supplies whenever the
will of the House was obstructed, the Constitution would
not last a month. lie would not say there might not
exist another form of Government on its ruins, but they
could not enjoy the temperate liberty which they had
so long possessed.—(Hear) For these reasons he (L trd
John Russell) could not agree to universal suffrage.
With respect to the equalization of electoral districts,
the proposition of the Hon. alember for Nottingham was
certainly more intelligible than that of the Hun. Mem-.
ber for Montrose. He could understand the division of
the country into districts, each district to have one or
mOre Members; but that it would put an end to thein-
fluence of the aristocracy, who were a bugbear with some
Hon. Members, he did not believe. It considerable pro-
perty possessed by one man or by several, was to have
an influence in a neighbourhood or district, most as-
suredly it would carry elections with universal suffrage
as well ,s with the present mode of election. He did
not, therefore, think it so good a system as th it which
they at present .enjoyed.—(Hear, hear.) The Honour
able Gentleman who spoke last, spoke for the hundredth
time of the discrepancy which existed between the num-
ber of electors in one place and that in others, but there
never was a doubt of that fact. lie (Lord John Russell)
never denied it, but what he did say was that the sys-
tem of representation, though nut of numbers, was more a
representation of the whole community than if they had
districts. If they had the country divided into districts
they would have the Members of many town and country
districts discussing questions which, no doubt, would
acme before them, touching their particular interests.
Very possibly those who at first expected a great de-
mocratic change, would be disappointed, for a Conserva•
Live may be returned. But if they made that great
c',ange in the Constitution, would those who did
so be satisfied?—(Loud cries of Hear, hear.") Why,
they had seen in a neighbouring nation within the last
year that a large majority wasreturned of Conservative
opinions; but did that g:ve satisfact!on, or did the mino-
rity sit down c eitenteo ?—(Hear, hear.) They brought
their question before the Assembly, and afterwards laid
plots to carry destruction through the streets te Paris,
and to obtain by force what they could not otherwise
get.—(llear, hear.) These were the results of the doc-
trine of universal suffrage, and also that which held that
the working classes should be ale aye in a state of pros-
perity; that the order of society ought to be so managed
that manufacturing industry should be. so restricted to
the exact necessities of the world, so that the supply
could never exceed the demand. They were disap-
vented, and then some 30.000 men went into the streets
of Paris prepared to sacrifice their lives. For his own
part he did not think that the people of this country, who
were called slaves by some H -n. Gentlemen, that what
they possessed was so trifling as to induce them to run a
risk. Feeling this, he was prepared to resist the pre-
sent motion, hut at the same time he believed that it
would be for the advantage of the country if a greater
number of the working classes were possessed of the
suffrage, if that could be done without a sacrifice of
their Constitution. He should, therefore, oppose the
proposition of the lion. Gentleman, feeling that it
would tend to the greatest evils, and deprive them of the
enjoyment of benefits which, if parted with, would place
them among the most foolish and unwise nations of the
earth.
Mr. MUNTZ reminded the Noble Lord of the declara-
tion he had made with respect to finality when he was
called " Finality John "—(Laughter)—and asked how
he'd explain that.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he never used the word
finality. The niek-name given him was no doubt a
good one, but he should repeat again that he never used
the word.
Mr. MUNTZ continued—He (Mr. Muntz) had heard
with great pleasure the last declaration made by the
Noble Lord, that he eas prepared to extend the suffrage
to a large portion of the working classes. He, however,
thought the resolution of the lion. Member for Nutting
ham was exceedingly ambiguous and as for making eke-
tims annual, he certainly should give that proposition
his opposition. He was quite ready to extend the suf-
frage, and when that was done he should support the
vote by ballot. As to the elect-Tel districts, it required
very careful consideration; but, as regarded no property
ciu dtheation, it was absolute nonsense.—(Al laugh.) lie
should, however, he regretted to say, be compelled to
vote against the motion, though it cot:t dned much of
what he approved, and which, it not given to the people,
they would take themselves.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR replied, and denied that his reso-
lution was either a Socialist or Communist one, for he
was opposed to both.
The House then divided, when there app, ared—
For the motion...
Against it

Majority ... 209
FRAUDS IN THE SALE OF BREAD.

