The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-19 00:00:00

THE SPX, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY'I9NS4O.

a resolution was passed in the House of Commons, which
was afterwards cammunicated to the House of Lords,
where it was contested ; but, after a long debate, the
House of Lords agreed that the privileges of the House
could not be set up in answer to a charge of a seditious
libel.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what he would submit for
the consideration of the House was, that a joint Commit-
the of both Houses of Parliament should be appointed,
and if that Committee should report that legislation was
necessary, the Committee would be able to agree upon a
Bill that would have the effect of extricating the House
from all its difficulties. He would now read the resolu-
tion which he intended to propose as an amendment
to the motion of the Attorney-General; it was to
the following effect : " That the privileges of
Parliament were intended solely for the benefit of the
community at large ; and as the power of publishing the
Reports of the proceedings of the House was essential to
the constitutional functions of Parliament, it is expedient
that a joint Committee of both House should he ap-
pointed, for the purpose of securing to both branches of
the Legislature the free exercise of a power so essentially
necessary." He believed that the course he had pointed
out might be adopted without compromising the honour of
any individual, and that great public good would result
from it.
Mr. LEADER seconded the motion of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury. He had hitherto, with great reluctance,
voted with the Noble Lord on this question of privilege,
although he had great doubts on the subject ; but the
only motive that had induced him to do so was, that ha
considered it necessary that the House should have the
power of giving publicity to its proceedings.—( Hear,
hear.) But on reconsidering the question, and after
taking the opinion of several persons better able
than himself to form 112 opinion, he had been
lei to believe not only that they had failed in obtaining the
publicity which they sought, but that they were weakening
the authority of the law throughout the country. What
was it that really gave publicity to their proceedings—not
the papers that were printed by the Messrs. Hansard, but
the public press ? Who ever heard of the public reading
the !Mite Books that were published by the House? But
the public press shortened those reports, and put them in
a shape that the publiccould comprehend. Then as to the
question of privilege, he would venture to say, whatever
might be the opinion on it, that out of that House the
majority of the people were against the exercise of the
privilege now might to be upheld.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
There was hardly a single man, except he was a hanger-on
of the Government, who did not say that the House of
Commons was wrong, and that they were sure to be beaten.
How, be woult: ask, would the House be situated if they
had twenty sue ► resolute men as Mr. Stockdale or Mr.
Howard to dea with. • This privilege was not supported
by the public— it was not supported by many constitutional
lawyers, and the Judges of the land had declared it to be
no privilege at all, and the House had itself confessed, by
the course it had adopted. that it could only assert those
privileges by terrifying. For his own part he believed
that the only way to maintain the privilege of publishing
their proceedings was by legislative enactment. To the
adoption of auch a course there was little chance of the
House of Lords refusing its assent.—( Cries of " Oh, oh I")
However unpopular the House cf Lords might be, they
would not act so foolishly as to refuse their coesent to a
Bill by which their own privileges would be sustained.—
( Hear, hear ) But supposing that the House of Lords
did refuse to give their assent, the House of Commons
would not be le a worse situation than they were at present.
He was not sorry ;,hat this contest had arisen, as he firmly
believed it would compel the House to adopt some course
to amend the law of libel. It was, however, his firm belief
that if the House persevered in the steps they were now
pursuing they would render themselves more unpopular
than they were at present.—( Hear, hear.)
Dr. LUSHING roN felt great astonishment at the
speech of the Hon. Member for Westminster, because in
the statements ho had made to-night he had confessed
that his former votes had been given after only a hasty
consideration of the subject. In the remarks made be the
Hon. Gentleman there were scarcely any reasons stated
for the line of conduct he was about to pursue. What
had caused se great a change in the Hon. Member he would
not pretend to say, but in his ( Dr. Lushington's) opinion
it was most unaccountable. How had the Hon. Member
disposed of the argument with respect to publicity ? Whv,
he had stated that it was through the channels of the
press that the public mind acquired its knowledge of their
proceed;nge. He would ask that Hon. Member whether
it was not is his experience, that his constituents called
upon him to leut in their hands the valuable documents
use, in order that they might
printed by the ort;',r of the H
therefrom obtain in'n'nrnation ; but this was not all, for
during the recess the 2nformation given by the press was
obtained from those pap,-re. There wag, therefore, no
ground for the Hon. Member a.'andoninghis former opinions
upon the point of publicity, but en he had stated that the
whole nation were against the II )119,, for the course they
bad taken. He respectfully denied the tr.:.h of the Hon.
Member's assertion.—( Hear, hear.) IL rep,l4sented as
large a constituency as the Hon. Member, and re.'t one
single word had he heard from any of his constituents .11
the slightest degree inculpating the course the House had
pursued ; and if they had offered their opinion against the
present proceedings his reply would have been, Are you not
in the habit of coming to me constantly for these publi-
cations, and you, and you alone, cause me to publish these
libels, and if you will not support the House of Commons
in the course they are now taking, you must be content to
forego the information, which will be a great loss to you.
ft was not a little singular also that the Hon. Member
should have enlarged upon the necessity of the right of
publication, while his seconder, the Hen. Member for
Westminster, differed from him. He (Dr. Luahington)
had hitherto abstained from saying anything on this ques-
tion, but it had now become so momentous, that he could
no longer refrain. Hon. Members opposite had asked
what was the course That Hon. Members on that side of
.the House pointed out for the maintenance of these privi-
leges. Now, what he ( Dr. Via.) would gay on that point
was this, that if once the Hnntse disclaimed being the
judges of' their own privileges' from that moment
they conceded the whole q uestioon ( Hear, hear. )
Ho had the highest respect for the Co: its of Law, and
also for the House of Lords, as a branch of :he Legislature.
But he begged to call attention to one case, nthich was in
the knowledge of his Hon. and Learned Friend epposite ;
and he would ask, would they be justified in putting confi-
dence in the decision of the House of Lords as a tribunal
of appeal? H, admitted the integrity of the Judges of
the Courts of Law, and he would not throw a slur
upon the House of Lords.—( Hear, hear.) But he re-
membered a case which occurred thirty-four years ago,
when upon a point of law, 150 Members of the House of
Lords came down to reverse a decision which had been
come to by Lord Eldon, who was Lord Chanceller, and in
which Lord Ellenborough, a law Lord, had supported him.
—( Hear, bear, hear.) He remembered the indignation
with which both Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough
walked out of the House.—( Hear, hear.) There was one
case it. which, from private influence or through party
motives, by a division of the House of Lords, Justice wa
tramj hd on, and injustice was triumphant. ( Louds
cries of " Hear, hear.") He considered that the
whole of the privileges of that House were wrapped up and
bound together, and that if the one privilege in question
were submitted to the Cowts of Law and to the House of
Lords, they must submit all the others to the same autho-
rities, and they would no longer have the power of exer-
cising those privileges for the welfare of the people; but
they would be subject in the most essential particulars to
a tribunal which would destroy them.—( Hear, hear.)
Could any one in that House have any other object in com-
mitting those parties to the custody of the Sergeant-at-
Arms or sending them to Newgate, except fur the main-
tenance of the privileges of the Commons ?—( Hear, hear.)
He would say with the Right Hon. Member for Tam worth
that he could not hold his seat with honour to himself or
with credit to his constituents if the privilege was not
maintained. If he had any popularity in the country, be
would stake it upon this case.—( Hear, hear.) He had
considered the question attentively, and he was satisfied
the House had no alternative but to persist in the course
which it had undertaken, et to abandon its privileges. It
tvas on that ground he supported the motion for committing
this person.—(Cheera and laughter from the Opposition
benches.) He knew the question was, whether Thomas
Howard had committed a breach of privilege.—( Hear,
hear.) It had been seen that he was carrying on the fifth
action ; but when he was asked if he had carried on the
fourth action with a full knowledge that his father had
been committed to prison on account of that action, he
answered in the affirmative. Thei efore it could not be
doubted that he knew it was against the order of the
House to proceed with the fifth action. On that ground
he opposed the amendment,
Sir R. PEEL would defend the Hon. Member for
Westminster from the charge of inconsistency, although
he could not defend his
which that Gentleman now
now took was consistent with the
the question of privilege.
The motion which the Hon. Member had seconded
united the important Parliamentary
the privileges of Parliament were principle "that
for the benefit of the community at liaartgeee.d”ed solely
Was it
not, then, a sacred duty,
a paramount
for the Members of that House to upholdobligation,
them ?Hear.)
And if the Hen. Gentleman should be told
constituents than the course taken by Housetho
by"' of n his
proper, let him read to them the first passage of the rim-
lution—( Hear, and a laugh)—let him tell themeg°-
that
the contest in which the House was engaged was not for
tyrannical power, nor for personal authority, but for the
welfare of the community at large.—(Cheers.) That
part of the Hon. Member's speech which related t
to news_
papers, was wholly inapplicable. The Hon. Member had
seconded a resolution to the effect that the power of pub-
lishing such of its reports, votes, and other proceedings, as
it might deem necessary for the public interest, was essen-
tial to the exercise of its functions. The real question
then was, should the publication take place by the authority
of the House ?—( Hear, hear.) It was vain to contend
that the newspapers were the proper vehicles of publica-
tion. •In fact, they could not publish the necessary
documents. They could not obtain all the necessary
information..—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Honourable
Gtentleman opposite wound up by stating " that it
was desirable that Parliament should take measures for
securing. to each branch of the Legislature the free exer-
cise of its functions." Now he (Sir R. Peel) did not
think the present the fittest occasion for entering into a
full discussion of their privileges. But he could not con-
ceal from himself that to legislation they must come at

