The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-04 00:00:00

TEI v. SUN,' LON D' TUESDAY, MAY L IQ4I.

Church Extension ; and from the City of London agam.t
Sunday trading.
Pet:tions to the same effect ware presented by Mr.
Brotherton from ten trades in Manchester ; by Mark
Phillips, from eighteen operative bodies in Manchester ;
and by Mr. W. 0. Stanley from Auglcsea.
Colonel SIBTHORP preionted three petitions from
Lincoln, in favour of Church Extension.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE presented a petition from
Drogheda against the Irish Registration Bill at present
before the House.

Mr. KE NIBLE presented petitions from Streatham,
Boxhill, and other places in Surrey, in favour of Church
Extension.

Mr. W. EVANS presented a petition from the county
of Derby in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws ; else
from the sang place, praying for a reduction of the Im-
port duties.
PARNELL presented a petition from White
haven praying for a reduction of the duties on Colonial
produce.
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the county
of York praying fur an inquiry into the principles taught
in the CAlego. of Maynooth; from Northampton against
any further grant to the College of Maynooth ; from De
vonshire, in favour of Church-rates ; and 61 petitions,
from all parts of the country, is favour of Church Ex-
tension.
Col. VERNER presented a petition from the county
of Armagh, against any further grants to the College of
May nooth.
Mr. E. BULLER presented a petition, praying for
the abolition of Church. rates.
Mr. CHILDERS presented a petition in favour of free
trade, and the abolition of all monopoly.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition from the inhabitants
of a district of London, praying that some alteration be
made in the Corn-laws. _ _

Mr. STRICKLAND presented several petitions from
Saddleworth and other places in Lancashire in favour of
a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. AYSHFORD SANFORD presented petitions
from Someretshire and other places, praying for the
abolition of Ecclesiastical Courts.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

Mr. WALLACE gave notice that he should move to-
morrow that the petition of Wm. Mackie, complaining of
the injustice of the Local Courts of Scotland, be printed
with the Votes, as he intended calling the attention of the
House to it.

Mr. G. PALMER gave notice that vilicn the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade should move the order of the
day fur going into Committee on the British Possessions
Bill, he should move that the said Committee be post-
poned. The Hon. Member also moved for an account of
the securities given by the official assignees in the Court
of Bankruptcy.
BOROUGH OF SANDWICH.

On the motion of Mr. E. J. STANLEY, a new writ
was ordered to be issued for the election of a new Member
for the borough of Sandwich, in the room of Sir Rufanc
Donkin, deceased.

Colonel SIBT H 0 RP inquired whether it were :rue, as
generally reported, that Mr. Gordon, Secretary of the
Treasury had resigned?—(Laughter.) Also, whether it
was the intention of the Government to proceed that
evening with the Civil Contingencies ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said be should not answer the
first question—( Laughter)—and with regard to the second,
it was not the intention of the Government to proceed that
evening with the Civil Contingencies.—( Loud laughter.)
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND).
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN begged to ask the Noble Lord
the Member for North Lancashire, whet* it was his
intention to bring in the Registration of Voters' (Ireland)
Bill on Wednesday next.
Lord STANLEY said it was not his intention to
proceed with the Bill on Wednesday. He should, for the
present postpone it for a fortnight, and he should take
caro that Gentlemen on both sides of the House would
have ample notice of the time when he intended to bring
it forward.

The order was then read, and postponed for a fortnight.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

