The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-15 00:00:00

Wid not come so well from the Ambassador for Lisbon. If the
_House would not giVe him a Committee, he should perhaps
-rr-tke a motion to exclude Members of the Board of Control
from seats in that House; and, in case Gentlemen paid no at-
tention to waggery, he might succeed in removing the Learned
:factor. •
Mr. ASTELL said, he should vote against the motion. • He
considered the Board of Controul properly constituted.
\lr BUXTON, in explanation, stated,. that the dispatches
to which he alluded were not official, but they came from a
quarter on which he could rely.
The question being then loudly called for, the House
vidcd

Ayes - - - - 88
Noes - - - - 273
Majonty against the Motion - -185
'POLICE OP THE METROPOLIS.
__ ..

-Mr. PEEL, in moving for a Committee on the Police of
the Metropolis, abstained from discussing or even giving an
:opinion upon the subject. lie.trusted that the House would
Lot attribute his forbearance to any thing like insensibility to
the importance of the question ; it was the very paramount
importance of the subject, indeed, and its intimate connexion
4th the criminal jurisprudence of the country, which induced
'Mtn (adverting to the short time he had been in office) to doubt
'ofliis competency to treat it as it might be expected. Any opinion
which he could at present offer to the House must, in the nature
of things, be crude and imperfect ; and the expression of so
utlequal art opinion was the less necessary, when a Committee was
to be appointed for purposes of examination. In 1816, 1817,
And 1818, Committees had sat upon the state of our police ;'
those Committees had collected much valuable information,
-out they had concluded their reports by a recommendation
-of further inquiry ; and, in • compliance with that reeom-.
Tnendation, and of a promise given by Ministers last Session,
he (Mr. Peel) brought forward' his present motion. He had
..endeavoured *to form the proposed Committee of Gentlemen
v.-hese attention hid been turned to the subject, and who
were likely, from the placeS they represented, to have no peculiar
interest in stht. subject ;- and he hoped that the inquiry would be
prosecuted with but one.view—the obtaining for the metropolis
peifecta system of police as was consistent with the charae-
tei -of a free country. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded.
by moving, 4‘ That .a. Committee sbould be appointed to in-
-o;.(ire into the State pt. the Police of the Metropolis, and report
Its observations.to thi House."

-The motion was agreed to; and the following Committee was
auointed :—Mr..Secretary Peel, Mr. Solicitor General, M.
Byng, Mr. Thomas Wood, Mr. Hartopp, Mr. Grey Bennet,
..11.1r-. George -Dawson, Mr. Powell Buxton,. Lord Viscount
Lowther, Mr. 'Lamb, Mr. Yates Peel, Sir James Mackintosh,
Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Calthorpie, Mr.' Spring Rice,
Mr. Henry Clive, Mr. Alderman Wood, Mr. Holford, Mr.
-James Macdonald, Mr. Holme Sumner, Sir Francis Burdett.
•

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in
Rill for extending the laivs against receivers of stolen goods
'to receivers of certain securities for money. •

MUTINY BILL'.

Mr. W. SMITH, on the third reading of the Bill, expressed
his dish that a clause should be introduced putting an end to
enlistment for unlimited service. He was averse to that kind
of engagement for life, entered into perhaps by a boy who did
no; consider what he was doing. It could not be said that the
llcuse was not entitled to fetter the conduct of individuals, be-
cause an act had actually been passed to prevent seamen from
selling their pay.
Lord PALMERSTON thought that it was sufficient to
Lave the recruit to his own discretion. The difference of bounty
between limited and unlimited service afforded little temptation :
it was only lls. 6d.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The Marine Mutiny Bill was also read a third time and
passed.
Upon going into a Committee on the Malt Duty Repeal Bill,
Mr. CALVERT begged to ask how the drawback was to be
allowed upon malt sold previous to the 16th March, and ship-
yed by the sellers, for the buyers in London ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
-there was a clause in the Bill which provided for the return of
duty to the maker of malt.
Mr. CA EVERT was not of opinion that the clause referred
-to met the difficulty. He proposed, in a fuller state of the
House, to bring forward a suggestion upon the subject.
Mr. LUSIIINC4TON intimated that the Bill might go
through the Committee, and that Mr. Calvert might make his
proposition when the report was brought up.
Mr.CALVERT declined acceding to that course, and the
Zommittee was deferred until to-morrow.

The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of; and the
lionse adjounied at Twelve o'Clock.