last.—( Hear.) The public ought to understand that there
was a desire to intrude the jurisdiction of another authority
upon their privileges ; and although he did not desire to
go into the general discussion at that time, yet he would
not allow himself, by silence now, to be prejudiced when
they came to the general question of the law. Let not the
origin of all this be forgotten by the public. Let it be
remembered that these were the facts. It had been pre-
tended that in the gaol of Newgate the discipline was as
good as could be desired. An inquiry was made into the
state of that prison, and a book was found in the hands of
one of the prisoners, which, under the pretence of being a
medical work, was a most obscene publication.—( Hear. )
He had himself seen the book, and he would most
solemnly say that it was a most obscene book ; and the
Jury, be it observed, were of that opinion. In order to
justify the course which Parliament had taken in respect
to that prison, the report of the Commission was pub-
lished, and for that Report the actions were instituted
against the House of Commons. He believed that the
Report was a privileged publication, even without the
order of the House of Commons.—( Hear.) It was of
the highest importance to public morality that prisoners in
a gaol should not be corrupted there.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear. ") The House published the fact that
an obscene book was allowed to be in the hands of the
prisoners in the gaols of the metropolis; and the Courts
of Law declared that not only in that instance the printer
of the House was liable to an action, but that in every
instance in which anything was published which would
give offence to any one, he would he so liable, and the
order of the House would not be pleaded as a justification.
If then the House, in endeavouring to bring a delinquent
to justice, ordered anything to be published which gave a
public officer pain or offence, their printer could be cited
not only before the Superior Courts of Law, but before
Courts of Quarter Session or the Borough Courts.—
(Hear, bear, and cries of " No, no.") Yes; so it had
been decided by Mr. Justice Patteson and Mr. Justico
Littledale.—(The Hon. Baronet then read the decision of
Mr. Justice Littledale to that effect.) He must also beg
that it should not be forgotten that all the legal authorities
in that House had declared that in substance the House
was right, and the Judges were wrong.—(Hear, hear.)
That should not be forgotten, as the judgment of the
Court of Queen's Bench struck at the privileges of the
Commons of England.--( Hear, hear.) The law authori-
ties in that House were of opinion that the publication was
privileged, and that the judgment of the Queen's Bench
was erroneous.—(Cheers.) They had all declared not
only that the privilege was important, but that the House
possessed it.— (Cheers.) He relied on no extravagant
claim of privilege. His Hon. and Learned Friend had
attempted to discuss the present question by referring to
same atrocities which had been committed in former times.
That might have some influence upon uninformed minds.
Some persons might imagine that because the House of
Commons, some hundred years ago, sanctioned such
atrocious and indefensible acts, the present proceedings
of the House partook of the same unjust character.
He could show that in former periods of our history erra-
ordinary concessions had been made by the Court of
Queen's Bench, and he would ask if that should boa reason
for limiting the jurisdiction of the present Judges of that
Court? He had found instances in which the Court of
Queen's Bench had determined that after the Session of
Parliament Members were liable to an action in a Court of
Law, on account of speeches delivered in the House ; and
the Court of Queen's Bench had decided on that very
question whether Members were liable to an action for
speeches made in Parliament—on that very question had
unanimously decided that Members were liable on these
grounds, " that they were the Judges of the lives and
and lands of Members of Parliament, and that therefore
they were the judges of their liberties."—( Hear, hear.)
Ile found that Mr. Justice Jones had actually pronounced
the judgment of the Court against Sir John Eliot, who
had been sentenced to pay 1000 marks for a speech
delivered in Parliament. He found that Mr. Holies had
been fined 1000 marks, and Mr. Valentine 5001. far the
exercise of the some right. He did not think, however,
that it would be fair to refer to these decisions now,
but he thought it was equally unfair in his Right
Honourab'e Friend near him, to refer to decisions
of former Houses of Commons, for the purpose of creat-
ing an impression on the public mind that there was
any extravagant danger from the exercise they might
make of their privileges.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The
question was, whether they were justified in maintaining
the privileges which they claimed ? If that privilege was
an extravagant one, there were many Members of the
House, jealous enoughof its authority, who would be the
first to disclaim against them. He would rely on the authority
of judicial decisions at very recent periods, for the possession
of the privilege for which they were contending. The
doc:rinc had been laid down in the case of the Kin.. v.
Wright, by Judges of the highest eminence, who had
gone the whole length of maintaining the privilege
which they had been asserting. The decision in
that case had been a most important one, and
the case of a very strong nature. Mr. Horne
Tooke had brought an action against a printer for a libel.
Application had been made by criminal information against
the defendant. It had been said that the Judges had not
a",ecided in that case on its merits, in consequence of some
technical objections, but he (Sir R. Peel) looked to the
doctrines they had laid down. The action had been
brought
connection ,
printer, with whom the House of Com-
mons dno against
for reprinting a Report of the
House which hail containcel conEssedly a libel on Mr.
Horne Tooke. Lord Kenyon Led said on that occasion,
that the inquiry made by the House of Commons was a
proceeding taken by one branch of the Legislature, in order
to enable them to proceed further, and to make regula-
tions fur the benefit of the country. The Report, he con-
tinued to say, having been adopted as one of its proceed-
ings by those who were the guardians of its Constitution,
he could not say that such a report was a libel, and he was
therefore of opinion that the rule ought to be discharged.
—( Hear, hear.) That opinion of Lord Kenyon he ( Sir
Robert Peel) thought, was a complete vindication of the
present proceeding of the House. Mr. Justice Grose had
said on the same occasion that as the publication had pro-
ceeded from one branch of the Legislature acting
for the safety of the State, he saw no case on
which the Court could decide for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Lawrence had maintained the same
doctrine which Lord Denman had maintained on
Saturday last, namely, that the publication of a trial in the
newspapers was just and privileged, on the ground that
the public were interested in knowing what might have
passed during the trial. On what grounds, he (Sir R.
Peel) would ask, was that exemption made from the law ?
Was it by any statute ?—( Hear, hear.) The Judges had
given that decision on nothing but these grounds, that the
public was interested in knowing the proceedings which
took place in Courts of Justice. When the Court had
given that opinion, did they say that they were violating
the laws of the land ?—( Hear, hear. ) If the Courts were
justified in refusing a complaint of libel under such cir-
cumstances, was not the House of Commons to protect its
own authorised printer?—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Justice Law-
rence had gone on to say that it was important
that true accounts of public bodies should be circulated,
and that the country would be deprived of that advantage
if the printers in such cases were punished. The defend..
ant in that case had not been authorized to publish the
proceedings. yet he was justified in doing so. He wished
to know if a revolution had since taken place
in the Constitution ?—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Here they had Judges maintaining, some thirty years ago,
that an authorised printer, who had published a true espy
of their reports, Was protected in doing so because the
public had an interest in knowing what passed within the
walls of Parliament, and yet the same Courts, with equal
unanimity, had lately denied that they could authorise
their own printer to say that Newgate required reform
because obscene books had been introduced into it. lie
relied on the solemn judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench some forty years ago, giving protection to unautho-
rised• parties for publishing correct copies of their
proceedings, and he was surprised that it should now
be said that every inferior Court might summon
Members of the House, because the character of
private individuals had been assailed. He would ap-
peal to the people of England whether enough
had not passed to justify the House of Commons, which
hat} exercised for 200 years the privilege in question ;
which had struggled for it at times when Courts of Law
were corrupt, and power was despotic—he would appeal
to the people of England, and ask, if after a lapse of 200
years they could see without apprehension the course
pursued by the Court of Queen's Bench, a decision which
would place in the hands of the Judges those privileges
which they had already shown a disposition to overturn.
(Cheers.) Not a word had been said in justification of
the Judges, but there were complaints made against the
mode in which the House had proceeded. It had hitherto
been left to the House of Commons and the House of
Lo•ds to vindicate their own privileges.—( Hear,
hear; hear.) The House had pleaded, against his
advice, before the Court of Queen's Bench, trusting to
the decisions which had been given in the case of Burdett
against Abbott, and in the case of the King against
Wright. It was not an unnatural presumption on their
parts to think that the Court which had held the doctrines
that it did in those cases would hold them still. They had
foand however the unanimous decision against them, not
only in the individual case, but in the very existence of the
power they were claiming.—( Hear, hear.) They found
that individuals had a right to bring actions against them.
What then was the House of Commons to do? Would it
be sufficient to resort to the Judges assembled in the Ex-
chequer Chamber? He ( Sir Robert Peel) did not think
so. and he was not sorry for the delay which had taken
place on this occasion. It had been said that the public
were unanimously against them; he doubted that. Public
feeling he should observe, was of the utmost
importance, but it was often difficult to become
acquainted with it, as that opinion was
often of a complicated nature. It was not to be judged of
by
those who would look merely to one side of the question,
and he distrusted public opinion if that
were its nature.
lie knew that last year the public opinion was that it was
the sale of its papers, and thatmsmucT
not be justified.—t Hear
monstrous of the House of Co
hbeaednntohwe
arnesauditmoisfsion of.anto oapsesnumpatinsnhocponfoldr
thheear.
Court) He woueueldn,sasßkeinvchhat,ithsealdf
the discussions on the subject? 'They
that the sale constituted no part of Queen's
libel.—( Hear )
Suppose they had appealed to the Judges in Exchequer,
should then and suppose the decision was against them, they should
thus have shown no desirethey
to
vindicate
tehaeY O privileges
you to
their own authority;the

