The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-11 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION

COURT OF COMMON' COUNCIL.
Yesterday a Court was held, for the despatch of business.
ACCIDENT RELIEF SOCIETY.
14i. STEVENS presented a petition from the Accident
Relief Society, which was established by several benevo-
lent persons for giving assistance to the families of poor
persons who sustained injuries from accidents during the
confinement of the patients. He highly commended the
objects of the Institution, and expressed a hope that the
Court would grant pecuniary aid to it.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WELLS said that Mr. Stevens was so witch in the
habit of presenting petitions of this kind as to deserve
the name of Solicitor-General to the charitable establish-
' tams of the metropolis.—(Laughter.) He objected to
the practice of disposing of the City's money to the sup-
Port of Secretaries and other officers, under the pretence
of aiding the poor, who derived but little advantage from
the contributions of the Corporation.—(A laugh.)
Mr. STEVENS said that he was proud of the distinc-
tion, and should endeavour to deserve the character. A
better society than that he called upon the Court to assist
was not to be found.
• The petition was referred to the Coal, Corn, and Fi-
nance Committee.
gi WOODEN PAVEMENT.
Petition was presented from Mr. Thomas Parkin, an
-.l,:tgineer, praying to be allowed to put down his patent
wooden pavement, as an experiment, on London Bridge.
_Alderman GIBBS questioned the petitioner as to the
durability of the wooden pavement.
, Mr. Parkin said that, in his opinion, it would last
longer than granite.
The petition was ordered to be taken into considera-
tion when the Report should be brought up.
et
_The Re. port was then brought up, and referred back to
consideration of the Committee.
CITY LEASES.
A subject of considerable importance came on for dis-
Suss.i.°ll, and occupied a great part of the day. It was
unally adjourned.
The opinions of Mr. Sidebottom, the counsel, and the
C,itY S'olicitor, which have excited much discussion in the
con-
tain for some time, together with the case, the substance of the Report made to the Court, and
are as follow :

