The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 1836.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE Cif COMMONS, APRIL 12.
The SPEAKER took tie Chair at 5 minutees before 4 o'clock.

......
Mr. CAMPBELL, from the East India House' presented
an account of the compensation allowed by the Company to
their retired officers.

CLYDE NAVIGATION.
Sir M. S. STEWART presented two petitions from dif-
ferent parts of Renfrew, against the Clyde Navigation Bill.
The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Glasgow
against the Glasgow Railway Bill.
GREAT UNION RAILWAY.

Mr. H. HUGHES presented a petition from certain inha-
bitants of Oxford, praying to be heard by Counsel against the
Great Union Railway Bill.
On the motion of the HON. MEMBER, the House went into
the further consideration of the Report on the Tynemouth
Harbour Bill, which was ordered to be engrossed.
ST. KATHERINE'S DOCK.

Mr. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the Directors
of the St. Katherine's Dock, praying for leave to bring in a
Bill for the purpose of improving their works.
Mr. C. CODRINGTON presented a petition against the
Gloucester Railway Bill.
Lord J. STUART presented a petition from Ayr, against
the Forfar Railway Bill. _ _

CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN
RAILWAY BILL.

On the moving of the further consideration of the Report
upon this Bill,
Mr. P. STEWART rose to move the recommittal of the
Bill. No inconvenience could possibly arise from post-
poning and recommitting this Bill, and even if there
did the House ought to prevent the infliction of a bad
line, for, the sake of saving a few weeks, or even a Session
itself. That very day a petition had been presented, praying
for the re-committal of this Bill, which was signed by 200
individuals connected with the line of road. The Hon. Gen-
tleman concluded by moving that the Bill be re-committed.
Mr. WILK S appealed to the good sense of the House if
they ought to consent to a motion for the re-commitment of a
Railway Bill after the report bad been brought up. If they
sanctioned such a proceeding their deliberations would never
arrive at a conclusion. If after the Bills had been referred
to a committce, if, after that committee had taken all the evi-
dence and information capable of being afforded on the sub-
ject, and had reported their opinions to the House, new appli-
cations were to be made for the recommitment of the Bills,
he would say the labours of Hon. Members in that House
would be interminable.—( Hear, hear.) For himself he should
express his astonishment at so frequent a reference to Steven-
son's present opinion, which was quite at variance with that
formerly given by him on the same subject. The only apology
offered for his change of opinion was that he gave the former one
without sufficient deliberation ; but that now having travelled
along the line,he would venture to recommend for adoption by the
House a plan which he before refused to give his sanction to.
He (Mr. Wilks) should protest against Mr. Stevenson's opi-
nion being taken as conclusive on the subject, or that a man
should be considered an oracle who gave a second opinion
quite at variance with his first. He had been solicited by a
great portion of the inhabitants of Cheltenham and Gloucester
to support the original
_plan, and oppose the re-commitment
moved for.
Lord E. SOMERSET, as Chairman of the Committee,
would say, that one of the petitions, referred to by the Hon.
Member opposite, was unsupported by counsel, and could not,
therefore, be attended to by the Committee. The other
was from persons not locally connected with the districts
through which the railroad passed, and who were
escribed as members of a provisional committee for a railroad
Bill from London to Cheltenham, to be brought forward next
Session. The Committee considered that the promoters of
the Bill had closed their case, that they had satisfied the op-
posing parties, and that although of the other line a survey had
been made, no plan had been laid;down sufficient to warrant the
Committee in declining to report their opinion in favour of the
Bill now before the House.
Mr. P. SCR OPE, as a member of the Committee, begged
to say, if the principle upon which the re-committal of this
Bill was sought for was complied with, it would be impossible
to carry any Bill through that House. This Bill was now a
year and a half before the public ; it was supported by many large
landed proprietors and other wealthy and influential indivi-
duals ; and now, at the eleventh hour, it was sought to set aside
a Bill which would facilitate the intercourse between po-
pulous manufacturing towns, in order to convenience the
idlers at a fashionable watering-place, and this at an expense
double in amount to that of the present Bill. He therefore
hoped the proposal for the re-committal of the Bill would not
be received.
Captain BERKELEY, although he presented a petition
in favour of the re-committal, could not approve of the propo-
sition, because he conceived it an injustice against the original
proprietors.
Mr. TOOK E supported the re-committal. He thought
no disadvantage could result to the public from the enquiry.
Colonel SlB'rll ORP deprecated the Bill altogether.
lie would not vote for its re-commitment, or that of any othe;
Railway Bill—( A laugh)—believing them to be highly de-
trimental to the country at large.
Mr. CRI PPS objected to the re-committal of the Bill.
Lord S ANDO N did not see that any case had been made
out for the re-committal of the Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET objected also to the re-committal of
the Bill.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY congratulated the good people of
Stroud upon the fact of their having so many friends on both
sides of the House.—(Hear, hear.) He recollected the
time when they were not so fortunate. He deprecated the idea
of reconsidering a question in this House which had undergone
full discussion in the Committee; but there was another party
before the House, lvsides the shareholders in the different
lines of railway, whose interest should necessarily be con-
sulted, and that party was the public. They were
not now in a Nisi Prius Court, where it was to be considered
whether a party came too late or not, and where they were
bound to see that no damage was done to the opposite party.
The question was, which would be the best line' to
Cheltenham ? (Hear, hear, hear.) And as it was

a case which would affect the public over a series of years,
it should not be concluded by any technical difficulty. He
thought the 13111 ought to be recommitted, but the
supporters of the Stroud line ought to be protected against
the expenses to which they would be put by the re-commitment
of the Bill.
Mr. P. THOMSON could not, in the spirit of the 6th re-
solution of the House on the subject of railways, consent to the
motion for the re-commitment of the Bill. After the state-
ment of the Noble!, Lord, the Chairman of the Committee, he
could not hesitate for a moment in believing that that Com-
mittee had fully and fairly done their duty to the public
and the parties, and that they examined all the circumstances
connected with the case before them.
Mr. P. M. STEWART seeing the feeling of the House
against him, would not press the motion to a division ; but he
would claim in a future Session full consideration for the line
advocated by the parties who desired the re-commitment.
The amendments were then read a second time, and the Bill
and the amendments were ordered to be engrossed.
LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.

On the motion that the Report of the Committee on the
London Grand Junction Railway be agreed to,
Sir S. WHALLE Y moved that the further consideration
of this report be deferred until that day week.
After a few words from Mr. HUME the amendment was
agreed to.

Mr. HODGES moved for a copy of the deed, or counter-
part thereof, by which the Board of Ordnance last year con-
veyed the Block-house Fort and premises next Gravesend to
certain parties, reserving various rights and privileges to the
public.—Motion agreed to.
THE BOROUGH OF POOLE.