House of Lords. Suppose, however, that such decision
were also against them, how much would their other privi.
legcs be endangered by that proceeding ?—( Hear,
hear, hear.) They would thee have shown that they
had no privileges which they did not hold by the preca •
rious tenure of the consent of the other House. Extrinsic
authorities would thus be the exclusive Judges of their
proceedings. They had, however, taken a different course
—a course personally painful to many Members of the
House. They bad visited with severe punishment parties
who were not morally guilty. They had thus vindicated
their authority on the principle that they had no other
mode of defending those privileges, except by making
Ministerial officers liable for the execution of the orders
which they had received, precisely in the same manner ha
which, in case of a conflict between two Courts of Law,
their innocent officer would be punished by one Court for
oheying the order of another. It was impossible to
take into consideration the moral conduct of the indivi.
duals in question, if they were to maintain their privileges
by their own authority, and there was not one subject on
which they might not. have to maintain their rights in a
similar manner. He considered that it was not the privi-
lege of publication alone that was at issue, but every other
privilege in respect to which there had not been a series of
legal adjudications. They had shown that they had the
power to commit ministerial officers, but he doubted whe-
ther they had at present a full and effectual means of assert-
ing their rights, or one suitable to the dignity of Parlia-
ment, and he would repeat that he thought they should
have recourse to legislation, although nothing but a con;
viction of the imperfection of their present powers would
allow him to resort to such a remedy. He would not, in
that case, think it inconsistent with the dignity of the
House of Commons to take that course which had been fol.
I,wed on other occasions, and to attempt to give them.
'mites that full power which might be essential to them,
He did not think that the power sf the House of Commons
in that instance was imperfect, but if he should feel called
on to give up the money to Stockdalc, he would give his
vet- on the occasion without pain, although he admitted
the right of Mr. Hansard to be unquestionable. His opi_
nien on the case had been uniform and unvarying from the
first.—( Cheers.) He Was fully aware that extreme ne-
cessity alone justified them in proceeding by enactment ;
but if he were told that they had no other remedy against
the actions which might follow at the end of the Session,
zarl that they had no means of protecting themselves for
the present, except by consuming the public time day after
day in their own defence, he would say that the time was
come to defend themselves by enactments, reserving to
themselves, in case those enactments should fail, the right
they were now exercising of vindicating their privileges by
their own proper and intrinsic power. --(Cheers.)
Mr. WAKLEY said he should like to know from his
Hon. Colleague whether, after the speech he bad heard
from the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, he was disposed
to repeat his former opinions. He believed since the House
of Commons was in existence it had not been engaged on
a more important question than that which was then occu-
pying their attention, and no question he believed bad
ever been discussed, so far as the majority of the House
were concerned, with more patience and forbearance. lie
did not thank, however, the same could be said of Hon.
Gentlemen opposite. He had heard the House taunted
with its not daring to seize upon the Judges or the Jury,
While the House had been sitting on the examination of
a great national question he did not think such conduct
just or appropriate. He had heard his Hon. Colleague
and the lion. Member for Westminster say that public
opinion was against the majority of the House. He did
not know, however, from whom these Honourable Gen-
tlemen had received their informatian.—( Cries of " Hear,
hoer.") His occupation obliged him (Mr. Wakley)
to travel through various parts of the county, and he had
heard every man say, " Support your privileges--( Hear)
—and do net, above all things, go before the House of
Lords." lie wi-bed to know if his Hon. Colleague were
willing to abide by the decision of that House, whose
Members might almost all vote on the occasion by proxy ?
He remembered that the Hon. Member had supported a
motion against that manner of voting, and he was surprised
to hear any popular man make the proposal in question.
Since he had the honour of a seat in Parliament, he did
not for his part know any question on which public opinion
was so uniform as the present. He wished to allude to the
course pursued on the subjeet by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite, the Member for Tamworth, whose speeches
on the question had made him the most popular Member of
the House, and had rendered him the object of universal ad-
miration. What was it that prevented persons violating a
law? Why, inflicting punishment. !confess (said the Hon.
Member) that I am not surprised an application was made
to you the other night to let one of the Sheriffs out on
the ground that he was in danger from a certain malady.
N:ght after night, on coming to the House, I found there
was a great bustle in the passage. At last I inquired the
cause of it, but I was interrupted by a cry of " Make way
there I—make way there I—dinner for the Sheriffs !
dinner for the Sheriffs 1"—( Shouts of Laughter.) Then
a Sheriff comes and says.—" I am overfed—( Renewed
laughter)—l have a short neck too, so let me out."
This is not the course to maintain your privileges—you
must put them on a lower diet—out of humanity put them
en a lower diet, and feed them as they ought to be fed.—
( Laughter. ) It is not rig ht that men who have violated
the law should be allowed this manner to indulge their
appetites. I hope they do not do so at the public expense.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that such a
punishment ought to be inflicted as would have the effect
of preventing a repetition of the offence; and the House
could not stop, unless it was prepared to sacrifice its privi-
lerees and the independence and rights of the people.—
( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHAW wished to observe, that when he inter-
rupted the Right Hon. Baronet, he was m:rely desirous
of stating that no Court of Quarter Sessions could enter-
tain this question by way of civil action. While on his
legs, he would ask the Hon. Member for Finsbury not to
press his amendment. The real question was, whcnher the
House could or could not maintain the position it had
ion raisedre t
assumed, that in no case cool I a Court of Law call in
pEn rjovii. Gentleman
egesThe
wases a
one
died e
r i
deserving
i o the
g of gegu
amend-
ment
questioo its
fn
the i
consideration, but it ought to be separately discussed.—
( Hear, hear.) With respect to the motion before the
House, lie would ask whether it would not be an act of
cruelty to send a boy 19 years of age to gaol, because he
had obeyed his father's orders, there being no other mem-
bsr of the family capable of conducting the business.
Mr. PRYME contended that the action for which the
party had been summoned was the same as that for which
it was proposed the committal should take place. He
would ask the Right lion. Gentleman who had just sat
down, whether, if a bey were brought before him in that
Court over which he presided with so much ability, for
picking pockets, and that boy stated that he had done it
by command of his father, would he deem that a sufficient
excuse ?—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He should support
the motion.
Sir E. SUG DEN said that the young man had been
called to the bar only because he had served a notice in
the fifth action, and referred to the past votes of the 1-home
in support of his assen:on.
Mr. FRE SHFIE LD observed, that if the de-
cision which the Judges had come to was
contrary to law, why had the House not ap-
pealed against it. The course which the House
had catered upon was one which could not have
any effect. They might stop the alministration of justice,
but they could not stop the bringing of actions. If another
action was brought, then they would have to commit
another man, or another boy, or it might be another
woman.—(hear, hear, and laughter.) Let the House
declare, by some Legislative measure, what they consi-
dered to be their privileges, and then he thought they
would be more cautious in their proceedings.—( Heir.)
Me. GOUL B URN gave no weight to the objec-
tion made, that they were going to punish for an act done
in ore action, when the act was done in another. It ap-
prared from the evidence giver at the bar, that Mr.
Howard, jun., had acted while he was perfectly aware of
the resolutions of the House, which was a gross contempt
of the II)O31.

