The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-14 00:00:00

i..--..
SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

(From the Globe.)
The Tory journals are diligently engaged in proving
that Ministers have been defeated on Sir J. Graham's
motion, and that the Opposition, of course, obtained a
triumph. The majority of nine against the motion is, they
contend, a virtual confirmation of the censure upon the
Government conveyed by the terms of the motion, and
ought to be so interpreted by the Cabinet. This view
they support by a threefold argument. First—
the numerical majority is small ; secondly—the mem-
bers of the Government, whose condemnation was
sought by the motion in question, voted for their own
acquittal, which, if they had not done, there would
have been a majority of one in favour of the motion ;
thirdly—the Irish Members voted on the question ;if
they had abstained from voting, the Tories would have
triumphed. Our reply to the first of these modest alle-
gations is—that the majority of nine would have been at
least upwards of twenty, had the entire House been pre-
sent. There were absent, without pairs, nineteen Libe-
rals and seven Conservatives : these would have given
twelve more to the Ministers. Thus the assertion that
the Ministers are on this question supported merely by
a majority of nine, is specious, and not real ; the result
of accident, and not of desertion by any of those who
had, a few weeks before, voted confidence in their go-
vernment.

(From the Standard.)
A short conversation, which passed between Sir
Robert Peel and Lord Palmerston, at the morning
sitting of the House of Commons on Saturday, affords
some light as to the manner in which it is proposed
to prosecute hostilities against the Chinese empire.
Ministers, it would appear, have not yet wrought
themselves up to the degree of courage necessary to
declare a war, as to the origin and policy of which
they have escaped censure by no greater a majority
than nine, the number of Cabinet Ministers and Secre-
taries of Cabinet Ministers, who voted in the majority ;
but though they are not permitted to declare war, and
thus invest the country with the legitimate right of pro-
claiming blockades, and taking those other measures of
offence which neutral powers would be bound to re-
spect, they are resolved to use the means of war against
the Chinese.

(From the Courier.)
Among the Notices of Motions for this evening we
observe one for a Bill to continue the Poor-law Commis-
sion for a limited period ; and another, for a Bill for the
better Administration of Relief to the Poor in England
and Wales, both notices preceded by a name fearfully
ominous to the helpless by destitution, age, sickness, or
any of the numerous "ills that flesh is heir to." Lord
John Russell wishes, as is quite natural in a Whig,
for a further extension of a Commission, which has been
productive of more misery and heart-burnings than ex-
isted at any period previous to the enactment of the
celebrated statute which, in the 43d year of Elizabeth's
reign, emanated from the wisdom and humanity of those
great statesmen who conferred imperishable lustre upon
her councils. We arc not sorry for this intimation,
since we hope that the opportunity which will be pre-
sented on the second reading of the Bill, for removing
the whole of its extremely obnoxious clauses, will not
be neglected.

