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

JULY 4, 1849.

not. 119 would come next to the'vote by ballot. With
the pre--eat constituency he was opposA to th 9 ballot,
although, to avoid the charge of inconsistency, he had
voted for it. He now came to the most inalortant of all
—equal tlectora! districts. He held in his hanl a digest
of the several cries, towns, and borou..ths in Efozland.
An Hox. 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 inequalities. He wished t,
know whether they would stop in the present stage of
progress? He came now to no property qaalification.
They had fifty-three Members for Scotlane, the Mew
bers for the Universities, and the prodigal sons of
Peers, all without the property qualification; and what
right had they to insist upon the property qualification
in other Members? No man could vote for a M:raber
without a qualification for those very Members who
were admitted to that House without a quilification.
Could anything be more absurd? He now came to the
last of his preposi7ions, 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. He had alluded to the
aix points, and advocated the Charter, because he be-
lieved that with it as law there would be neither idle la
leatr, 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.—(flear.)
If ever this country should be driven to a physical revo-
lution, the pre;s of this country would be answerable
for it. In his opinion the laws of the country shout Ibe
ever leaning to mercy, but they had so framed their le-
gislation in that House, that they placed the other
classes in antagonism to the working classes. He had
now proposed his measures, and the preposition coming
from one who lied been prosecuted fur advocating these
measures, he felt that they might have been brought for-
wird 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 THOMPSON 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 motion to pass without expressing his opinion. As
to annual Parliaments, he was in favour of annual Par-

liameots, on the principle that m'rchants balanced their
books at Christmas.—(Hear, hear.) But as to one prin-
ciple advocated by the Hon. Gentleman, that of the pay-
ment of Members, he begged to say that that was no
child of the modern authors of the Charter, and he, 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. FIUME thought that reform 4, to be efficient,
ought to be in accordance with the feelings or the coun-
try, and it wad; on that ground that he was opposed to

the Chartists. He couiti not, however. understand wtat
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 Whig:,
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 c.,uld
be subject to any odium for advocating the principles he
had enunciated. He would, therefore, supp,rt the Hun.
Member's motion upon general grounds, and thought
the time would come when the Governm.nt would see

the necessity of lettering the constitution of that House,
—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the workinr classes,
if fairly treated, would be found to be reasonable, and ii
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 bad 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. MORGAN 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 part, 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. He 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 tie 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. lawmen) nothing. he believed, was to be expected.
Every declaration ho 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 It .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 Engl and are nor, as
in the United States, scattered in different localities, but
are united together in their different callings, and are
enxious for their rights, which the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. F. O'Connor) implies. He would call
the ; t ention 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 Rouse to the many boroughs where cor-
ruption prevails, in consequence of which he 514 W 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) advocated, in 1841,
the necessity of suppressing corruption, and be consi-
dered that the same opposition to so vile a practice was
as 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 aro 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
lug on the table of the House piles of volumes, which
were not characteristic of the rights of the people, and
which tend to sho' the state of the country. He should,
therefore, support the resolution, hoping that it would
obtain the maj ,rity of the House.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that he considered that the
motion of the lion. 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 Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. F. O'Connor) had referred to his name, as having
been attached to the People's Charter. Of that act he
should say that he 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 sh,uld,
however, say that he would be glad if the GoVernment
would give them un 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 he agreed with the Honourable
Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). It was because he
felt embarrassed in consequence of his former vote on
the motion of the lion. Member (Mr. Hume) that he
arose to speak, and he therefore felt is 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 Consi.
tution. To show how far this principle was carried
out, he would refer to a paper moved for by the lion.
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 paper. 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 7,033 electors
out of a population of 107,824. Thequal as this wag
with regard to persons, it was equally sio,witierespect
to property. It appeared that the difference of prop. rty
represented was as between 6,200,00 j/. and • 78,0001
lie advocated a change in the representation, in order to
matte the people satisfied and contented, to remove these
gross inequalities, and to remove just grounds of coal-
plaint.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that on a former ovel-
- he had stated his views upon this question, and he
would not have thought it necessary to atieress the
House but for the allusion which hod been made to his
oeieions. The Member for the Tower Hamlets said
that ee would resist every effort which might be made
to effect Parliamentary reform. That was not a fair re-
presentation of his conduct. The Hon. al,enber r. tented
to a speech which ho made in the year 1837. When in
that year he, as the organ of the Gorcrhtnent, he ught
forward-the Reform the itetoductioe of that mee•
sure excited great enthusiasm ateeng the pea„,;
great alarm in the mined of others whit were not
!to/our:Ole to the Bill, who were determined to upset
it. There were others wile although favour-
able to a reform in Parliament, entertained