Mr. GISBORNE begged to ask whether it W 33 the
intention of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to bring
on the Criminal Justice Bill after the Punishment of
Death Bill that evening.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the affirmative.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. HANDLEY rose to call the attention of the
House to a breach of its privileges. He could not sup-
pose that it was possible that the occasion should ever
have arisen when he should have been obliged to
trespass on its attention in a matter personal to
himself; but be had been made the subject of mis-
representation so gross and so unjustifiable, and the
matter was calculated to prejudice him so much out of
doors, that lie had nothing left for it but to throw himself
upon the indulgence of the House.—(Hear, hear.) It
would be in the recollection of the House that on Friday
last the Hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chris-
topher) had addressed some remarks which appearred to
him, to use the Hon. Member's own phrase, as mere
electioneering clap-trap, as regarded the Noble Lord his
colleague and himself (Mr. Handley). He (Mr. Handley)
on that occasion stated that whenever the question of the
Corn-laws came on for discussion he should be fully pre-
pared to meet it—from whatever quaver the subject was
presented he should be found to do his duty to his consti-
tuents and the public.—(Loud cheers.) These were he
believed the prceise words—(Loud cheers)—they were
the only words that he had used on that occa.
sion.—(Loud cheers.) The House would therefore
judge of his surprise when on reading the Morning
Chronicle of the next morning—a paper which, he misbt
he allowed to say en passant, seemed to misrepresent all
the gentlemen on his side of the House except the Hon.
Member for Leicester—(Cheering and laughter from the
Opposition benches)—the House would judge of his sur-
prise to find himself made the subject of the following ob-
servations :—" Mr. Handley approved of the manner
in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had men-
tioned the subject of the Corn-laws. When the
proper time came he should be quite ready to
second the Right Honourable Gentlemen before
him in dealing with the various details of that important
measure."—( Renewed laughter.) Now it might be mat-
ter of laughter to Hon. Members—(Cries of " Hear,
hear," from both aides of the House)—but he thought he
need not declare to those who were present on
that occasion that not one single sentence then attributed
to him had fallen from his lips.—(Heae, bear.) He said
nothing from which such an opinion could be inferred; he
eetettatned no such opinion, and he did net hesitate to say
not only that he did-not approve ofthe manner in which it was
introduced to the House, but so far from being "ready to
second the Right Hon. Gentleman in dealing with the
various details of that important subject," if it depended
upon his vote, he should not have an opportunity
of considering the question at all.—(Loud cheers.)
There was no man more willing than himself to make
every allowance for the onerous duties of gentleman con-
nected with the press who reported the proceedings of that
House, On must occasions, he must acknowledge, they
(lid not do him injustice, for they seldom reported him at
all, in which he had no doubt they exercised the most sound
discretion. On other occasions when any remark which he had
made had been mistaken; which had happened once or
twice, he had thought it sufficient to request that the same
columns which had conveyed the mistake might convey
the correction. But he thought Honourable Members
would allow that in this case it would be no repara-
tion to hint that the Morning Chronicle should have
offered him its columns to contradict a mistake which
had been circulated through a thousand channels. Tne
debates in that House were copied into the provincial
papers, and it was not likely the refutation could meat all
his constituents, spread, as they were, over a million of
acres. It would be obvious to every one that the an-
nounceraent of his Hon. Friend had not placed him in
a situation of difficulty,—for to an honest man
there was but one course,—but; had placed him in
the situation of lying for a time under a cloud of doubt and
suspicion.—(Hear, hear.) He felt that a misrepresenta-
tion like that could not have originated in inadvertence or
mistake. Painful as it was at all times to attribute motives
to any one, he confessed he was at a loss to ascertain why
this palpable and gross injustice should have been per-
petrated upon hie'. He was quite sure that none
of those Honourable Gentlemen who were his po-
litical opponents would avail themselves of such dirty
means.—(Cheers from the Conservative benches.) He
was more inclined to think, whoever had put this misre-
presentation in words in the Morning Chronicle, sought,
if possible, to get some little advantage in carrying out the
principle which they advocated, and which had been an-
nounced by his Right Hon. Friend below him, by having
it in their power to say that even so humble
an individual as himself, representing a large agricultural
district, had changed his opinions on this subject. It was
enough for him to say on this occasion that such was not
the etse.—(Cheers.) He felt that he must leave the
matter entirely in the hands of the House. He was
grateful for the indulgence which they had afforded to
him in hewing this statement. He Would only observe
that what had happened to him in this instance might
happen to any Hon. Member before him. If they
should think that it was necessary to the vindication of
the privivileges of that House, or to freedom of discus-
sion, that further notice should be taken of it, the matter
was in their hands. It only remained for him, in the com-
mon form adopted on these occasions, to move " That
the printer of the Morning Chronicle do appear at the bar
of this Honse."—( Cheers.)
Mr. FIUME rose to address the House, but was inter-
rupted by cries of " Order, order."

. ,
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the paragraph
complained of by the Hon. Member should be read.