TITHE COMMUTATION ACT.
The NOBLE Maavors then moved the second read-
ing of the Bill for amending the Tithe Commutation
Act, by shortening the delay which now occurred be-
tween fixing the rent charge and apportioning the dif-
ferent amounts, enabling the tithe-payer to arrange it
(as we understood) himself with the Clergyman.
The Bill was then read a second time.
POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said he should
be as brief as possible in the statement he had to sub-
mit to the House. Their Lordships would recollect
that last Session a Poor-law Act had passed which
had been highly eulogised for the benefits it would pro-
duce in Ireland. Parliament did not direct any scru-
tiny to take place in the manner in which votes were
tendered, relying on the Commissioners to prescribe
the duties of the returning officer under the Act, but
these Commissioners did not prescribe those duties, nor
ascertain what claimants were entitled to vote. A Bill
was introduced last Session by a member of the Go-
vernment into the Lower House for the purpose of re-
forming the errors of the former Act, and supplying its
defects, and came up to that House under the same
description ; but a clause was introduced upon the third
reading, without Ministers having alluded to the sub-
ject, which did away with the clause in the Act of the
former Session, whereby persons were prevented voting
until they had paid their rates, and every person liable
to be rated was made entitled to vote. The
consequence of this Bill thus introduced under
a wrong description would be to overthrow
the only security of landed property in Ireland. One
observation he should make : it would be for their
Lordships to consider whether the conduct of the Go-
vernment was not most unjustifiable, and calling for
severe censure. The Noble Marquis then read over
a list of persons who he contended ought not to have
been appointed to offices of such responsibility. Amongst
them were Mr. Finn, who boasted of being a member
of the National Association, and Dr. Phelan, who at-
tended a meeting of Catholic priests, and advocates of
the Repeal of the Union, at Ardee, at which meeting
the country was divided into electoral districts. The
Noble Marquis proceeded to say, that he had under-
stood, from the most respectable authority, that in the
county of Louth, all the large properties had been
studiously divided for the manifest purpose of giving
power to the priests, and dividing the influence of the
landed proprietors. That he believed was a system di-
rectly at variance with that pursued by the Poor-law
Commissioners in England. In three-fourths of Ire-
land the most reckless 'proceedings had been resorted
to ; and he bad no hesitation in saying, that
that state of things there had been brought on
by the interference of the priests. The next
subject to which he would allude, was the case of the
returning officers. He found that the returning officer
in the county of Clare was a gentleman of the name of
O'Connell, and he would state certain particulars con-
nected with that gentleman. It appeared that Mr.
O'Connell gave voting bills to persons who were not
duly entitled to them. On a Sunday after Mass, Mr.
O'Connell addressed the people and said, that as he was
a returning officer he was prevented from interfering
in the election of guardians, but he advised them to
vote for those whom the priests might recommend to
them. He added that if many of the Magistrates were
where they should be, they should themselves be in the
poor-house. Mr. O'Connell, however, was Crown
Solicitor for the county. The Poor-law Commissioners
had instituted an inquiry into his conduct. They stated
that a case was proved against him, and that they
strongly disapproved of the course he had pursued.
He was then informed—of what did their Lordships
think ?—that a repetition of such conduct would be
held to disqualify him from fulfilling the office of return-
ing officer in future. He (the Marquis of Westmeath)
would ask if that were a proper mode of proceeding on
the part of the Commissioners ? The next flagrant case
to which he would call their Lordships' attention occurred
in Clonmel. Mr. Butler was the returning officer there.
That gentleman had unduly withdrawn the names of two
candidates for the office of guardian for the purpose
of securing the nomination of another. The
Magistrates of Tipperary had twice urged on the
Poor-law Commissioners the necessity of instituting an
inquiry on that subject, but they had been refused on
both occasions. He believed that Mr. Butler had been
raised to the office which he filled against the wish of
the Poor-law Commissioners themselves, and he had
reason to know that he owed his appointment to a
pressure on the Government. In Dublin nothing ,
could exceed the violence which was resorted to during
the election of Guardians. More than fifty voting
papers were known to have been forged on that occa-
sion. A placard had been issued to the effect that no
Protestant should be elected, and that all Protestants
were children of hell and of Henry Vlll.—(Laughter.)
In Limerick all the Guardians were elected from the
political unions. In the Queen's County Lord De Vesci
was rejected, and a farmer named Lalor was elected in
his stead. On that occasion a poor man, seventy years
of age, who refused to give up his voting paper, was
horsewhipped by the priest, and thrown into a ditch.
In the parish of Carrick-on-Shannon, three-fourths of