CASE.
The Corporation of London are in the habit of letting their
~Zu:ea
a, to their numerous tenants upon lease for 21 years.
Li., le es contain all the usual covenants to pay rent, repair,
as well as covenant not to assign without license, and
liteXase a covenant that the Comptroller (who is the con-
. ..,'Yarcing solicitor of the Corporation) shall prepare all as-
furthernt: of leases ; and the observance of these covenants is
~ee, of
by the usual proviso for re-entry. A copy of
covenant and proviso is left herewith. The 0
ture a Ifnee of Comptroller has become vacant, and the na-
referrne amount of the duties and emoluments of the office is
to the consideration of a Committee, some of whose
ese,4ta!rs are desirous of omitting one or both of these cove-
tn .0 all future leases, and to discontinue their enforcement
thleases already granted, if it can be done without impairing
e,secnrity of the Corporation.
ee!e difference of opinion prevails in the Committee, and the
ni_eeof Mr. Sidebottom is desired, in order that they may be
d they proceed on safe grounds.
„ it
"The members of the Committee who propose to allow the
• znents to be prepared by the professional advisers of the
=es, respiring, the assignments, instead of the Comptroller.
11;e7And that the restriction operates injuriously, by rendering
siderrPoration leases less des;rable than they would b 3 con-
without such a clause, and that anything which im-
eeet - 4011 the tenants expense, inconvenience, or annoy-
th„ , Pro tanto, diminishes the value of the holding; and
p_if the clause can be omitted without affecting the secu-
of the Corporation, it will become them, as liberal and
ialtMelted landlords, to free their leases from such a restric-
Zsand that they ought not to be deterred from doing so by the
(7!klration that they would thereby diminish the emoluments
;,enir officer. The gentlemen who thus argue contend that
i7e seieurity of the Corporat.on will be in no respect affected by
issi °Ption of such a course ,• for that, by requiting the patty
e4tigon'oe a lease to procu e a license to that affect, the Corpo-
- latitsn ean exclude inq lover persons from becoming their te-
*ie); as" by keeping a proper register of the transaction (for
the the Comptioller should be allowed a reasonable fee),
tenant ould always have a knowledge of who really are their
' -
th They say that the Corporation have always an ample ne
for the payment of their rent and the performance of
e
151 e or "tits by the original lessee, and by the well known va-
__ the City holdings.
Ventlemen who are im ressed with the opinion that both
etteenares should be retained, are so in the belief that they in-
that t
that
al the security of the Corporation. These gentlemen say
wee. tb°ugl-1, as a matter of fact, the City leases have been al-
ey 'e "nsieered of so much value that no danger from breach
tr'auleriaut has been arPrehentled, they feel that this may not
seenZe be the case. This fact has resulted from the circum-
sioo the hes been the tendency of property of this descrip-
tion sago inereese in value.; but it is possible, amid the fluctua-
tUo which all property is liable, that this may not always
lentd cote, aad in such an event, having to deal with so many
that red tenants, it is of importance to the Corporation that
siee,,sll°old have. if possible, a better security than the mere
`4
aant-of the original lessee, oho may have Peeome insolvent
,ittl Parted with all interest in the property. The members
oei°e. are in favour of retaining these covenants are of
that, in point of feet, the continuance of such restric-
sei.-tatilli:tes not at a,l dimit.ish the value of City leases. They
as liberal liberal landlords they do not enforce either covenant
tetPir:iieously or oppressively, and that the charges of the Comp•
si'o6l,-aeirinaraenes- moderate as the charges of any private protes-
l'h •
n• -e genttemen who are in favour of these clauses are of opis
ri'ea that they do afford the Corporatin thenome additional secu-
; they look upon the covenants of oreginal lessee, not as
15;$ PPrs.mal covenants, but as covenants that run with the
forv":
_,and arc, as such, obligatory upon' the assignee of the
,u,ttring the time the ownership is In him. They, there-
th `.?lnk that by requiring the Comptroller to prepare
ti on -34:Patents, and to attest their due execution, the Corpora-
,Zo will have the means at all times of knowing, and, if neces-
b 3,:if"f Proving, who is the actual assignee of the property to
feee voted by the covenants in case of their not being faith-
i_observed by the party primarily bound to keep them.
filovving are the questions submitted to Mr. Sidebottom
resp,e:,Cornmittee. That learned gentleman's early attention is
neat ted, as the Committee will Meet on Tuesday morning
to determine the business :---
she pots the Corporation acqUirc any and what security by
eatt:nvte;tant in the City leaiss not to assign the leases without
2d. ys•
e-erie„ there any and what security to be derived by the
shou„rion from retaining a covenant that all assignments
`"-be prepared by the law officers of the Corporation ?
OPINION.
fromlit. I think the Corporation acquires additional seen ity
thebes covenant not to assign without license, because it
rese,the Corporation to see that the lease is assigned to a
1)41, usable tenant, who, during his ownership, would be
oeiziottaito, pay the rent and perform the covenants in case the
tos7-4,,no:e'see should fail. Snch a covenant is become very
2d.
Th and is a proper precaution.
• deierv•ne_e_ovenant is certainly very unpopular, and I think
tenant,4o7. It exposes the affairs and necessities of the
:eatiseltine many cases must incur the double expense of
thloe tiie eo rpOraitloOnwn Priva'e solicitor and also the law officers of
it
Irmst
it , arid I do not see that it adds any thing
security of the Corporation. At the same time
Co • e allo
tlrne, and this vred that it is an advantage to the
to I)Qtati" to know who is the immediate tenant from time
11etottaheldPwaritt of
nt`hseletrpose might be answered by a covenant
livered to the e,,te.nant that a minute of every assignment
sw
"tY-one days from the date thereof, be de-
Corporation,eantrejtroller, or some other law officer of the
that purpose, ue entered by hint in a book to be kept for
ing he
same arid trifling fee may he made payable for enter
-
land, and
are • The covenants to repair, &c., run with the
that claratr obligatory
on asignee4 so long as they retain
Batton for
re.; If a license to assign is once given, the con.

„and the
ple-entry on assignment without license is at an end,
Lint that—uri.oration would mil% have the benefit of the cove-
t; the lessee ur his a*irrns ,hoold not a.,,sign without
• ...cense.
A.
R.
6IDEBOTTO it tr-roiQiteoln'F, inn
, 10th May, 1841.
11.
7 ” DIR. SOLICITOR ON CLAUSES IN CORPORATION
LEASES.