The paragraph was then read, the substance of which
was that the Hon. Member (Mr. Handley) approved of
the manrer in which the Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the subject of
the Corn-laws.

Mr. HUME said that having been present when the
Hon. Member spoke, and having been near him, he could
say that the paragraph just read not only did not contain
the words which the Hun. Gentleman used, but a total mi!-
representation of them ; however, as the Hon. Gentleman
had obtained what he desired, publicity of the vindication
he wished to make of his conduct, he (Mr. Hume) hoped
be would be satisfied with it, and would not press his mo-
tion of summoning the printer of the Morning Chronicle
to the Bar of the House.

Sir DE LACY EVANS was surprised that the Hon.
Member could bring forward such a motion as the present
one. Humble as ho (Sir De Lacy Evans) was,
he was often misrepresented, but he never had the
presumption to apply to the House about the
matter. He did not think that anybody could se-
riously imagine that the repre.ientation was inten-
tionally ma le. The Honourable Member had de-
clared, in formidable terms, the opposition he
me ant to give to her Majesty's Government. He (Sir
Dc Lacy Evans) did think that be ought to be content
with so doing, and in correcting an e►ror ought not to give
a bad example to ether Members, who on the eve of an
election might be glad to avail themselves of such a pre-
cedent.

Mr. HANDLE Y said it was not his good fortune to b(
possessed of the modesty of the Ilan. and Gallant Alembe;
,Aho had just sat down. The Honourable and Gallant

Member might collect his constituents any evening he
chose at the Cat and Gridiron, or any other such
place—(Hear)—but he would find that some time
would be required to go through such a consti-
tuency as he (Mr. Handley) represented in
order to vindicate himself. —( A laugh.) The
Honourable and Gallant Member too, might have
so many claims on his constituents, that they
would surely overlook such a dereliction of duty.
He (Mr. H.) neither participated in the feelings that
induced the Hon. and Gallant Member to come forward on
the present occasion, nor did he think that the House
participated in them. As on the one hand he concluded
his motion according to the forms of the House, he would
on the other leave it to the House to decide whether he
ought to be satisfied that the reparation offered was
commensurate with the injury done him. He would, how-
ever, withdraw his motion.

In answer to a question from an HoN. MEMBER,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he should be prepared on
Friday to state the amount of duty that be meant to pro-
pose on corn.

Lord SANDON said that on Friday next, previous to
the House going into Committee, he would propose a re-
solution, by which the sense of the those would be
taken, in opposition to the proposition of the Right
Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer),
and that he would take an early opportunity of apprising
the House of the words of the resolution.

Sir R. H. INGLIS gave notice that he would take an
opportunity of taking the sense of the House as to the
propriety of bringing into the country or any of itt de.
pendencies slave-grown sugar.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BILL.

The Order of the Day for going into Committee on the
Punishment of Death Bill was then real.

The preamble of the Bill and clauses were postponed.
On clause 2 being put,

Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the clause, but in so law
a tone, and in the midst of so much noise, as to be totally
....

inaudible in the Gallery.

Sir R. H. INGL 18 also disapproved of the clause.
He thought that in certain cases of the ruin of public pro-
poity, the punishment of death ought to he inflicted. The
Hon. Baronet alluded to a wilful fire which had recently
taken place in the dockyard of Plymouth; he thought no
punishment could be too great for such a crime.
Lord DUNGANNON agreed with the Hon. Baronet.
There might be cases in which it would be unnecessary to
inflict the last penalty of the law, but the clause was, in
his opinion, of too sweeping a nature.
Mr. HUME did not think that the punishment of
death was in any case a security against crime. In all
those cases in which the punishment of death
had been abolished, the change had not been found to
work unfavaurably. He did not think that public property
should be
,protected in a different way from the
property of individuals.--( Hear, hear, hear.) He
concurred most heartily in the provisions of the
clause, and be thought the experience of the Noble
Lord since the Bill was last before the House should
have shown him that the punishment of death in cases of
that sort afforded no sufficient protection, and it might as
well be put an end to.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, the Noble Lord had talked of
using the strongest arm of the law to put down
offences of the sort, but the question was, what was the
strongest arm of the law ? The Noble Lord's proposition
might be the strongest arm, but it was the shortest.
In his humble judgment a secondary punishment would be
found more effectual, as it would be more certain, and it
was quite clear that the enunciation of the punishment did
not prevent the crime. He firmly believed that
they could not have a greater incentive to crime than
familiarising the public with those scenes of death.
It was said, if you refused the clause you would have par-
ties setting fire to a King's ship in the face of the enemy ;
but the Committee would recollect that that was high trea-
son, and could be punished accordingly. He need not allude
to the recent case in which a man was executed, who died in