Mr. BANKS then rose to move " that the House do
resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for
the purpose of consideriog the means of more effectually
preventing frauds in the sale of bread, and also of pro-
viding in the manufacture of bread against the use of
deleterious ingredients in that article." It had been er-
roneously supposed that when he introduced his Bill of
last year he meant to cast some imputistien on the trade
of bakere. Any such intention he disclaimed; but it
would happen iu that, as in other trades, that the hon at
trader would be placed at a disadvantage in the cempe-
tition with those who were of an opposite disposition.
At present the poorer class, s had not that degree of pro-
tection in the purchase of bread to which they were en-
titled The don. and Gallant Member for Brighton had
introduced a Bill on the subject, which, though it Tie
have been a very good Bill for the genteel inhabitants
of Brighton, took away the protection required by the
poorer classes. The Act of 19 Geo. 111.. which formerly
protected the poor man, and the effect of the law now was,
that all bread was sold by weight, though the bek. r was
not limited as to the sista or weight at which he should
make up his loaves. Undoubtedly there was the power
to call on the baker to weigh his bread, and
if it was not of the proper weight, he might be
,
discharged by the rich men;
but how trequ n;ly was
the poor man indebted to his 'baker, and, therefore, did
not dare to exorcise this righte7(llear, hear.) The
lion. M-mber proceeded to read from statements that
had been forwarded to him from various counties, shak-
ing the fraudulent practices which prevail+ d, and the
manner in which the poorer classes were deprived of the
proper weight. The remedy he propo•ed wee, that in.
stead of bakers b .iota allowed to m itiufa&ure bread t f
any weight and size they pleased. they shout l bo required
to make all loaves of a given weight aud stamp then
with the weight they professed to contain. He bad in•
troduced a Bill containing such a provision last year, but
was opposed by the metropolitan Members, and ulti-
mately found that it was doubtful whether such a subject
should not have be-n introduc din a Committee o the
whol - House. That ea* the c.a. se he now proeostel to
teke, and tai move that the House resolve itself into a
Committee to con,ider the paid tnanuf;icture of bread.
It the G;vernment or the law offic, vs of the Crown or
magi tiates of .-zderienen, would tell him that there
was, no necessity for such a measure, he eild gke
up the gees ion. But, however, he might be Ned that
trade is flouriehing and bread cheep, he thought that
protection was required by the poor mate and, therefore
he felt c.instraeiee to urge the quostien upon the
Lion o
if. the House. He found by a case which had taken
that he was asking fur place n Edinburgh last autumn,

On th

eee
nothing impracticable, but that by a clause in the Edin-
buret' l'elice Act, passed last year, all bakers were re-
quired to stamp, in large and distinct figures, the im-
perial weigh; of the losve.s, and failing to do, so were
liable to a fine of 405.; or, if the loaves were deficient in
weight, to a pnalty of 5/. Now, what was good for
Edinburgh was good for London, or Essex, or even for
Brighton. But our northern brethren were ever on the
alert, and had incorporated his proposal with their Police
Act. He could, therefore, no longer be told that the
thing was impracticable, and he trusted we would now
imitate the sagacity of our Scottish brethren. At that
lute hour he would nut detain the House further; but
would c ,ncltrie by moving the House do now resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House on a question
which he had no personal interest in; but one on which
he telt strongly, as involving an act of justice to the
poor.—(Hear, hear.)
Capt. PECHELL said the Hon. Member bad referred
to the Bill which he had intro limed. He had done so
in order to abolish the intolerable evil o the assize sys-
tem, which fermerly placed the baker at the mercy of
the common inf,rmer, and r-nnered it almos• impossible
to carry on the business of a baker. He did not see
how the Hoe. Member could protect the pour any more
thin they were under the present Act, and he had never
seen any peti,ion against it, or heard of any complaints
as to ite working. Ho did not know what the Govern-
ment intended to do in the matter; but he sheaf cer-
tainly advise the Hun. Member, at that late period of the
session, not to press his motion. Fur his own part he
would certainly defend his own Act.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, as the Hon. Member had
b-en precluded last year from bringing in his BLit by an
informality, he was not prepared to oppose his motion.—
(tlear.) At the same time he wished to add that he
believed the present system work,. d well both for the
baker and the public, and he believed that the principle
proposed to be introduced by the Hon. Member would
lead to great contusion and to great opposition
from the master bakers, because it would
expose them to the mercy of common informers,
while in the Inetr.polis, at least, it would net pro-
tect the poor.—(Hear, hear.) He was informed that
the poor did not, in numerous instances, buy whole
leaves but parts of loaves, and of course it would be im-
p ,ssible to stamp the weight upon such portions of
loaves.—(Hear.) He doubted whether the messure of
the Hon. Member would remove the poor from any sub-
serviency to the dealers in provisions to whom they
were indebted, while the respectable masters would find
themselves hampered by it. As to the clause in the
Edinburgh Police Act, it had been introduced withlut
the attention of the House being called to it.—(Hear.)
He certainly was not aware of its existence until the
Hon. Member drew his attentioh to it. lie should agree
to the motion, reserving to himself the power of pur-
snip., the course he might think best.
Mr. PACKE supported the motion, on the ground
that bread was much dearer in the towns than it
ought to be, when the price of wheat was taken into
c,nsideration.
Mr. FOLEY wished to take advantage of the dis-
cussion to call the attention of the Right Hoe. Gen-
eman at the head of the B iard of Trade to the fact