To th,

IMPERIAL TARLIAMEIPT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 10.
Their Lordships assembled at a Quarter to Five
o'Clock.
Messengers from the Commons brought up the Lon-
don and Greenwich Railway Bill.
Lord DUNCANNON moved the third reading of the
Court-house (Ireland) Bill, the Militia Ballot Suspen-
sion Bill, the Assessed Taxes Composition Bill, the
Vaccination Bill, and the Ordnance Survey Bill.
Agreed to.
The Tithe Composition Bill was read a second time.
The Sugar Duties Bill went through Committee, and
was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
The Bishop of LLANI)AFF presented a petitiOn
from 48 clergymen of the diocese of Bath and Wells
praying for an alteration of the sth and 6th of
William IV. which prevented marriages in a certain
degree of affinity. The Right Rev. Prelate said he was
not an advocate for the measure.
Lord STRANGFORD would ask the Noble Lord at
the Head of the Admiralty whether any vessel had been
sent out in order to ascertain if possible what was the
fate of the President steamer. He (Lord Strangford)
understood that the Portuguese Government had done
so, and however much they had to . complain of them
in other respects, the fact did them much credit.
Viscount MELBOURNE requested the Noble Lord to
wait for a few minutes, till his Noble Friend the Earl of
Minto was in attendance.
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from Mon-
trose, and other places in Scotland, praying for a settle-
ment of the Church of Scotland question. He did not
mean to enter into any details of the question at present,
but he thought the first thing that ought to be done was
to obtain a compliance with the law as it at present
stood. That he balieved was the feeling that prevailed
in that and the other House of Parliament.
RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.
The Earl of DEVON presented a petition from Ire-
land, containing the signatures of several persons pos-
sessing property to a very large amount, and from al-
most every part of the country, in favour of the construe-
don of railroads in Ireland, which the petitioners firmly
believed would tend more than almost any other measure
to promote the prosperity and develope the resources of
the country. The petition was signed by upwards of
50 Peers, 40 Baronets, 39 Members of Parliament, and
numerous Gentry of property in Ireland. In that opinion
he cordially concurred, and as a person connected with and
interested in its prosperity, he was most anxious to see
such a measure carried into effect. He understood that
a Bill for the establishment of railways in that country
had been lately introduced into the other House. 'With-
out pledging himself to the details of that or any other
plan he should give it his best attention when it came
under the consideration of that House.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL would give the petition
his best support, because Ireland required the advantage of
railroads as much, if not more, than almost any other
country. In the first place, the great amount of the po-
pulation, and the low price of wages, would enable them
to construct these railways at one half the expense of
those that had been formed in England. In addition to
that the landlords were. so anxious for their construction
that they would give them land for nothing ; and the
materials were in every part of the country in the
greatest abundance. He had no doubt, therefore,
that the railways would pay in Ireland ; and
if they only started with low fares, as in Belgium,
and other parts of the Continent, there was no doubt that
Railways would ultimately pay in Ireland. The subject
was one well worthy of the consideration of their Lord-
ships.—(Hear, hear.)
THE PRESIDENT STEAM-SHIP.
The Earl of MINTO understood that before he en-
tered the House a wish had been expressed by a Noble
Earl, to know if any steps had been taken by the Ad-
miralty to relieve the President steam-ship, in the event of
her 'ving still at sea. He was sure the Noble Earl would not
doubt the intense interest with which they had watched,
and had endeavoured to obtain all the information in their
power, and to have the best advice from persons of expe-
rience on the subject to discover the fate of that vessel—
(Hear, hear)—but they had been compelled to come to
the conclusion, having exhausted all their sources
of information and inquiry, that they could tak
no measures which would be calculated to afford the
slightest information or relief. Another report had
been circulated in the newspapers that day, which
was calculated to raise again, he feared, very false
hopes. It was stated that a large steamer
in distress had been seen in St. George's Channel.
He (the Earl of Minto) had been employed that
morning in following up that subject, and he had
no doubt whatever that information of that sort
had reached town, but at the same time he felt bound
to say that he had no reason to believe that that report
was well founded, and he feared that it was one of those
most odious and incompfehensible attempts to take ad-
vantage of hopes which might be excited with reference
to the money market.—(Hear, hear.) If a vessel
had been seen under such circumstances it was impossi-
ble but that some authentic information on the subject
would have reached the Admiralty before the
present time. It appeared to him that no
exertions of theirs could be of the least service, but if
they were the Noble Earl might rest assured that they
would have spared no exertions for such a purpose.
Lord STRANGFORD thanked the Noble Earl for
the information.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
very numerously signed from the town of Swansea, pray-
ing their Lordships to institute an inquiry into the ex-
isting restrictions on commercial intercourse. The Noble
Marquis said he should lay a Bill on the table of the
House to-morrow for renewing the existing law relating
to usury for one year.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented petitions against the
present Corn-laws from Yorkshire and other places.
Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition for the
abolition of Church patronage in Scotland.
The Earl of DARTMOUTH presented a petition
from West Bromwich in favour of the Corn-laws.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from
Bradford in favour of Church extension.
The LORD CHANCELLOR laid upon the table a
Bill for the better administration of justice in the Court
of Chancery, and explained some of its details.
Lord BROUGHAM expressed his regret that the Bill
relative to the new Vice-Chancellor's Court would not
pass this year, owing to an accident that had taken place
elsewhere.
Earl MOUNTCASHEL presented a petition from the
North American merchants of Liverpool, praying that
no alteration be made in the present timber duties, for if
such were the case their ships would remain void and
useless.
Earl FITZWILLIAM would remind the Noble Earl
that the proposition of the present Government was not
at all a new one, as it had been brought before Parlia-
ment nine years ago, when the present Lord Spencer was
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Lord Fitzwilliam)
would ask the Noble Earl whether it followed that be-
cause the ships could not be wholly laden with timber,
that there were no other things to make up a cargo?
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said if there were
other things he should like the Noble Lord to point
them out.