Mr. PO ULTER rose, pursuant to the notice which he
had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill regarding the
municipal elections of the borough of Poole. The Hon.
Member proceeded to refer to the evidence given before the
Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, from which it appeared
that mutilated and fictitious papers had been made use of by
the defendants' party, and that persons not qualified to vote
had been permitted to vote, and a false and fictitious ma-
jority had thus been created. The consequence of these
proceedings was that in the north-west ward nine of the
Common Councilmen were elected by the defendant's party.
In the south-west ward two out of nine were elected. A
majority in the Common Council was thus secured, and this
majority created the entire Corporation. They elected the
Mayor—they turned out of office persons of the greatest
integrity—and they conferred no less than twelve appoint-
ments by virtue of the power that they had thus assumed.
There never was a case in which the proceedings had been
more unfairly or more irregularly conducted. At the election
the papers had been presented by one party in an unfolded
state, by the other party in a folded state, and it was supposed
that the fictitious and mutilated papers afterwards discovered
were those which had been presented in the folded state.
The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to state several other in-
stances of what he considered gross fraud, and that the case
altogether was one of the most fraudulent nature. He alluded
to the case of a young man named James Parker, who had
been brought up for the purpose of impersonating his father,'
a person named James Parker ; but at the last stage of the
proceeding the man refused to go through with the imperso-
nation, and this circumstance caused the returning officer to
say that he considered the proceeding had been badly managed.
He anticipated that an Hon. Member might have some con-
stitutional objection to his proposition. The only constitu-
tional objection he could anticipate would be against dealing
with a case which would more properly be cognizant before a
Court of law. After some further observations, the Hon.
Gentleman concluded by moving for a Bill to void all the late
municipal elections for the borough of Poole, and to go to a
wew election.

Mr. WTNN contended that such a course as that proposed
by the Hon. Member would be most dangerous. It would be
objectionable, in the first place, as perhaps affecting any pro-
ceeding that might take place in a Court of common law. In-
dependent of this, there was the other objection, that if once
Parliament interfered in a case of this kind, and passed a Bill
to remedy such a case as the Hon. Member had alleged, sup-
posing such a case to be established, they could not, in equity,
refuse a Bill to apply to every other case that might be
brought under their notice. The Hon. Gentleman proceeded
to say that he entertained great apprehension of danger from
these new proceedings. He considered that if the principle
of the interference of Parliament in cases of this description
were once established, there was an end to the influence of the
cognizance of such proceedings before the Courts of law.
The Hon. Member concluded by saying, that whether alone
or supported by the decision of the House, he would protest
against the proposed measure.
Mr. POULTER said a few words in explanation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the House must
have recollected the petitions presented with respect to the
municipal election of Poole, and the course subsequently
taken respecting it. After a discussion which had been con-
tinued for two nights, eleven individuals had been appointed
to form a Committee of Inquiry. They were composed of
five Honourable Gentlemen who usually sat on the other side
of the House, and of six Honourable Gentlemen sitting at
that (the Ministerial) side of the House, as fair a Committee
as he conceived could, under such circumstances, be consti-
tuted. Having examined witnesses at length, this Committee
unanimously concurred in their recommendation of the mea-
sure proposed by his Honourable Friend. He thought it
would be a most unusual course, in a case where a Committee
had given such a recommendation, to say that such a recom-
mendation should not be attended to.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the motion.
After a few words from Mr. WYNN,
The motion was put and aEreed to.
SUB-DIVISION OF LANDED PROPERTY IN
CERTAIN CASES.

After some conversation—
Mr. E WART moved for leave to bring in a Bill, providing
that in cases of intestacy, and in the absence of any settlement
to the contrary, landed property be equally divided amongst
the children or next of kin of the deceased. The Honour-
able Member proceeded to contend that in those professions
where success was attendant upon talent and toil, the sons of
the aristocracy did seldom reach the same eminences as those

who had more powerful motives to urge them on. In
the sublime science of medicine—embracing all its accom-
panying scientific research, there were no members of the
Aristocracy to be found practising, and not very many in the
law professions. He contended that the distribution of landed
property would have a valuable public effect—that it would in-
crease the residence of proprietors upon their estates, and
lessen the number of absentees.
Mr. HUME supported the motion.
benefits from the measure.
Mr. TO OKE did not think that a question of this kind
ought to be brought forward without some inquiry on the part
of Parliament ; but the Hon. Member had suddenly brought
it forward, without any preparation or notice. He did not
think that such a proposition would meet any support in that
House, and he did not think that it would .be received with

He anticipated great

much respect or support by the public at large. He was sure
that the law officers of the Crown, the Attorney and Solicitor
General, would not be found to come forward as the advocates
of such a measure. He did not think that the measure would

receive any acceptance from the English people. He called
on the House to negative the measure in its incipient state.
Mr. ROEBUCK defended the course persued by the Hon.
Member for Liverpool, and objected to the law of primogeni-
ture, as contrary to the principles of legislation of every nation
except England, and as extremely pernicious in its effects. It
was the means of accumulating property in vast masses, and
of giving to the aristocracy and the House of Lords au undue
influence in the State. If the Hon. Member for Truro meant
to say that the House of Lords could not exist without those
immense masses of property, the sooner they got rid of the
House of Lords the better..—(Oh, oh.) The Hon. Member
seemed surprised at this, but before he descended into the
grave, which he hoped would be many years first, he would
hear much more extravagant declarations ; and if he (Mr.
Roebuck),were not mistaken, would see these principles carried
into effect. The time would inevitably come, when the accu-
mulation of masses of property would no longer enable a man
to clog and control the course of justice, and when a man
would be regarded and have influence on personal considera-
tion alone. _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
assent to the motion, and if he had entertained any doubt
of it before, the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Bath would completely have set that doubt at rest, and
have shown that in reality they were to be called upon not to
discuss a question as to the improvement of the laws, but as to
an entire alteration in the Constitution and fundamental institu-
tions of the country. The Hon. Member for Bath wished to
abolish hereditary distinctions, and to put an end to the power
of the House of Lords. Let him bring forward those ques-
tions, then, in a definite shape, and he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) was prepared to grapple with them. The result
would, he was sure, convince the Hon. Member that the great
bulk of the intelligence as well as the property of the country
would repudiate such an attempt. It had been to be deplored
that differences had sometimes arisen between the two Houses ;
but such a circumstance was one of the irregularities and in-
conveniences to which all human institutions, however wisely
framed, must be liable, and it was monstrous to seek the de-
struction of those institutions for that to which all institutions
were inevitably subject.—(Hear, hear.) As to the subject of
primogeniture, too, it was to be observed that the whole law
of real property had been lately revised, and that the altera-
tion suggested by the Hon. Member for Liverpool was not
recommended, by the Commissioners. _ _

Mr. AGLIONBY would support the motion of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Liverpool, but without coinciding
with, or feeling himself bound to adopt, the views of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered it highly in-
expedient now to enter into the merits of the law of primo•
geniture. In the present state of the business of the House
and of public feeling, he thought they could employ them-
selves much better than in discussing abstract and speculative
questions. In not one case out of a thousand did landed pro-
perty descend in this country in simple compliance with the
law, for, with but very few exceptions, it was invariably dis-
posed of either by settlement or by will. This, in his opinion,
would be a most injudicious alteration, and would encourage
disobedience and extravagance in children, and would be fatal
to domestic peace.—( Hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS rejoiced to hear what had fallen from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the Attorney-General,
and deprecated the doctrines advanced by the Hon. Member
for Bath, and which had been cheered by the Hon. Baronet
the Member for West Cornwall and two or three of his imme-
diate neighbours. The question was a great constitutional
one, and he was glad to have an opportunity of dividing the
House upon it.
Colonel THOMPSON said that the allusion to the Lords,
on which such stress was laid by Gentlemen opposite, was, in
fact, first made on the other side. He was some time ago
called on by the citizens of a large commercial town to give
them a dissertation on political subjects.--( Hear and laughter. )
One of these was primogeniture. lie did give those disserta-
tions, and he found the people had another boar to hunt be-
sides the House of Lords, and that was primogeniture. They
were full of the opinion that the effects of primogeniture was
to concentrate the family influence in the eldest son, in order
that the younger sons might be quartered on the public. He
would strenuously support the motion.
Mr. A. TREVOR, though he could not be surprised at
anything that emanated from the opposite side, yet was not
prepared for so monstrous a proposition as the present—one
that would involve the whole landed property of the country in
one chaos.