apprehensions of more extensive democratic changes.
These parties put the question to Lard Grey, who was
the head of the Geverninene wheel was also put to Lerd
Althorp, the representative of the Government in the
House of Commons, " whether this was to be the cern•
rnencement of other measures, calculated to destroy the
enti-e system of representation, or whether the Bill then
introduced was that upon which they meant to stand ?"
L oil Grey, speaking in the name of the Government,
geive an assurance up in these int Trogatoriee that Go•
vernment bad no ulterior objects beyond the Bill then
betught forward Upon this assurance many persons,
who would otherwise have been opposed to the Bill. give
their adherence to the Government and enabled them to
carry that measure into effect. Some five years after-
wards he (Lord John Russell) was asked to give his con-
sent to an entirely new scheme of representation, when
he stated that though there might be defects in the Re.
form Bill, he was nit prepared sn soon after the passing
of that measure to propose a new scheme; but that a
time might come when public epinion inieht &mei d an
alteration, based upon the principles of that Bid, which
should receive his best censideretion, and to which
he could give his coneent. The Honourable Member
said, that by that declaration he had precluded him-
self tram supporting any meaeure of reform He after-
wards wrote a letter to his constituents, in which he
stetted that he was not oppoied to giving greater ‘X -erasion
to the political privileges of the working classes, sand
that arty measure of tnae kind, duly matured, would
meet his censideration.—(Hear, hear.) lie had been
now for 30 years connected with the cause of reform in
Parliament, an-I he would now state his epitiious on the
motion when the Hon. Member for Montrose brought
forward his motion, which he considered rather obscure.
He' then thought it was a steo which would tend 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 Ines it down that the
people are the legitimate source of power, and that the
labourer was entitled to the first truits of hie Labour.
The labourer receives his wages for wnich he contracts,
and there the matter ends. There was an (Tinier' is hieh
prevailed in France. and which might still prevail there,
that no capitalists should enjoy undivided property. hut
that every man who was engaged in the undertaking
should participate in the profits. If the Honourable
Member meant that, he would at once declare he
would not consent to it. The Henours.ble Mem-
ber said that taxation with-rut representation was
tyranny; if he said that because a man had nut a vote,
he would not agree to it. 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 country, that he was a free-born English-
man, hut he never understood that to mean that he had a
right to vote for a Member of Parliament. What be-
cemeot women, if every one who had not a vote was a
slave? It could not be said that they were unfit. Miss
Martineau would rarely be competent to vote. The
same objection might he 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 to serve on juries was a
slave, and it might be further extended to the disqueli•
ficatiou 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 much liberty as they
did at prese,t, 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. He would not say there might not
exist another form of Government on its ruirP, but they
could not enjoy the temperate liberty which they had
so long possessed.—(Hear.) For these reasons he (Lard
John Russell) could net agree to universal stiffrage.
With respect to the equelzation of electoral di.tricts,
the proposition of the Hon. eiember for Nottingham was
certainly more intelligible than that of the lion. Mem-
ber fur 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 the in-
fluence of the aristocracy, who were a bugbear with some
Hon. Members, he did not believe. If 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 as with the present mode of election. Ha did
not, therefore, think it so good a system as that which
they at present enjoyed.—(Hear, hear.) The Honouc-
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. He (Lord John Russell)
never denied it, but what he did say was that the sys-
tem of representation, though not of numbers, was more a
representation of the whole community than it 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
come before them, touching their particular interest•.
Very possibly those who at first expected a great de-
mocratic change, would be disappointed, for a Conserve•
tive may be returned. But if they made that great
change 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 was returned ot Conservative
opinions; but did that give satisfaction, or did the mino-
rity sit down contented?—(Hear, hear.) They brought
their question before the Assembly, and afterwards laid
plots to carry destruction through the str,ets oF 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 always in a state of pros-
perity ; that the order of society might to be so managed
that manufacturing industry should be so restricted to
the exact necessities of the world, so that the supply
c.muld never excel the demand. . They were disip•-
po nted. and then some 30,000 men went into the streets
of Pads prepared to saeritice their lives. For his own
part he did not think that the people of this country, who
were called slaves by some 11,.n. Gentlemen, that what
they possessed was so trifling as to induce them to ruu a
risk. Feeling this, he was prepared to resist the pre-
sent motion, cut at the same time he believed that it
would be for the advantage of the country if a greater
number ot the working clan-•es were possessed of the
suffrage, if that could be done without a sacrifice of
their Constitution. He should, therefore, oppose the
proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, feeling that it
would tend to the greatest evils, and deprive them of the
enjoyment of benefits which, if part d 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 fin slily 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 nick-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 was prepared to extend the suffrage
to a large portion of the working clas::es. He, however,
thought the resolution of the Hon. Member for Notting-
ham was exceedingly ambiguous. and as for making elec-
tions 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 electoral districts, it required
very careful consideration; but, as regarded nu property
qualification, it was absolute nonsense.—(A laugh.) He
should, however, he regretted to say, be compelled to
vote against the motion. though it contAined much of
what he approved, and which, if not given to the people,
trier 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.
Thu House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion... ... 13
Against it ... 222
Majority 209
FRAUDS IN THE SALE OF BRE aD.