the most solemn and impressive manner appealing to Gnd
that he was innocent. Man was fallible, their tribunals were
fallible, and they ought to endeavour to lessen the chance
of committing the most awful mistake that could he com-
mitted. He trusted they would persevere in their present
course of harmonizing the people by mitigating the severity
of their criminal law. At present it was in a most unsatis-
factory state. —( Hear.)
Mr. Sergeant TA LFOURD would also give his vote
in favour of the clause. He entirely concurred with the
observations of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Isllltenny, and believed that crime would be more effec-
tually prevented by lessening the severity of the punishment,
and rendering it more certain than by the present system.
He (Mr. Sergeant Talleurd) was at Shrewsbury at the
time of the trial of Misters, and he had seen something
of the sympathy which was excited on behalf of the
criminal. If he had been transported instead of executed
no doubt bad been entertained of his guilt.
Mr. E WART said that facts and figures had shown
that capital punishments did not deter from crime, and he
should on this account support the amendment.
Lord DUNGANNON said with regard to what had
fallen from the Hon. Member for Reading, be (Lord
Dungannon) was a member of the Grand Jury on that oc-
sion, and ho was sure no one entertained a doubt of the
prisioner's guilt. In his opinion it would be dangerous to
abolish the punishment of death, in cases of malicious fire-
raising in dwelling-houses. He thought it would tend to
make life and property insecure.

Mr. W. RO"CfIE supported the clause on the ground
that the secondary punishment would afford au cp„iortunity
of =reefing any mistakes which might occur in the trial
of any party. _ _

Stages were then ordered to withdraw, and the Home
divided, when the numbers were—

For the clause
Against the clause 122
Majority against the clause —l2
The clause was then expunged.
Clause 3 was then agreed to.
On olause 4 being put, _ _

Sir C. DOUrILAS moved the following amend-
ment:—That, in case of rape, and of unlawfully and
carnally knowing and abusing any girl under the age of
ten years, whenever either of the said offences shall be
committed by any two or more persons, and such person
or persons shall be convicted of either of the said offences,
such person or persons so convicted shall be subject to the
sentence of death, and shall suffer death, as in and by the
said statute of the ninth year of the reign of his late Ma-
jesty George the Fourth is provided.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amend-
ment. The subject to which the clause related was one of
great difficulty and embarrassment. Therst were litany
critres of the most revolting nature which came within its
operation, but there were others of a less aggravated na-
ture. Notwithstanding all the attention which he had
given to the matter he had been unable to frame provisions
which would exclude the punishment of death in certain
cases of the kind, and would retain it in others. The only
c3urse, therefore, he saw open to them was to abolish the
capital punishment in all the cases in question.
Sir R. H. INGLIS supported the principle of the
amendment. He thought every Hon. Member should
consider the subject as if it related to the members of his
own family.

Lord OUNG ANNON did not wish to see the punish-
ment of death abolished altogether, in regard to the
crime to which the clause referred. There were certainly
cases of a more and cases of a less aggravated character,
but he thought the punishment to be awarded might be
safely left to the discretion of the Judges.
Mr. O'CONN ELL said the worst feature of our cri-
minal law was the quantity of discretion left with the
Judge—it made the punishment uncertain. Let them
make the conviction as certain as possible, and let the
punishment follow as a matter of course, and then the
crime would be checked. He instanced the case of two
gypsies who were convicted of stealing 181. from a pen-
sioner in the neighbourhood of Monmouth about four
years ago—they were transported for life, and at the lapse
of two years it was found out they were entirely innocent,
and were brought home at the Government expense.
Under the old law they would have been executed, and in
what position would they then have been?
Lord DARLINGTON defended the character of the
Learned Judge who tried Misters—be was tried in a
crowded Court, and there was not a second opinion as to
his being guilty of the atrocious crime imputed to him. In
his opinion the Judges generally had exercised their dis-
cretion in a sound mariner.