Mr. WARBURTON supported the motion.

The SOLICITOR—GENERAL said it was allowed by
the opponents of the measure that it would be perfectly nuga-
tory—(Cheers)—and yet, forsooth, because it would be nu-
gatory, they were called upon to support it. This was cer-
tainly an extraordinary principle to be laid down, that because
a measure would do no good it should be supported. Now it
was unquestionable that in ninety-nine cases out of every 100
property was not regulated by the law of the land ; but by a
law of the individual's own creation, in the disposal of his pro-
perty either by will, by lease, or bond, or by some such pro-
cess, by which he distributed his property. The country was
not interested in the matter, for there was now a Bill before
the House to abolish the equal partition of property in Kent,
and no one petitioned against it.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. O'BRIEN would move the previous question.
Mr. J. JARVIS seconded the motion.

The question having been put,
Mr. GROTE said, though the measure would, he must
allow, have but little practical effect, yet the House was called
on to give an opinion on the abstract principle of the justice of
dividing the property of an individual, when no other provision
was made by him for the younger children.
Lord J. RUSSELL rose in consequence of what fell from
the Hon. Member for London and the Solicitor- General.
The Learned Gentleman asserted, what was not denied, that
the Bill would be wholly inoperative, as in 99 cases out of 100
the party disposed of his own property, yet the Hon. Member
for London, admitting the inutility of the Bill, wished the
House to pronounce an opinion on an abstract principle, the
injustice of the present law of primogeniture. Now he de-
nied that the House was called on to do any such thing. If
they acted on the suggestion they could not stop there, but
should go further, and apply the principle to an equal distri-
bution of all property, and apply it too to particular cases.
As the House should not unnecessarily establish such a prin-
ciple he should oppose the motion.
Mr. PEASE supported the motion.

Mr. 'WYNN said that so important a subject should not be
got rid of in such an indirect way as moving the previous ques-
tion. The Solicitor-General declared that the law would be
quite nugatory. That in itself was enough ; but there was
another ground of opposition. That it was a mischievous in-
terference with the settlement of landed property and the law
of the land. The principle sought to be established would,
if acted on, overthrow all the institutions of the country.
Primogeniture in England was the only means of supporting
the aristocracy. If he thought it desirable to get rid of the
aristocracy altogether, the measure of the Hon. Gentleman
opposite was one he would support as a step towards it.
Cloisnel P. THOMPSON explained.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN withdrew his amendment.
Mr. JERVIS coincided in the opinion of the Attorney-
General.
Mr. E WART said, in reply, that although he felt the ho-
nour of being supported by the talents of his Hon. Friend the
Member for Bath, he did not think it fair that he should be
bound by all he said. Amid loud cries of " Question' the
Hon. and Learned Member said he should not, and never had
intended to, withdraw his motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—.
For the motion
Against it
Majority
—l6
OYSTER FISHERIES.

Mr. F. BARING moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
the regulation and improvement of the oyster fisheries in
England and Wales. He said the Bill he proposed was the
same as that introduced last Session, and bad principally for
its object to prevent the dredging of oysters except every third
season.
Captain PE CHELL expressed his hearty concurrence in
the Pleasure, and was anxious on the subject, as he had a
sister Bill—(A laugh)—under his superintendence.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. HUME moved for the return of the dues paid to the
Russia Company on importation of Russian produce ; with a
copy of the charter of the Russia Company, and the rules
existing for the conduct of the affairs of that Company.--
Ordered.
Sir W. MOLE SWORTH postponed his motion for the
return of copies and extracts of any correspondence between
the Secretary at War and the Commander-in-Chief until the
3d of May next.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the expense of the. B
me-
tropolitan tropolitan and City of London
police for the last
police,ycar No. 68 of the session papers the expense of the
ac-
cording to the provision of the Act
of Parliamenttforthein-
stitution of the metropolitan police, was laid on
he table of
the House, and he thought the expense was
not
member
the best possible manner. He had been a
of the
P
Committee which, two years ago, bad been
appointed
which had
Pointed to
ce,
in-
quire into the subject of the metropolitan 'police,
in
reported favourably upon the working of
he had been one who had originally
ment, he should like to see its utility
3,000 and 4,000
tdsYsittsemes;taabnldisha-s
The force now consisted
men, besides 2,000 horse I.owareaetPiiincontestably
purpose
of proved.
pro-
tecting r o ..
to the opinion of Sir
tecting the metropolis, and,
of being placed under the controul of the head of the
nd was divided partly between
R. Birnie, who was examined before the Committee, instead
metropolitan police, the command patrol, for
eill
uo
dmi
ne g Officethe
a,
the magistrates, but chiefly rfleantered in the chief clerk of the
appointment of nine officers, in-
had theofc
be river police. This created a
arrangement
great degree of jealousy--he he admitted a most unworthy jea-

- -------------
tro-
lousy—but it did exist on the part of the heads of the 11,1,e ~,e
politan police, who considered, as he did also, that all
a utbo-
force should be consolidated and made subject to
remirtiynf
o.uut
iroßnhyue this means meddema:
etusnt he considered
fi
ttte b6eom,oaodoetll,7aatnndan
annually
dieyue. cnv:oi;a:deroafbao.laeot threedejl
the consolidated fund for the support of the service.
II
C
Pat
the
r
-
that the present session would not pass away withoutlithee
poration of London being placed in the same situation as ,
coltuhdeerdCboyrpmoervaitniognsfeorftbteherectouurrnits7.vibiTebh,e Hon.
he Said, comr,r,vn
the stipends of the officers, the expense of the metropoen3_,
force, the expense of the mounted patrol, the fees receiv d re
the different offices of the metropolitan police, and the eat
of the police force, and the amount of the fees received at 0
offices, in the city of London.
moved for, and should be pleased to see the subject brought
Sir T. FREEMANTLE glad the returns were
under the consideration of Parliament. Member CO
Mr. C. ROSS thought that some assistance should be gi,r.c_n
to those men in the police force who might be injured or oi_s.,
abled in the execution of their duty ; and hoped that in re
measure which should be introduced to the House that par Of
it would not be neglected. itted
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER adro a
that the suggestion just made was a useful one ; and expres.s__co
a hope that it would be duly considered when the
of doing so should arrive. wog
ret
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP the
were orderad.
HALF-PAY OFFICERS IN THE POLICE, of
Mr. HUME wished to know whether he had been rig the
informed, when he was told that half-pay officers being: in,
_if,
police force in England were no longer to receive their r!" d
pay, while it would, notwithstanding, be continued to hall 1181
officers in Ireland, similarly circumstanced ?
Mr. F. BARING was inaudible in reply.
NEW FOURPENNY PIECES. was
proper time
Colonel SIBTHORP wished to know whether there ,
any truth in the report that Government had resolved to real
the new fourpenny pieces, and to issue no more of them?
not
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. svus er,
aware that there was any foundation for it. It might. howeevins
have arisen from the circumstance, that tile, wouldilsq,,_4e be
being only an experiment to see how far the pu u li-
convenienced by it, the supply, which was consequently 3
mited , had been exhd.
Mr.one BARING said a few words which were inaudibleio the
gallery.
TURNPIKE ROADS (SCOTLAND) i,,ond
The Turnpike Roads (Scotland) Bill was read a s—
time, and ordered to be committed.
SUPPLY.—ORDNANCE.
On bringing up the Report of the Committee of S
wholelE)_axMytrora.f
agency)HUMSre medical
system.i
:.a. ..otfo establishments
kh..e the
Ordnance
tilleember then went into the following
Establishment.srtoatteeign t agrleabsip:e- otiotiSlgi
Ord-
the expense and operation of that Department :--Ti_liet they
include,rsawucaircnl
yloc,eb
acetstdtefiermi
rs astnhtboeoest
wicanmewrmaoh, 1
eruma:
;3n:iotsostathor
other
sum Commissariat,
vet
involvedeof efi ,4i 4:1 :4441 97 li. i
ivili,rerh is
to be bt
heuents.
Ordnance deducted,The becausemimoney,
that sum is expended by tne , ece
in the Ordnance
complicated and greatly2:oiiesn3r:e_moftol
money
nee
ed,
Ay
rpid thatis
sint
required
wartedcesedquf
iereiesiea. i
i.
sonf ;ger
fates of
than
cann
fna 1 I,e_
Ordnance :-
1. For the pay and expenses of the whole of the Artillerf. -
gineer Forces, except the cost of their clothing' -11 11
---
~2caz.o:disEilii:
eluded in the vote for the general provision of stores, 'I
Pay of artillery, engineers, &c. (including
nce adjutants,to siyi surgeons
pay and allowances to commanding offi-
Aleloe:
36£ 9,632
Medicines, wines, &
Recruiting expensese., 1,773
for artillery hospitals
109
Purchasesuncr of horses
anieey for beer, under the head 0f...a.110.w -
, hire of carriages, travelling
and passacree
regiments,' formoney, allowance to messes of
wine, &c.
......... .••
_________ 4
10'728
Allowance