Sir E. SUGDEN denied that Mr. Howard, jun., had
admitted doing anything in the action for which he was to
be punished.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he had most dis.
tinctly admitted having acted against the privileges of the
House, the resolutions having been within his cognizance.
Mr. WYNN contended that if the young man had had
notice that bringing or carry ing on the actions was a breach
of privilege, it did not matter what acti-A he had been
concerned in. He thought the objection had no weight.
Mr. LAW said they only proceeded to punish the son, a
young man of nineteen years of age, because they found they
could not so punish the fAther in such a manner as to stop
his proceedings against their servants.—( Cries of " Di-
vide.") Those Members who came down to decide
without hearing evidence might attempt to cripple the
exertions of one who was most anxious to perform
his duty.—( Cries of " Order.") The Hon. Member then
contended, that from the evidence of Mr. Hansard it ap-
pearcd'that it was not the party before the House who had
taken the steps for which punishment was to be awarded,
but another party who was not yet before the House. The
young man had stated distinctly that he had nothing to do
with the fifth action. They were, he trusted, not about to
commit the agent after having punished the principal—not
to punish the ton after having punished the father, for acts
done before the father was imprisoned. Such a course
would cast ridicule, or something worse, upon the proceed.
ings of the House.

Mr. SANFORD, having read the evidence of
Howard, junior, contended that if he were not
punished, all the proceedings of the House upon the
question were nugatory, because it appeared that all the
steps he had taken were taken after he was aware that
his father was in custody for a breach of the privileges of
the House in his connection with these actions.
Sir E KNATCIIBULL did not think the House had
had sufficient evidence before them of the acts committed
by the young man, upon which to act.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it appeared to
him that all
the actions were parts of one series of similar transactions ;
that all was one and the same offence • and unless the
Right Hon. Baronet was prepared to show that a party
was not to be allowed to plead guilty at the bar, there was
no weight in his argument.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved that T.
Howard, jun. be committed to the custody of the Ser-
geaat-at- Arms, trusting that the young man would soon
see the error he had committed, anda pologise to the House.
Sir E. SUG DEN said there was no evidence—(ol4
011)—no evidence to show that the young man bad really
committed the breach of privilege.—( Oh.)
Mr. O'CONNE LL sl,ggested that the young man be
called in, and have an opportunity afforded him of express-
ing regret for what had occurred.
Lord J. RUSSELL begged the Learned Gentleman
t) recollect that the last time the House bad accepted an
apology from Mr. Howard, sen., the next day there ap-
peared a contrary declaration from him in the papers.—
( Hear. ) The proper course for the young man to pur-
sue would be, when committed to the Sergeant-at-Arms,
to petition the House, and express his regret for having in-
curred their disapprobation.—( Hear.)
Mr. F. KELLY (amidst cries of " Divide," and
" Question,") said nothing had been proved against the
young man--(" Oh, oh")—and he called upon the No-
ble Lord, cr the Attorney-General, to declare distinctly
the apt for which this youth was about to be committed.
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
Mr. Pearce was then called in awl examined by as
SPEAKER.

