The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDA.Y, APRIL 3. 1841.

the character of the Committee, but the character of the
House itself was deeply concerned.—(Cheers.) They
were greatly iadcbted to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Peel) for the change which he had made, and, as one of
those whom the Committee of Selection had chosen to
act as Chairman, he had thought it his duty to do all in
his power to aid in carrying its proviaions into effect—and,
however heavy those duties might be, he took them upon
himself most willingly.—(Cheers.) Great as was the
responsibility of the other Members of the Committee, that
of the Chairman was much greater—they were selected
by a Committee, and their service was compulsory—those
of the Chairman were in a manner voluntary. With re-
gard to the St. Alban's case there were circumstances in
it which gave it a greater degree of importance than it
would have enjoyed but for them. With respect to what
bad fallen from the Hon. Member for Finsbury, ho con-
fessed that it was with great pain he had heard the para-
graph from the newspaper cheered by Hon. Gentlemen
opposite when it said there was a majority of Ministerialists
on the Committee.—(Cheers.) He had heard with very
great regret the expressions of feeling with which Hon.
Members on the other side of the House had received such
an intimation from a party paper; it had been received in
such a way as ho (Mr. Sanford), if placed in their posi-
tion, would net have indulged in. Perhaps, With regard
to the details of the evidence that had been brought be-
fore the House generally in the papers, it would not
be necessary for him to refer to them ; and here he would
Make a remark in passing that, if the evidence before
their Committees were daily published in the papers—he
had no objection to it—it might be right or wrong, and
his own impression was that it ought to be published, but
at least all observations on the evidence and the conduct
of the Committee, ought te be abstained from. He thought
no expression of opinion should be given as to the decision
of the Committee while the inquiry was in progress. At
its close, and when the Committee bad given its decision,
then their conduct was fairly before the House and the
public, but during the progress of the Committee any ob-
servation would only provoke party feeling. He would
not refer to the evidence, but merely to that which more
immediately referred to the Committee—he meant the
decision to which they had come. During the whole in-
vestigation there had been but two decisions on matters of
fact. Upon the evidence produced before them, they had
to form an opinion first whether- a certain individual was
the agent of the sitting Member. On that occasion the
decision of the Committee was far from being ministerial
or anti-ministerial, they having divided on the question
five to two—( Hear, hear)--against the question being put,
because they did not consider the agency had been proved.
The other decision was at a later period of the investiga-
tion, and that he was bound to state was four to three,
but when the evidence was produced, Hon. Gentleman
would'aea whether those in the majority had fair reason
to suppose that no additional proof of evidence bad bees
given. Then what did the Committee do? and he would
call the attention of the House to one very material fact.
So anxious were the Committee to have that matter in-
vestigated, so little desirous to throw obstacles in the way
of its investigation, that they came to a resolution, that if
Counsel for the petition stated to the Committee that they
should be enabled to prove the agency by acts of bribery,
they would be permitted to go into the acts of bribery,
although the agency had not been proved. That resolu-
tion was come to before any decision was made. The re-
solutions agreed to by firmer Election Committees for
tle it own guidance, on points that might be discussed,
had been referred to, and it appeared that they had come
to the resolution, that first of all the agency should be es-
tablished, but that, if the Counsel for the petition stated
that he was unable, except by bribery, 'to prove
the agency, that be would be permitted to pro-
ceed with the proof of those acts of bribery, in
°Her to estah'ish the agency. That resolution was
adopted by the Committee over which he (Mr Sanford
presi.led. In what way could Gentlemen placed in the
situation in which the Members of that Committee were,
aepear more desirous; of coming to a fah- decision, and of
e.ucidating everything relating to the matter ? With re-
gard to other questions, they we!e of law, such as whether
such and such interrogations were admissible. Those ob-
jections were taken on every occasion. There was hardly
a question put which was not objected to. There were
opinions advanced on subjects of which the Committee, as
mere laymen, could know nothing. They had two very
able lawyers to deal with, who attempted by every means
to confuse and mislead.—(Hear, bear, and laughter. )
On every cccasion when the room was cleared they fe!t
how unfortunate it was that they bad. no authority to
go by. They were called on to give decisions, and
whether they gave them right or wrong they could only
go according to the best of their opinion. He must say,
in justice to the Hon. Gentlemen who composed the Com-
mittee, he never saw men more anxious t o do their
duty. With regard to the observations made by the lion.
Member for Finsbury, he (Mr. S.) must say that it was
with astonishment the Committee received the illtithe-
lion that the investigation was brought to a close.
Ho hoped the House would see, that, during the latter
part of the investigation, every facility was given to the
petitionera. On the last occasion the Uommittee had de-
cided, by five to two, that the question could not be put,
and then Counsel stated thst, in consequence of the Com-
mittee's first decision, they had determined not to pro-
ceed further with the case. Now, this first decision took
place three days before.—(Cheers.) The Committee had
teen pressed to admit the evidence ; they bad been
pressed to admit proof cf agency by bribery, and, after
tney bad consented to the latter, they even agreed, at the
request of Coustsel, to allow the petitioners to strengthen
the evidence of agency by acts of bribery ; set, notwith-
standing this, it was thrown upon them, that, in canse
quetree of their dcciaion, the proceedings were stopped.—
(Cheers.) Hi could only say the allegations against the
Committee were most untrue, and he was glad that as
oppor.unity was affirded him of meeting stein in his
place. He trusted what he had said would be deemed, is
some degree, to have exonerated the Committee from
them.—(Cheers.) He would now beg leave to make one
other observation. He was much afraid, that, as Com-
e itttei were now constituted, great eiliculty would be
found In carrying on the business of Election Committees.
The Committee ought to have some authority, as an
assessor, to whom tarry could refer upon any questions of
Issv—(Hear, hear)—or otherwise the House ought to
come t) an express resolution for the guidance of Elee-
tiers Committees, whether they should be bound by the
strict legal rules of evidence, or give a greater latitude to
their construction of the facts brought before them.—
( Hear, hear.) If something like this crew not done, he
was certain that those tribunals would net give satisfac-
lion, and the characters of Gentlemen who were desirous
of honestly doing their duty would constantly he d•-
rnaged, and their feelings outraged, by unmerited impu-
tati --(Chcerr.) The Hon. Gentleman thanked tee
House for the attentive hearing be had received, and sat
down amidst cheering.