Earl FITZWILLIAM said that if these ships were not
employed in carrying timber from Canada they would
soon find employment in bringing timber from other
places.
Lord COLCHESTER said the Noble Earl, having
stated that this measure would not throw the sailors out

of employment--
Earl of FITZWILLIAM—No, no, I did not.
Lord COLCHESTER would tell.the Noble Earl then,
that the. timber from Norway and other places, was
always brought in the ships, belonging to the country .
from which the timber was brought. He (Lord
Colchester) would inform the Noble Earl that the ships
employed in the colonial timber trade, were not fit to
bring any articles that would be injured or spoiled, by'
which they were therefore totally unfit to carry such
articles as corn.—(Hear, hear.)
Earl FITZWILLIAM thought.that if the ships were
not fit to carry goods that would be damaged by wet,
they must be very bad ships.—(A laugh.)
Lord COLCHESTER—At any rate they employed
sailors, and brought profit, to their owners.—(Hear.)
Lori ASHBURTON presented a petition to the same
effect from South Shields, and he would take that op-
portunity of alluding to what the Noble Lord opposite
(Lord Brougham) had stated on Tuesday, and in con-
firmation of what he (Lord Ashburton) then said, he
would read a few soLtences from a very eloquent speech,
delivered by the Noble and Learned Lord, upon the then
existing distresses of the country.—(The Noble Lord
then read an extract from a speech of Lord Brougham,
in which he (Lord Brougham) -advocated a protective
system of duty on corn.) He (Lord Ashburton) thought
the Noble Lord could not, after what he had just read,
complain of what he (Lord. Brougham) facetiously
termed his (Lord Ashburton's) sliding scale of opinion.
He (Lord Ashburton) would not reproach his Noble and
Learned Friend for having changed his opinions ; on the
contrary, he thought great praise was due to him. He
did not for a moment blame his Noble Friend for having
changed his opinion since 1815. But he would advise
the Noble and Learned Lord not to throw stones when
he had so many windows of his own. is
Lord BROUGHAM said he took the arguments his -
Noble Friend brought forward against him, in good part;
and he must say that he was rather disappointed, from
what he had stated the other night, that lie had
been able to bring for Ward so small a discrepancy in his
conduct now and in 1817. The Noble Lord had made
an attack upon him as the enemy of the Corn-laws, of
which he (Lord Brougham) had previously declared
himself the champion. Now, in the first place, he
would state to their Lordships, that his Noble Friend

had alluded to the year 1815, when the Corn-law debates
were brought on, and his Noble Friend had referred .to
something that • he (Lord Brougham) had said on the
debate on the Corn.,law Bill. He (Lord Brougham) had
said that that was utterly impossible, because he was not
a Member of Parliament at that time, and never took
part ill that debate in any one of its stages. Now, with
respect to the opinion that he entertained in the year
1817 on that subject, his Noble Friend was kind enough
to state that it was no charge against a person if, after
twenty-four years, he thought fit to change hiS opinion.
But that was not enough, it ought to have led him to
another observation, and that should have been, that the
party should have had twenty-four years' experience.—
(Hear, hear.) At the time, perhaps, he had made use
of the words his Noble. Friend had just read. They were
used- at the time the original law was about to come into
operation. But was it matter of course that after
twenty-six years of experience, when it was found that
measure had failed to alleviate the distress of the coun-
try. that his opinion should change, and that he should
think protection a measure not required?--(Hcar, hear.)
Circumstances had changed since then. He did not