Mr. HOBHOUSE opposed the amendment, and depre-
cated any extension of the discretion of the Judges.
Mr. GODSON supported the clause. Many convic-
tions would be had if the crime was reduced to a trans-
portable offence, which now were lost, because Juries had
a horror of the punishment of death.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the object of legislation was
to prevent crime, and in bis opinion that would best be
done by ensuring convictions, which could only be done by
abolishing the punishment of death as attached to such a
crime.

Sir R. PEEL could not concur in the feeling that the
punishment of death should be abolished in the cases of
murder, attempts to murder, or rape.

Mr. C. BULLER supported the clause.
Captain POLHILL hoped the Hon. Baronet would
withdraw his amendment, and let the division be taken
on the clause itself. He was strongly opposed to it and
would certainly vote against it.
Sir C. DOUGLAS withdrew his amendment.
The Committee then divided on the clause, when there
appeared—
For the clause
Against it

Majority

-62

On the fife cluze relative to the abolition of the
punishment of death in cases of attempts to murder being
proposed,

- Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and spoke in so low a
tone of voice as to be very indistinctly beard in the gallery.
The Noble Lord was understood to say that in the cases
under consideration, he did not think there was that re-
luctance to convict that had been represented. He would
oppose the clause.
Mr. F. KELLY said that the Noble Lord had fre-
quently stated in that Homo that the infliction of punish-
ment was not intended merely as such according
to the moral criminality, but its abject was to
deter men from the commission of offences. That
was a sentiment which he (Mr. F. Kelly) and
several Hon. Members expressed their approval of,
and he therefore now contended that while the punishment
of death was retained for the c ime of murder, a sufficient
check was held out to those who attempted to commit that
crime, because ex vi termini they expected and intended to
commit murder when they attempted it; but in continuing
the punishment in cases of attempt to murder, they went
against that which was the acknowledged principle in those
cases. They took away every inducement not to complete
the crime when the first attempt t) perpetrate it wa3 un-
successful. Certainty of punishment was what deterred
most from the commission of crime, but certainty was not
attained in the present state of the law. He was aware of
instances having occurred of ten convictions and only one
punishment, and out of forty-five indictment; that bad
been set on foot for crimes of this nature within the last
thr-e vcars, there had been only three convictions.
Lord DUNGANNON thought that if they passed tl
e'a,se they might asiwell at once abolish the punishment
of death altogether, and he could not admit the assertion

r that the punishment of death tended to conciliate the
sympathies of the public in favour of the criminal was suf.-
fici-nt to justify that abolition.
Mr. MILNE supported the clause.
Sir H. R. INGLIS opposed the clause, on the ground
that the person who attempted to murder was morally as
guilty as if he succeeded in the completion of the crime.
Mr. LAW (the Recorder of London),in his experience,
which was of some extent, had not found that juries were
in the habit of violating their oaths rather than find per-
sons guilty of a capital offence. He had, on the other
hand, observed that when the facts of the case applied
rather to the minor offence, it was generally by the inter.
position of the Judges a verdict to that effect was re-
corded. He was convinced that the introduction of the
clause would diminish the efficiency of the law in pre-
venting crime.
Mr. BROTHERT 0 N, not withstanding what had been
said by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just
sat down, thought the object of the law was punishment and
not prevention. He was satisfied that the nearer the laws
approached to the principles of Christianity the more ef-
fective they would be, and the more society was civilised
the more opposed would it be to capital punishment—
( Hear.) He did not believe that, according to the Chris-
tian religion, man had the right to take away the life
a a human being under the authority of any law. The
denunciation, that " Whose sheddeth man's blood by man
shall his blood be shed," applied as much to the execu.•
tioner as to the criminal. He believed that the introduc-
tion of a milder system of criminal law would do more than
anything else to mitigate the manners of the people, and
to diminish ferocious crimes.

Lord MA HON said that there would be a practice'
difficulty if the clause were enacted, which would ember.
rass the administration of the law.