that a great number of persons had been poisoned,
and others made seriously ill, by a miller mixing up
d,..leterious materials with his filur. He thought such
cases proved the necessity for the interference of the
Legislature.

Mr. HE&THCOTE hoped the House would agree to
the Bill, and especially considering the extreme dispro-
portion of prices iu various localities. The press used
formerly to keep a careful waich over this matter, by
showing the difference in various localities, and it it did
so again he tho ,ght it would confer a great public
bens fit. While they had been cutting down the price
and profits ut corn, they had not touched the profits of
the baker. He hoped that, although late in the session,
the Bill would be allowed to be brought in, and receive
the sanction of the House —(Hear, near.)
Sir DE LACY EVANS objected to the measure, for
which he thought no sufficient grounds hal been offered
by the Honourable Member. The insinuation against
the honesty of the bakers was certainly not sufficient
to his mind, and though this %%4 the lion. Member's
hobby at present, he had certainly chosen a very
unpropitious time for bringing it forward. He brought
this Bill in too late in the session. The Honourable
Gentleman who had just addressed the House had
expresed his surprise at the difference of price
in the metropolis ; but was he not aware that
other articles as well as bread varied in price? The
halter would tell him that bread changed its weight,
from being exposed to the air, and other causes, and
unless he took care that it was heavier in weight when
he put it into the (N. n than it ought to be, he could not
bs c.-rtain that it was of the proper weight. The bakers
were de,irous that inquiry should be instituted, and
such an inquiry as would satisfy the public. They felt
that there wen no necessity for such an enactment.
Mr. MANGLES said that a greater case of retrogress
sion that, this Bill would be he never heard of. As re'
sp, cte the principle of the Bill, it was just as applicable
to the butcher who sold a bit of meat, or any other
tradesman, as to the baker. He was quite sure his
Right Hon. Friend would not sanction this Bill, as ii
whould let loose a host of informers, and therefore he
should oppose the Bill.—(Divide.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it ... ••• ... 37
Majority
The House then went into Committee, and a resolution
was agreed to upon which to found a Bill.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
POST- OFFICE COMM UNICATIONS WITH
IRELAND,
Mr. KER moved for a StAect Committee to inquire
kilo the expediency of the proposed alterations as re"
girds the transmission of the mails between the south'
we,t of Scotland aid the north of Ireland. He thought
that economy, and the convenience of the public, shoal.,
be the gui to of the Government in making this propose?.
alteration. Ile thought that great injury would ITO'
from adopicg a contrary course,
The CH ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
really did nut know anything which the Committee
could inquire into which had not already been the sob'
jest of inquiry.
Ai'rer seine conversation.
L ird CAS FLEREAGII trusted the Hon. Member
would press his motion to a division. After so WI.;
m mey had been spent on the harbours in question, Po
did not think they ought to he left utterly useless, or
fall into decay, without good reason being assigned. to
Mr. KER said he did not wish to put the House
unnecessary trouble, but as his motion had been 111)•
ported by his Noble Friend, he should divide.
The House then divided, when there appearel--
For the motion
37
Against it „, 44
Maj.‘rity against the motion —7
MINES AND COLLIERIES.
Mr. WYLD obtained leave to bring in a Bill to enable
her Majesty's Secrwary of State to appoint inspectors of
mines and collieries, and for providing the means of pap,
meat for such inspection, which the Hon. Member after
wards brought in.
LYME REGIS ELECTION.
Mr. BUTLER called the attention of the House to the
special report and recommendation of the Lyme Begi•
ci,
Committee of last session, charging John Attwo
Esq., with bribery (then a Member of the House, 09
subs, quently unseated for bribery in his election lel.
Harwich), and moved that the Attorney-General bed s
rected to prosecute Mr. Attwood and his agents for 0.1
alleged cases of bribery and corruption at Lyme ftegio
and Harwich. Mr. Attwood's conduct, he believed, W
calculated to destroy the freedom of election, and, there
fore, he brought forward the present proposition. Se
Attwood, like Mr. Smith O'Brien, had fallen under t •
displeasure of the House, and therefore he had beeepo
public property. His " demoralising generosity" et °its
last Athlone elretion bad been attested in a letter wro,
ten to him (Mr. Bu ler) by the Catholic Bishop of A
phin. Unless a check were put on the system adoet'ii
by Mr. Attwood, they would find English eapitsiiei
contesting Irish elections, and Irish boroughs represeo
by L..nlon milionnaires.—(Laughter.)
Mr. SOMERS seconded the motion.
Major BERESFORD said that he came to the IP-0
under the impression that he should have to defend ',I
present constituents and his late colleague, but he fotifid
that the only matters to be defended were imaginers
charges against an English capitalist, for inveigling sewt;
Milesians from their strongholds—charges founded
the private letters of private individuals. Under
the circumstances of the case, he thought the 11°1161
would be going out of its way to punish an indivicleip
case, and that the Attorney-General would be wrong.,
beginning a prosecution which could only end in failev
He should meet the motion with a direct negative.
Sir G. GREY said that the Committee had not I
commended the prosecution of Mr. Attwood, and raced
they had, he thought that the time which had eisP,l! I
since their report would effectually act as a bar age'''.
the succ as of that prosecution.
Thu Howe thin divided, when there appeared—
For the motion „, 3
Against ...
„, e 46
Majority
••• ••• —43 eel
The other orders were then disposed of, and the rie""
adjoerneu at Ilalepast One o'clock.
ht