Mr. MILDMAY 'said he never rose to address the
House with greater pair. He defended the conduct of
tee Committee. The evidence was of a very contradictory
natere, and furnished the Committee with no grounds for
a speci.,l Report. He thought the House had sometimes
tery rg'-tly shown a disposition t) eneaurege special
Reports; a'id they were seldom received with uuqualified
setisfaction, however well grounded. He remembered he
had himself sat upon an Election Committee which had
reported that they had reason to think that there-bad
been bribery at an election ; but the eansequeace was,
that they were censured by various Members of the
House for having made such a Report, whi:e the
charge could not aff,et the hitting Member. Ho
did not wish t i pursue a similar course a se-
cond time, mere especially when he found that the
evidence is the cue had been taken down. He yielded
to no man in a desire to put an end to that system of
bribery which, he believed, prevailed in many boroughs in
the country; but there the crime should be punished by
legal mean!. He found that the peti ioners had charged
Lord Listowell with bribery; but that charge could not be
sustiined, unless the question of agency had been previ-
ously established. So anxious, however, were the Com-
mittee for a fair and f,.li inquiry, that they did what he
thought was not strictly legal—um,/ allowed the agency to
be proved through bribery. For 'his part, be was never
MOM anxious to do his duty between any partiei. He
knew, in the first place, that he had reason to distrust his
own bias; and, without meaning any offence, ho certainly
thought it could not be denied that they were all liable to
a feeling of party interest. But there was another rea-
son why he felt that if be had erred in judgment, he was
not much to blame. He had had matters brought before
him of a nature that he had never had before. For him-
self, he could assure the House that he bad endeavoured
to perform his duty.--( Hoar, hear.) Much had been said
against him, but he was too old a soldier to mind it. But
when his motives were impugned, he felt bound to pro.
tect himself. Ile was not actuated in the Committee by
any feelings as a Ministerialist, for he would as soon have
given Mr. Cavan a seat in that House as Lord Listowell.
He conscientiously believed he had performed his duty and,
he feared not the consequences. -
Mr. CLIVE, as the late Chairman of the Canterbury
Committee could not allow the subject to pass without
saying a f,!sv werls. From what had fallen from the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, it might be thought there was
some connection between the two Committees—that, he
could assure the House, was not the case. When the
Members of the Canterbury Committee went into the
Committee-room, they went there not knowing what they
were to hear. On the Counsel being called in, the Com-
mittee explained to them the course they bad laid down
to be pursued. Immediately that statement had been
made, the Counsel got up and stated that they bad met
the previous night, and they had determined that the
wisest course to be pursued was not to entail great expense
without coming to any conclusion, the Counsel therefore
begged leave to withdraw, and upon that ground alone the
Committee had come to the decision they bad done. He
had the honour of sitting upon a Committee last year, in
which the decision was made by a majority of 6 to 1.
Those Hon. Gentlemen with whom he had had the honour
of being associated in Election Committees had shown
the greatest anxiety to perform.
them credit
their duty;
for
their
dhe
trusted that the House would
endeavours.
u be
might be for his own sake that the evidence Mr. ELLIOT said, that although a Member. of the
Committee, he had not read any of the statements
had appeared on this subject.
should be
printed, he felt himself called upon to lay before the House
the exact nature of the evidence, in order that the House
might be enabled to judge whether it was proper that it
should be published. The Committee proceeded, in the
first p] •ce, to take direct evidence of agency. That fail-
ing they had, as had been stated, endeavoured to prove
agency through bribery. Allegations of bribery were
brought against two individuals—there were but two per-
sons who were charged with bribery tefore this Commit-
tee. With respect to those two individuals, they went
into evidence to a great extent. A prima facio case of
bribery was made against one of those individuals, and to a
certain degree against the other. In this position
the counsel for the petitioners bad said they would
go no further. They had a mass of ex parte evi-
dence before thew, which made very heavy imputations
against individuals. He (Mr. Elliot) suggested to the
House whether it would be proper: to publish ex parte
evidence—evidence to which there had been no oppor-
tunity of replying? Another point was this. From the mo-
ment that they proceeded to prove agency through the means