2. For repairs of fortifications, including all ex-
penses of management, viz.—. R 66,641
Ordnance works and repairs
317
Extra pay to engineers for superintending them
12,
16,9u'' 9,s,t''A
Pay of clerks of works, &c.
____---
3. Barrack Department, including * all ...........
of management, viz.—
Buildings and repairs of barrack (infantry, ca-
valry, and artillery) .............................. ....E1219 526.:
12.3.?„;
Extra pay to engineers superintending them .••
16,9 t"
Pay to clerks of works. &c.
Barrack masters' expenditure, supposed to be for
rj, 441
..)
fuel for troop 4 generally
Pay to barrack masters and barrack-sergeants... 40,445
Barrack law expenses, travelling expenses, ad-
-2.38°
vertisements, &c
Rents in Great Britain, Ireland, and abroad ...
57:%
0,..5i0
Purchase of lands, &c. ...
..........--- or

4. Survey of counties
5. Miscellaneous expense, viz. :
1,768
Dr on zin g arms
Advertisements, travelling expenses, passage
9,512 -
money, &c
3,005
Alterations of store-houses at Tower
General law expenses
-
Postages
50 19,435 Allowance to two draftsmen for plans, &c

6. For the computed cost of all the stores that will be re-
quired for twelve months—viz.
Ordnance stores £60,000
Provision for
Bedding
the purchase
Great coats 15,000
of shores ...
Artillery clothing 19,780
Packing and frs.ght of stores 4,0 114'1E09,"4‘,
7. For Boards' salaries for general superintendence ••_•ti
8. Clerks' salaries for checking deliveries of stores, ""
keeping and examining accounts—viz., 096
Clerks' salaries—Pall-mall, Tower, and Dublin £5B,
096
allowance for rent, &c., and for coals and 567
candles
Clerks in Store Department at Woolwich ...... ..• '763
Clerks' allowance for making inventories .........
Clerks' salaries at out England... X 13,890 41,868
Ireland 2,152
stations
Abroad ... 25,626 1/o'°

Ts uoperranannuda ti ons
Woolwichviz
Clerks'ustlfyroarlinillaabtoluorne:
11Military*AttF h ditto
Home stations in England
************** * a-n:dia-i:iifi. ********* * viz.--**.... **
11$:).
28,237
****** 23,100
24,694 £
, - - -76
In Ireland and abroad
Crews of vessels employed in removing-powder 77'111
: 0734
1
Add Commissariat expenditure ...........................
.....,../.1.49
• .------
.........../
020
After having called the .... £l,3`-'4ll
."
•••
........... 141,
......... .• ,of tbe ,
heads of expenditure the Hon. Gentleman went on for tile
tend that all, with the exception perhaps of the charge 'OO4
TTa:ttttaaelintion of the House to e.;l't4f3o3e' Ilse
surveyunder
r of counties, upon which he had nothing to ale COT
proper
.management, be materially reduced. and fro
po
wan especially of the charge for extra Pay it, tot
lEongincee.esr oufudcoAnritmilalenrdyinisepoarffitemereso,t,aadojudtaonftsy tra Ps,
rtificati° to
tr Engineers for superintending the repairs of fo
_god
charge for Ordnance works and repairs atec,'`:„. thee
661,6411. ; the extra pay to Eineers for superintenowo a
jog - alle
works amounted to 12,337/, being a charge of net But the
1 1 per cent. upon the whole cost of the work at es as‘'
prodigal expenditure of which he complained chit' not
O°
here, for in the next item he found a charge ef not enorei°ll
16,9031. for the clerks of works, &c., being at the Thus it
of 25 per cent, on the whole cost of the works. owing?
would be seen that the expense of superintending! managing?
than
*id conducting the works and repairs going on in less tbs''
mace department amounted altogether to not ,a and re:
43 2-sths per cent. on the whole cost of those wer" to coot_
pairs. Of this he thought there was greattbreeaosloheil
,atote
plain. In the barrack department, again,
engineers and clerks of works amounted to 29,2401:;us for to
the rate of 24 per cent. on the whole cost of the works ct:
prosecution of which a vote of 121,526/. Salaries' of clef-A--
11ton there was a charge of 110,2954 for the of Stores,
who were merely employed to check the delive.ryositstion It
ond to keep and examine accounts. He had no
.11,he owoo..!,
saying that under a proper system of managenten ;s. fie,lPf
of this charge might be reduced by at least two-th.lro..rtrouteel
deed, had always been of opinion that the storeedevrs otisfl::
the Ordnance ought to be abolished, because It
_t ouch b.ebe
that there were no stores necessary which could nu,. ou to,.
ter be supplied, as they were wanted, by contract , a oh t`
;,, tad ,due
whole, he regretted that the Governrnent, hay..l.
their
year to consider of the matter, had not Carrie
„ let(
tions further.
of Sir AH.oLo.E
MI TeHmbHerAfoYr smaiiddditleaspepxeawreads
ftoouZaithioaiicab:loo:l,,:i
i
tions which he believed to be very incorrect, aeu_4eia to trPo.
forward in practice would not be found at altelle" h
ment.-er on
public service. The observations of the 11°n sistellt' and
specting the Engineer corps were strikingly incn,nioaslY ..,
the one hand, he complained they were parsiT
_iretiditwof
badly treated, and on the other of the amount
root_nise it'aucea,ba
lavished on the department. Under all the e. u
with 'to
the country, they had brought forward estimat posed Hon.
strictest regard to efficiency and economy. P:9Of the o.
was to admit the good intentions and the zea coasion ,
Member for Middlesex, he was on the present 0 1 tio eo
posed to question both the judicious tendency and
~,, rer
rectness of his observations.
Colonel ANSON questioned the propriety-of:th_eriscr'alt°.,
tion of the Hon. Member for Middlesex for gett.belgppy, -hoetr:a
gether of the accumulation of stores. He watsi to that Hoy•
ever, to find that one channel had been oPeee, the tbD
,ader
in the outlet which Spain presented, and hoped the o rents
mMuerme Ileeffre'setsievpepobryt
twould
applicationb e obtained
of 4:)sioreani cilelo_tete:!...orc..triftefisliroearii
ante of the adaptation of the percussion prineipl . Iv
.a.OO.
G uSuitrlemTuflu OopMpAusSite
arms at present in the stores.
recover the amount of the arms supplied to NN''''
Fit/. Ea
uNyI AnNegTol
raliea(
met year? ~.,IJER,
.0 0,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEti
ate Pie' - ob)
that in the present state of Spain the irninetll:l (24 lanedg
the account between the countries was. not 11 c--.,nlsh %ea
le
laEti oanssk V.
for its settlement just now; but that Governments —nor did he see any use of negotiation ertehelnil_.:poiroglifiCzn—'arjor°,
gfor° PtOod P.