Mr. BANKS then rose to move " that the House do
resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for
the purpose of considering the means of more effectually
preventing frauds in the sale of bread, and also ot 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 imputation on the trade
of bakers. Any such intention he disclaimed; but it
would happen in that, as in other trades, that the honest
trader would be placed at a disadvantage in the compe-
tition with those who were of an opposite disposition.
At present the poorer classes had not that degree ot pro-
tection in the purchase of bread to which they were en-
titled The lion. and Gallant Member for Brighton had
introduced a Bill on the subject, which, though it might
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 G-o. lII which formerly
protected the poor man, and the effect of the law now was,
that all bread was sold by we fight, though
not limited as to the sat size or weight bvk r way
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 man; hut how frequently was
the poor man indebted to his baker, and, tberetore,,did
not dare to exercise this right.—(Bear, hear.) Ihe
Hon. M mbar proceeded to read from stateine,43 that
had bee,' forwarded to him from various counties, show-
ing the fraudulent practices which prevailed, and the
manner in which the pourer classes were deprived of the
proper weight. The remedy he propo.ed was, that in-
stead of bakers bfing allowed to m mufac•ure bread ('f
any weight and size they pleased, they shoal l be required
to make all loaves of a Given weight and stamp thetn
with the weight they professed to vontaiu. lie had in-
troduet d a Bill contaireng such a provision hat year, but
was opposed by the meiropohta,, MenAers. and ulti-
maftly found that it was doubtful whether such a subject
should not have heon introdue,,d in a Cotninittee t; the
whol, House. That eas the couiste he nc4, pro;:o,,:d to
take, and to move that the [louse resolve itself into a
Committee to consider the sa'e and tuatiuf4cture of bread.
If the Government or the law officers of the Crown or
magi trates of ~x,ierienc9 woni,l tell him that th.
was no necessity for such a tn. azure, it. w tald give
up the quesion. But, however, he might be toni th
trade was fl turtshin4 Ani bread co +p, tie ahooght hat
protection was required by the p..or matt, an ), th.a eror
he kit cou,tra tel to urg, the qu shun upon t• e .•L • it:
lion of the, House. He found by a case which had taken
place in Edinburgh last autumn, that he was asking for

a

nothing impracticable, but that by a clause in the Editl•
burgh I.l,:lice Act, passed last year, all bakers were re•
quired.to stamp, ill large and distinct figures, the inly
p-rial weight of the iu4ves, and• tailing to do so were
liable to a fine of 405.; or, if the loaves were defic!ent is
weight, to a pnalty of 5/. Now, what was good for
Edinl)urgh was good for London, for Essex, or even for
Br is But our northern brethren were ever on the
alert, and had inc,irpor,ited his proposal with their Police
Act. He c•:uld, 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
late .hour he would not detain the House farther; but
would conclude by moving the House do now resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House on a question
which he bad no personal interest in; but one on which
he felt strongly, as involving an act of justice to the
poor.—(Hear, hear.)
Capt. PECHELL said the Hon. Member had referred
to the Biil which he had intro !treed. He had (lace so
in order to abolish the intolerable evil of the assiz, sr;
tem, which formerly pla,,ed the baker at the mercy of
the common infermer, and ri.ntiered it Minos' impossible
to carry on the bieiiness of a baker. He did not see
how the Horn Member could protect the poor any more
than they were under the present Act, and he had never
seen any petition against it, or heard of any complainte
as to its working. He del not know what the Govern'
ment intended to do in the matter; but he should cer
tainly advise the Hon. Member, at that late period of the
session, not to press his motion. For his own part he
would certainly defend his own Act.