I of bribery, it was acknowledged throughout the Committee
that the evidence which they were taking would only become
legal evidence in the event of agency being primed. Agency
had not been proved. Now, if they printed this illegal evi-
dence the characters of individuals might be greatly injured.
Though he stated these objections, however, he would be
glad, if it were thought alvisable, that the evidence should
be printed. It was important, he thought, to the charac-
ter of the Committee, and to the tribunal generally, that
the evidence should be published; but he could not pos-
sibly understand why the abrupt stoppage of the Commit-
tee should be made to imply anything wrong in the
Committee or anything wrong in the tribunal.—(Hear,
hear, from Sir Robert Peel.) He could not understand
such imputations.—( Hear, hear.) He did not see how
it was possible to twist it into any thing like partiality.
Until the moment wile.' the proceedings stopped, they
were affording every facility to the petitioners to prove
their case ; and so far from starting difficulties, he be-
lieved the only doubt in the minds of the Committee was
whether they were not going beyond their authority, and
opening the door too wide. Suddenly, after they had de-
cided cases in favour of the petitioner, the Counsel declared
that he would proceed no further, Why should they bring
disrepute on the tribunal which all were anxious to render
respectable ? He felt satisfied that be had acted the part
of an honest man, and he did not think there were ten men
in that House who thought otherwise ; but if there were,
he held them in utter and complete contempt.—(Much
laughter and cheering.) No man would entertain that
feeling but a man who had the baseness of heart which
would induce him to act in the same way himself.
( Hear, bear.)
Lord HO WICK—So far as he had understood the ob-
servations of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he had
thrown out no imputation on the character of the Com-
mittee. The discussion that had taken place, however,
was of a very important character, and it would draw the
attention of the House to the question of whether there
were not defects in the constitution of these tribunals and
in the law, which required the interference of that House.
—( Hear, hear.) He fully concurred is the observations
of the Hon. Member for Somersetshire, on the painful
position in which Committees were placed, in deciding
what was and what was not legal evidence. During the
protracted inquiry before the Ludlow Committee last year,
where he (Lord Howick) had been compelled to act as a
member, that question had been repeatedly raised ; and,
as had been already remarked, Hon. Members, not having
a professional education, when conflicting decisions were
brought before them, were utterly at a loss how to decide.
The same question would perhaps be repeated five minutes
afterwards, with some trifling variation, and Counsel, it
was well known, presumed upon the ignorance of the
Members upon these professional points, and their not
being able to decide upon the fallacies they put forward.
Every moment the most vexatious objections were made,
and the Committee became a scene of wrangling which
was most improper to be witnessed in a judicial
tribunal. He (Lord Howick) had stated, when the
Bill of the Right Honourable Baronet the Member
for Tamworth was first introduced, that it would be
necessary for the Committees to have the assistance
of a professional and impartial adviser. Some great
change was absolutely necessary, unless it was the inten-
tion of the House to sanction bribery and corruption to the
greatest extent. As the law at present stood, unless there
was great clumsiness on the part cf the accused, it was
impossible to get at the facts. Agency must be proved,
and the greatest caution was requisite. A losing candi-
date might send down persons to bribe and treat in the
risme of his opponent, and the grossest injustice might
thereby be practiael.—(Hear, bear.) It would appear as
if in the case of Ludlow there bad been a tacit under-
standing on both sides that no petition should be pre-
sented, for no caution was observed, and both patties com-
mitted themselves in t'e most extraordinary manner. He
could not see how, with ordinary skill in managing the
corruption, they could get at proof of agency. There was
one cure and one only in his opinion, namely, by a legis-
lative enactment to authorise the examination of agents by
the counsel. That was a test which would get tee truth
from almost any men, however reluctant. If that were
done he believed it would be a matter of extreme peril to
carry on those disgraceful practices, but if they did not
do that, it would be better to repeal the laws
against bribery and corruption, and let every per-
son do the best he could.—(Great laughter.) It
would be necessary, however, to introduce a proviso
that no penal consequence should attach to giving evidence
which would criminate the party himself. The Legisla-
ture would not compel blm to criminate himself, and then
subject him to criminal consequences. He wished to have
heard, before the discussion closed, a denial that any com-
promise had taken place, because when there was so
strong a prima facie case it was difficult to refuse credit to
the rumours afloat. On the whole, he thought the House
should turn their urgent attention to these points if they
had any regard for their character, and wished to prevent
the increase of such a system of corruption.
Mr. JA MES said, every Hon. Member who regarded
the character of that House must regret the scenes of cor-
ruption that were exposed at St. Alban's, Canterbury, and
Walsall. He had stood a contested election far Carlisle
in ar.120, and he declared upon his honour as a gentleman,
and be could make oath of it in a court of justice, that be
was not cognisar t of a single farthing being expended in
bribery when several thousand pounds had been expende I
in that way.—( Hear, and laughter.) He was told the legal
expense of the electron would be 4,0001. or 5,0001., and
three weetes of erwards he was told that the election
hal coat him 12,0001.—that the money ho had put into the
hands of his-agent to pay the legal expenses had been ex.
pended in gross bribery, while he declared most solemnly
he had not the s!ighteg ilea of it, and he was repeatedly
told that no bribery was going on. If the Hon. Gentleman
who brought forward tbii motion, or his friends, were sin-
cerely desirous c f putting a step to bribery, they shouU
adopt the only effectual remedy for the evil; namely, the
vete by ballot.
Mr. GLADSTONE rose to explain. In consequence
of whet bad fallea from the Hon. Gentleman, the Com-
mittee had, immediately on its sitting, decided that there
was not the slightest foundation fat the allegation of
bribery_ that was made in the petition against his ( Mr.
Gladstone's) eke ion for the borough of Walsall. As to
the charge of treating, the evidence did not go to connect
it with Liin (Mr. G.) or his agents.
Mr. JAMES stated most distinctly that he did not
know that bribery had taken place at the election referred
to. He had merely said that the most effectual remedy
against bribery was the vote by ballot.
Mr. HA YTE R said that tho Hon. Member (Mr.
Gladstone) was perfectly correct in his statement with re-
spect to the charge of bribery. With regard to the alle-
gation rrlatlve to treating, the Committee had made a
special Report on it. The Report stated that consider-
able testing existed at Walsall, both previous to and dur-
ing the election ; but that the evidence was of such a
doubtful nature as to render them unable to connect it with
the sitting Member. He had the misfortune of differing
with the majority of the Come ittce on that occasion, and
though he regretted that, yet on reflection be did net think
he was wrong in so differing. They all felt that the great
doubts arising in that inquiry were owing to the nature of
the tribunal. The fact was, the-ee questions were coesi-
derel to be simply questions between two interested
parties—a sort of issue to be tried between interested per-
suns. But the patty most interested—the House of
Commons itself—did not appear in that tribunal ; and, al-
though the Committee knew that there were persons in
the room who could speak to every fact, and who could
prove or disprove every allegation of treatisg, it was not
propurel by the parties interested to bring forward those
persons as witnesses. (Hea-, hear.) The Com-
mittee were left to find out the truth as best they
could. _ In
.any investigation he had eves seen, he had
never known so little truth and so much false
hood stated. He had merely risen for the purpose of
stating the insufficiency of the tribunal as at present con-
stituted. He thought it requisite that some mode of ex-
tr .cting evidence, so as to enable the House to arrive at
the r: uth, ought to be adopted.