You are clerk to Mr. Howard, of Norfolk-street ?
Veg.

Were you engaged in that capacity in serving notices or
writs on Messrs. Hansard ?--Yes.
In what actions?—The two last.
Do you know the cause of those actions 7—Libel (after
a long paus,)

Bythe SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Did you know
that your principal, Mr. Howard, had been committed for
conducting an action for an alleged libel, published by
order of the House—the same alleged libel on which tho
other actions have been found,cl?—Yes.

Did you serve the notice of the writ of inquiry ?—I did.
Did you know at the time it was for an action which had
been voted by this House a breach of its privileges ?
YeR.

By Mr. L A \V—Did }au know at the same time that
the Court of Queen's Bench had held that a similar
action was maintainable ?—Yes.

And that in that action damages had been recovered by
the plaintiff?—Yes.
By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Did you know
that this Flotty-;e had voted that decision a breach of its
pri‘iiiges ?—( Cries of " Oh," from the Opposition.)
Mr. LAW objected to the question, a 3 implying an
affirmation of a non-existing fact.

Question withdrawn.
Mr. GODSON—What wages do you receive?--
( Loud cries of •' Oh. oh.")
Mr. HUME—I object to that question ; you may just
as well ask him how much bread he eats.—( Hear, hear.)
The witness having beet ordered to withdraw,
Mr. HUME said he did not think the question of how
much wages the individual had, had anything to do with
the subject before them.
Mr. GODSON said the question had been put by him
for the purpose of ascertaining what amount of wages his
family had to depend upon, and what was the real quan-
tum of cruelty the House was about to inflict. He should
certainly press the question to a division.

Mr. HUME would withdraw his objection to tLe
question.
Sir EDWARD SUDDEN thought the question might
be pat with the qualification that the witness should not
answer it unless he liked.

Mr. Pearce was then recalled, and on the question being
put by Mr. Godson, he said ho would rather not answer
it. —( Cheers).
In answer to a question from Mr. O'CONNELL, the
witness stated that he had served the notice of inquiry by
direction of Mr. Howard, jun , who acted on behalf of his
father. Mr. Howard desired him to serve the notice and
he had done so. He thought he had received the instruc-
tions from Mr. Howard himself. He had been several
times at Newgate, and had been there on Saturday last.
It was not on the subj-ct of the action, it was on other bu-
siness of the office. Young Mr. Howard acted as the
conducting clerk at the office, in the absence of his father.
No person intervened between himself and young Mr.
Howard ; they were the only two clerks in the office. The
entire business of the office had been done by young Mr.
Howard since his father had been in custody.
By Mr. L AW—I have no ether employment whatever,
and I would be liable to be dismissed at a moment's notice,
and terown out of employment, if I disobeyed my em-
ployer's commas is.
Have you any family ?—I have a wife and son, without
any other means of support except my exertions. I was
never bred to the law ; I have been a military man all my
life.

Would want of employmr_nt be your total ruin 2—lt
would ; and my wife, who is solely dependent on my exer-
tions, is allied to the first nobility—not only the first, but
the very highest nobility, being a descendant of Roper, the
first Lord Teignham, whose peerage was dated 1656; and
she multi perish if it were not for my personal exertions,
from my imprudence in marrying her when a military man.
--( Hear, hear_ )

In answer to a question from Mr. KELLY, the witness
said that he understood the action was brought, not for the
purpose of bringing the privileges of that House into dis-
cussion, but merely for the purpose of recovering damages
for a libel. He had merely acted as the clerk of Mr.
Howard.

Mr. O'BRIEN—Is the House to understand that if
Mr. Howard directed you in future to do anything con-
tr:lry to the privileges of this House, that you would do so?
Mr. KELLY ohj:Tted to the question ; and the witness
was ordered to with raw.

Mr. O'BRIEN said his object in putting the question,
was to allow him the opportunity of exculpating himself.
Mr. GORING said the witness could not possibly judge
of what the privileges of the House wore.
Lord HO WICK objected to asking the witness any
questions as to his future conduct, because he feared it
would have precisely a contrary effect to what his Hon.
Friend the Member for Limerick meant. All they had to
d, was to judge of the facts as they came before them, and
leave the witness to make any apology he thought proper
afterwards —( bear.)
Mr. O'B I:1EN sail he would withdraw the question.
Mr. W. ATT\VOOD hoped there would be no marks
of arprobation or disapprobation, while the witness was
under examination.—( Hear, hear.)
The witness was then recalled, and Mr. O'BRIEN
asked him if he had anything to offer to the House in ex-
culpation of his conduc►.

The quest on N6S objected to, and the witness was again
ordered to withdraw.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that Mr.
Pearce had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the
llousc, in serving the writ in the case of Stockdale v.
H .r,sard.

Sir E. SUGD EN said the H use could scarce go
lower than it had already gone.—(oh I) He hoped the
que3tion would not be pressed, or their cells would
not be large etv,ugh to contain their victims. They
might depend opt' it that there would bc plenty
of clerks found throughout the metropolis to con-
duct cases similar to the present, and they would find
themselves engaged in a warfare with the lowest class
of persons in that metropolis. He should give the motion
his most decided negative.

Lord MAHON did not know to what lower depths of
degradation the House meant to go.__(" Oh.) So
f .r r,s his observations among some hundreds of persons of
all grades and parti,.s went, the public opinion of the coun-
try was decidedly against their present proceedings.—
( [tar, hear.) He was most anxious to see all the privi-
leges possessed by the House previous to the 13,h August
1835 preserved- to it; but he objected most decidedly t 0
the present arbitrary stretch of power. Instead of adopt-
ing legislative mea,aires, as the Noble Lord had intimated
a short time ago, he had resorted to vindictive measures.
Was that House resolved to set their privileges above all
law? If they win', the country would not support them.
lie had heard no answer to the arguments of his Hon.
and Learned Friend the Member for Exeter, who, in the
course of the debate on the privileges of the House, bad
Biked what would be the result if a murder was committed
in the course of the execution of the Speaker's warrant,
or would th• Courts of Law take cognizance of it? He
caraestly hoped that the Noble Lord would return to the
course, at one period indicated by himself, of settling this
question by a Declaratory Act. They should not any
longer be called upon, night after night, to commit persons
for breaches of privilege, which, bad such an Act existed,
would have been prtivented by it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the statements of the
Noble Lord had been answered over and over egain.
The Noble Lord seemed to suppose that were they to go
back to their position in the year 1835, they should he
perfectly secure in these actions. Had he forgotten that
the Judges had laid down an opposite doctrine. They did
not say it was on account of the sale that the House was not
entitled to publish these p• oceedings, but that for any
publication containing a libel the person libelled might
proceed against the House. He would mention an instance
to illustrate the matter, which;occurred that day. The Hon.
Member for Pembroke had this evening asked him respec -
ing papers regarding the Hill Coolies in the Mauritius,
and which he was going to lay on the table of the
House.—( Hear, hear.) The papers would refer to
the treatment and general condition of the Hill Coolies
the Mauritius, and in what manner they had been treated by
their masters, and by the captains of ships, who conveyed them
fro:n India. He was asled to deny at the Colonial-office
whether he wished cautious extracts from those papers, or
that they should contain everything, and his direction was,
that a full and complete statement should be given with re-
spect to those people—( Hear, hear)—andhe thought he should
not have given the House fair ground for legislation, whether
or not this importation should be permitted, unless he laid
those facts before them. He did not know whether among the
statements there might not be some reflecting on indivi-
duals, and extremely disagreeable to their feelings. What
would be the consequence if they revoked their reso.
lution of sale ? If the Right Honourable Member for Pem-
broke, having these papers in his possession, was to send them
to some persons to ascertain their °pit lons ? that would be a
publication according to the Court of Queen's Bench, and his
Right Hon. Friend, in thus endeavouring to obtain the
means of coming to a fair conclusion on the subject, would
render himself liable to those actions, and to indictment for a
publication of libel. So little did the Noble Lord, who had paid
mere attention to this question than many Members, seem
aware of the position they were in. Then he asked the