Mr. LABOCCHERE said, Member had
precluded last yoar from bringing HI his Bill by in
informality, he was not preparad to oppose his 'notion!
(ile4r.) At the same time he wished to add that be
believed the present system work,:cl well both for the
baker and the public, and he believed that the principl°
proposed to be introduced by the lion. Member would
lead to great confusion and to great oppo6itil
from the master bakers, b,,cause it wouh'
expose them to the mercy of common informeril
while in the metropolis, at least, it would not pro:
taut ihe poor.—(Bear, hear.) He was intormed thal
the poor did not, in numerous instances, buy wild
loaves but parts of loaves, and of course it would be ior,
p,)sstble to stamp the weight upon such portions
loaves.—(Hear.) He doubted whether the messure °
the Hon. Member would remove the paor from any sub,'
e srviency to the dealers in provisions to wnom th
were indebted, while the respeeta,ble masters would find
themselves hampered by it. As to the clause in thi
Edinburgh Police Act, it had been introduced without
the attention of the House being called to it.—(le3P)
He certainly was not aware of its existence until till
Hon. Memb-r drew his attentioh to it. Ht' shotild egret;
to the motion, reserving to himself the power of put'
suing the course he might think best.
Mr. PACKE supported the motion, on the grottod
that bread was much dearer in the towns than
ought to be, when the price of wheat was taken ior
consideration.

Mr. FOLEY wished to take advantage of the die
cussion to call the attention of the Right Hon. Gee,
e
&wan at the head of the Beard of Trade to the fad
that a great number of' persons had been poisone`:
and others made seriously ill, by a miller mixing tler
deleeterious materials with his fl rur. He thought se:,
cases proved the necessity for the interference of t"
Legislature.
Mr. 1.-IEA.THCOTE hoped the House would agree 10
the Bill, and especially considering the extreme disprs
portion of prices in various localities. The press Ow
formerly to keep a careful wa-ch over this matter, al
showing the difference in various localities, and it it
,/i,,
so again he tho gut it would confer a great peui.u',l"
ben. fit. While they had been cutting down the grid
and profits of corn, they had not touched the profits 0,
the bak -r. He hoped that, although late in the eesii!)e
the Bill would be allowed to be brought in, and reel'
the sanction of the House —(Hear, near.)
Sir DE LACY EVANS objected to the measure, ejf‘i
which he thought no sullitiient grounds had been otrePo
by the Honourable Member. The insinuation alteiBol
the honesty of the bakers was certainly not suffieled
to his mind, and though this was the Hon. Men3beri
hobby at present, he had certainly chosen a vets
unpropitious time for bringing it forward. He bro 4
this Bill in too late in the session. The Honoured
Genlernan who hail just addressed the House ii
id
e expreied his surprise at the difference of PIO
in the metropolis ; but was he not aware 4,1)
other articles as well as bread varied in price? f 0
baker would tell him that bread changed its welti
from being expos*d to the air, and other causes, eo
unless he took care that it was heavier in weight vi've
he put it into the cvtn than it ought to be, he couldwo
be certain that it was of the proper weight. The bed
were desirous that inquiry should be instituted, bed
such an inquiry as would satisfy the public. The/
that there was no necessity for such an enactment. 0
Mr. MANGLES said that a greater case of retrogro,
sion that* this Bill would be he never heard of. MO
spects the principle of the Bill, it was just as applieBo
to the butcher who sold a bit of meat, or any °tie
tradesman, as to the baker. He was quite sure jl
Right Hon. Friend would not sanction this Bill, Ott
whould let loose a host of informers, and therefore
should oppose the Bill.—(Divide.)
The House then divideit, when there appeared.--
For the motion
Against it ... ... ... ... 37
Majority ••• ••• •• _54 Ace
The House then went inZo Committee, and a reso/P
was agreed to upon which to found a Bill.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. ell
POST-OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS WIT'"
IRELAND.
a i?
Mr. KER moved for a Select Committee to ifi
into the expediency of the proposed alterations se Jr
gards the transmission of the, mails between the 015
west of Scotland and the north of Irelend. He o°l7lo
that economy, and the convenience of the public, 5110oJ
be the guile of the Government in making this preeoll
alteration. He thought that great injury would re
from adop!it.g a contrary course.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER seiclo%
really did not know anything which the Coattelo
could inquire into which had not already been the 8
jest of inquiry.
A:ter some conversation.
L it'd CAS rLEREAGH trusted the Hon. hie—el,
would press his motion to a division. After so r° t
maney had been spent on the harbours in questio%t
did not chink they ought to he left utterly useless, '1
fall into d. cay, without good reason being assignede 0
Mr. KER said he did not wish to put the Hotrije
unnecessary trouble, but as his motion had been "
ported by his Noble Friend, he should divide.
The Itaise then divided, when there appeared—'
For the motion 37
••• ••• •••
Against it ... ..,
... ... 44
Maj,rity against the motion
MINES AND COLLIERIES'.
0,
Mr. WYLD obtained leave to bring in a Bill to end
her Majesty's Score; ary of State to appoint inspecter7
mines and collieries: and for providing the means of 1)0'441
ment for such inspection, which the Hon. Member 0
wards brought in.
LYME REGIS ELECTION. 1
Mr.BUTLER called the attention of the House tat
special report and recommendation of the Lyme _4
Committee of last session, charging John Atte;pi
Esq , with bribery (theu a Member of the House, 0
subsequently unseated for bribery in his election :ir
Harwich), and moved that the Attorney-General bBeo
rected to prosecute Mr. Attwood and his agents feU
alleged cases of bribery and corruption at Lyme
,P7S
and Harwich. Mr. Attwood's conduct, he believeet ri
calculated to destroy the freedom of election, and, the
fore, he brought forward the present proposition. 01
Attwood, like Mr. Smith O'Brien, bad fallen underol
displeasure of the House, and therefore he had beety
public property. His " demoralising generosity" tiersueer
last Athlone election bad been attested in a letter ;0'
ten to him (Mr. Bu ler) by the Catholic Bishop (Peij:
phin. Unless a check were put on the system 011°40ei'
by Mr. Attwood, they would find English eapiPoet
contesting Irish elections, and Irish boroughs repreee
by London tnillionnaires.—(Laughter.)
Mr. SOMERS seconded the motion. ee Of
Major BERESFORD said that he came to the ..--,°o
under the impression that be should have to defenlioi
present constituents and his late colleague, but he 1:001
that the only matters to be defended were insag,";oo
charges against an English capitalist, for inveigling Bf,
Milesians from their strongholds--chargesfounde4 #1
the private letters of private individuals. Underof
the circumstances of the case, he thought the P.Ol
would be goieg out of its way to punish an indivlo
case, and that the Attorney-General would be wrel'oe
beginning a prosecution which could only end in fel
He should meet the motion with a direct negative. tie
Sir G. GREY said that the Committee had 0.0
commended the prosecution of Mr. Attwood, and 0/'
they had, he thought that the time which had el 8"
since their report would effectually act as a bar ag
the success of that prosecution.
The HouAe then divided, when there appeared-- .
Fur the motion ~, 3 1
•••
Against ...
...
...
... 46
••• ,
Majority
—43 goof
•••
The other orders were then disposed of, and the e-
t I adjourned at Hal.-___past One o'clock.
ji___