Sir R. PEEL thought that the question of granting
ed litional powers to Election Committees for the purpose
of the better extracting evidence, ought to be kept apart
from the mere consideration of the tribunal. He did not
think the pre; eat a proper occasion to discuss that ques-
tion. He muse say, however, that in the course of this
discussion, he saw nothing whereby the integrity of the
tribunal referred to could be impeached.—( Hear, hear.)
Neither in the last session, nor in the present, could he
detect anything in the conduct of tribunals of this sort that
showed they were not desirous of ascertaining the truth,
and of administering justice. Upon the occasion which
was now the subject of discussion, he could not conceive
what other course could have been adopted. Ho under-
stood that before the Committee was appointed, the panel
of chairmen met to consider the points chiefly litigated in
Election Committees, in order that they might establish,
if possible, uniformity of practice. They took into con-
sideration the question, whether they would permit the
agency to be established by proving- acts of bribery, and
they decided that where the agency could not be esta-
blished, except by the proof of acts of bribery, they would
permit it to be so established. That was laid down
as a general rule by the panel of chairmen, and
when the Hon. Gentleman who presided over the St.
Alban's Election Committee, asked the members of it if
they would abide by it, they agreed to do so. He (Sir
R. Peel) could not, therefore, see that the slightest
shadow of imputation could with justice be cast upon them.
Although they might not be able to make the nicest elhs-
tinctions between the opinions advanced by Counsel, yet
the reasonable presumption was that they had acted fairly.
and justly. The production of the evidence he
would not object to, if it was for the purpose
of showing that it was desirable to alter the
law in order to enable Committees to have professional
assistance; but to its production for the purpose of
enabling the Members of that Committee to vindicate
their characters, he had every objection, as he did not
E yh
op e
think such iindication necessary. On that ground he
d
certainly would not vote for the production of the evidence.
not oppose tee *
MMrr. EwLALKI T explained
the Right Hon Baronet would
production of the evidence because he
considered it of no importance with respect to the charac-
ter of the Committee. If the House was to legislate on
the subject for the future guidance of Committees they
ought to be possessed of whatever would enable them to
form a correct judgment of the state of the law. He (Mr.
W.) thought the evidence was of no importance with re-
spect to the character of the'Committee. However, it
ought to be produced for the purpose he mentioned. He
thought they ought not to confine their motion to two
of those tribunals. They ought to have the evidence
given before the Walsall Election Committee also, and if
of bribery being put, into practice at
no ether Hon. Gentleman would do so, he himself would
move for the production of the evidence taken before that
Committee. The Hon. Member for Walsall said that he
b.
An HON. MEMBER—Not bribery—treating.
Mr. WAKLE Y—Treating—that's another term for
nwfor nothingth
bribery—a nice mild Parliamentary term for bribery.--
hreisalelyleektnioe
he might learn of it hereafter. W.
atboroug
(Laughter.) But _ .
m mber for Cumberland
was the information the Hon. e re-
ceived ? That the 5,000/. deposited for election expenses
had been expended in bribery. He entreated the Hon.
Gentleman not to congratulate himself upon the extent of
his igcorince. • He might soon receive information that

might have the effect of enlightening his darkness.
The present discussion was a most edifying one.
Honourable Gentlemen, one and all, said that their
object was to maintain the character of the House. If
such was the case he thought they should have been silent
on what had transpired, for this discussion exhibited one of
the most degrading pictures that could be exposed to the
eyes of those who trusted they were faithfully represented
in that assembly—bribery and corruption 1 Why these
things were as common in their appearance as noon-day ;
there was nothing more common and ordinary. The Noble
Lord (Lord Howick) bad suggested a remedy, but there
was a more efficient one. Bribery was practised among
small constituencies, and not in large ones; and if the
House was sincere in their desire to prevent corruption,
they should give such large masses of the people the power
of electing representatives that no purse should he suffi-
ciently long and heavy to corrupt them.—( Hear, heer.)
That was the only efficient remedy, and until it was
adopted by the House the sincerity of their professions to
put down corruption would be justly doubted.— (Hear,)
The Hon. Member for Sornersetshire had said that the
Committees were constantly puzzled by the subtleties of
the lawyers, and he proposed as a remedy another lawyer.
—(Laughter.) Now he (Mr. Waltley) thought it would
be a more effectual remedy to get rid of the lawyers alto-
gether. He was sure the public would agree to it, and
he believed the House would also. What were they called
upon to decide ? Were gentlemen who legislated for the
lives and property of the people, and the great interests
of the country to be deemed incompetent to decide upon
the simple question of fact, whether or not a Member was
competent to sit in that House ? He entreated the House
to take the matter seriously into consideration, for he be-
lieved the conduct of the lawyers in these and in many
other Courts, was prejudicial to the course of justice.
Mr. SA NFO RD explained that he proposed that the
assessor should simply give advice upon points of law,
and not on questions of fact.
On the question being put,
Mr. WAKLEY moved that the evidence taken before
the Walsall Committee be also printed.
Mr. GL AD STONE seconded the motion.
Lord F. EGERTON said he did not think it right, as
the proceedings before the Walsall Committee had only
been incidentally mentioned, to move that they should be
printed. He thought it was calculated to cast an imputa-
tion upon the Committee, and would therefore divide the
House against the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said if he thought the effect
of the motion would be to sanction any imputa-
tion against the Members of these Committees, he
would certainly divide the House against the mo-
tion, but he thought there could scarcely be such an
impression on the mind of any person. He thought
there were two reasons of considerable importance
why this motion should be carried. By a knowledge cf
the proceedings of these Committees they might de-
vise rules by which those tribunals might be
amended. Another important reason was, that
it might enable them to judge whether it was advisable to
give these Committees additional powers on behalf of the
House and the country.—(Hear, hear.) It had always
appeared to him that the Grenville Ant tended to make
the question before the Committee apparently a question
between two parties, each of whom had able Counsel,
each of Whom proposed their own views, while the gene-
ral question before the House, whether representation
in the House was duly secured, seemed to be overlooked.
However the remedy, into the question of which he would
not then enter, was a matter of 'considerable difficulty.
He thought the production of any evidence of this kind
would show the inefficiency and imperfection of the law
for the purpose of thorough investigation, and would thus
be useful, and enable them to discover in what way a re-
medy could be applied. He did not think any imputa-
tion was intended upon the Committee, for if these ques-
tions had been sent to a Jury or a Judge, and one party
had said...." We have no evidence to offer, and cannot
had said—" We have no evidence to cffer and cannot
make out our case," they could clearly come but to one
decision. On there grounds and on these general prin-
ciples he should not oppose the motion.—( Hear.)
Mr. BLACKSTONE wished to set himself right with
the House. He had never intended to cast any imputa-
tion on the Committee. He had no objection to the pro-
duction of the evidence before the Walsall Committee.
The evidence before each of the three Committees was
then ordered to be laid before the House.