main grounds on-Which he (Lord Brougham) rested the
opinion which he held, and whichlic, subsequently held
upon Mr. Canning's Corn-law Bill, was the situation in
which the landed interest was then placed. It was the
state of the Poor-law. Had no change taken place on
that subject ? He was unwilling to enter into this subject
in any of its branches, and he was particularly unwilling
to say anything in its behalf. That measure had been
termed a landholders' Bill, but he Would say that it
was for the purpose of improving the circumstances
of the labouring population of this country themselves.
That was the main and grand object of that great mea-
sure, which at the same time conferred benefits on other
classes of the community. He considered that the land-
owners having been relieved by that Bill made of itself
a most material difference in the question of protection
due to the landed interest. lie had no hesitation in
saying that he was anythinc, rather than a person pe-
remptorily or in any sense of the word denying protec-
tion to the landed interest. Was it no protection to say
gradual and not instantaneous repeal ? Was it not pro-
tection to say take off so much per cent year after year
until ultimately you will have taken off the whole ? Was
not that protection ?
Lord ASHBURTON—None.
Lord BROUGHAM—WouId the Noble Lord rather
have a total repeal at once ?—(Hear, hear.) Now, as to
what his Noble' Friend had said with respect to the
attack he (Lord Brougham) had made upon him for his
changes in opinion—he had said certainly that the preju-
dices of his Noble Friend were not of a very fixed prin-
ciple, but partook somewhat of a sliding scale.—(A
laugh.) He must say he was rather astonished that his
Noble Friend should have shown so much soreness on
the subject. If his Noble Friend merely changed
his opinion with no sinister motive—with no
motive of interest without the possibility of
being interested—if there had been such a change,
why should he be so very sore on account
of the remarks he (Lord Brougham) had passed upon
him—a mere passing remark—a kind of parenthesis.—
(A
laugh.) He (Lord Brougham) must say that his
Noble Friend had taken to himself a much greater de-
gree of blame than he (Lord Brougham) had awarded
him. But with respect to the other parts of his Noble
Friend's speech, in which he tried to draw him into a
discussion, he would say that he differed from those
with whom he had long acted, whose great knowledge of
the subject—whose intimacy with the details could only
be equalled by their devotion to the cause—the question
of slavery. He differed from them, and he did not. He
could not go the length to say that the emancipated
negroes of the West Indies should be treated
with a greater degree of protection than others, for
the sake of what was called the system of the working of
the emancipation, which had been tried, and which he
(Lord Brougham) denied to have been tried as an expe-
riment. He (Lord Brougham) could not see why they
should exclude sugar the produce of slave labour, and
not exclude cotton and other articles. He begged their
Lordships' pardon fbr going into these subjects, but his
Noble Friend seemed to think it incumbent on him (Lord
Brougham) to state his opinions on them.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA would tell the Noble
Lord that no reduction had taken place in the burthen
of the landholders. He did not approve of the continu-
ance of the powers of the Commissioners, nor did he
think that out-door relief should always be refused to
able-bodied labourers.
Lord PORTMAN allowed that the question of the
Corn-laws was undoubtedly more or less connected with
the Poor-laws. He did not wish, he should say, to in-
troduce any material alteration in the Poor-laws by
bringing back the former pernicious system. He thought
that the present law could not be carried into effect with-
t out the assistance of the Commissioners, although he
should not much regret to see the Assistant-Commis-
sioners done away with. He did not often see them at
their duty, and he thought the law could be worked in-
dependently of their services.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA did not wish to dispense
with the services of the Commissioners for the present ;
but he thought that they. might, after a few years, work
the law without their assistance. He acknowledged the
distresses of our labouring population, and he would wish
to diminish or relieve it by a sound system of emigra-
tion, which was a subject he hoped to see soon taken up
by the Legislature of the country.
After a few words from Lord PORTMAN, _ _

The Mii;quis of SALISBURY did not wish 'to see
our labouring population—the sinews of the country—
banished, under a system of emigration, to foreign
lands. He was persuaded that the country itself was
amply sufficient for the sustenance of its inhabitants if
its resources were properly cultivated. With respect to
the Poor-laws he could not approve of the system of
granting out-door relief to able-bodied labourers.
Earl STANHOPE should observe, on the subject of
the Poor-laws, that the change in the former system had
been brought about for the purpose of diminishing the
burdens upon the country. But the fact was, that the
expenses of the existing law exceeded the expenses of
the law for which it had been substituted. In
Bradford and its neighbourhood the increase had
amounted to 501. per cent. An appeal was now
about to be made to the people, and he trusted they
would indicate their sense of the nature of the present
Corn-laws in language which no one could mistake. He
placed great confidence in the good sense of the people,
and more especially in the good sense of our labouring
population, who unfortunately were not represented. He
would repeat an assertion he had made on a former
evening, that he would rather be governed by the
Chartists than by the present Administration. He was
not an advocate of the doctrines of the Chartists ; but at
least under their principles the rights of labour would not
be trampled under foot as they would under the present
Administration with its principles of free trade.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the principal object of
the new Poor-law was that of benefiting the .labouring
population themselves. It had no doubt relieVed the
land of an overwhelming burden, but that ilitS•not the
only grounds nor the principal grounds upon which it
had been passed.
Earl FITZWILLIAM observed that the increase of
poor-rates in Bradford could not have arisen, as was sup-
posed by the Noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope), from
the new Poor-law. It arose from the distress prevailing
in that as well as in other manufacturing towns, and that
distress had been occasioned by very different causes.
After a few words from the Earl of STRADBROKE and
Earl STANHOPE the conversation dropped.
A messenger from the House of Commons brought up
the Insolvent Debtors (Ireland) Bill, the New South
'Wales Bill, the Australia Bill, and the Clerk of the
Peace (Lancaster) Bill. These Bills were each read a
first time.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 10.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. BERNAL brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Canterbury Pavement Bill.
Sir G. SINCLAIR brought up the Report 4:)f the East
Retford Court of Requests Bill, and the Gainsborough
Small Debts Bill.
On the motion of Sir J. Y. BULLER, the Totness
Small Debts Bill was read a third time, and passed.
On the motion of Mr. W. PATTEN, the Blackburn
Town Moor, and the Blackburn Improvement Bill, were
--'rally read hird and • -A.