Dispatches were received yesterday at the C01019,f1,1
ofiica from the Governors of the West India Colon; 1,
The Julicial Committee of the Privy Counclpf,
yes.erday. The appeal "Montague v. the Good/
and CouTicd of Van Diemen's Land" was eontit
Au appeal was heard—" Raja Oodit Punkash Sl'')
Niartoniell and Stacey."

8.111'1116
wife
On the 30th ult., at Totternhoe, Bedforshire, the
the Rev. T. 11. Roper, of a son. 13"
tin the ' oth ult , at Park-crescent, the wife of C.
nett, E q , 01 a son.
On the 30th ult., at Oxford terrace, Hyde-park, tbe
of F. Milne, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 30th ult., at the Vicarage, Pembury, gent, thairi
of the Rev. G. S. Woodgate. of a son.
ifife
On the Ist in t., at College-house, Islington, the
the Rev. J. G. lietcscb, of a daughter.

MARRIED.
On the 28th ult , at St. Marylebone, Patrick Stt"ce.
Esq • New York, to Helen, second daughter of J. Aliae
Pat rhead, Aberdeenshire.
119
On the a)th ult., at St. James's Church, Mr. W. v:d,
of lteguit-street, to Louisa, second daughter of Edivo'
nip c~ of Jos, ph Trhomell, sq ,oftl e Old Kent-road,

DIED ail
11l
On the 29th ult., John Phillpotts, Esq., of PorthgWi A
Cornwall, for malty years M.P. for the city of Glocotiew r,e
On the 20 h ult.. at TAvistock terrace, Upper 0 '
Mr. T. Palin, late of Christ's Hospital, aged 73. ~,
On the :-.oth ult., at Mill-hill, Woolwich, LietteePft,
Colonel Fr,de;ick Ergiish. Counnani!log Royal Ellgy, r,
At Portland terrace, St. Joint's-wood, Mr. Richar"
/ 41London! l'riutcd and Published by MURDO YOVo. 1'
Na 112, Stratt,l Printer, at The Sun office, `.acf •
taniti, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the 9,
riliddlesex, Wednesday, July 4, 1849.