Displtelps were received yesterday at the Colooilsr
odic. from the Governors of the West India Coloni'S'd
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 'ot
yesterday. The appeal " Montague v. the Gover°ol,
and Council of Van Diemen's Land" was eonolua
An appeal was heard—" Baja Oodit Punkash Sing
Martinriell and Stacey."

BIRTHS
T--

7.-------
wife ot

..e 30th ult., at 'otterohoe, Bedforshire, the
the Rev. T. H. Roper, of a son.
On the oth ult., at Park-crescent, the wife of C. F.
nett, E-q ,of a son.
On the 30th ult., at Oxford•terrace, Hyde-park, the
of F. Milne, Esq., of a daughter,
itif°
On the 30th ult., at the Vicarage, Pembury, Kent, Oa
of the Rev. Cr. S. Woodgate, of a son.
On the Ist in t., at College-house. Islington, the wife
the Rev. J. Cr. Hetcsch, of a daughter.

DIED
On the 29th ult., John Phillpotts, Esq., of Porthgvvid
Cornwall, for in;my years M.P. for the city of Glocestenols
on the :N1 II nit . at Tavistock terrace, Upper H 11°
Mr. Palin, late of t. hrist's Hospital, aged
On the v.Oth tilt., at Mill-hill, Woolwich, LieuV
Colonel Fr,dei jet: English. Commanding Royal Enginroft,,
At Portland terrace, St. John's-wood, Mr. Richardi
r-cA
London. Printed and Published by MURDO YOu''rti,
No 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sum Office, N....°*01
:-tfond. in the Precinct of the Savoy, in tke CCw'
Aiiddlesex, Wednesday, July 4,1819.