House, whether the Noble Lord, agreeing, as he did, that the
publication of the proceedings was necessary, had stated in what
way they could proceed to assert them. He said that he
(Lord John Russell) had receded from his declaration respect-
ing a Declaratory Act. His declaration was, that although they
possessed the power, this exercise might be attended with
such public inconvenience and; he thought a Declatory Act ad-
visable for the general benefit of the country. That opinion
was not changed, but he was determined to preserve, in any
manner that he could, the privileges of the House, and without,
receding from that opinion he could not see that it was likely
to be passed in the manner he then supposed. The Right
Hon. Member for Tamworth had suggested that the Bill might
be brought into the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor.
He found, upon consideration, there were various objections to
that course of proceeding, and he determined if he adopted the
course o' a Declaratory Bill, on doing so with the greatest con-
sideration, and giving it the greatest chance of success. He
would not allow their privileges to be weakened by any course
adopted to maintain them.—( Cheers.) Therefore he would
say he was still in favour of a Declaratory Bill ; and if le saw a
fair chance of carrying such a Bill, he would even himself pro-
pose it. He was not now prepared with a Declaratory Bill,
being uncertain what might be the opinion of persons of great
authority in the House of Lords. In this state of the
question, he would not say that the ancient mode of
asserting the privileges of the House by commitment
should be abandoned. They had been told their proceedings
would be mere waste paper unless they went on with them,
and when the case before the House was that of an attorney,
who evidently made it his trade and the main object of his pro-
fession to bring a series of actions, bringing their privileges in
question, he did say if they did not proceed they would incur the
contempt they had been told they should incur in such a case.
He might be told with great truth that it was a painful thing
to commit an individual in so low and unhappy a situation as
the person at the bar, and he must say the person chiefly
to blame was the attorney who employed his man to
commit an offence against the House.—( Hear, hear.) It
was not the fault of the House if the man was obliged, or
thought himself obliged, to pursue that course. He was sure
that not the smallest Court in England would allow a servant
accused of an illegal act to be dismissed from the bar because
his master had told him to do it, and if this were the case in
the inferior Courts, surely it would be so in the Courts of
Westminster. The House was often told that they were
bringing themselves into contempt, and he should be glad on
every account, on account of the part he was obliged to take,
an account of the waeto of time, and of the public inconve-
nience, if some mode could be adopted for maintaining their
privileges and settling the question. But he was persuaded if
they now declared they had no power to commit, and yielded
the authority, by no other proceedings could they obtain a re-
cognition of them.—( Cheers. )
Mr. GORING said Mr. Pearce had done nothing which
proved that he was in any way cognizant that he was commit-
ting a breach of the privileges of the Home.
Mr. INGHAM said he thought the Noble Lord was mis-
taken as to the opinion of the Judges. Judge Patteson had
said that every !Member enjoyed the right of communicat-
ing to any person any document published by the authority of
the house ; and why ? Because the criterion of a just privi-
lege was this—the right of doing all that should enable them
to perform their duty in that House. This right had been
admitted by the Judges in the case of Stockdale and Hansard.
They said the question was not sale or no sale, but one e indis-
criminate c:rculatien. It was, therefore, overlooking the judg-
ment to say they denied the privilege of publication. They al-
lowed this so far as was necessary to the exercise of the func-
tions of the House.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. ANDREW WHITE said his constituents supported him
in the view he took of this case, namely, that the majority were
right.
The House then divided on the motion, when the numbers
were—

For the motion 135
Against the motion
slajority _ _ —B2

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then moved that Thomas
Johnson Pearce should appear at the Bar as having been guilty
of a breach of the privileges of the House, and that he should
be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at• Arms.
Sir E. SUGDEN would take the same course on that oc-
casion as h- had on others. He thought it was now time for
the House to proceed by legislative enactment, and he thought
it unfortunate that the public time should continua to be
wasted.—(Hear, hear, hear.) As long as the question
continued in its present course, he would not
cease to move the adjournment of the House from
that time till morning.—(Ironical cheers from the Milfs-
terial benches.) He was surprised to see Hon. Members con-
ducting themselves in a manner which would seem to show
that they forgot they were acting as a high tribunal. He
thought that in the discussion they should not let the world seo
that they were moved by passion.—(Ironical cries of " If ear,
hear," on the Ministerial benches.) Ile declared that for
himself he was not acting from passion, as there was a great
difference between such a feeling and warmth of expression—
( Hear, hear.) He assured the Hon. Gentlemen on the other
side, who continued to manifest such appearances of excite-
ment, that he should not have remained upon his legs nine-
tenths of the time he hod occupied the House, if he had been
heard without interruption. They were mistaken in supposing
that he had lost his temper.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the motion
On our return to the Gallery, we found
Mr GORING presenting a petition from Mr. France, one
of the Under Sheriffs for the county of Middlesex, which stated
the situation in which the Sheriff had been placed in the cause
of Stockdale and Hansard, and stating his readiness to pay all
due respect to the authority of the House, and to obey its reso-
lutions under the protection of the House.
COUNTY CONSTABULARY ACT.
Mr. FOX MAULE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the County Constabulary Act. It was not his intention
by this Bill to alter the principle of the one at present in existt
ence, but to amend some of its details. The Bill at presen-
in existence had proved of great service in thirteen counties in
which it had been tried, and he felt no doubt that it would
shortly be generally adopted. His object was, in introducing
the present measure, to give greater efficacy to the one already
in existence, whereby an effective Pollee Establishment might
be secured in counties during the present disturbed time.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL did not rise to oppose the motion,
he rather rejoiced that an opportunity was afforded for the
Ilonse to discuss a measure which altered the whole constitu-
tion of the constabulary of the country, the Bill for which
had certainly been introduced at too late a period of the late
Session.---( Hear, hear.) He rather approved of the alterations
proposed by the Hon. Gentleman, so far as he understood them
then ; but he thought the time was too short for any one
to say that the measure had yet been beneficial.
Mr. L. HODGES was sorry to hear that his Hon. Friend
did not intend to make any alteration in the main principles of the
Bill, for the expense was found to be too great. He intended
to take an opportunity of laying a Bill for the improving the
Constabulary in the country on the table of the House. He
did not intend to make it compulsory, but he hoped his Bill
would cork at a much less expense than the present one,
Mr. HUME protested against the principle of the Bill, be-
cause the rate-payers had no confidence in the Magistrates who
at present had the management of the whole rates. The rate-
payers ought to have the power of choosing those in whom the
trust was reposed of expending ths money. When the Bill
came into Committee he would be prepared to propose
clauses which lie trusted would be agreed to, and then
the country would be satisfied, for the rate-payers
would, through their own Board, have a control over the expen-
diture of their own money.
Lord G. SOMERSET approved of the proposed alterations,
and he could assure the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the
Magistracy were actuated by as honest motives in laying on
any impost, as the Members of that House i❑ taxing the
people.
After a few words from Mr. PA YINGTON, Mr. LANGDA LE,
and Lord HENN IK ER,