£ 62,939
96,678

-- ion payment, and he had no doubt would fulfil its obli-
gat
This and the other resolutions were then agreed to.
the The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
House adjourned, at half-past Eleven o'Clock.

HOU SE F
O LoRDS, AritiL 12. The LORD k his seat on the woolsack at
1 h ANCE
the usual
our.
LLOR
Nir. BERNAL and others from the Commons brought up the
Prisoners Counsel Bill, the Birmingham and Gloucester Rail-
way ill, and the chequerEx Security Bill, which were seve-
rally read a first time.
CHANCELLOR'S DUTIES.
trodu
The
ction LORD CHANCELLOR said, preparatory to the
of a Bill for the better Administration of
Itl,as"t tice in the Court of Chancery, he begged to move
there be laid before the House a return of the num-
J'grf appeals which had been brought to that House in each
to since 1790 to the present time ; also the number dis-
posed of in each year ; and a return of the number of ap-
peals heard before the Privy Council during the same period.
The Noble and Learned Lord begged leave to give notice,
that next week it was the intention of his Majesty's Go-
vernment to introduce two Bills—one to provide for the
!letter administration of justice in the Court of Chancery.
The title of the other we did not hear in consequence of the
low tone in which the notice was given.
The Archbishop of .CANTERBURY presented a Bill
ffor ounded upon a Report of the Church Commission to provide
the better regulation of
pluralities and residence of the
titZgY, and the appointment of stipendiary curates. As the
10 was in strict conformity with the Report he would not
the then go into its details, but content himself with moving that
Bill be read a first time.—Agreed to. The most Rev.
the Bill on
:relate gave notice that he would move the second reading of
that night se'night.
of er
Lord LYNDHURST said as a Bill had come up from the
House providing counsel for prisoners, he begged to
Move that the evidence taken before the Committee, which
sat on the subject last Session, be printed. Being
nf°l7hed that it had not been reported, he moved
that the Committee be revived for the mere purpose of
trertiltg the evidence, as the Noble and Learned Lord
"13wh.—
rougham) wh
too was Chairman of the Committee was not in
Agreed .