severally read a t, time, and passea.
On the motion of Mr. KEMBLE, the Hawkhurst
Junction Road Bill was read a second time, and leave
was given to the Committee to proceed with the Bill on
Friday, and to report the same day.
Sir R. INGLIS, in presenting several petitions in fa-
vour of Church Extension, stated that it was his inten-

tion not to bring forward his motion on Church Exten-
sion during the present Session, and expressed a hope
that in another Session it would be brought forward tin-
der more happy auspices. The Hon. 111:;mbi-r then pre-
sented 164 petitions in favour of Church Extension ;
also petitions against the College of Maynooth from
parishes in Somerset; and petitions against the Jews De-
claration Bill. .
On the motion of Mr. KEMBLE the London and
Greenwich Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. W. EVANS presented petitions from North Der-
byshire in favour of the revision of the Import Duties.
Mr. VILLIERS presented petitions for the total re-
peal of the Corn-laws ; a petition from Bilston (a district
within the limits of the Borough of Wolverhampton),
signed by 4,600 of the inhabitants ; from the operatives
of Stalybridge ; from the inhabitants of Stourbridge
(who state that submission to bad laws cannot
be expected, and should not be required) ; from
Grandleborough, Chalfort, St. Giles, Lower Win-
chendon, Beaconsfield, Ellesborough, and \Veedon, in
the county of Buckingham ; from 300 females in the
Potteries ; and three other petitions front Henley and
Shelton ; from Southmolton, in the county of Devon ;
from the Unitarian Congregation at Walsall, and
from the Friendly Benefit Societies and spur-.
makers in Walsall ; from the superintendents of
the Sabbath schools at Stockport ; from two hundred
householders in Blackfriar's-road ; from 73 female
householders in Bow ; from Little Church-Street, Mary-
lebone, and from 263 inhabitants in the Waterloo-road:
Mr. BROTHERTON presented 16 petitions from va-
rious parts of the country, praying for a total repeal of.
the Corn-laws.
The Earl of DARLINGTON presented a petition
from, .Shifnal, and two other places in the county of
Salop; praying for no alteration in the Corn-laws. The
NO-ble Earl also presented a petition from East Preston,
'to the same effect.
Mr. G. PALMER presented petitions from Essex, to
the same effect. The petitioners believed, if any altera-
tion in the Corn-laws took place, it would be more injurious
to the labourers themselves than to any other class.
Lord MORPETH presented between 200 and 300 pe-
titions from different parts of the country in favour of
the total repeal of the Corn-laws. - The Noble Lord also
for the repeal of the Law of Patron
_ _

presented petitions - _ snlage
in Scotland, for the liberation of Mr. Baines, and the abo-
lition of Church-rates ; and also for the introduction of
an improved system of regulating railroads.
The Tinsley and Doncaster Road Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Mr. BAGGE presented twenty petitions from Norfolk
in favour of the existing Corn-laws.
Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland, against running
the mail on railroads on the Lord's Day.
An Hox. MEMBER presented a petition from Hunting-
don against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Sir J. GRAJTAM presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Milford, praying that the claims in favour of
Milford Haven as a steam-packet station might be inquired
into before the Select Committee.
Sir J. C. HOBROUSE presented several petitions
from Nottingham in favour of the measure of her Ma-
jesty's Ministers for an alteration of the Corn-laws ;
also a petition from a congregation of Dissenters of the
same place, for the abolition of Church-rates and the
j liberation of Mr. Baines.