Mr. GALLY KNIGHT said some measure of this kind
was absolutely necessary. In the altered state of the country,
the present rural system of constabulary was of no more effect
than the old " Chlrlies " were in the towns.—(Laughter and
hear, hear.) Ile would further ob,erve that the maintenance
of an active police in the towns had a „great influence on the
preservation of property and peace in the country. He wished
the a dministration of the police were left in the hands of the
Government He regretted that party feeling should
have been endeavoured to be excited on such
a subject as this, on which of all others party spirit should be
discarded—( Hear, hear)—and he was sorry that the high-
sounding names of " constitutional principle," and " British
liberty" should have been employed to create ill-feeling against
a measure directed against thieves and cut-throats.—( Hear,
hear.) It was desirable in the highest degree that the system
should be universal through the country, otherwise it could not
be effectual. The countles who did not adopt it would be
worst off, for to them would be driven the vagabonds expelled
by the vigilance of the police in the rest.—( Hear, hear. ) But
he thought some allowance from the Consolidated Fund might
be permitted to counties.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

Mr. INGHAM moved for " a return of all the towns or bo-
roughs which have petitioned to be incorporated according to
the provision of the Act 5 and 6 Will. 4, c. 76, stating the date
of the petition, whether such petition was opposed or not ; the
result ; and whether, in case of the Charter being granted, the
district comprised is such Charter was either larger or smaller
than the precinct of the petitioning town or borough." Also
fur a " return of the incorporated towns or boroughs to wt,ich
either Courts of Quarter Sessions or Commissions of the Peace
have been granted from the passing of the said Act to the
31st day of December, 1839; specifying the respective grants
to each town or borough, and where Courts of Quarter
Sessions have been granted; stating the names of the Re-
corders of each borough, and the dates of their first appoint-
ments as Recorders of any corporation ; and, in every case of
commissions of the peace being granted, stating the number of
Justices in each commission, and how many of the Justices, if
any, who have at any time been appoiMed as Justices of such
Boroughs, since the passing of the said Act, were at the date
of their respective appointments members of Council of the
several boroughs to which such commissions have been granted.
Return, from every Borough levying a Borough Rate under
the said Act, of the amount of such Rate for the last year, for
which the accounts have been made up, and also of the amount
of rate levied under any local Act or Acts now in force in such
boroughs respectively for the same period ; and, also, Return
from every of such boroughs of the amount of Rates levied
under the local Acts, if any, in force in such borough, for the
year next before the year in which the provisions of the said Act
came into operation in such boroughs respectively.
Mr. F. MAULE said the Home Office had no power to en-
force the returns.
Mr. INGHAM said the law now compelled the borough
authorities to make these returns.
Mr. F. MAULE said the Home Office would take every
passible trouble to procure the informatthey
on. But would
be obliged to trouble officials through the country,
as they often were, for a deal of information, for furnishing which they justly to be paid, only there were no funds for thye
object.—Returns ordered.

CANADA.
Colonel SIBTIIORP then moved for returns of the ex-
penses of the outfit, as well as other expenses, immediately and
particularly connected with the mission of the Right Hon. C.
P. Thompson, Governor-General of Canada—Agreed to.
Mr. GODSON postponed his motion for papers relative to
the cases of Frost, 'William!, and Jones.
MERCHANT SEAMEN.
Mr. INGHAM moved the appointment of a Select Com-
mittee on the 4th and 6th Will. 4, c. 62, (the Merchant Sea

f_r ';.

Cl 7
P,,

4.

Arm

man's Fund Act), to consider the state of the funds, and how
they can be most effectually maintained and administered fur
the benefit of the Seaman.—Agreed to.
THE CONVICTED CHARTISTS.
Mr. LEADER hoped the House would allow him to pre-
sent a number of petitions praying for a free pardon for Frost,
Williams, and Jones. The Hon. Member then presented peti-
tions from Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Hamilton, Camprey, Stroud,
and several other places. to that effect.

Mr. WARBURTON and Mr. GODSON presented peti-
tions to the same effect.

Mr. FOX MAULE wall sorry to interfere in a case like the
present, hut it was quite clear that if the Hon. Member entered
into a lengthened statement of the case of these persons, he
should be obliged to reply at some length, and looking at the
state of the House, and the late hour of the night, it would be
impossible for them to enter satisfactorily into such a discus-
sion.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. LEADER said it was only twelve o'clock, and he thought
two or or three hours would be sufficient for the purpose. If
the Hon. Gentleman would afford him n opportunity on Thurs-
day next, and it was understood the prisoners would be de-
tained till then at Portsmouth, he had no objection to postpone
the motion for an address to her Majesty till then.—(Cries of
" Go on." )
Mr. HUME really did not think his Hon. Friend could go
on at that hour, although he (Mr. Hume) was anxious to
second the motion. He did not think the opinion of the
House could be ascertained when the attendance was so thin.
Mr. LEADER said he did not come to ask the Government
for an act of mercy but of justice. He supposed, howe7er,
there was no alternative, but to postpone the motion till Thurs-
day.
The Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill was read a mend
time, and ordered to be committed.
THANKS TO THE ARMY IN INDIA.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE moved that the resolution of thanks
to the Army in India be discharged, for the purpose of moving
in its stead a vote of thanks, which would include Major-
General Wilshire and the other officers engaged in the recent
brilliant affair of Kelat.--Agreed to.
Adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve o'Clock.

CORTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. ORD reported from the General Committee of Elec-
tions, that they have receive.l the Panels as drawn and num-
bered by the Clerk of the House, and hare, in compliance with
the 47th and 48th sections of the Act to amend the jurisdic-
tion for the trial of Election Petitions, appointed Thursday the
12th day of March for nominating from Panel No. 1, Select
Committees for trying the merits of thepetitions complaining of
undue elections and returns for the boroughs of Ludlow and
Ipswich ; and that they have appointed Monday the 16th day
of March for nominatitr, from Panel No. 2, Select Commit-
tees for trying the merits of the petitions complaining of endue
elections and returns for the Boroughs of Totnes and Cambridge,
and that they have given notices to the parties accordingly.
Report to lie on the Table.

DEVIZES.