which belonged to him (the Marquis of Westmeath),
he proposed to his tenants that they should elect a
Roman Catholic, taking care that he should be solvent
and not likely to run away with the rates,
and that they should allow him to nominate a Protes-
tant. That proposition was agreed to at first, and would
have been acted upon but for the interference
of the priests.—( Hear, hear.) A respectable
Roman Catholic who intended to offer himself as a can-
didate was met in the street by the priest who asked
him how he dared offer himself without his leave. The
gentleman would have stood notwithstanding, but that
his father threatened him with his heaviest displeasure
if he acted against the will of the priest. In Mayo,
Sligo, and Roscommon, the same system prevailed.
Although he could go on speaking for another hour—
(A laugh) he thought he had made out a suffi-
cient case for a Committee, and he would not occupy
the House further with the proofs of such horrible in-
terference with the rights of British subjects. He con-
cluded by moving for the appointment of a Committee
to inquire into the election of certain Poor-law Guar-
dians in Ireland.
The Marquis of NORM ANBY said, that when the
Noble Lord gave notice of this motion, he (Lord Nor-
manby) intimated that he should feel it his duty to op-
pose the appointment of the Committee, and to give his
opinion, not only of the motion, but of the time at which
it was brought forward. He was sure their Lordships
never heard so frivolous and weak a case for
the revision of the system which the
Legislature had left to the discretion of the
Poor-law Commissioners. He thought it would require
a stronger case than the Noble Marquis had made out,
to induce their Lordships to bring before a Com-
mittee the whole question of the discretion
which their Lordships two years ago almost unani-
mously left to the Commissioners. There were but
three or four cases in which appeals had been made to
the Commissioners. The Noble Marquis opposite mis-
understood the object of the Bill, which he had insinu-
ated had been smuggled through the House last Ses-
sion. The scale according to which persons voted was
copied, word for word, from the original Act, and by
the 106th clause of the Act all persons were precluded
from voting who had not paid their rates up to the last
six months.—(Hear, hear.) It was not the fact, as the
Noble Marquis had stated, that the appointment of Dr.
Phelan was forced upon the Commissioners by the Go-
vernment. It was the spontaneous act of the Commis-
sioners, who knew from the writings and character of
that gentleman that he was eminently qualified for the
office. He (Lord Normanby) had carefully abstained
from all interference with the appointments of the
Commissioners. He had watched their conduct
carefully since the first application of the Bill
and there never was a body of men who had executer
their trust with more zeal, fidelity, and, so far as the ex-
periment had proceeded, with more success. The Noble
Marquis disclaimed party objects, but it was unfortu-
nate for his disclaimer that his first complaint was
respecting a gentleman who had taken part in dividing
the Noble Marquis's estate into electoral districts.
He (Lord Normanby) regretted, with the Noble Mar-
quis, that in many instances the election of guardians
had been carried on with party spirit. He believed
there were faults on both sides, and that the priests
sometimes interfered more than they ought. But he
ought to recollect their former position. They were
formerly the principal administrators of relief, and, there-
fore, upon the first operation of a measure soto for new, it
was not unnatural that they should be applied ad-
vice, and that their influence should have weight. But
that influence could not be wrenched from them by
force, and the appointment of the Committee would
drive them probab:y to further interference, whereas
hewo
would
dd
curethe gi rt es
ea
itfe.s t cTonnefi doeffinecee
waot u pl
dr ebs
be resent n t thatfoun the e
d arduous,vil
troublesome, and unpopular, and it would be very diffi-
cult to induce persons of the class objected to by the
Noble Marquis to undertake the office. The next point
upon which the Noble Marquis (Westmeath) relied was
the appointment of the returning officers. Now with re-
spect to the case of Mr. Chas. O'Connell it was to be
observed that the complaint made against him was not
upon party grounds, but was brought by Mr. Macna-
mars, a gentleman of the same party in Mac
n-
county, and the Commissioners very wisely and very
justly censured Mr. Charles O'Connell for his
conduct in addressing the people at the chapel.
Mr. Charles O'Connell had ceased to be returning of-
ficer, as was shown by Mr. Stanley's letter. With re-
ference to the Clonmel case, he must say the Noble
Marquis bad been guilty of most unpardonable negli-
gence in collecting information, or of most lamentable
ignorance, because the Clonmel case was at the present
moment in the course of trial before a Court of Law—
( Hear)—and yet the Noble Marquis had moved for a
Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of Mr.
Butler in reference to that case. Immense mischief
might ensue from the motion of the Noble Marquis
being carried. He trusted their Lordships, therefore,
would not interfere with the working of the Irish Poor-
law Act, but would allow the great cause of charity to
proceed, and give a direct negative to the motion.
The Duke of WELLINGTON observed that the