BOROUGH' OF NOTTINGHAM.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented .a petition from the
borough of Nottingham, giving further contra fiction to
the statements contained in the petition of Mr. Cox.
The Hon. Member requested that the petition be read at
length by the clerk at the table. The petitioner stated
that the assertions of Mr. Cox of his being ap-
pointed one of a numerous deputation to wait on
Joseph Goddell was totally untrue. That Cox
repeatedly declared that he was in the habit of re-
ceiving sums of money for the services rendered by him
to the late sitting Member. That he (Cox) was the con-
necting link between the Chartists and the Conservatives.
That the petitioners were ready to prove that voters
were induced to vote for Mr. Walter in consequence of the
overtures made to them by Cox.. The petitioners also
prayed for a full inquiry into the conduct of Cox with
reference to the practices set forth in the petition.
Mr. WARBURTON presented petitions from Dor-
chester and other places, praying for an alteration in the
Corn-laws.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN presented a petition from
Rathkeale, in the County of Limerick, against any alte-
ration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Dunfermline,
signed by 3,236 inhabitants, comprising the Provost,
many of the magistrates, the whole of the clergy, and
almost all the householders, praying for the adoption of
principles of free trade. The petitioners stated that they
considered a protecting duty of Bs. a quarter on corn as
a tax which the community ought not to bear. Also five
petitions from Walsall, and twelve petitions from the me-
tropolis and its neighbourhood, praying for an alteration
in the Corn laws.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON presented petitions from
Waterford, Clonmel, and a place in
.the county of Tip-
perary, against any alteration in the present Corn-laws.
Sir CHARLES GREY presented a, petition from
Teignmouth, signed by near 3,000 inhabitants; in favour
of a revision of the import duties; also a petition from
a congregation of Baptists, praying for the abolition
of Church-rates ; and a petition from certain Roman
Catholic inhabitants of Teignmouth, complaining of al-
leged hardship towards the Catholic Bishop of Gibraltar,
and of his imprisonment. The petitioners prayed for in-
quiry into the subject.
Mr. BUCK presented a petition from Devonshire
against a fixed duty on corn.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition signed by
14,000 inhabitants of Newtown, in Montgomery, praying
for a total repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. ROUND presented petitions from various parishes
in Essex, praying that no alteration might take place in
the Corn-laws.
The 'Westwood Estate Bill was read a second time.
Mr. H. T. HOPE presented a petition in favour of
Church Extension.
On the motion of Sir E. KNATCHBULL, the order
of the day for going into Commiltee on the Parish Con-
stables' Bill, which stood for to-morrow, was ordered to
be discharged.
MISTAKE IN THE DIVISION LISTS.
Mr. LAW HODGES said that the printed Division
Lists could only be valuable on account of their cor-
rectness.• Now on the division on the motion brought
forward by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, praying
the House to address her Majesty for the release of
political offenders, he (Mr. Hodges) found his name on
the list as having voted with the ayes. Now the fact
was that he had not been in the House at all, and conse-
quently had not voted ; and he thought it but right to
state, that had he been present he should have voted
with the noes.—(Hear, hear.) It was rather an
im-
portant motion, and had been decided by the Speaker's
casting vote, and he thought it right to draw the atten-
tion of the House to the subject.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was very glad the matter had
been mentioned, because the Hon. Member for Birming-
ham (Mr. Scholefield) who had voted with the ayes, had
complained to him (Mr. T. Duncombe) that his name
had been altogether omitted from the division lists. It
appeared, therefore, that the one name had been substi-
tuted for the other.
Mr. HUME said that it was only surprising the accu-
racy with which those lists'were generally made out, and
this solitary example of a mistake only proved their ge-
neral accuracy.
Mr. HODGES had not brought the subject forward
with a view to cast imputation on any person, but merely
for the purpose of putting himself right.
Mr. LANGDALE had some time since moved for a
return of the number of infants who had been given into
the guardianship of the Infants' Friends Society by the
Lord Chancellor, under the 'lnfant Prisoners' Act last
Session ; that return had not yet been made, and he moved
that it be made forthwith,
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member must bring
forward his motion at the time of public business.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented ten petitions
from different bodies of the working classes in Manches-
ter, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. WODEHOUSE gave notice that on Tuesday
next he would move " that a humble Address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, praying that she may be gra-
ciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before
Parliament, through the medium of her Ambassadors,
or other diplomatic residents abroad, copies of all regu-
lations established in foreign factories, together with such
explanations in detail as the nature of the cases will admit,
describing the character of the food used therein, the
wages paid therein, whether in specie or in kind, &c.,
in order to enable Parliament to form a judgment as to
the degree in which the usages of • other countries are at
variance with the tastes, habits, and engagements of the
manufacturing population of Great Britain." The Hon.
Member also moved for a copy of the Report
made by Mr. Addington, when our Minister
in the United States, to Mr. Canning, which
was referred to by Mr. J. B. Smith, in his evidence be-
fore a Committee of the House ; also extracts from the
Report of Mr. Hickson, a Commissioner appointed to
inquire into the state of hand-loom weavers, in which
that Report was alluded to, in order to show the places and
passages which were at variance with the Report itself.
Mr. HUME would submit whether it was right to
print any extracts. Who was to make them ?—for any
one could make them to suit his own purpose. The do-
cuments alluded to were already on the table of the
House, anti might be referred to by any Hon. Member.
Mr. WODEHOUSE gave notice for Tuesday.
Mr. HUME said many returns had been ordered to be
laid on the table—he trusted that the different Depart-
ments would take care that they were produced before
the close of the Session.
Lord AIORPETH said no doubt directions would -be
given upon the subject.
HERTFORD REGISTRY.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the Order of the Day for
calling in the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Hert-
ford to the bar.
Mr. Storey, the Clerk of the Peace for the county of
Hertford, then appeared at the Bar, with a large book in
his hand.
The SPEAKER, (addressing him) said—You are
ordered to attend this day with a copy of the register of
the electors of the county of Hertford—is that a copy in
your hand ?
Mr. Storey—lt is.
The SPEAKER—PIease to deliver it in. You may
withdraw.
Mr. Store'

