The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-10 00:00:00

- - - -

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 10, 1847.

England, and it did not appekr that the Government would
be enabled to entertain any nore. With regard to the esti-
mated cost for fencing, it bort so large a proportion to the
value of the land that, unless n very valuable land, it would
not be worth while to undertake it all.
Lord GEORGE BENTIX(N heard with great surprise a
regret expressed by the Nobb Lord the Member for Bath,
that the labourers' wages had rsen. It seemed to be the Noble
Lord's wish that the labourere'wages should be ground down
as much as possible. With rigard to any fear of exhausting
the money market by borrowing two millions, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would tell thin that, in the competition for
the loan of eight millions, a And time since, eighty millions
had been brought forward, ant that was a pretty fair proof
that the money market would not be injured by this loan.
The cost of fencing would, however, be very considerable, as it
would be necessary to erect stone fences to protect the sheep
from the snow drift.

tageonsly advanced for the purpose cf being em-
ployed in the permanent improvement of the estates of
such infants, persons of unsound mind, or others
under legal disability. Be it therefore enacted, that
it shall be lawful for any such trustees (with the
consent of any persons beneficially interested, in possession,
if of full age) of guardians, or the committees of any per-
sons of unsound mind, and they are hereby authorised to
apply to the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, by petition
to the Lord High Chancellor, for leave to make any
permanent improvements in such settled or other estates
in Ireland aforesaid, in the manner and by any of the
ways or means for which loans are hereby authorised to
be made by the Commissioners of Public Works, and
so applied, and in such petition to pray that the
expenses of making any such permanent improvements may
be defrayed by advances out of any such moneys in the hands
of such trustees or guardians, or others, or otherwiss invested
as aforesaid. And be it enacted, That upon the presentation
of any such petition as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the
said court :to refer it to one of the masters of the said
court to make all necessary and proper inquiries, and
to consider all such estimates and valuations as shall
be produced before him in relation to the matter of
such petition, and thereupon to report whether, in his
opinion, it would be beneficial, to all persons interested in
the estates, that such permanent improvements should be
made under the provisions of this Act. And be it en-
acted, that such report shall be filed according to the
practice of the said Court, and that thereupon it shall
be lawful for the said Court, upon the petition of the p rty
obtaining the same, to confirm the said report absolutely
and to make an order authorising or permitting such perma-
nent improvements to be made, and the expenses of making
the same, together with the expenses of obtaining the au-
thority of the said Court, to be accordingly advanced out
of such moneys respeetively aforesaid, and that thereupon
it shall be lawful for such trustees or guardians, or
others, to advance and lay out such moneys accord-
ingly. And be it enacted, that after such moneys shall
have been so advanced and laid out as aforesaid, it shall
be :lawful for such trustees or guardians, or others, to
apply to the said Court by petition to the Lord High Chan-
cellor, for a reference to the said master, to ascertain that the
amount thereof has been fully expended in or about the
making of such improvements, and in paying or providing for
the expenses incurred and to be incurred, of obtaining the
authority of the said Court ; and that upon the said master
making his said report, and thereby finding that the amount
of such monies had been fully expended as aforesaid, and upon
the said report being duly riled according to the practice of
the said Court, that then it shall be lawful for the said
Court to make an order to confirm the said report
absolutely, and to fully indemnify such trustees, guardians, or
others on account of such application of the said trust monies
as aforesaid. And be it enacted, that in every case
in which such advances shall be made as last
herein before authorised, the lands intended to be
improved by means thereof, shall, from the respective tin-.es
of making such advances, become and be charged with the
repayment to such trustees, guardians, or committees,
or others, for the time being, making or entitled
to be repaid such advances, the amount of such
respective advances after the rate of not less than 4/. I Is. por
centum per annum, until the whole of such advances shall
have been repaid, and such charge shall have priority over
other charges, except Tithe Commutation Rent Charges,
and any quit or chief rents incident to tenure. And be it
enactad, that tenants for life and others having only a li-
mited interest in the land charged shall be bound to pay
the said instalments which shall become from time to time
due and payable, during the continuance of their respectiv•
estates or interests, and shall be bound to uphold and main-
tain in good order and condition the works on ac-
count of which the lands shall have been so charged
as aforesaid, as if such persons respectively were
tenants for life, subject to impeachment for waste.
And be it enacted, that in every case of improvements
effected under the power or authorities last here-
inbefore contained, the said Commissioners of Public
Works shall have the like power of determin-
ing and signifying the amount of increased rent
or rents, if any, which the occupiers of such lands ought
immediately or prospectively to pay, by reason of such im
provements, and which increased rent or rents shall be paid
and may be recovered in like manner, as respectively here-
inbefore provided in respect of improvements made by means
of loans from the said Commissioners.