CONSTABULARY BILL
Vise
ountIRISH- DUNCANNON moved the second. reading of
ibis Mi. That was the same Bill which had been before the
House last Session, when he understood their Lordships had
the 89 much objection to the principle of the Bill, as to
„s 7 time of the Session at which it was brought up to them.
e Att Noble Lord then stated the nature and effect of the various
clauses in uses m the Bill, which the public have already been made
acquainted with.
, The Earl of HADDINGTON said, that although he was
proposed
g'ad to find it was to give a small increase to the lower
class of constables, yet, considering the great changes that were
contemplated by the Bill, and the difference between the
Present Bill and the Bill introduced last year, he had hoped they
tould have had a less meagre and a fuller statement from his
„
,!'I
rjestyis Government upon the introduction of the measure.
ei Lordships were told that this measure was similar to
Itihnat of last year, but he defied the ingenuity of man to intro-
of two measures so completely unlike as this Bill and that
last year. _(Hear, hear.) It would be in the recollection
tf their Lordships that the last Session was followed during
the recess by a great deal of itinerant agitation, to excite the
public mind against their Lordships House, to misrepresent
etr Lordships' motives and proceedings, to hold them up to
public scorn and detestation, and to call for a reform which
114seuly an equivalent to an abolition of the House of Lords.
%I(tilear.) He only mentioned this because it happened,
though undoubtedly they did not join the general
e•PY that two personages, very high in his Majesty's Govern-
recut, the one his Majesty's Attorney-General for England,
t44d the other the Attorney-General for Ireland, paid a visit
his constituents—his Majesty's Attorney-General for
isuglsnd to his worthy constituents of Edinburgh—and the
hiltorney-General for Ireland, went over to harangue
co Dunarvon. In the course of their eeches
the
y dealt verynstituents g se
hardly with that Hou, giving thereby a good
pSlang that was directed against their Lordships' House. The
tornoy-General for England did not refer particularly to
the Constabulary Bill, but there were others which he accused
11:at., House of throwing out. The Attorney-General for Ire-
-nu, on the contrary, naturally went over those measures which
;ere interesting to that country, and amongst others he re-
erred to this Bill, and stated that he had never heard
rissYthing• like a reason for its rejection by that House.—
„.\ hear.) He said that it was an economical measure,
jt went to reduce the expenses of the police force; but
t.,-"t. this he (Lord H.) knew that the Hon. Gentleman was
bZtalt
mpen.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord H.) was much sur-
rad that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not core-
-4 -the reason for throwing out that Bill. The reason was
envery short, and had been stated at the time. The Bill had
Alien brosght into the House of Commons on the 10th of
gust and came up to their Lordships's House on the 20th.
It hadpassed the House of Commons without examination,
314 their Lordships did not choose to undertake the respon-
aisl " itY of passing a
Bill of its nature at so late a period of the
fhe
on, when it was impossible to give it mature consideration.
tape present Bill was a good one, a well considered measure,
s one that would tend to the attainment of the public wel-
are, then was the measure rejected by their Lordship's last
__ssion one of the most worthless, one of the most useless,
71(1 most slovenly pieces of legislation ever brought before
eir Lordships.—( Hear.) The differences between the two
,ti!olls were very considerable. There were no two clauses
22". The present Bill contained 47 clauses, the other 20 or
The Bill of last year incorporated the Peace Preserva-
m Act, the Police and other Acts, whereas the Bill of
Le present year repealed all these Acts, and made one
calsolidated Act. All these differences-might or might not
huprovements--it was not for him (the Earl of Hadding-
vvar) to say which ; but if they were improvements, the more
Ze their Lordships justified in throwing out the former Bill.
'Hear, hear.) The more were they justified in rejecting it,
vtsithstanosing the summary and authoritative manner in
to Ado
they had been called upon, by the Noble Lord opposite,
ehTle pt the ill-considered edicts that had come from another
ace
(Hear, hear.) By the 12th Clause of the Bill of
4104 year, the Lord Lieutenant had the power to make rules
The regulations for the general government and discipline of
ellaP°liee• By the 4th clause of the present Bill, it was
ntits .d that the Inspector-General with the approbation of
dLLord Lieutenant, might make-What? Rules, orders,
17it
.(Iregulations for the general government of the police.
it
shhad been expedient to give any such power, surely
ei id aid have been given to the Lord Lieutenant in council ;
of th net to himself alone or to the Inspector-General
ev police, that such a power should have been given. That
a .eer was but a trivial objection, for the present Bill gave
cvellsPrshig power to the Lord Lieutenant to overlay and
veh. the duties of the police constables. The 10th clause
b:i at dispensing to the Lord Lieutenant, which prevented
so ag employed in the recovery of tithes or matters of that
intrt, ,a 'Mess in cases where actual resistance to the law should
103, been committed and proved. The Act 3d Geo. IV., c.
The for the regulation of the police, contained no such proviso.
dill of last year left the law on that point as it now stood;
the resent Bill went to alter it very materially. It enacted
list 'Use constables were not to interfere until there had been a
hee-ti--:until some heads had been broken, or perhaps life had
bae'lciatigered, and then--not till then, were the constables
his N armed with a warrant.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped
htt :11 le Friends belonging to Ireland would forgive him,
Irish must say that this appeared to him to be a very
With Mode of legislation.—( A laugh.) He had seen
11 a Zyise the statement reported to have been made
WietCab and Learned Lord in that House—that the Bill
iii
that
the same principle as they had acted upon while
thas >Wer;n ghat was most erroneous—all they required was,
rear 41,s,atMlas it should be made that there was a well-grounded
s,,,eutistXtat the peace would be broken, and then the
:.`hen—tea were to act under the direction of the magistrate.
very (Ls...again, the puwers of augmenting the police force were
the 17rterent in this Bill from what they were last year ; also
skit itsct °illation of constables was very different. He did
I,ta th`a c to say whether the alterations were right or wrong,
Wiltsi_.B Bills were very different. The appointment of resident
Ns; rra tes--there was nothing of this kind in the Bill of last
14 the might be, nay, it would be, very useful ; but it was not
treat .111 of last year.' In the Bill of last year there was a
title I►ll-1111cs 'ease of patronage, but in the Bill then before
-'4lse . that patronage was very much increased—in the
General "1 las t there was to have been one Inspector-
tier) with a salary of 1,0001. a-year ; by the present Bill
tit'vfietihk hlieT, t° be one Insector- General at 1,500/. a-year.
there were to begone or two inspectors, he did not
Were 00/. a 3'cai • ' • a bit too much. By the former Bill there
it kas
tr
obe 32 inspectors at 3001. a-year ; by the present Bill
posed. there should be 42 inspectors at 5001. a-year.
ellt 3 not •
tso e quite sure that that was altogetherb honest :
h.q... erezins was that the increase in t e number and
rbe x 9 of salary ought to be the subject of
esitat animation, and that their Lordships ought to
e before they sanctioned such an expenditure
t'int it % patronage as that ; and were entitled to insist. uponn
reveateetisroved to them that it was a real and substantial
s_as pro (Hear, hear, hear.) By the last Bill. it
prese 'xi to have 32 S b
1, it U -inspectors at 100/. ; by this
la._`6o/. 4e as proposed to have 42 S.ubinstpoectors
lethe.thought they were also entitled
sser ,..,1`_40.b!e Lord, when they went into Committecael,l
l for Information from him, to show why it was ne.-
;:49rdsti`..°: make that increase. He would not trouble their
1.Z1). ecr about Paymasters, Storekeepers, and so on. He
atdeur,Te* •sed he did not understand completely, although
at of 'l° ad it a little better now, after bearing the state-
art of the Noble Lord, than he had done before, that
I,etite,latilt: Bill with iscference to the power of the Lord
a great t 9 create alief constables. There would
11"_1)e 1114,‘. increase of expense by the present Bill.
(tiitses, year, including 70,000/. for clothing, arms,
file Presen't 3s 6,630/. ; while the expense,
sumo of
Bill cf
itte hoped h yea r, vvould amount to the sum of 407,0801.
sti,.__PPesed 4tnai-1 said sufficient to guard himself against being
and
,t 9 be aware of the great importance of this
tiestide a he believed that there was not a Noble Lord on
ties°llll, nee, the House who was not aware of that
be-IroUs to „,....Itlto Wile was not ready and willing, and
cierit cessary f-61-ee to any measure that sh.ould be shown to be
foreQ.cr the
improvement of that most valuable and effi.
fiNt He could not dissemble that he entertained very
had hee..st
it this subject, arising from the comparison
;)a,llB, entitleet making--he felt a distrust which every man
2:.•rotztße 0 to. feel
at a t gratuitous and profuse lavishing of
111 411Ytitiefl,1 his Majesty's Government. He did not wish tc
la willing I, to create ill feeling, but he would be extremely
her`;., di° y great extent of patronage in the
efe Present Government, not from any distrust of
t se without whose support they could not stand

a single day.--( Loud cheers.) He would only add that it was
his intention on Thursday to move for certain returns relative
to the strength and expense of the existing police force.
' • - -

Lord DUNCANNON said that the principle of this Bill
was precisely the same as the Bill of last year. The rea-
son why the salary of the Inspector-General was so high was
on account of the diminution in the number of inspectors.
Lord BANDON bore testimony to the high character of the
gentleman who had been appointed to the office of Inspector-
General.

Lord HA THERT ON denied that there was any essen-
til difference between this Bill and the Bill of last year. In
principle there was certainly none. In the details there was
some difference ; but it must be recollected, however, that this
was a Bill to consolidate, while the Bill of last year was a Bill
to amend. The Noble Lord then defended the 10th clause,
and denied that it bore the construction which his Noble
and Learned Friend had put upon it.—(Hear, hear.)_..
His Noble Friend had alluded to the difference of the mode
of proceeding between the Government to which he had
belonged, and the present Government, relative to the employ-
ment of police in aiding in the levy of tithes. He
believed that the result of the system of so employing
the police had been attended with a daily diminishing success.
The Noble Lord's Government had been succeeded by the
Lords Justices who had in almost every instance refused such ap-
plications. If the Noble Lord was now at the head of the Irish
Government, he would, he (Lord Hatherton) believed, act in a
precisely similar manner, for things wore come to such a pass
in Ireland relative to the payment of tithes that no power
on earth could succeed in enforcing their payment, and it was
therefore absolutely necessary some other system should be bad
recourse to. He trusted that these explanations would be
considered sufficient with reference of the observations of his
Noble Friend.