In answer to a question from Mr. ORMSBY GORE,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it wes intended to
i3suo a Commission to inquire into the state of the Church
in North %Vales.

Colonel SIBTHORP askcd if it was to be a paid Com-
mission?

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. and Gallant
Gentleman had better ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, at
whose instance the Commission was issued.—( Laughter.)

COUNTY COURTS BILL.

The further consitlerationoi the Report on the County
Courts Bill was postponed to Monday.
HOUGHING OF CATTLE BILL—(IRELAND,)
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
POOR-LAW BILL.

On 'the reading of the Order of the Day, for the ad-
journed Committee on the Poor-law Bill,
Mr. SANFORD said that be had intended to make
a statement before the Speaker left the Chair respecting
a charge made by an Hon. and Learned Member opposite
against the guardians of the Bridgewater Union. Bat as
the lion. and Learned Gentleman was not in his place,
he (Mr. Sanford) would take another opportunity.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 24 being put, which related to the regulation
of the Emigration Fund,

Lord J. RUSSELL announced his intention to strike
out tl e clause for the present, with a view of inserting here-
after another in its stead. He wished to give the control
of the Emigrati ,n Fund, to the guardians, and take it out
of the hands of the rate-payers.
After some conversation, the clause tvai struck out.
On clause 25 being put, which related to the buiial of
paupers,

Mr. DARBY proposed an amendment, to the effect
that paupers might be buried in the parish churcbykrds.
Colonel SIBTH 0R P thought there was agencral feel-
ing that the Noble Lord had given up this clause. It was
totally unmindful of the feelings of the poor. By the clause
power was given to consign to the grave the body of a poor
person who might die in Union gaol—for so be would call
it—without the consent of his relatives. There was but
one further step to take, and that wag tb consign the bcdy
to the anatomist... He should take the sense of the Houac
as to the propriety of expunging the clause. He gave the
Noble Lord credit for the possession of good feelings and
humanity, and he tru;ted he would expunge the clause.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon. Gentleman
had misunderstood the meaning of the clause. Its meat!.
ing was not to prevent the giving up the bodies.cf poor
persons to their relatives who might be inclined to bury
them, but to provide for the burial of those who had not
left behind them sufficient effects to bury them, or whose
relatives might refuse to do so; at present the law was
uncertain on the subject of who should bury such persons,
and it was to settle the law on that point that this clause
had been introduced. He should not object to the intro-
duction of words enacting that the body should be buried
in the churchyard of the parish to which the person had
belonged.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL thought that where the
ft lends refuted to interfere the body should be busied in
the churchyard of the parish in which the union house
was situated, but that in other cases every facility should
be efferded to the relatives of the deceased to have the
body interred in the churchyard of the parish to which
the deceased belonged.
Dr. LUS HINGTON had endeavoured, as fkr as he
could, to collect the true meaning of the Hon. Member
for Sussex, but he confessed he could not understand it until
it was explained by the Right Hon. Member for Kent.
As he understood it, the clause was intended to consult the
f, cling r f the relatives cf the poor by proliding that those
who died should be buried in the parish to which they be-
longed. That might be all very well, but he thought
there ought to be no compulsion. It ought to take place
only upon the application of the friends of the deceased.
In many cases such a provision could not be carried out,
for in some parishes there were no burying grounds; in
others where there were, there was no room ; and
theref,re there must be some provision made in that
respect. He deprecated burials in populous places, as he
thought it tended greatly to the injury of the health of the
inhabitants. Another subject worthy of consideration was
the expenses attendant upon the burying of paupers; this
often led to ill feeling, and the clergymen under the pre-
sent law could not recover any fees. He thought those fees
ought to be reduced to the lowest scale; but unless sonic
enactment took place on the subject, he was afraid the
same ill feeling would continue. He considered the prin-
ciple of the clause good, but it required some amendment.
Mr. DARBY, after a feW observations, withdrew his
amendment, upon the understanding that Lord J. Russell
would so frame the clause as to carry it out.

Sir T. FREMANTLE was anxious that the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Sussex, should be
carried out. He was glad to hear that the Noble Lord in-
tended to do so ; and, under these circumstances, his
Hon. Friend had done right in withdrawing his amendment.
Mr. WA KL E Y could not go the entire length of the
Gallant Colonel, in objecting to this clause. In many in.
stances parties died without effects, and then the most in-
decent Disputes took place as to who should bury the body.
He thought it most objectionable that parties should be
buried in the parish in which they -died. If that part of
the clause was modified, he saw no objection to it.
Lord J. RUSSELL intimated that he was willing to
modify the clause in that respect.
Sir A. DALRYMPLE said he entirely concurred in
the suggestions of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Sussex. He believed, in some instances, the prac-
tice referred to had already prevailed.
Mr. DARBY objected to the words of the clause
which assigned the payment of the burial fees to the
Poor-law Commissioners, and moved that they be struck ou•C
Mr. GORING hoped the Noble Lord would not agree
to the exception.
Mr G ROTE said, that in his opinion there was not
much difference between the clause as it they stood and
the clause as proposed to be amended. At present, power
was given to the guardians to order the body to be in-
terred according to their own discretion.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said the case was provided for
by the 29th clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would have an observa-
tion to make on the 29th clause
Colonel SIBTHORP thought they should have a pro-
vision for sending to the relatives of the deceased, and
consulting them as to where the body should be'interred.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought it would be very unde-
sirable to get rid of the clause. Still he thought the ad..
dition of a few words would would greatly amend it, espe-
cially some words providing for the burial of paupers in
grounds belonging to unions which were in villages, and
too small for the purpose. He trusted provision would be
made for any wish exprcsssed by the pauper as to the
place of his burial, especially
.if it were within the limits
of the union. That was an important point, and might
greatly relieve the mind of many poor persons who were
reduced to the workhouse. He certainly should move a
Prolix° to cause paupers to be interred decently and in a
proper manner, and the expenses should be allowed by the
a tors. •

Lord J. RUSSELL thought the proviso wauld be
totally unnecessary, for if the funerals cf paupers were
conducted in any indecent or improper manner, they broke
the law as is at present stood. There was a general with
that all such funerals should be conducted both decently
and properly.
Mr. BRUGES said, as Chairman of a Poor-law union,
he was aware that many dissenting paupers had a great ob-
jection to being buried in the parish burying ground.
Would the Noble Lord have any objection to strike out
the words limiting the burials to such grounds ?
Mr. BERNAL said there was an amendment before
that.