delivered in the co

,y and withdrew.

Mr. T. DUNCOAIBE said he should like to have that
copy of the registry printed.—(Oh, oh.) He did not
know that the House would consent to it, but he had a
right to ask the question. He would take the oppor-
tunity of observing he did not think they had dealt
with the Clerk of the Peace too harshly on this occasion..

He thought it right to state, that after the order of the
House, he had referred to several of the principal law-
stationers in London to know in what time they could
furnish a Copy of the Finsbury list of electors, containing*
13,000 folios, and was informed by Messrs. Fry, law-
stationers of Gray's Inn-lane, that it could be copied
in two or three hours, in which time they would engage
to get it done.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore he thought
they had not been too hard upon the Clerk of the Peace,
in ordering him to produce a copy this day.—(Hear,
hear.) He should be content whether this question was
referred to the Printing Committee, or the House should
decide whether the copy should be printed or not.
The House would remember that the copy was ordered
to be laid on the table, to redress the grievances of the
electors of Hertford, but there were no means of re-
dressing those grievances except the register was
printed. It was the duty of the House to protect the
elective franchise, and he thought the exercise
of that franchise had been impeded by the delay
of the Clerk of the Ponce to furnish a
copy of the Register. He coubl.sec no use in the copy
lying on the table. Moreover, his motion was not un-
precedented. In 1834 the Hon. Member for Dublin had
moved that the Register of Carrickfergus be printed, and
it Was printed by the order of the House. He therefore
moved that this copy of the register be printed.
Sir R. INGLIS said he thought t the question which
was put to the Clerk of the Peace referred to the time
in which he himself, with the assistance of his clerks,
could make a copy of the register. Any professional
person must be aware that by cutting the register to
pieces, it could be accomplished. in three hours.
With respect to the motion before the House, he be-
lieved that if the register were printed, • not more
than ten copies would be sold ; and if the Honour-
able Gentleman pressed his motion to a division, he
(Sir R. Inglis) would certainly vote against it.
Mr. HUMS said he thought the difficulties which bad
been thrown in the way of using the register were
highly culpable. He never saw a practised lawyer give
evidence in so discreditable a manner.—(Hear, hear.)
Now that the register was obtained, means must be
adopted for placing it in the hands of the electors. It
appeared to him to be absolutely necessary that the register
should be printed. The Hon. Member had proposed
- - - be expense of the P

that it should be printed at the expense of the House,
and doubtless there were one or two examples of
that course. As Chairman of the Committee with
respect to the printing of local papers, he thought
a document of this nature should be allowed
to be printed at the expense of the parties.
He held in his hand the list of the electors of Lincoln,
which had been laid on the table of the House upon mo-
tion, which ha, been printed at the expense of the
parties ; and he had also a statement of the expense of
that printing, from which it appeared that the expense
of printing, a sufficient number of the returns for the
electors of Hertford world be 1461. He thought
if this document was to be printed, it ought-, to
be- done at the expense of the parties who asked
•for it. He hoped therefore that his Friend would
not press his motion to a division, because if he did he
could not support him. At the same time he must say
that he thought there ought to be some remedy for the
abuse.
Mr. T. DITNCOMBE said after what had been stated
by Hon. Members he would withdraw the motion.—
(Cries of No, no," from Sir E. Sugden.)