The Earl of H ADDINGTON explained.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said—My Lords, I do
not think that it is worth while to give much consideration to
the Bill of last year, particularly after the details which my
Noble Friend has entered into ; but, however, there is one
general remark on the subject which I shall make, and that is
with respect to the expense. By the Bill of last year, the ex-
pense amounted to the sum of 346,0001., a sum exceeding by
100,000/. the average expense of the existing system, which
is 250,0001. The expense proposed by this Bill is 425,000/.,
so that the difference in the expense is nearly 100,0001. sur-
plus over the sum proposed last year, and 200,0001. over the
average expense of the existing system. Now, my 'Lords, I
think your Lordships ought to be convinced of the absolute
necessity of this new system—of the great benefits it would
confer on Ireland—before you adopt it in Committee. My
Lords, I must confess, that I came, down to the House with
considerable feelings as to the dismissal of the whole of this
force, and as to the dismissal of all the officers who have been
serving so long ; but the Noble Viscount who spoke on the
other side of the House says that it is not intended that this
dismissal shall take place. With this declaration lam quite
satisfied ; but I do think that a few words ought to be intro-
duced into the Bill—(Hear)—in order not to put an end at
once to the whole of this force. Let the Lord Lieutenant
have the power of dismissing, but do not let the whole force
be put an end to at once. My Lords, lam extremely averse
to this appointment at once of officers, considerably exceeding
100 in number, with salaries of 3001., 4001., 5001., and 8001.
a year. My Lords, I must also express my regret that a part
of this expense is about to be thrown upon the landed pro-
prietors in Ireland. The expense they now incur is about
100,0001. ; but the expense they will hereafter incur is two
hundred thousand pounds.—( Hear.) My Lords, I beg you also
to observe that by this increased expense you also deprive
these gentlemen of the only constables, the only parties who
could give them protection of civil power to recover their pro-
perty. My Lords, I shall merely advert to the clause which
restricts the use of the constables by the magistrates in the
Quarter Sessions. The clause is clause 10. The Noble
Lord has stated that this clause is the same as the clause seven
and eight of the Act of Geo. IV., called the Act establishing
sessions in Ireland. It is perfectly true that this clause con-
tains a restriction upon the use of constables by the magis-
trates and petty sessions in respect to tithe cases and cases for
the recovery of property ; but there is a great difference be-
tween the two classes, and I do entreat your Lordships to look
at both before you come into Committee,

Lord ['ATHERTON explained.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that it was consolatory for
him to know that no dismissal was to take place ; but he thought
that some enactment on the subject would be more satisfactory.
The Noble Viscount opposite had declared that the magistrates
of Ireland were free from blame. Why, therefore, he would
ask, should the Government deprive them of the power of ap-
pointing constables ? He thought that having one Inspector-
General instead of four Inspectors would be attended with ad-
vantageous results ; but then it should be remembered that
there was a great difference between merely altering a system
and introducing one entirely new. He firmly believed that
this measure was introduced for the purpose of bringing num-
bers of Roman Catholics into the police force. This Bill, he
would also contend, had the effect of creating a standing army
in Ireland. The power of increasing it would be placed in
the hands of the Lord Lieutenant—a power which the King
himself did not enjoy. He felt great pleasure in knowing that
a declaration made that night with respect to tithes had not
come from a Minister of the Crown, and he hoped that no
Minister would venture to rise in his place and avow that he
participated in such a doctrine. He should not now oppose
the second reading of the Bill ; but he should feel it to be
his duty in the committee to propose one or two amendments.
The Duke of LE INSTER made a few observations which
were totally inaudible in the gallery.
The Earl of WINC HIL SEA should feel extreme jealousy
at granting to the Lord Lieutenant the appointment of con-
stables under the Bill. He thought it would be much buttes
to leave those appointments in the hands of the magistrates of
the country, who were admitted on all sides never to have
abused that power. Why was it, he should wish to ask the
Noble Viscount opposite, that the patronage of the Govern-
ment was to be increased by the present Bill, as compared with
the Bill of last year, 100,000/. ? He should not detain their
Lordships longer than to express his determination to oppose
the 10th clause in the Committee.
Toe Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, if the powers
asked for by this Bill was granted they would be at the dis-
posal of one individual, whose baneful influence was already
too deeply felt in Ireland.--( Cheers.) He had within a few
days received a letter from a gentleman residing in the county
of Armagh, describing the manner in which the Government
patronage was disposed of in that part of the country, and
that nothing but a system of O'Connellism pervaded the whole
of the appointments made, both in the police and in the law,
and this the writer of the letter said would be clearly shown if
returns of those appointments were moved for. By these re-
turns would be seen the shameless preference given to Roman
Catholics over Protestants, in the proportion of ten to one.—
( Cheers.) The letter went on to state that this conduct of
Lord Mulgrave had excited the greatest disgust in that part
of the country, not so much on account of the preference
given to Roman Catholics, as because the Catholics selected
were invariably of the O'Connell party. He should not
trouble their Lordships with any further observations, but he
should feel it to be his duty, unless great amendments indeed
were made in the Bill, to oppose it on the third reading.
Lord LYNDHURST wished to ask the Noble Viscount
opposite if he would have any objection to the introduction of
a clause into the Bill to prevent all persons employed in the
police from voting at elections, similar to the clause that was
in the English Police Bill?
Viscount MELBOURNE did not think there was any such
clause in the English Police Bill, and if there were not he
should certainly not consent to the introduction of any such
into the present Bill. If there were such a clause in the Eng-
lish Bill he admitted that it would be a fit matter for consi-
deration if it ought not to be also introduced into this. He
thought the objections urged against the Bill would have been
better reserved for the Committee than brought forward in the
present stage, more particularly as it seemed to be the disposi-
tion of their Lordships to suffer the Bill to go into a Com-
mittee. He thought too that it would be better to abstain
from all angry feeling and dissension in the discussion of an
important measure like the present, and he begged it to be dis-
tinctly understood and recollected by their Lordships. that
this display of angry feeling and personal attack did not com-
mence with his side of the House.—( Cheers.) One Noble
Lord had stated as the grounds for not agreeing to the Bill of
last year the lateness of the period at which it was in-
troduced ; but although this might be the ground upon
which the Noble Lord acted, and thought the House
acted, yet it must be recollected that other Noble Lords
had stated very different grounds for their opposition to that
Bill, namely, grounds of a political and personal nature.—
( Cheers. ) And those very grounds had been even that night
adopted in his speech by the Noble Marquis who had lately
spoken, and by other Noble Lords. The Noble Earl ( Had-
dington) had stated his reluctance to place any patronage
in the hands of the present Government, because that pa-
tronage must be, as the Noble Earl assumes, at the disposal
of a party, without the support of which the Government could
not last an hour. Now, he (Viscount Melbourne) did not
wish to introduce any contrast, but he believed that no Go-
vernment could last in this constitutional Monarchy unless
it had the support of a majority of the House of Commons-
-( Cheers)--and this fact he believed Noble Lords opposite
had pretty good reason to know.—( Cheers.) They remained
more than one hour, he believed they did several hours,
in office, but not many weeks, in opposition to a majority of
the House of Commons. He would repeat that the existence
of every Ministry must depend pro Canto on a majority of the
House of Commons, but he utterly denied that the present
Government was dependent upon any one individual of that
majority, as had been stated. He certainly did not feel him-
self at liberty to reject the support of any Member of the
House of Commons who was thought by his constituents to be
worthy of a scat there. As to the clauses of the Bill, it cer-
tainly was not his intention to discuss them now; but, with
respect to the power given to the Lord Lieutenant of dis-
missing persons from the police, it was no more than the power
he possessed at this moment, for he could now dismiss any
person he pleased from the police. He was certainly much
that
tm
those
ea s
statements
ttehme e
nin-
crease iseedf aetxtpheeusset,atbeumteletsuthrdaterhsatod be h
understood
were not correct. He was also much surprised to hear the
Noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wicklow) state that the
Bill of last year was suffered to pass the House of Commons
without opposition, in
order to make
it the foundation of
. as to suppose
an argument against another measure. Now he ( Viscount
views.He hoped
the
by the statements made by
o e
Melbourne)
Earl's
fri
friends
d s iie
did
t, not °
other
House
that they were influenced by any unfavourably s
country would not be carried awayk
so
u c l
iam
nt of the Noble
Noble Duke or Noble Lords opposite. . s to any attacks
that had been made elsewhere upon the House of Lords, he
had never sanctioned or joined in those attacks.— (Cheers.)
Anything that he had ever said of the House of Lords he
said in that House.—( Cheers.) His disposition always was
to act upon the principle of the Roman orator, Cicero he

believed—Mihi semper in animo fuit, in senatu populum
defendere.
Lord L YNDHURST had just looked over the English
Police Bill, and found that there was a clause to prevent all
persons employed in the police from voting at elections for the
counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, and Essex. The Noble
and Learned Lord read the clause.
The Earl of HADDINGTON, in explanation, said that as
to the attacks of which the Noble Viscount had spoken as com-
ing from his (the Earl of Haddington's) side of the House, he
could only say that if the attacks were on his side the anger
was on the other.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the statement he
had made of the increased expense was taken from the schedule
of the Bill itself.—[The Noble Duke here read the list of the
various appointments under the Bill, and the salary attached
to,each, by which it appeared that the whole cost would be
425,000 E, whereas the expense of the present police establish-
ment was only 250,000/.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Tuesday next.—Adjourned.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