Cactain PECHELL proposed to add words to enable
single parishes burying a pauper, not belonging to them-
selves, to recover the expenses from the parish of the
pauper. He moved the insertion of the word " or."--
(A laugh.)
Mr. F. MA ULE said it was not very easy to see
what the effect of the insertion of the word "or "
might be. He was afraid that it was intended to
obtain a recognition of the Gilbert Unions.—( A laugh.)
He felt bound to oppose the amendment.
Sir C. GREY suggested that the Hon. and Gallant
Member might obtain his object by striking out the words
" under their control."

Mr. BERNAL said the amendment could not be put ;
it was too late.

Captain PECHELL hoped the Noble Lord, the Se.
cretary for the Colonies, would turn his attention to the
subject, for some parishes were put to an expense of 50/.
a.year in the burial of paupers not their own.
On the motion of Mr. BRUGES, the words " in the
palish of" were struck out, to allow paupers to be btoied
in chapel burial grounds, if he expressed a wish for it before
his death.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH said he should divide the House
upon the clause.
In answer to a question from Alderman HUMPHERY,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he proposed to fill up
the blank for the fee for the burial of a pauper with the
words " five shillings."
Mr. PRYME moved to extend secti.ms 25 and 27 to
persons discharged from or dying in any public hospital.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL thought the clause unneces-
sary, as those who died in hospitals would be removed for
burial by those who had recommended them to it.

Mr. PRYME said that if such an expectation were to
be generally entertained it would have the effect of induc-
ing subscribers to hospitals to withhold their recommends-
tions.—(No, no.)
Alderman HUM PHE Rl' said there was never any dif-
ficulty with respect to the buriallof a pauper who died in an
hospital.: If the body was not removed by friends it
was always buried at the expense of the hospital. He
therefore recommended his Hon. Friend to withdraw the
amendment.
After some further discussion the House divided—
For the clause
For the amendment

Majority ageinst the amendment -98
On clause 26 being proposed,
Lord HO W ICK said the casual poor were constantly
sent from one parish to another, and were furnithed with
the means of proceeding to their destination. He was
perfectly persuaded that relief would be administered to
the casual poor on a mere fair principle if the expense
fell in common upon all the parishes of the union. He
hoped, therefore, that the clause would not he rejected.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that justice was involved
in the clause which they were then discussing. He thought
that some reasons ought to he stated to induce the House
to make alterations in the law, which would be of so ex-
tensive a nature as those that would result from the pass-
ing of that clause. Humanity was not in the slighest de-
gree inter ested in the passing of that clause, but great in-
justice would be done by its enactment. He would, there-
fore, persist in h:s intention of moving the rejection of the
whole clause.

Mr: HAWES thought the passing of the clause would
be attended with the most beneficial results, and therefore
hoped that it would meet with the support of the House.
After a few words from Colonel WOOD,
Mr. HUMPHERY said that the Irish labourers, at
certain seasons of the year, passed in large numbers
through the large towns situated on the principal high-
road, and spent in those towns the money advanced to
them out of the union fund. Those towns were, there-
fore, Lenefited thus in some degree, and it was fair they
should bear the burden of forwarding those paupers from
one plsco to another; but it was a hardship that parishes
some ten or twenty miles off, which happened to be in the
union, should contribute to the expense, from which they
delivel no Lcnefit whatever.

The HOMO then divided, and the numbers were—
Fur the clause
Fur the amendment
Majority ... 49

On cur readmision we found the Commitiee in discus-
sion on the 27th chime, the object of which was that
notice of removal of paupers might be sent by post.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved the following
amendment to the clause—" unless the party to be affected
by such notice or other document shall prove that the same
had .not been duly received."
lefer some conversation the amendment was added to
the clause.
Mr. TOWNLEY PARKER trusted that the Solicitor-
General would divide the Committee on the clause.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw. The Committee
divided, when there appeared—
For the clause l3O
Against it 69
Majority for the clause —6l
On clause 2ss being put.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposed to strike it out.—
( Loud cheers).
Colonel WOOD said that ho should, at some future
stage of the Ball, propose the amendment of which he had
given notice, as a distinct proviso.
The clause was then withdrawn.
Clause 29 was postponed.
On clause 30 being put.

Mr. TATTON EGERTON stir! that as many unions
were situated in different countie, he should recommend
the clz.use teing withdrawn, in order that it might receive
farther consideration.

Lord G. SOMERSET suggested that this chure
would place the high constables of counties in a situa.
tion of great dit&ulty. He hoped it would receive further
consLiereiGn.

Mr. GRIM SDITCH was of opinion that the law as it
stood at pres, rit did not need any alteration.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the clause would effect a
great improvement in the manner of collecting the rate:3,
and was not inclined to postpone it.
Mr. GOULB URN did net approve of imposing upon
the guardians the duty of collecting the rates.
Mr. E. BULLER thought the clause pointed out the
cheapest and the readiest way of collecting tha county
rate, and one that would effect a considerable saving. He
thought the guardians ought to have the same power given
to them as the overseers now possessed to enforce payment
of the rates. lie hoped the Noble Lord would persevere
in the clause.