Sir GEORGE GREY said that the clause did not encourage
fencing so much as draining.
Lord DUNCAN said that be had no wish, as stated by
the Noble Lord, to grind down the labourers' wages. He
wished to see every man obtaic a fair day's wages tor a fair
day's work. W hat he did say was, that at the present rate
of wages in that part of the country, it would be injudicious
for the Govornment to encourage the landlords to undertake
drainage, for at the present rite of wages it would not repay
the cost which they would beat.
After a few words from Mr. BAILLIE and Mr. HENLEY,
Mr. AGLIONBY thought some protection should be
afforded to the outgoing tenaits, else all the improvements
that might be made would be lost. While on this sub.;ect
he would suggest to the Howe the importance of measures,
not only for subsoiling and hedging, but for the removal of the
feudal tenures of the north of Ingland. Until they removed
no tenant would undertake the improvement of the soil.
The practice of ecclesiastical finis, which prevailed in certain
parts, should also be grappled with, as well as the manorial
rights of the north: There ought to be but one general
tenure for the whole country, stool he trusted the Government
would take up the whole question, so as to provide a remedy.
Mr. G. W. HOPE wished toknow whether any improve-
ment or alteration was comtenplated in the Act commonly
called " Montgomery's Act ?"
The LORD ADVOCATE slid the present Bill was not
for the purpose of adding to the burdens of the land, but for
the purpose of disencumbering it, and enabling its capabili-
ties to be more fully ddiveloped
After a few words from Captain HARRIS,
Mr. B. ESCOTT thought that this was a Bill of which
the landlords ought te.be justly ashamed ; but as he believed
there was not the slightest chince of throwing it out, he
would not take up the time of the House by discussing it. The
principle of the Bill seemed to ie to give loans of money to
landlords because they did not rquire it. Now he thought
that that principle could be greatly improved by extending
it to those parties who reatv required and deserved
such loans. The Bill seemed to be intended as a
compensation for something, what he did not know, nor
.was he aware of the arrangements that had been entered into
on the withdrawal of the Bill which preceded this, and the
introduction of the present measure.
Lord LINCOLN explained.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. FOSTER moved that the words "provided always,
that correct plans or tracings of the drainage as finally
effected be deposited with and preserved for public use and
inspection by the Commissioners" be introduced after the
word "proposed."
Lord MORPETH said that the proviso of the Hon. Gen-
tleman would subject proprietors of land to much inconve-
nience, and very considerable expense, particularly in some
of the districts of Scotland, and would in many instances be
altogether impracticable. For instance, Mr. .I.'Leod, of
M'Leod, had an estate of some 10,000 acre., which had
never been surveyed.land the probability would be, that even
in the event of such plans being taken and deposited, lit
would be found absolutely necessary to depart from them.
Mc. ELLICE said that-, in corroboration of what bad fallen
from his Noble Friend, he had only to say that when he was in
Scotland he was obliged, in:conseitence of thelgreat expense
to which proprietors would be stbjected for these specifica-
tions and plans, and the uncertainly that existed—that after
all, when the plans were furnished, they might not be able to
proceed with them—he was obliged to request the Commis-
sioners to place considerable discretion.in the hands of the land-
lords, in order that the works fright be proceeded with. Ile
trusted that the Hon. Member would not press his motion.
Lord DU.NCAN wished to kiow in what order the appli-
cation for loans would be considered? _ _