Mr. SL ANE Y thought that a distinction should be
made between crimes perpetrated for the sake of gain, and
crimes perpetrated through violent and revengefulmotivea.
In the first ease the fear of death had comparatively little
influence, while it operated must powerfully in the second
instance.

After a few words from Mr. ELLIOT, the House
diviled when the numbere %ere—

For the clause .
Against the clause ... • 83
Majority against the clause -a
The clause was then struck out.

On the next clause being put,
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the clause. He did
think that the punishment of death acted as a powerful
preventative against burglary: and on that account he
wished that the punishment should be retained.
Mr. F. KELLY supported the clause. The fewer
the cases in which the punishment of death was retained,
the more effectual would that punishment become.
Mr. E WART also spoke in favour of the clause. Dur-
ing the last three years no case of capital punishment for
burglary had been enforced, and the present law on the
subject had, in consequence, been inoperative and unne-
cessary.
Lord DUNGANNON was opposed to the clause. He
did not approve of that philanthropy which was extended
to the most desperate offenders at the expense of the com-
munity at large.
Mr. HUME thought that severity in criminal legisla-
tion so far from putting an end to crime only tended to its
increase. It was not from a false philanthropy he advo-
cated a mitigation in the criminal code, but from a sense of
the general good. All experience had shown that by les-
sening the punishments crimes had decreased ; and, there-
fore, he supported the clause.
Mr. P. HOWARD said unless the Attorney-General
consented to make some other alteration in the law ho
would feel it his duty to vote for the clause of the Hon.
Member for Ipswich. Unless the extreme punishment was
removed from burglary without attempt to murder the
greater crime would be committed.

After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS, strangers
were ordered t 5 withdraw. The House then divided, when
there appeared—

'For the clause 73
Against it
Majority against the clause --27
On our return we found

Mr. KELLY saying that, opposed as he was by the
whole weight of the Government, he would not attempt
t > carry the Bill further. He hoped the Noble Lord
would proceed with his Bill; and although not prepared
to ga the same length as him (Mr. Kelly), would consent
to a considerable amelioration of the present system.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that if the Hon. Gentle-
man declined to proceed with his Bill, of course there could
be no objection to that course. He (Lord J. Russell) in-
tended to proceed with the Bills which he had brought
before the House.—( Hear, hear.) It would have been
indifferent to him whether those Bills were proceeded
with or the Bill of the Hon. Gentleman, without the various
clauses to which Ee objected. But as the Hon. Gentleman
had intimated his intention of withdrawing his Bill, he
(Lord J. Russell) would lose no time in bringing bis Bills
before the House.

Af er a few words from Sir R. INGLIS,
The CHAIRMAN repor:ed progress, and asked leave to sit
again this day fortnight,

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
Home went into Committee on the Criminal Justice 80.

Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from the
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Manchester against
the clauses proposed to be introduced by the Hon. Mem-
ber fJr North Lancashire (Mr. Wilson Patten); also
several petitions r .;110., and one in favour of those clauses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, as he had no
further clauses to bring before the House, ho would not
trespais upon its attention.