Noble Marquis had stated that a doubt existed whether
the 85th clause of the original Act did not govern the
clause introduced into the amended Act, and admitted
that that doubt ought to be cleared up. He wished to
call their Lordships' recollection to the part he took
in the measure when it was before Parliament. He had
supported the measure, and proposed alterations which
induced many of his friends to vote for it. When he
first heard of the amendment in question he did not con-
sider himself to have been very well used, because he
had consented to the Bill to amend the former Act
solely on the ground that no amendment should be in-
troduced inconsistent with the enactments of the former
Bib. He happened to be out of town attending to his
public duties in Hampshire, on the 26th,27th,and 28th
of Feb., in which days the Bill was amended and read a
third time.—(Hear.) He had had every reason to be-
lieve when the Bill passed in 1838, that it would have
been fairly carried into execution by the Poor-law Com-
missioners—that the plan adopted in this country would
have been followed in Ireland—that political partizan-
ship would have been kept out of sight altogether—that
the measure would have been fairly administered for the
benefit of the poor, and in promoting the objects Par-
liament had in view. He (the Duke of Wellington)
could not say he was satisfied that that had been the
case, and he confessed he had looked at this particular
measure with a good deal of suspicion, because there
could be no doubt it altered the complexion of the ori-
ginal measure altogether. That was one ground on
which he felt disposed to vote for the Committee. He
was aware that the English and Irish Poor-law Acts
afforded great facilities for ascertaining all that passed in
respect to the execution of the Act between the Com-
missioners and those employed under them. Nothing
could therefore be so easy as to procure copies of the
correspondence, and it was expedient that the
House should, in the first instance, have be-
fore it the correspondence between the Commissioners
and the persons whose conduct had been complained of.
It was desirable that it should be known to what ex-
tent the clause in the amended Act did interfere with
the original Act, and he hoped the Noble Marquis
would bring in a Bill declaring it was not intended to
alter the original Act. He would, however, propose
that the motion then before their Lordships should be
adjourned for a fortnight, and probably the Noble
Marquis would in the meantime procure copies of the
correspondence so as to have them ready for Parliament
soon after the recess.
Viscount DUNCANNON said the amendment to
which the Noble Duke referred had been introduced
by the Committee, because it would otherwise have been
impossible to carry the Act into effect, and the clause
had been proposed after the second reading upon the
express understanding that it did not alter the principle
of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the clause re-
ferred to had not yet come into operation at all, and
therefore the mischiefs which the Noble Marquis
(Westmeath) alluded to were merely prospective.
The clause referred to the number of votes which each
person should have according to the amount of rates,
not yet imposed, which were paid by him. From the
most careful consideration of the clause, he confessed
that he could see nothing objectionable in it.
After a few words from Lord WYNFORD,
Lord WICKLOW said unless some satisfactory ex-
planation were given by her Majesty's Government, he
thought there was nothing left them but to appoint the
Committee. He should, however, regret his Noble
Friend being obliged to press his motion to a division,
because it would be likely to lead to the belief out of
doors that some change in the principle of the Act was
contemplated.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped, therefore,
some pledge would be given by a member of her Ma-
jesty's Government, that the matter would be inquired
into, and the evil which was apprehended, averted.
There was also a matter with reference to the return-
ing officer, which required some amendment. No
scrutiny was allowed under the Act, and the parties
were sometimes led to suppose, where votes were nicely
balanced, that the return was made according to the
prejudices or feelings of the returning officer, rather
than as the numbers really were. He trusted these
points would meet the attention they merited.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY hail not the slightest
objection, if, upon inquiry, any doubt existed with
respect to the construction of the clause, to bring
in a Declaratory Act. With regard to the other sug-
gestion, he was unwilling at present to pronounce any
opinion, further than that it should receive his best
attention.
The Earl of GLENG ALL had heard nothing to in-
duce him to withdraw his sanction to the motion of the
Noble Marquis ( Westmeath), which he hoped would
be persevered in. He believed the abuses vi hich al-
ready existdd in the Act were of a very serious cha-
racter, and such as imperatively called for the interfer-
ence of the Legislature. The Noble Lord concluded
by saying, that in his opinion a most satisfactory case had
been made out for going into Committee.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY said, that the Noble
Lord who hadj ust sat down had been mistaken in al-
most all the' acts to which he had alluded. He would
not, however, again go into the details of the subject.
A. Message was here brought up from the House of
Commons declaring, that the House had agreed to the
amendments in the Printed Papers Bill.
Also a Message praying their Lordships to furnish
the House of Commons with returns of the number of
cases in appeal which had been beard before their Lord-
ships for the last 20 years, showing the number which
had been reversed, and the ,number which had been
confirmed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that their Lord-
ships would send an answer to the House of Commons
by a Messenger of their own.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that
he did not see any reasonable objection to
going into Committee on the motion of his Noble
Friend. He thought that if a single case had been
satisfactorily made out, it would be sufficient for the oc-
casion. If, however, his Noble Friend, the Illustrious
Duke thought it advisable to adjourn the further inves-
tigation of the subject, he would not oppose him.
The Duke of WELLINGTON wished that the
necessary papers should first be moved for and pro-
duced, and they would then be better able to come to a
decision on the subject.
The Earl of FINGALL thought that no possible
good could result from acceding to the motion before
the House. He believed, on the contrary, that an
inquiry, at the present moment into the Poor-
laws in Ireland would produce a great irritation
in the minds of the people of that country.
It would be vain to deny that in many parts of the
country great exertions were made, and these were not
confined to one side.—(Hear, hear.) Every one ae-
quiiinted with Ireland knew that there was scarcely a
man in that country who was not more or less a parti-
san.—( Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of HEADFORT defended the Roman
Catholic clergy from the charges brought against them
as a body by his Noble Friend (the Marquis of West-
meath). On the occasion of the election for the union
of Kells, the Roman Catholic clergy were applied to,
and they declined to interfere further than to advise the
election of those Protestant gentlemen who were even-
tually elected.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of WESTMEATH disclaimed all
party feeling, and assured the House that he was only
impelled by a sense of duty to take the matter up at
this period, when it would be much more agreeable to
him to go to Ireland. In deference to the suggestion
of his Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) he
would withdraw the motion until after Easter.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord MELBOURNE gave notice that he would
to-morrow (Tuesday) move the adjournment of the
House to Thursday the 30th of April.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 13.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes before
Four. _ _ . _ . . . .