On the questiou being put for the second reading of the
clause,

Lord MORPETH said, in tte order of arrival.
Mr. AGLIONBY suggested the withdrawal of the amend-
ment. If, however, the plans were prepared, it ought to be
done at the expense of the geteral fund.
After a few words from Lord GEORGE BENTINCK and
Mr. HUME,
Mr. FORSTER said:he would consent to amend his proviso,
so that the plans and surveys should only be made in cases
where the Commissioners deerred it expedient, but he must
decline withdrawing it altogether.
Mr. AGLIONBY would support the proviso as amended,
upon the understanding that the expense was to be defrayed
out of the general drainage fund.
Lord LINCOLN opposed the amendment. The money
ought to be:general and not partial; but, nevertheless, he:con-
sidered it altogether unnecessary, and he hoped therefore
Government would resist the amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER took the
same objection to it that he did when the Noble Lord pro-
posed it on a former occasion. He must, therefore, resist
the introduction of the clause.

Viscount NEWRY said it was not fair to refuse trustees
the power of improving the estates placed in their hands as
trust property
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL urged upon Government the
necessity of reconsidering their decision upon this clause. A
good deal of land would remain unimproved if they did not.
After a few words from Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN,
Mr HUME said, it appeared to him that it private indi-
viduals could be found to advance money to improve pro-
perty in Ireland, it would be much better to take it from
them than from the public purse.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Hon.
Member for Montrose misunderstood the meaning of the
clause. It was not to enable trustees to advance their trust
money under this Bill, but to expend it in the improvement
of their own land.

After a few words from Lord MoftrEm and Mr. AG-
LIONBY,

➢ir. FORSTER protested that the discussion had not
changed his opinion upon the subject. Nevertheless, as there
appeared so much opposition to it, he would witildraw the
amendment.