TO THE EDITOR OF 2112

- • -
Sta,--Throughout the ►illages of Wiltshire petitions in
favour of Church Extension have been privately circulated
for signature, and yet there is not one church in ten that is
filled. Many of the clergy who have headed the petitions
with their signatures do not preach more than once a week,
and scarcely any of them do more than the bare duty which
they are compelled to do by the Bishop.
The following statement is from personal knowledge,
and if it leans it is in favour of the Church :—ln ten
churches there arc—Four not quarter full, four more not
half full, one more half full, one more, perhaps, sometimes,
full.

We do not want more churches, but more active minis-
ters pith less of pomp and pride, and more of Christian
humility.
February 17.

A PLAIN MAN.

PARLIAMEN TARP REFORM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

ROCHDALE, FEE 17, 1840.
SlE,—The Members of the Electors' Association
have, ever since the first election, marched in the ranks
of Liberalism, but from the paltry proceedings of the
last two or three Sessions of Parliament, have become
convinced that nothing but a very extensive Reform in
our Representation can save this country from anarchy
and confusion. We have therefore hoisted the banner of
Radicalism, trusting the justice of our:principles will
induce all lovers of their country's rights and liberties
to lock to our standard.

I hope you will gi%e insertion to the address, thereby
conferring a favour on,

Your's most respectfully,
THOMAS LIVSEY, Secretary.

We have received the address, which, owing to its
length we cannot find room for. It describes the des-
titution of the working classes, and the enormous debt.
caused by lavish expenditure in unjust wars, recounts
the gagging Bills, the Six Acts, and the other acts of
the Tories on the plains of Peterloo, the vast expenses
of Royalty and Government, of the Army and Navy,
and proposes as a remedy for all, Universal Suffrage,
Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot, and, in fine,
draws the following conclusion
" We believe a Parliament, elected on the above prin-
ciples, would enact measures to put an end to all sine-
cures, pensions, &c., except upon a very scrupulous
examination the receiver shall be found to merit them ;
to discharge the standing army, except such part as may
be necessary to maintain the arsenals at the sea ports,
in readiness for war ; to abolish tithes of every descrip-
tion ; to abolish Church-rates ; to totally repeal tl.e
Poor-law Amendment Bill ;to repeal the Constabulary
Police Bill, and place the appointment and control of
constables in the bands of the people, locally ; to cause
an equitable adjustment of the debt, called national ; to
pass an efficient Factory MIL ; to abolish all internal
taxes, whether direct or indirect, and to impose, instead.
a property tax ; and to cause a most searching and
rigorous inquiry to be made into every branch of the
public expenditure.

" TO THE NON-ELECTORII.
" Gentlemen,—We have in the above laid before you
our principles, and stated the abuses and misgovern-
ment this country at present labours under; if the
above principles be satisfactory to pit], we request that
you will heartily co-operate with us, in doing your
utmost to bring them into practice.
" JAMES SCHOLFIELD, Chairman."

On Monday the Annual Meeting of the Man-
chester Chamber of Commerce was held. J. B. Smith Presi-
dent, in the chair. The Secretary read a very lengthy report
from the Board of Directors. It entered into a detailed state-
ment of the steps taken by the Directory with reference to the
following subjects : Equalisation of the duties on sugar and
coffee ; the duty on raw cotton ; the Manchester and Birming-
ham Extension Railway; timber duties ; the penny postage;
steam commnnication with India, via the Red Sea; cultivation
of cotton in India ; Mexico ; the Prussian League ; and the
interruption of the trade with China. It stated that
" The present juncture calls for increased exertion on the part
of this meeting to emancipate our commerce from the etters
with which its energies are bound." The report was adopted,
and the following gentlemen appointed directors for the ensuing
year :—Henry Ashworth, John Anderson, Henry Bannerman,
James Burt, Richard Birley, W. R. Callender, Richard Cob-
den, Robert Gardner, Holland Hoele, Henry Hilton, John
Hyde, James Heywood, Rupert Ingleby, James Kershaw, John
Lloyd, Philip Novelii, Benjamin Pearson, David Price,
Richard Roberts, Leopold Reiss, J. B. Smith, John Spencer,
P. F. Willert, and James Wood, Esqrs.

THE NEW PORTABLE ALARUNI
size of a small Snuff Box, can be placed on the Dressing-table
and set to ring at any hour that may be requirei. Prise Three
Guineas.

T. COX SAVORY,
Goldimith, Silversmith, &c., 47, Uornhill (Seven i•ors from
Gracechurch-street), London.
N. T 3. A Pamphlet, containing Drawings, and a detailed list
•f the Prises of Silver Plate, Plated Goods, Watches, Clocks,
&a., may he hall gratis, or will he forwarded post free,
answer to a post-paid application.

On the 7th inst., the lady of Edward Hamilton Flinney, Esq.
of a son, still born.
On the 14th inst., at Liverpool, Mrs. C. Cosey, of a son.
On the 14th inst., in Molesworth-street, Dublin, the lady of
Henry Gilpin, Esq., of a son.
On the 15th inst., at Lower Clapton, Mrs. Boult, of a
daughter.
On the 15th inst., at Dorset-terrace, Clapham-road, Mrs.
Cunningham, of a son.
On the 16th inst., in Upper Bedford-place, Russell-square,
the wife of William Harrison, Esq., of Gray's-inn, of a daughter.
On the 16th inst., at Sheerness, the lady of Captain Areng•
Cross, 73d Regiment, of a (laughter.

_ •
MARRI RD.
On the lith inst., at St. Luke's, by the Rev. Ugent Wade,
M.. 1., Warren De La Rue, Esq., to Georgians, youngest
daughter of Thomas Bowles, Es, of the Island of Guernsey.
q.
On the 13th of November, at St. Peter's Church, Colombo,
Ceylon, Stephen Vertue, jun., Esq., to Eliza, fourth daughter
of Charles Edward Layard, Esq., late of her Majesty's Civil
Service.
On the 12th inst. at Paris, Mr. A. J. B. Faseoppret De
Thulus, to Mary Ellison, eldest daughter of the late Henry
Voysey, Esq. I

DIED.
On the 18th inst., at Leamington, William, third Earl of
Mansfield, K. T., aged 63.
On Friday, the 14th inst., at his house in Montague-streets
Russell-square, John Oldham, Esq., of the Bank .f England,
aged 61.
On the 17th inst.. in Honduras-place, Downham-road,
Kingsland-road, Mr. G. A. F. Tyrrell, aged 34.
On the lstn inst., at Harewood-house, Yorkshire, the
Countess of Harewood.

- -
On the Ist inst., at Florence, the Hon. Mrs. Alcock, the
wife of Lieutenant-Colonel Alcock, and aunt of the preseul
Viscount Doneraile, aged 70.
On the 10th inst., at Boulogne-sur-Mer, Lieutenant Cun-
ningham Douglas, late on half-pay of the 18th Regiment of
Foot, aged 46.
On the 13th inst., at Hampton-court Palace, Mr.. Ann
Seeker, aged 73.
On the 1-th inst., Elizabeth Miller, the wife of Mr. John
Backhouse, of Great St. Helen's.

London : Printed and Publisheti YOUNG+,
No. 112, Seranul, at The Sun Offiee, Ne. 112, Strand, iN t"e
county of Alieldletex.—Weducaday, February 19, 1840.