-
Mr. DUNDAS, the new Member for: Sutherland, in
the room of the Hon. Wm. Howard, took the oaths
and his seat. The Hon. Member was introduced by
Sir George Grey and Mr. J. Parker.
On the motion of Mr. WILLIAM EVANS, the
Green-hill and Eekington Road Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Sir G. GREY moved that no Committee on a Bill
do hold its first sitting after the Easter recess on any
day prior to Thursday, the 7th of May.—Agreed to.
Mr. PARKER brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Bristol and Exeter Railway (third class)
Bill.

On the motion of Mr. LOCKHART, the Garngad-
road Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. SANFORD, the Taunton
Roads Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Lord SANDON, the Liverpool
Borough Bill was read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.

Mr. GODSON presented a petition from 163 in-
habitants of Kidderminster, in favour of Church Ex-
tension. The Hon. and Learned Member also pre-
sented a petition against the interference of the Poor-law
Commission with Boards of Guardians in unions
established two years or upwards.
Sir S. LUSHINGTON presented five petitions
against the trade in opium ; a petition from the congre-
gation of Ranelagh Chapel, Chelsea, against Sunday
trading ; petitions from the Tower Hamlets against cer-
tain parts of the present administration of the Poor-
:aws ; and a petition from Messrs. Lsdbroke and Co.,
of Lor.Jon, bankers, complaining of the difficulty of
recovering debts in the island of Guernsey ; also a pe-
tition from the parish of St. John, Hackney, against the
existing Corn-laws.
Mr. BROTrIERTON presented a petition from
the Protestant Dissenters of Stratford-upon-Avon,
against any grant from the public purse for the exten-
sion of the Established Church ; also petitions from
Bunbridge, Lenederg, and Drumnigally, in the county
of Down, for the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. CHAPMAN presented a petition from Whitby,
praying for Church Extension in Lower Canada.
CORN LAWS.

Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from Stafford,

signed by 1411 persons ; another from some town the 1
name of which we could not catch, signed by 1831
persons ; also petitions very numerously signed from
Uxbridge, Drayford, Birmingham, Stratford, Ber-
mondsey, and other places, all praying for the
total abolition of the Corn-laws ; also a petition
signed by John Gillies, of Glasgow, praying for an
extension of the Suffrage and Vote by Ballot.
Captain ALSAGER presented a petition from some
place in the county of Surrey, praying for additional
Church accommodation.

Mr. ARCHBOLD presented fourteen petitions
from places in the county of Carlow against the impor-
tation of foreign corn into Ireland.

Mr. LUDLOW BRUGES presented a petition
from Bath against any alienation of the Clergy Reserves
in Canada.

Mr. EMERSON TENNENT presented several
petitions from different Presbyterian Congregations in
the North of Ireland, against the intrusion of ministers
into the Church of Scotland.

Sir E. WILMOT presented a petition from Thame,
in favour of the Grammar School Foundation Bill.

Mr. DARBY presented a petition from some parish
in East Surrey, in favour of Church Extension.
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition from the
Dissenters of Dinsby, in Gloucestershire, against any
grant of public money for Church Extension.
Lord ASHLEY brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Factory Bill.
Mr. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from the
medical practitioners of Cork, praying for the better re-
gulation of their profession.
Major MACNAMARA presented a petition from
Clare in favour of an extension of the franchise.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH presented petitions
from Down, praying that some alteration might take
place in the law with respect to the Church of Scotland.
Sir R. INGLIS presented 148 petitions in favour
of Church Extension.
Lord SAN DON presented a petition from a parish
in Liverpool in favour of Church Extensien.
Mr. GOULBURN presented a petition from Man-
chester againt the Clergy Reserves Bill.
Mr. PAKINGTON presented petitions from Dar-
lington, and several other places, against the Clergy
Reserves Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY presented three petitions from
Staley Bridge, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-
laws. Also a petition in favour of Church Extension.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from an
individual who was imprisoned for not paying 15d. for
poor-rates, praying for an alteration in the law.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from 100
working men of the metropolis, praying for the relief of
Messrs. Lovett and Collins, considering that the House
had lately released the Sheriffs on account of ill health.
The Northern and Eastern Railway Bill was read a
second time.
On the motion of Mr. HUTT, the Kingston-upon-
Hull Improvement Bill was read a second time.
NEW WRIT.
On the motion of Sir T. FREMANTLE, a new writ
was issued for the county of Fermanagh, in the room of
Lord Cole, now Earl of Enniskillen.
Mr. PEMBROKE and Sir W. FOLLETT presented
petitions against the Clergy Reserves Bill.
Lord INGESTRIE presented a petition against a
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from a place in
Sussex, in favour of Church Extension : also petitions
from Kirkaldy and Glenelg, against the In'zrusion of
Ministers contrary to the wishes of congregations.
Mr. HUME presented petitions against Church Ex-
tension, from the Dissenters of Stockton-on-Tees, and
other places ; the Hon. Member also presented peti-
tions in favour of Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and
short Parliaments, from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stratheden,
and several other places.
LUDLOW ELECTION.
Mr. SANFORD, Chairman of the Ludlow Com-
mittee, brought up their report, and informed the House
the Committee had resolved that Thomas Alcock, Esq.,
was not duly elected to serve in the present Parliament,
for the borough of Ludlow—that the last election was
void—that the petition of John Thomas and others was
not frivolous and vexatious ; that the opposition of J.
Cooper and others was not frivolous or vexatious ; that
T. Alcock, Esq., by his agents, had been guilty of bribery
and treating ; that W. Clive, Esq., had been guilty, by
his agents, of bribery and treating, and that a general
system of treating had prevailed at the last and at pre
vious elections for the said borough.
Mr. CLIVE said, as the word "agents" was used in
one of the resolutions, he wished to ask the Hon. Mem-
ber for West Somerset whether the word implicated any
Hon. Member of that House as having interfered in the
election of Members for the borough of Ludlow ?
Mr. SAN FORD said he was sure his Hon. Friend
would excuse his not answering that question. It would
be out of order for the Chairman of a Committee to give
any opinion as to the grounds on which the Committee
came to their decision.
Lord SANDON appealed to every Member of the
Committee, whether the bribery was not limited to
two cases—one on each side, and in neither case was a
Member of that House implicated. He thought, per-
haps, it would have been better for them to have come
to such a resolution before they had separated ; and
perhaps that they had not done so was an oversight.
Mr. WAKLEY said the House and the country
ought to have more information upon a subject of that
kind—(Cheers)---and he was surprised at the Report be-
ing presented as a mere matter of course. If a Report
of such a nature was to be considered and treated as a
common occurrence, it would tend to throw much
odium and disgrace on the House. It was expected in
a reformed House and in a reformed borough there
would have been an end to such waste and extrava-
gance.—(Laughter on the Tory Benches.) A system
which struck at the very vitals of representation. He
would move that the evidence be printed, with a view to
suspend the issuing of the writ till a future day.—
(Laughter.) It was impossible for the House to know
whether or not the writ ought to be issued, until it was
in possession of the evidence, and he did not hesitate a
moment in stating that his object was to suspend the