Mr. lItJME thought that the present was not a fitting op-
portunity to go into the subject.
The Earl of LINCOLN hoped that the Government would
consider the subject at the present time. He thought
it desirable that some provision should be intro-
duced into the me•tsure as speedily as possible, and that those
Acts introduced a few years since by the Duke of Richmond
and the Hon. Member for Berkshire, might be taken as a
basis for those provisions.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD wished to express his
dissent against clauses 34 and 44 of the Bill, the fountr
clause giving the Commissioners power to enter on the
lands of any person against their wishes, and the
second clause gave them power to increase the
amount of the rents, and he wouLl give notice that upon
the third reading of the Bill he would move that those two
clauses should be expunged.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL thought it of great importance
that capital should be set as free as possible for employment
at the present time in Ireland.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn and the clause
agreed to.
Clauses 3,4, and 5, were agreed to.
On Clause 6 being proposed,
Sir GEO. GREY said, with reference to what had been
recently stated by the Hon. Member for Falkirk, with regard
to the limitation as to the completion of the works, he wished
to observe that the abject was to diffuse the benefits of the
Bill as extensively as possible. It was considered, therefore,
moat advantageous for this purpose if the loan to each pro-
prietor was limited to 15,000/., and if the period should be
extended to five years instead of three. A discretionary power
was given to the Lords of the Treasury to enlari.e that amount
in special cases where it could be shown that the landlords
could beneficially apply it, and that the works could be com-
pleted in three years. The Right Hon. Gentleman proposed
an amendment to that effect—" That there should be no
grant exceeding 15,0001., and that the period for the com-
pletion of the works should be extended to five years."
Sir J. GRAHAM was of opinion that with regard to the
Highlands of Scotland a discretionary power as to the loan
was properly lodged with the Treasury, and he highly ap-
proved of the extensiognraonftd thelormeiata etch
individualtionastotimpe,robpuntetlorer
thought the amount granted
was too large. The primary object to be considered was,
the advantage of the great bulk of the people, and the pro-
duction of the greatest quantity of food ; the interest of the
proprietor was a secondary matter. / ow those who wanted
the assistance were not the large proprietors, but the
farmer and yeoman. Ile wished the benefit to be diffused as
widely as possible, and if 15,000/. were to be advanced
to each individual, it would greatly fetter them, and prevent
them from being able to diffuse the beeetits of the Bill as
widely as they could do if they limited the loan to 10,000/. 1
to each applicant.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK thought, as the object of the
Bill was to increase the production of food, and to advantage
the country generally, and if this could be affected by the
Bill, it did not matter whether the loans were large or
small, or to what class of proprietors they were given. He
thought they should not diminish the amount, but in case
there were more applications than they had money to lend,
the Government should borrow a few millions more to
enable them to do so.
Lord DUNCAN said that the interest of the additional
money which the Noble Lord ( Bentinck) proposed to raise
would have to be paid by the working classes, and, therefore,
he deprecated such a course. Ile agreed with the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) that the loans to each
individual should belimited to 10,030/.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said, the Noble Lord who
had just sat clown could not have read theißlil
just
snow,otr he
aswouldto
not have made the statement made by him
the working classes paying the interest of the money. The
Bill imposed the payment of both principal and interest on
the landed proprietors.
Mr. AGLIONBY disagreed with the Noble Lord. The
money would have to be borrowed by Government, and i!
the statement which had been made by the Hon. Member
eased Government
ratrate
oi
for Montrone o
nbeey coonr r cxt ,c
haesqtuoe
rt-lbrei nl
seca ets
as int3i-nocfr
borrowing
interest, he could not see that the interest would be paid by
the landed proprietors.
Sir GEORGE CLERK considered that 10,000/. would
be a sufficient limitation to the amount to be granted to a
proprietor; 10/. an acre would be a large sum to allow for
drainage, and that would permit ten thousand acres to be
improved.
Mr. HENLEY considered the suggestion of the Right
Hon. Baronet as most valuable, and he hoped the Govern-
ment would adopt it.
After some further discussion,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it
appeared to him that the majority of the House was in
favour of the reduction proposed by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet.—( Hear, hear.) He was not prepared to say what
course the Government would take, but .he would promise
that the subject should be taken into consideration.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the statement of the Right
Hon. Gentleman was satisfactory. The Government would
find that the limit of 15,0001. would compel the Government
to reject many applications, but the limit of 10,0001., would
enable them to meet all the requests for loans under the Act.
After a few observations from Mr. A. OSWALD, which
did not reach the gallery,
Mr. S. HERBERT said that, if a maximum was at all
made, it should be fixed as high as possible.
Mr. AGLIONBY arid the money proposed was not merely
to be lent to the landowners, but for the higher purpose of
bringing a larger area of land into cultivation, and finding
employment for the poorer classes. If it were a mere land-
lords' Bill he would never have supported it.
Mr. CAYLEY:submitted that the Bill could not avoid
benefiting the landlords, while at the same time it extended
the field of employment for the people. Whether the large
proprietors or the small ones borrowed the money was a
matter of indifference so long as the object of finding the
people employment was realised. He could not, therefore,
agree to limiting the sum to 10,0001.
Mr. B. DENISON, differed altogether from the last Hon.
Member. He could not agree that the smaller landed pro-
prietors should be shut out of the benefit of loans, because
the large proprietors had made extensive application for
sums, and were to be allowed to borrow to the amount of
15,0001. each.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the Bill
was ordered to be reported on Friday.
The House then resumed.
LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
Oa the motion for bringing up the report on this Bill,
Mr. WILLIAMS said, that the House would see that there
was an additional grant of half a million given by this Bill to
the landlords of Ireland. He believed that the amount of
money applied for had been very limited, and he should wish
to know what those precise amounts bad been.
Viscount NE WRY then moved the following clauses:—
And whereas it may happen that there are now, or hereafter
may be, in the hands of trustees or a trustee of a settlement,
or will, or codicil, moneys produced by the sale, or received
for equality of exchange of settled estates or hereditaments
in Ireland, under a power of sale and exchange, or under trust
for sale, in such settlement, or will, or codicil contained, and
which moneys are liable to be laid out in the purchase cf I
other estates or hereditamems to be settled to the same or
the like uses, or upon and, for the same or the like trusts and
purposes as the estates or hereditaments, from the sale or
exchange of which such moneys were produced, and there ,
may be now or hereafter moneys in the hands of trustees,
or a trustee, of a settlement, will, or codicil, produced by a
sale or sales of settled lands or hereditaments, in Ire-
land, compulsorily or otherwise, made to or for the
purposes of a railway or other public company, or
other moneys liable to be laid °et in the purchase
of lands or hereditaments, and which moneys may be I
advantageously advanced for the purpose of being laid out in
the permanent improvement of such settled estates, and there
may be now or hereafter moneys in the hands of trustees or
guardians for infants or others under legal disability, or
moneys of persons of unsound mind, which may be advan-

Mr. AGLIONBY thought that it was the duty of the
Government to bring in a Bill upon the subject, and not
allow the expense and trouble of doing so to be borne by
any individual Member of the House.