Lord G. SOMERSET complained cf the anomalous
situation in which this clause would ',lace ex officio
guardians, who, in their capacities as Magistrates, might
be called on to issue warrants against themselves.
Coloi,el RO LL E STON said that the rate-pa} era would
have no security for the money they paid under this
change. He trusted, therefore, the Noble Lord would
amend it so as to give the required security to the public.
Mr. GISBORNE thought the principle of the clause
was good, but there were one or two parts of it that might
be amended.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would he .better that
the beard of guardians should order the collectors cf the
rates rather than let them remain as they now stood.
Mr. GOULBURN said that the clause had more re-
ference to the collection of county rates titan the relief of
the poor. He trusted, therefore, the Noble Lord would
reconsider the clause.

Mr. HAWES thought it would simplify their proceed-
ings on this Bill if the Noble Lord would consent to post-
por.e the clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted it to be true that the
clause was not necessary to the working of the present
Bill. If the Committee thought it should be omitted
from the Bill, he should have no objection to do so, but
as to introducing it into another Bill, that would be matter
for future consideration.

Mr. E. BUL LER said, if the Noble Lord would with..
draw the clause and undertake to introduce it in another
Bill, he should be glad.
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL, the clause
was withdrawn.

Tile CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again pro forma on Monday.
The South Australia Bill went through Committee with-
out amendments, and the Report was ordered to be received
on Monday.

The Ireland Bonding Warehouse Bill went through
Committee, and the Report was received.
The Wide Street Dublin Bill wet,t through Committee,
and the Report was ordered to be received on Monday.
The Double Costs' Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Indemnity Bill was read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.

Mr. LABOUCHERE then moved for a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the state of the law' respecting
Joint-stock Companies (banking companies excepted),
with the view to the prevention of fraud.—Agreed to.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed
of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to One.

SPANISH EMBASSY.—Despatches were re-
ceived on Tuesday last by his Excellency General Alava,
by which we understand the gallant General is recalled by
the Spanish Government. We can also state, upon un-
doubted authority, the same despatches accredit his Ex-
cellency M. Gonzalez, as Minister from Spain to the Court
of St. James's. His Excellency M. Gonzalez left Mi.
vart's Hotel on Monday night for Paris, en route to Ma-
drid, and of course was unacquainted with his appoint-
ment. A courier was despatched by General Alava on
Tuesday afternoon to Paiis, in order to apprise M. Gon-
zalez of the instructions he had received from the Spanish
Ministry, and to urge his immediate return. As M. Gon-
zalez intended to stay 24 hours in the French capital, it is
probable the courier would be able to reach Paris before
his departure for Spain. General Alava will leave this
country with regret to a numerous circle of private friends,
particularly the Duke of Wellington, with whom his Ex-
cellency has maintained a cordial friendship of nearly half
a century.

OLYMPIC THEATRE.—On Easter Monday this
hum will be opened under the auspices of Mr. G. Wild,
ho has provided for the occasion the following enter-
tainments :—A drama in three Acts, called " Charles
O'Malley, the Irish • Dragoon," founded on the popular
story of that name ; a new piece by the author of the
Ladies' Club, emitted the Little Gypsy ; and a mytho-
logical burletta, bearing the title of Olympic Frailties.
The company includes Messrs. T. Lee, T. Parry,
Brookes, Helford, and Mr. Charles Baker (the stage
manager), Miss Fortescue, Miss Howard (pupil of Mrs.
Glover), Miss Lebatt, and other artists, of provincial ce-
lebrity. The prices of admission have been reduced, and
the interior of the theatre has been thoroughly cleansed.
Mr. George Wild has every chance of success, and we
trust he will have no reason to repent of his undertaking.

COURT OF SEWERS OF WEST
MINSTER, AND PART OF MIDDLESEX.

A Court of Sewers for the City and Liberties of
Westminster was yesterday held at the office of the
Commissioners, Greek-street, Soho, T. L. Donaldson,
Esq,, in the Chair. The usual routine business having
been transacted,
Mr. BICKNELL, the Solicitor to Chelsea Hospital,
entered the Court, and said that he had attended out
of courtesy to the Court, to state to them that he had
taken the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-Gene-
ral as to the liability of the buildings belonging to the
Hospital not hitherto rated to be assessed to Sewers-
rate, which he would, if the Court pleased, read to them.
The CHAIRMAN expressed the feelings of the Court
on Mr. Bickneil's courteous offer, and stated their de-
sire to hear the case and opinion.
Mr. Bicknell then proceeded to read the case and
opinion, from which it appeared, that according to the
opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, Mr.
Hall was not legally liable to be assessed to the
rate for the chapel and buildings of Chelsea Hospital ;
that the second presentment was bad in form and in
substance, and that the payment of it ought to be
resisted.
Mr. BICKNELL said that lie would attend whenever
a distress should be levied, in order to try the ques-
tion ; but he gave the Court notice that he should
take a preliminary objection to the presentment, so
that the merits of the case could not be tr:e 1 under
the present case.
The CHAIRMAN then called on the Court to consider
as to signing a warrant for levying upon the buildings
not hitherto rated, chapel and wards, and fifty-seven
acres of land of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea.
Sir G. FARRANT said that after the declaration of

the Learned Gentleman, that he could put, and should
put them out of Court, on the ground of informality,
it would be well to review the proceedings to see where
they were vulnerable before they went into Court, and
retrace their steps if necessary.

Mr. GUNTER was not influenced by the opinion
given by the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and should
certainly hold up his hand for signing the warrant.
The CHantmAisr asked Mr. Bicknell if the Commis-
sioners of the hospital would be willing to take a deci-
sion-on the liability of Chelsea Hospital to be rated.
Mr. BICKNELL said he should advise the Commis-
sioners of the hospital to take an objection, first to the
form, and next to the merits, in order to give him an
opportunity of showing to another Jury that the hos-
pital derived no benefit whatever from the sewers.
Knowing what Mr. Ogle's charge had been, he should
be prepared with evidence on that point; he considered
Mr. Ogle's charge not a judicial one, not a legal. one.
Mr. MULLINS thought the charge a highly improper
One.