writ.
Mr. W. HOLMES seconded the motion.—(Loud
cheers.) A most extraordinary speech was made at
the opening of the case before the Committee, and it
was supported by the testimony of an individual who
was not believed by one Member of the Committee,
otherwise it would have been their duty to have reported
specially as to his (Mr. H.'s) conduct. He was most
anxious that the cross-examination of that individual
should be before the House ; and he, therefore, with
much pleasure seconded the motion of the Hon. Member.
Mr. SANFORD begged to deny that he had any
wish to keep back the evidence taken before the Com-
mittee. He had received no directions from the Com-
mittee to found any motion upon the evidence ; and he
thought it would have been exceeding his duty, if he
did more than present the Report to the House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said his Hon. Friend had
done all that was imposed upon him by his position as
Chairman of the Committee. The Hon. Member for
Finsbury was in error in supposing that such a Report
having been presented the writ would be issued as
a matter of course. The House must have the evidence
before them—they must have time to consider that
evidence before a new writ could issue, and if a motion
for the issuing of a new writ were made before that time
he would feel it his duty to oppose it.
Mr. SANFORD brought up the minutes of evi-
dence, and the motion for printing it was agreed to.
Mr. WAKLEY said the motion having been agreed
to, he would now move that the writ be suspended till
the first of June next—(Laughter and cries of " Hear,
hear.") It was a matter of great importance to the
House that the character of the representatives
of the people should be freed from any imputations such
as had been made in the Report of the Committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought they might conclude
that no Member would move for a new writ without
giving notice. He thought until the evidence was
printed, and in the hands of Members, that the motion
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury was premature.
Mr. GOULBURN agreed in what had been
stated by the Noble Lord, and was extremely
unwilling in a case which was likely to form a
precedent to allow a writ to be suspended on the mere
presentation of a Report. He thought that notice
should be given of any intention to move for a new writ.
Mr. HUNIE said, after the Report that had Just
been read, in which it was alleged that both parties, by
their agents, had been guilty of bribery, the House
should mark its sense of such proceedings by suspend-
ing the writ. He did not think that the Report could
be printed End read over by Hon. Members much
earlier than the Ist of June.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but none
took place,
Mr. W ARLEY having withdrawn his motion upon
the understanding that notice should be given before
the new writ should be moved for.
COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH TURKEY.
Mr. HUNE gave notice that to-morrow he should
put a questicn to the Noble Lord the Secretaty for
Foreign Affairs, whether orders had been issued by the
Sublime Porto to give effect to the commercial treaty
entered into Rith this country in the provinces on
the banks of the Danube, in Egypt, Syria, and Upper
Arabia ; he lad moved for papers but had been un-
able to procure them, and therefore to-morrow ho
should ask the Noble Lord the question.
OPENING THE BRITISH MUSEUM ON
SUNDAYS.
Mr. HUNIE also gave notice that on the sth of
May next, he should move a resolution to the effect
that it was tle opinion of the House, that the British
Museum and National Gallery should be opened to the
public on Suldays and holidays after divine service.
The Hon. Member then moved for certain returns
relating to Exchequer Bills, which were ordered.
Mr. HERMES gave notice that immediately after
the Easter hoidays he would call theattentton
of
of the
House to the ,3ontradictions between the conditions
the Austrian Treaty and the Navigation
. Bill.
heinwocualsde
Ipr.risloVesAßltoßl UdißdTeor
come
en
the Prisons nth°anteenigthilta,t,