%ir.
LABOUCHERE said, he agreed in the observation
that this was a measure with which the Government
could more easily deal than any individual Member.
He hoped sincerely that the Government would be
able to introduce a measure upon that subject, but he would
entreat the House to remember that the Government could
not pledge itself to bring in any other measures than those
which they had introduced until they had been able
to see what progress they could make with those which
they had undertaken. The Government had been asked
dcring the course of the day, to bring in no less than three
Irish measures.

Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said that if such a measure
WAS brought in, it ought to be done so by her Majesty's Go-
vernment. Property in Ireland was under such restrictions
that the proprietors were prevented from raising money to
improve their estates.
After some further discussion, the amendment vas
negatived.

Lord COURTENAY moved that the following clause
be added to the Bill :—lncorporated Companies for im-
provement of Land in Ireland, empowered to borrow
money for the purposes of this Acl.—And whereas so-
cieties or companies incorporated by. Act of Parliament, or
established by charter, in Ireland or in England, for the im-
provement of land in Ireland, or for reclaiming land in Ire-
land, may be desirous of applying for advances of money
under the provisions of this Act, but doubts may
arise whether such societies or companies are within
the provisions of this Act, and whether they are
authorised to borrow money, by reason of the ab-
sence of special authority in their Acts or Charters of In-
corporation or being applicable to this Act. ; be it there-
fore enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for the
trustees or directors of any such society or company, incor-
porated by Act of Parliament or by Royal charter, solely for
the improvement of land in Ireland, or for reclaiming
land in Ireland, and which society or company shall be en-
titled to any such lands proposed to be improved under this
Act for an estate in fee, or under and by virtue of any lease
for lives renewable for ever, or for a term of years whereof
forty years or more miy be unexpired at the time of applica-
tion for a loan under this Act, to convene a special general
meeting of the shareholders, with such notice as may be
required by the respective Act, or charter of incorporation,
and specifying in such notice the object of such meeting, and
to submit to such meeting a proposition for borrowing money
under the provisions of this Act; and, if the majority of the
shareholders present at such meeting shall authorise the
directors to borrow a sum of money under the provisions of
this Act, it shall and may be lawful for the said Commis-
sioners of public works, it they shall think fit, upon the appli-
cation by memorial of the trustees or directors for the time
being of such society or company, to advance any sum of
money not exceeding the sum by such resolution of the
special meeting authorised, upon the security of a rent-charge,
or rent-charges, under this Act, although such society or
company may not have powers independently of this Act to
borrow money, or may have special powers of borrowing
which shall not have arisen; and in any such case such
trustees or directors for the time being shall or may be
considered as owners; under the provisions of this Act,
and they are hereby authorised to do all acts which any
owner ot land, as defined in this Act, is authorised and em-
powered to do in relation to loans to be made, or rent-charges
to be created, under this Act, or any works of improvement
to be executed under the same, or other the purposes of
this Act ; and upon any advance being made to the trustees
or directors for the time being, of any such society
or company, under the provisions of this• Act,
tie lands belonging to any such society or company, and
mentioned in the order ot the said Commissioners, shall
be charged and chargeable with such rent charge, or
rent-charges, as by this Act provided in respect
of any loan or advance thereunder, and subject and
liable to the like provisions and regulations as in this Act
contained in relation to such rent-charges and the priority
of the same.

On the motion for the second reading of the clause.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
objects contemplated in the Noble Lord's clause had been so
nearly provided for in the Bill that he really did not see a
necessity for adding to its general provisions.
LordCOURTENAYsaid the professed object of the Bill was
to give employment to the poor, and he never looked
upon it as calculated to benefit property in Ire-
land. It was with the former view that he had
proposed this clause, but as he was not disposed to throw
any impediment in the way of the Bill, he woald,-with the
permission of the House withdraw the clause.
The clause was accordingly withdrawn.
An amended clause, proposed by the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER, was then agreed to.
The further consideration of the report was then post-
poned till Friday next.