If the Conservatives had ever been really alarmed
for anything beyond the loss of place and power to
their party, some of the proceedings in the House of
Commons last night would have afforded them infinite
comfort. Mr. Ewart brought forward a motion, the
object of which was to make it law that the landed
' property of persons dying intestate, who have fami-
lies, should be equally divided among the children of
the deceased. However great the advantages which
the Aristocracy think the country owes to the law of
primogeniture, it cannot be denied that to common
minds there appears something desirable in the " share
and share alike" system. That in a noble family one
son should succeed to immense wealth, while the rest
are left in indigence, is that against which the philan-
thropic reformer may eloquently declaim ; and when
we look to the consequences of the law in question—
at least when we look to the character and conduct of
the sons of the nobility—we cannot much exult in the
view thus obtained. But the motion was resisted by Mi-
nisters, on the around that the change was not called
for by the public—and that while so many grievances
pressed upon them for redress, it would be folly
to enter upon a speculative reform, which would
go to effect a grand change in the Constitution of the
country, in which they were not prepared to concur.
The subject was opened by Mr. Ewart in a very tem-
perate manner. Mr. Tooke opposed the motion as
absurd, and as unworthy of the consideration of the
House. In answer to that Honourable Gentleman,
Mr. Roebuck, in a very clever speech, vindicated the
proposition embodied in the motion, and spoke against
aristocratical influence with much emphasis, and in a
manner which was considesed to point directly to the
abolition of the House of Lords. He was instantly
replied to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
broadly told, though he might feel satisfied that there
was a party in the country who would approve of such
a change, he had only to bring it forward there, and
he would soon find that it would meet with no support
in that House. This we say would comfort the Con-
servatives, if, when they were ejected from Downing-
street, they had been really afraid " the time-honoured
fabric" of the Constitution was about to be laid in
ruins by their desperate successors. It was at-
tempted to make the more timid portion of the
public believe that all the furies of revolution were
about to be unchained, and that the atrocities of
Robespierre and the vagaries of the Goddess of Rea-
son were to be acted in England. They will now see
the fear was vain, and. be satisfied, whatever the ex-
pectations which brought Nina Lassave to the Strand,
that she will not easily find a Fieschi the Second in
London. From what passed last night, when Whigs'
and Tories found themselves dividing (if we may in-
dulge in the solecism) together, they must perceive,
with this great body of the nation, that when they
think there is cause for alarm, the present Ministers
will as promptly and as sternly defend the Constitution
as ever those could do whose good pleasure it was to
stigmatise them as the unreasoning advocates of inno-
vation, and the foes of everything ancient, venerable,
or sacred. Whatever may be thought of primogeniture,
it must be admitted that much discussion must precede
the introduction of any motion on the subject into the
Legislature, with the hope of its being extensively sup-
ported.—Morning Chronicle.
The wanton destruction of a very excellent work of
art like the equestrian statue of King William 111., in
College-green, Dublin, which, as our Irish correspon-
dent shows, was the other night blown up with gun-
powder, would be an act of mere Vandalic barbarism, if
it were not inspired by religious bigotry and political
malevolence. That statue, the symbol of the revolu-
tion of 1688, was a memorial of the deliverance of
the civil and religious liberties of the British people
from the grasp of a sullen and ruthless tyrant, who
laboured through his short and ignominious reign to
prostrate the Protestant Constitution, and the hrone
of a free people, at the feet of Papal Rome. As such
a memorial that statue has always been an odious
thing in the eyes of that class of the Irish people who
kate the principles which the Restorer of Protestant
freedom successfully asserted, and would rather he the
slaves of the vassal despot of the Romish Power than
the free subjects of a Protestant British King. we
are far from including all the Roman Catholics in
this description. The more educated classes of that
persuasion are, in general, too enlightened to under-
value the advantages of the freedom which they now en-
joy. But it cannot be denied that there is in Ireland a
numerous and desperate faction, headed by the more in-
tolerant members of the priesthood, and by the political
agitators whose aim and object is to subvert all Pro-
testant institutions, and eventually to get rid of the
hated connection with England altogether. That
party has existed by succession in Ireland, ever since
the days of the Stuarts ; and though they were long
quiet, after the defeats at Londonderry, the Boyne,
and Aughrim had crushed their guilty designs, yet
they never failed to cherish a pious hatred for the
principles which triumphed at the revolution ; the
principles that are embodied in the Bill of Rights, and
for the preservation of which the illustrious family of
Brunswick were raised to the throne of these realms.
It is not the first or second time that the same faction
have shown their malignant and implacable hatred to
the memory of William of Orange, and the principles
of the revolution, by defacing the statue of the great
Deliverer of the Protestant empire and the Protestant
religion. They have at length succeeded in their bar-
barous object of destroying the statue. We have no
doubt that they regard it not only as some revenge
for the past, but as a pledge of a more complete
triumph for the future. Over the fragments of
the mutilated image of the hero of civil and religious
liberty the shouts of savage exultation have been
raised by that faction, whose seditious projects have, of
late years, been so successful, that they expect the day
is not far distant when they shall shout over the ruins
of the Protestant Constitution, and the broken links
of British connection I As a work of art, the loss of
that splendid and truly classic statue can hardly be re-
paired. This is bad enough—but it is worse to think
that there is an active and virulent faction in Ireland
whom no kindness can conciliate, and whom every con-
cession on the part of the British Government renders
more daring, fierce, and insolent. Nothing can satisfy
that faction but the complete surrender of the Govern-
ment of Ireland into their hands I Are our Whig
Ministers prepared to make the sacrifice ? If not, they
must stop somewhere.—Morning Herald.
The Crown, it is well known, neither pays nor re-
ceives costs in any of the numerous prosecutions
which are instituted in its name. The result in prac-
tice of this is that a man may be sued by the Excise,
Customs, or any other of the Revenue Boards, for
duties or penalties which be has never incurred,
and, though, acquitted by a Jury, may be, and some-
times is, actually ruined by the heavy law expenses
which his defence against an unjust or mistaken
charge
has entailed upon him. We are induced to
notice this subject by the result of the late four prose-
cutions tried at the Norfolk Assizes for alleged bribery
0,
at Yarmouth—prosecutions which, though unuertaken
in pursuance of a solemn vote and address of the House
of Commons, were, in fact, scouted out of Court by
the Judge and Juries. Yet in these cases we are in-
formed that the same inflexible rule above referred to
prevails ; and though the parties stand not only fully
acquitted, but the prosecution, it is now manifest,
ought never to have beeii instituted, the parties are
actually punished in the shape of costs to an extent
probably as great as had they pleaded guilty or of-
fered no defence. Now that here is a great indivi-