to-morrow call the attention of the House to the
case of the prisoners in Warwick jail.
Mr. HERRIES wished to ask the Noble Lord, the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if there would be any
objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of
the communication from the merchants of London to
Lord Palmerston, on the subject of the measures
adopted by the American Government in consequence
of the interruption of the trade with China. He asked
' that question as the Noble Lord had alluded to the
subject in his speech on Thursday night.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that there would be
no objection to satisfy the wish of the Right Hon.
Member, were it not that it was not customary that
Government should lay any other than official papers
before the House.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the rule could not
apply in the present instance, as no Minister had a
right to refer to any paper unless he was at the same
time willing to produce it. He remembered that that
rule had been followed by Mr. Canning on a former oc-
casion.
Mr. GOULBURN said, with reference to himself
the rule just mentioned by his Right Hon. Friend had
also been followed.
Lord SANDON said his impression was, that the
Noble Lord referred to it as an official document, and
he believed that to have been the general understanding.
An HoN. MEMBER on the Conservative side of the
House (whose name we could not learn), observed that
the Noble Lord stated the letter wassigned by individuals
representing certain firms. As to the first signature
on the list, thatof Mr. Larpent, who signed it as Chairman
of the East India and China Association, he begged to
state, that Mr. Larpent signed it in his individual
capacity, and by no means represented the opinions of
his firm.—(" Hear, hear," from the Conservatives.)
Lord J. RUSSELL believed the Noble Lord bad
so stated the document.
The return was then ordered.
AMERICAN BOUNDARY.

Sir R. PEEL wished to know when the papers
which he had moved for relative to the American boun-
dary would be laid on the table of the House. If the floor
of the Foreign Office was not yet repaired, he hoped
that operation would soon take place, so that the returns
might be furnished with as little delay as possible.
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the
papers would be laid upon the table of the House be-
fore the adjournment.
ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND RE-
VENUES.
In answer to an Hon. Member, Lord J. RUSSELL
said it was his intention to bring on the Ecclesiastical
Duties and Revenues Bill on the Ist of May, but if
there was any change of intention on his part he would
state it to-morrow or the following day.
VOTERS (SCOTLAND).
Mr. GILLON begged to ask the Lora
Advocate, who had introduced a Bill to de'
fine the right of Voting in Scotland--as
the system of registration was extremely defective, he
wished to know if it were the Learned Lord's inten-
tion to bring in a Bill to improve the system of
registration in Scotland ? He wished also to ask
whether he intended to introduce a Police Bill for
the burghs of Scotland, which was much required?
The LORD ADVOCATE said the Noble Lord the
Secretary for the Colonies, had given notice of his in"
tention to bring in a Bill immediately after Easter, ,
the registration of voters in England and Wales ; after
that Bill was laid on the table of the House, it was
his (the Lord Advocate's) intention to bring in a
similar one for Scotland. It was also his intention to
bring in a Police Bill.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.
Mr. KELLY begged to ask the Under Secretary
of State for the Home Department whether it was the
intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce ant
measure for the further abolition of capital punishments ?
Mr, FOX MAULE was not aware of any such in'
tention on the part of her Majesty's Government.
Mr. KELLY then gave notice that imincdiatell
after the Easter recess he should move for leave to bg
in a Bill to abolish the punishment of death excel:3 in
cases of murder.
CLERGY RESERVES.
Mr. PAKINGTON wished to put a question to the
Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, in conse-
quence of finding that considerable misapprehension
existed out of doors with regard to what had lately
taken place respecting the Clergy Reserves Diana
The question he wished to ask was, whether he h
understood the Noble Lord to say, in answer to a far'
mer question of his, that the Clergy Reserves Bill t.v.r.!
illegal, in so far as it went to repeal the Act of 7 and
8 George IV., and whether, if such were the case, the
whole of the Bill was so illegal that it could not receive
the Royal Assent.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that what he had for-
se of the
merly stated to the House was, that after the lap be
thirty days, and of the additional time which would II
allowed beyond the thirty days, in consequence of the
recess, be should consult the Law Officers of the Crown,. i
and put certain questions to them, before advising the
Crown to give the Royal Assent to the Bill. Such Yrg I
the statement which he had made. Since that he tv)-
derstood that it had been said in another place, that
suppose the Judges should give certain anwers
tR ito
Royal
wouldqa
lu questions tnioont
assents
be
eo
twhichhe
proper
Billthoaadasdivtbieaseetutphreparceonprotowssetndootodt.ogi:eho
, st:hi;
eu'e
Mr. PAKINGTON had understood from the N
Lord that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown
was, that a part of the Act of the Colonial Logislattu:
repealed one of the clauses of the Act 7 and 8 Get)*
and in so far it was illegal ; and he wished to ask if this"
opinion of its general illegality went so far as to render
the whole Bilrinoperative.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that what be 11sci
stated was that there was a clause in the Bill Isee,leth
went to repeal a portion of the Act 7th and I*_,
George IV., which, as that Act did not contain oh
clause empowering the Colonial Legislature to alter
repeal, it was so far in the opinion of the law oi"eAct
of the Crown of no legal effect, unless confirmed by en, Job
of the Imperial Parliament. That was the answer cv°lo
he had returned to the Hon. Gentleman. But as to Any
opinion
thonoaft the wholethe Law-officersßill of the
illegal,heCr Crown given
must sw
effectate
that after the lapse of time agreed on he should egta.l
consult the Law-officers of the Crown on the aohjecod
Sir R. PEEL said that in another place be had heti of
the highest legal authority state that if one port the
the Bill was contrary to law, it would invalidate
whole Bill. hoeld
Lord J. RUSSELL said that undoubtedly be s the
not advise the Crown to give the Royal Assent to nub-
Bill until Parliament had been consulted upon the 51,ce,
r
ject. The question was one of the greatest imPts_ept
and he trusted they would come to such asehtatbleirutanti
of it as would be found satisfactory to the in
of the colonies. father
Mr. PAKINGTON wished to put one further
of
question to the Noble Lord :--Was it the inteni;;ta- ofAt
the Government to call upon the Imperial Icar',-err,es,
to legislate anew with respect to the Clergy P'er- the
or would the Bill to be introduced be merely Ay
purpose of enabling the Crown to give the it'37a
sent to the present Bill ? vet
Lord J. RUSSELL—The Hon. Member ha"
answe r.
a question which would take half an hoar to
(A laugh.) .