LOAN BILL.
The Loan Bill was then read a third time and passed.
REPORT OF THE RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
STRUTT said he was unable to lay the report of the
Railway Commissioners upon tl►e table of the house, in con-
sequence of a great number of inaccuracies in the informa•
tion furnished by the railway companies themselves.
He very much regretted that such was the f►ct, but the fault
did not lie with the Commissioners but the railway com-
panies themselves.
The House then adjourned at Six o'clock.

TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
DIVIDENDS DECLARED.
W. Looney, cooper, Whitehaven—third and final dir. of
3t/ d. in the pound (in addition to 4s. 3d. in the pound pre-
viously declared), on any Saturday, at the office of Mr.
Baker, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
J. Ramsden, lien., cloth manufacturer, Armley, Yorkshire
—a first and final div. of Is. in the pound, on any Friday,
at the office of Mr. Kynaston, Leeds.
J. Ramsden and J. Ramsden, jun., cloth manufacturers,
Armley, Yorkshire—first div. of 9%c1. in the pound, on any
Friday, at the office of Mr. Kynaston, Leeds.

E. Lilly, timber merchant, Hull—first div. of Bs. in the
pound, on any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Kvnaston,
Leeds.

W. Baldock, grocer, Nottingham—first div. of 6s. 3d. in
the pound, on any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Christie,
Birmingham.
Tring, Reading, and Basingstoke Railway Company,
New Broad-street, City—first div. of 20s. and four per cent.
interest in the pound, on any Wednesday, at the office of Mr.
Graham, Coleman-street, City.
R. A. F. Kingscote, merchant, Sandgate, Kent—first div.
of 235. In the pound, on any Wednesday, at the office of Mr.
Graham, Coleman-street, City.
J. Wilcex, tailor, Little 8011-alley, Moorgate-street—first
div. of 2s. in the pound, on any Wednesday, at the office of
Mr. Graham, Coleman-street, City.
W. Vann, upholsterer, Old-street, St. Luke's—a div. of
714 d. in the pound, on Thursday, March 11, and three fol-
lowing Thursdays, at the office of Mr. Belcher, King's Arms-
yard, Moorgate-street.
W. Smith, timber-merchant, Curtain-road, Shoreditch—
a div. of 13/4d. in the pound, on Thursday, March 11, and
three following Thursdays; at the office of Mr. Belcher,
King's Arms-yard, Moorgate-street.

J. Wragg, iron merchant, idelina-place' Westminster-
bridge-road—a div. of 6s. Bd. in the pound, on Thursday,
March 11, and three following Thursdays, at the office of Mr.
Belcher, King's Arms-yard, Moorgate- street.
T. Wilson, T. K. Wilson, and W. Wilson, linendrapers,
Liverpool—a div. of 7d. in the pound, on Thursday,
March 25, or any subsequent Thursday, at the office of
Turner, Liverpool
C. K. Wilson and Brother—first of Os. 6d. in the pound,
on Thursday, March 25, or any subsequent Thursday, at the
office of Mr. Turner, Liverpool.
R. Hamilton and W. Graham, merchants, Liverpool—
second div. of 614 d. in the pound, on Thursday, March is, or
any subsequent Thursday, at the office of Mr. Turner,
Liverpool.
J. C. Kemp, merchant, Liverpool—a div. of is. 3d. in the
pound. on account of the first div. of 3s. 6d. in the pound, on
any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Turner, Liverpool.
G. C. Crofts, corn merchant, Liverpool—first div. of
Is. 3d. in the pound, on any Thursday, at the office of Mr.
Turner, Liverpool.
H. Williams, apothecary, Llanrwst, Denbighshire—a div.
of 3d. in the pound, on any Thursday, at the office of Mr.
Turner, Liverpool.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
G. Park, tailor, Bury-street, St. James's, March 30, at two
—W. Hambly, msrchant, Great Bell-alley, Coleman-street,
City, March 31. at half-past twelve—F. Bozon, Critchett-
place, Hortou New-town, March 31, at half past eleven—J.
Frost, jun., groccr, Bury St. Edmund's, March 30, at eleven.

In the Country.