Mr. W. FATTEN then rose to propose the following
clauses:_" And wher,ag, questions are pending as to the
validity of the Chart.o. of Incorporation granted to the
Mayor, Aldermen, axed Burgesses of the borough of Man-
chester, in pursuance of the said Act of the sixth year of
the reign of his late Majesty, or of some subsequent Act ;
be it declared and enacted, That the said Charter of In-
corporation, and also the Commission of the Peace, and
grant cf a separate Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace,
issued or granted to the said borough. and all sets and
prGeeeeings done or had in pursuance thereof; shall be
deemed good and lawful from the time of such grant,
acts, and proce.,dings, and that all costs and expenses
which have been incurred before the passing of this Act,
in and about the obtaining, establishing, or opposing any
such grant, act, or proceeding, or in or about the holding
of any inquest by any coroner within the said borough, or
all costs already incurred or to be hereafter incurred, in cr
about the prosecution, conveyance, or maintenance of any
persons having committed any offences within the said bo-
rough by the said corporation, or person or persons whom-
soever, shall be paid and discharged by the council of the
said borough, and out of a rate to he made, assessed, and
leviid for that purpose by the council of the said borough,
in the nature of a borough rate or otherwise, ao the said
council shall think fit ; which rate may be recovered in the
same manner as any borough rate is recoverable under the
said Act of the sixth year of the reign of his late
Majesty, or under any subsequent Act framed
for the amendment thereof, such costs and charges,
without prejudice to any contract respecting the
maintenance of prisoners, being ascertained and set-
tled in each case by the Recorder of the borough."—
" And whereas, by reason cf a grant of a Charter of In-
corporation to the borough of Manchester, the Coroner for
the County Palatine of Lancaster, acting within the divi-
sion of Manchester, tho clerk of the peace for the said
County Palatine, and the clerk of the justices cf the
peace appointed under an Act passed in the fifty-third
year of the reign of King George the Third, for the more
effectual administration of the office of a justice of the
peace, and to the other justices of the peace acting within
the said division of Manchester, have been deprived of
their fees and emoluments arising from their respective
offices within the said borough, and it is expedient that
conspoto,ation be therefore trade to them in like manner as if
they had beer. officers of a borough before the passing of the
said Act of the sixth year of the reign of his late Majesty, who
were removed from their offices under the provisions of that
Act ; be it therefore enacted, that the said coroner and
clerk of the peace, and clerk to the justices, shall be en-
titled to Inve an adequate compensation, to he assessed by
the council, and paid out of the borough fund of the said
borough, for the fees and emoluments of their several
offices -arising within such borough ; and that all provi-
sions of the said Act of the sixth year of the reign of his
late Majesty, relating to the claim of any corporate officer
for compensation, on account of being
,removed from his
office, and to the manner of securing and determining the
amount of such compensation, shall apply, except as
hereinafter provided, to the said coroners, clerk of the
peace, and clerk to the justices; provided always, that the
statement to be delivered to the town clerk by each such
officer, shall s©t forth the amount of the fees and emolu-
ments in respect whereof he shall claim compensation
during five years next preceding the grant of the char-
ter of incorporation to the borough respecting which
such claim is made, and that, in estimating the amount
of compensation, each of the said officers shall be
deemed to have held his office for the term of his life,"
The Hon. Member said that there had been a long and
expensive contest in Manchester on the subject introduced
in these clauses. The parties were exceedingly numerous
on both sides; one party consisting of the Corporation of
Manchester and the other of those who were opposed to it.
lie had been requested to act as arbitrator between the
two parties, and he had consented to do so. The Bill be-
fore the House would take the matter out of their hands.
The .Hon. Member then referred to the history of the
claims to compensation. He had taken the highest legal
opinions that they came within the spirit and letter of the
Corporations Act. They had stated that it was doubtful
whether it was necessary to have these clauses inserted in
this Bill__whether the parties might not rest their claims
upon the compensation clauses of the Act. On this subject
he was particularly anxious, in consequence of the public
notice that had been called to the course he intended to
pursue, to set himself right with the lion. Member for
Manchester, having been told that he was meddling
improperly, with tins affa'rs of Manchester. The Hon.
Member here proceeded to read an extract of a letter
from three members of the corporation of Manchester, to
show that he was justified in the course he adopted, and
proceeded to say that the document he quoted corroborated
the statement he had made. Ho was also fully convinced
of the justice of the three cases he had brought forward.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS said, that he stated in his
place that he was not one of those who thought that the
Hon. Member brought forward the question on unneces-
sary grounds. He therefore begged to disclaim any par-
ticipation in the feelings of those who said that the Hon.
Member meddled improperly with the affairs of Manches-
ter. On the contrary, he thought that the course the
Hon. Member adopted was perfectly fair.--( Hear, hear.)
What he (Mr. M. Philips) complained of was, that
there were communications made to the Hon. Member
subsequently which he would have done well not to listen
to. With regard to the opinion of the people of Manchester
it bad been put on record in the most unequivocal man-
ner. He (Mr. M. Philips) had presented petitions from
every ward in the borough, which resulted from public
meetings attended by men of all par tie;. One of the
strongest petitions was itself presented by a gentleman of
Conservative principles. When the mask had been strip.
ped off and the thing appeared in its nakedness, he had