Mr. LESLIE had pointed out to the Court that they
could not levy except upon the goods of the person
rated, and as Mr. Hall had no property in the hospital
no distress could be levied there. They had been
misled by Mr. Ogle and Mr. Smith into the opinion
that they could levy upon the property without regard
to the persons. He thought the sooner a determina-
tion was come to the better, and that they ought to try
the question immediately.
T►;e CHAIRMAN then put the question, when there
appeared
For issuing the warrant 4
Against it
The CHAIRMAN gave his casting vote for having the
warraa signed.
Mr. Beach, Mr. Lecke, Mr. John Gunter, and Mr.
Grace, were the four Commissioners vi ho voted for
issuing the warrant.

To: warrant was then signed and given to the oil
eer of the Court for execution.

The COURT then proceeded to consider as to signing
warrants for levying upon the churches and other newly
rated property in the Eastern Division of the West-
minster Sewers.

Mr. GODDIDGE suggested that they should select one
church to try the question.

Ile CHAIRMAN asked which church they would
choose to proceed against in tha event of their deter-
mining to issue a warrant ?

Mr. J. GUNTER wished to know whether, in the event
of the churches not paying, the Company could cut off
their connection with the sewers.

Mr. MULLINS thought it would be well to let the
question stand over until the question of occupancy
should be determined by the Court of Queen's Bench in
the case of Chelsea Hospital.
Mr. BnouGHTox wished to know what mode of pro-
ceeding was to be adopted with regard to churches
when the warrant should be issued. What was the
officer executing the warrant to take ?

Mr. LESLIE said that by the decree the Commis-
sioners had determined, if the officers found no goods,
that they would proceed to demise away the church,
so that they would put up the church to auction he sup-
pose d .—(A laugh.)
Mr. BROUGHTON still urged his question—Did they
intend to take the sacred vestments on the count-nut:ion
plate, or the books of the church or of the congre-
gation ?_

Mr. J. GUNTER thought it was a serious question,
asid suggested that after issuing the warrant it would
be well to consider how they should execute it. He
had not said, as had been represented, that. he would
sign a warrant unawed by ecclesiastical censure. He
had said that he would follow up his opinion by signing
the warrant, but that warrant ought not to be cxe-
cut.id in such a way as to shock public feelings.
Mr. BROUGHTON said, in allusion to the opinion of
Dr. Phillimore, that there was a white sheet hung over
the heads of the Commissioners and of the collector, if
they proceeded. It was hard upon the collector, as he
had no voice in the matter. The Court ought to de-
termine how they would execute the wan ant before
tilt), issued it.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought it was ridiculous to issue a
warrant until they' had determined what they would do
with it. The solicitor was present, and he could tell
them how they were to act.
Mr. GOODRIDGE hoped the Court would not be
intimidated from doing their duty by the bugbear of
ecclesiastical censures, and white sheets. •He was
surprised at the present backwardness of many Com-
missioners, who had hitherto been the most forward in
urging on the rating of churches. There was always
plenty of furniture in a vestry-room on which they
could distrain, and which, he believed, was not inter res
saci•as.

Mr. A'BECKETT washed to know whether it was
necessary to go upon the property assessed, and -whe-
ther they could not take the goods of the churchwardens
a their own houses.

Mr. SMITH thought they must go on the premises
assessed.

Air. A'BECKETT had never heard of such a thing as
a distress in a church. If they were right in law, how-
ever, the Court of Queen's Bench would interfere to
protect them from ecclesiastical censuring by means of
a probi,)itiov. lie should like to know in what form it
was proposed to issue the warrant.

Tie SOLICITOR referred to the original opinion given
by him, that a'though churches were liable, it would be
impossible to enforce the rate in respect of them, and
to the opinion of Sir 4V. Follett and Mr. Ogle. He
was still of opinion that it was impossible to enforce the
rate against churches.

Mr. LESLIE said the whole of this difficulty had
arisen from their be;ng misled by their legal adviser into
the opinion that they could rate property without an
occupier. They could do •no such thing. It behoved
the Commissioners, signing these warrants, to ci.nsider
well what they were doing, as they would be running
themselves individually into expense ; for they had taken
care to place such matter upon their records as would
exempt the public from the expense, and throw it upon
the individual Commissioners taking part in these pro-
ceedings. Their defeat was certain, and the sooner
they were defeated the less embarrassment would be oc-
casioned to the Court.

Mr. BROUGHTON thought the opinion of the solici-
tors as to the liability of property in contradistinction to
persons to be assessed to sewers' rate, was quite right,
and Mr. Leslie was wrong, and quoted the words of
the Statute Hen. VIII. in support of his opinion. He
thought churches were not liable under either the Act
of Hen. VIII. or of Anne, and he could not recommend
any Commissioner to sign a warrant, nor ought they to
send any officer without giving him clear end distinct
instructions. He thought the best plan would be to re-
trace their steps in regard to churches.
Mr. LESLIE contended that the wording of the sta-
tute of Hen. VIII. proved his position, that persons
were to be rated for the land and not the land itself.
The jury returned the parties liable, not the lands liable,
and, therefore, unless the person were rated, the rate
was bad. Could they sell the churches if the rate were
refused? Let the Commissioners recollect that if they
exceeded their commission, they could not be indemni-
fied for any expences they might incur.

Mr. MULLINS agreed with Mr. Leslie that the person
must be rated for his property, and not the property,
without reference to the occupation. He thought the
churchwardens, having neither beneficial interest, or in-
terest in fee, in the churches, could not be rated. He
should, therefore, moves, that no warrant should be issued.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY thought the warrant ought not to
be signed on account of the practical difficulties existing
in the way of executing it. He seconded the motion.
Mr. LESLIE said that at the last Court a similar mo-
tion of Mr. Willoughby's was negatived on the ground
that it would stultify the proceedings of the Court. He
had always understood that the decree was the final
judgment of the Court, and could only be set aside by
the judgment of a superior Court, and the sooner that
judgment was obtained the better. They had not the
power of reversing thoir own decrees. He should not
vote on the question for the reasons he bad frequently
stated.

- Mr.*GOODRIDGE contended that they ought either to
carry out their decree at once, or abandon the question
entirely.
Mr. BROUGHTON had never heard that' after judg-
ment was obtained it wasimperative to proceed to exe-
cution. There could not he a doubt but that they could
refuse to issue the warrants.