J. H. Bedford, artists'• colourman, Bristol, April 6, at
eleven, at the Bristol District Court—R. Nayler, licensed
victualler, Marlborough, Wiltshire, April 6, at twelve, at the
Bristol District Court—H. Leonard, ironmonger, Cheltenham,
March 30, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court—B.
Breedon, tailor, Wellesbourne Mountford, March 31, at
eleven, at the Birmingham District Court—E. D. Hall,
currier, Walsall, Staffordshire, March 30, at twelve, at the
Birmingham District Court—R. Harris, glass manufacturer,
Birmingham. March 30, at twelve, at the Birmingham Dis-
trict Court—J. Lawley, cooper, Stafford, April 13, at eleven,
at the Birmingham District Court—S. Brothers, currier,
Newcastle-under-Lyme, April 13, at eleven, at the Birming-
ham District Court—F. A. Wheeler, percussion cap manu-
facturer, Birmingham, March 30, at twelve, at the Birming-
ham District Court—J. P. Horton, engine boiler maker,
West Bromwich, April 13, at twelve, at the Birmingham
District Court—J. Payne, draper, Weymouth, April 1, at
one, at the Birmingham District Court—T. Rudd, provision
merchant, Braugh, Westmorland, March 30, at one, at the
Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court—W. H. Fitzhugh,
merchant, Liverpool, April 2, at eleven, at the Liverpool
District Court—W. Lancaster, ship owner, Liverpool, April 2,
at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court—J. Adamson,
grocer, Stockport, April 1, at one, at the Manchester District
Court—G. H. Openshaw, power-loom cloth manufacturer,
Over Darn en, Lancashire, April 8, at twelve, at the Man-
chester District Court.

CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
T. Bowyer, bookseller, Strand, April I—C. Ashby, tailor
Bishop's Stortlbrd, Hertfordshire, April I—T. Melton, inn
keeper, Lincoln, March 31—J. Leipold, music seller, Birming-
ham, March 31—T. Hulse, bootseller, Birmingham, April 3,
—J. Timmis, wine merchant, Newcastle-under-Lyme
March 30—J. Taylor, rope manufacturer, Manchester,
March 31—J. B. Morris, boot maker, hull, March 30—W.
Jones and J. Clay, boiler makers, Liverpool, March 30—W.
L. Prattman, timber merchant, But terknowle-lodge, Durham,
,larch 30-11. Cowie and J. Clarke, merchants, Liverpool,
March 30-11. Parratt, coach builder, Clifton, March 30—J.
Walton, tailor, Leeds. Marsh 30—J. and J. Boyd, seed mer-
chants, Wellington-chambers, Southwark, March 30.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE. OF COMMONS, March 9.
ABOLITION OF PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Mr. EW ART rose to bring forward the motion
of which he had given notice—namely, the total Isbell--
6°n of the punishment of death. He said that it was
now seven years since he had the honour of bringing
this subject before the attention, or rather before the
patience, of the House. In these years this subject ex-
cited a deep interest, but it had now assumed a far
deeper and greater interest. He thought this was shown
partly in the number of petitions on the table, and
partly by the numerous -meetings which had
been held throughout the country. At that time few
of the clergymen of the Established Church had given
in their adherence to the principle of the total abolition
of the punishment of death, but now they had vast num
hers who thought as they did, and who had not only
appended their names to petitions, but also appeared
at public meetings held for the purpose of advo-
cating the doing away with that punishment.
There was also a great difficulty in obtaining verdicts
from juries which involved the punishment of death.
Many instances had occurred of this kind—instances in
which the guilt of the criminal had been clearly esta-
blished, but in which the juries refused to return
a verdict of guilty. He would not enter into
the theological or theoretical view of the question. He
contended that .nothing but necessity could justify
punishment by death. One of the most eminent of
Italian writers had written upon this subject, he re erred
to the Marquis Becarria: the ground of his argument
was, that it was impossible to justify the in-
fliction of capital punishment, except upon the
ground of absolute necessity.—( Hear, hear.) Another
person who had also denoted considerable attention to
the subject of criminal jurisprudence—no less a personage
than the King of Sweden—had also written upon
the subject to the same effect.—(Hear, hear.)
The question he put before the House and the country
was, whether the infliction of capital punishment was
any longer necessary for the execution of justice. First
of all, he would prove that it was not necessary, and.
secondly, that it was positively injurious. It was quite
evident that punishment of death was unnecessary, from
what took place under the reign of Leopold of Tuscany,
while he need not remind the House of what
occurred under the administration of Sir James
Mackintosh in India, who abolished capital
punishment, nor need he remind them what happened
when Lord Minto was in power in India, who also
abolished capital punishment. In both cases capital
crimes diminished, and the same result had followed the
abandonment of capital punishment on the part of the
present Emperor of Austria. Why, when it was
moved to abolish capital punishment in cases of
cattle stealing and forgery, it was urged that it
would be dangerous to the country. (Hear.) But
how erroneous had this proved to be ! The semi
argument would apply with equal force when used in
reference to other crimes, which were formerly punished
icy death, as a diminution rather than an increase in their
number had taken place, bui virtually they only retained
the punishment of death for murder. It was true, there
were two or three crimes which, ttectrding to the statute-
book, were punishable by death ; but the punishment
was a dead letter—its living spirit only survived, for
capital punishment was only inflicted for the com-
mission of murder. But on what grounds did
they abolish capital punishment for other crimes
and retain it only for murder ? The only argu-
ment was that there was some proportion between
the crime of murder and its punishment by death—that
a man who had killed another ought to be killed by the
law in return ; but, atter all, this was nothing better
than the law of retaliation, and would apply
with equal force to other crimes with respect
to which they had abolished the extreme punishment.
The punishment of " an eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth," had been abolished with respect to many
crimes; therefore there was no tenable reason that it
should be retained with respect to murder. Lord Bacon
described such a punishment as " that sort of retalia
tory justice which is nothing more than civilised and
deliberate revenge." He would next proceed to deal
with statistics, the authenticity uf which were undoubted,
in support of his argument, that the punishment ought to
be abrogated. He proposed, first, to adduce statistics
relating to the period when corporal punishment was
abolished with respect to many crimes; next, the period
following it, and then he should compare them together
and show the result. Periods of distress frequently en-
gendered violent crimes, so that they could not all be
attributed to the violent passions of mankind.
lie merely made these statements to show Hon. Mem-
bers who were opposed to him on this question that the
increase of crimes to which he bad referred was not to
be ascribed to the abolition of capital punishments, but
to the distress which prevailed. He should limit his
observations on statistics to a few returns mainly
bearing on the particular question involved in his
motion. The first return he would read to the House
was one made on the 22d of May, 1830. It showed
that in 1830, the year when the abolition of capital
punishments took place to a considerable extent, and for
five years previous to it, the number of crimes
for which this punishment had been awarded was
greater than during the five years succeeding. Taking
again the five years ending 1825, the five years ending
1830, the five years ending 1835, and the five years end-
ing 1840, in each of these successive periods, a
gradual decrease of crimes, for which capi-
tal punishment had been inflicted, was shown.
In proportion as executions had decreased, so had also
the crimes for which this kind of punishment was
inflicted decreased in extent. But there was after-
wards another return called for, at the sugges-
tion of an excellent friend of his who had
written on this subject. It was dated the 29th
day of August, 1843, and showed a decrease of the
crime of murder, and a lessening of capital punish-
ments, from the year 1812 to the year 1843. In the first
six years of this period, when capital punishments were
more frequent than in the remaining years of the period,
the number of cap;.tal punishments was 122, and the con-
victions for murder 144; while in the latter six years, when
capital punishments had decreased from 122 to 50, the
crimeof murder had also diminished from 144 to 121. But
there was another return which showed the effect of those
years in which all parties convicted of murder were exe-
-1 cuted as compared with those in which fewest executions
took place. That return was made on the 24th August,
1843, and showed that in those years where all parties
convicted of murder had been executed, the crime
of murder had increased from 239 to 270, and in those
years in which the punishment of death bad decreased, the
crime of murder had also diminished from 268 to 222.
Now he would not overburden the House with further sta
tistics. But he would wish to refer to other countries, to
France, Prussia, Germany, and Belgium; and he wished
particularly to refer to Belgium, as in that country