Lord
J.
aupsitslENLTLEmpo,peAdt7atlttShe BLloL_rdLs;
ii..Aitrieansdi;
ments to the above Bill be now considered. 'rho PI table
then stood contained all the former part of the prea
ns, ,
which it contained when it left the House of 0:1 1 douses
ofand it therefore contained. the assertion by both i,:rge
o Parliament, that in order to the due clis-I,s„,,re
thef their legislative functions, that they must
their
power of publishing such reports n'
(Hear .)
proceedings as they might see fit. --",t,b el
The House of Lords, in the amendments vih`c" It,i et
had introduced, had not in any degree varied the o''ed
variedapo. cfirßetodimilol,
bttoehhrteiostrshreepesepamekeoetd; et
hooaff t pt
hirnoasctteeeaoddri n.oo't
of
dParliament to the office of the Court, it shell'
the
the Court itself. He t o . ~,..
mode proposed by the House of Lords was . _ ,
loose• f
tory and sufficient as the mode adopted by that
end,
He should therefore propose to agree to the wurri, e S
ments of
the House of Lords in that respect• b4d 1
clause
been left with
respect to actions now Pending the
out of the Bill, and therefore in
ean,
action
a that had been commenced against the Seri', tit
t Arms he would plead. His opinion w 25 '''bf' 0
would have been well that the action should hr.ve en
stopped, but he did not think it was necessary to inVbe
upon the clause. The only objection he had to the
amendments made by the House of Lords
viasoffering
respect to the notice, and without 0 the
~Ily opinion of his own he would leave it t t
re,
fl
I;I : . hbo
eat
hilt
• :i
st re:
I srgeat; ThYt
1 t di
s°hi t 1 la tl
si:
House to deal with the amendments bearstbs.
hear
•)
spect as they thought right.—(Hear, "bich
The other clause was with regard to extracts, to vv.bat I
he saw no objection. Then there was a provilden' tl-Le
nothing therein contained should be held to As
r t
privilege of Parliament in any manner whatever. As that
part of the Bill with respect to actions now pendinguintA 0
been left out, of course it followed that the prea
,eu J.
referring to those actions had likewise been oral
Such being the alterations made by the Lords, and. but
he understood several others had been propose LA,
rejected, he confessed it appeared to him on the 44:1)'cig
that the other House of Parliament had been vllit.nts
to concur in the general principle and in the en Active- .
to intro,
of the Bill, and the Lords had been unwillir,ig
ohseriousfav Pe
atri
the
difference
Parliament.--(Hear,)
mffe effereoectnt.
_...
(c e
of ofH opinionea
maintainingr
,)
ii betweenoit;
duce any thing into the Bill that might t,,;ad
.it° app'
two linild
the Bill "Ile
and protico s i
cwoay the power of publication, for whic',; they had eilvl, i
thanttended. It was with great satisfaction he founr,, 1
upon a question of this Vinci, without resort' /
log to those measures whi'eh were .iustifi'j • 4
Otani the part of the Howe, in order to
needson'lnT, i
n those privileges which they thought t '
athought
n.ti:
sary, and which it was exceedi-agly painful to adopt, tir -',
by this Bill they would not be obliged to enter into sv co
contests in future.—(Hear.) Undoubtedly the quest 00
--....4 ....094.