alina..t said its deformity, they were sought to be b )ught
off. He could not point out anything more deserving the
character of fraud than the manner in which the petition
had been got up by the anti-corporetors. He must say
that he thought the inhabitants of Manchester would be
lost to every feeling of honour if they were to consent
to pay the sum of money demanded of them.
If 50,000 of the ratepayers of Manchester could so far for-
get thernselse3 as to put a petition into his hands praying
the House to consent to these clauses, he would not pre-
sent such a petition. Daring his recent visit to Manches—
ter he had consulted with men of all parties on the sub-
jeot, and there was not a single individual who did not de-

precate the idea of the introduction of such a clause as a
mode of adjusting the existing differences. Manchester
Would rather remain as it was than submit to such an in-
sult. It was au insult to the inhabitants of Manchester to
be compelled to petition the House on such a subject.
With rererence to the appointments, it was evident from
the expressions he bad made use of that his Hon. Friend
had been in close communication with one of the individuals
whose interests were at stake. His Hon. Friend had said that
he did not consider the Quarter Sessions of Manchester
worth a rush, and that was the very expression which Mr.
Milne had frequently been in the habit of using. With
reference to that gentleman's claim to compensation there
could be no doubt that if a new stipendiary Magistrate
were appointed for Manchester to-morrow, that new Ma-
gistrate would have a perfect right to appoint his own
clerk. He had looked into a Bill which had been intro-
duced into the House at the time when it was first proposed
to appoint a stipendiary Magistrate to Manchester. In
that Bill, Is hich had been drawn up by Mr. Milne, he
had attempted to have himself appointed and named per-
petual clerk to the Magistrates; had that Bill passed into
a law, he might have had some claim, but the name had
been withdrawn, and the appointment was left to be made
in the way in which all such appointments ought to be
made. He had, therefore, no claim whatever to a life.
interest in the appointment. With reference to the At-
torney-General's Bill, if it were thrown out, the only effect
would be that the rate-payers of Manchester would escape
from the charge of the maintenance of the prisoners in
their borough gaol, which would be thrown on the
county; but they were too honest and too honour-
able to wish for such 8R advantage, but that would be
the only effect of the Bill being rejected. With respect to
the office of coroner, he believed that if the gentleman in
question had signified his wish to continue in that appoint.
ment the corporation would have chosen him, but he had
chosen to act under bad advice, and must take the con-
sequences, and by persisting in holding double inquests
he had made the office of coroner, as connected with him-

self, particularly obnoxious to the people of Manchester.
Let them consider the danger of the principle they would
be adopting by granting this compensation to the Town-
clerk. Atter the decision of the Judges in their favour,
the people of Manchester were not to be bullied into a
compromise of this sort, and he should be ashamed to ap.
pear before his constituents if he consented to the intre-
duction of any such clauses as those proposed. He could
assure his Hon. Friend that be was labouring under a
-great mistake if he imagined that the corporation of Man-
chester were at all anxious for a compromise. On that
point he could assure his Hon. Friend that he had been
misinformed.

Mr. GREG said that he had taken up the matter at
the instance of Magistrates of Manchester, who called on
him at his home to induce him to do so.

Mr. M. PHILIPS said that those persons had no
authority from the Corporation, to make any request of
the kind.

The ATTORNE Y- GENERAL felt it to be his duty
to oppose the clause on public grounds. This was a pub-
lic Bill not intended for Manchester alone, but for the
country at large. The town of Manchester did not con-
tribute to the county rate, whilst the county had to bear
the expense of the Manchester prisoners. It was his ob-
.

ject to remedy that injustice, and to make such boroughs
as Manchester and Birmingham bear the expense of their
own prisoners.

CRESSWELL thought that the proposition for
compensation was founded on the Municipal Reform Bill,
and was, in fact, a following out of that Bill. The only
ground for taking away from this gentlemen (Mr. Chap.
man) the right to compensation was, that he had
brought an action to try his right.—(Hear, hear,) The
Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Philips) had ad-
mitted that the gentleman was an excellent officer, and
would have received compensation from the corporation if
he had condescended to ask for ir, upon the general
principle recognised in the Municipal Reform Bill—that
persons deprived of their offices by that Bill should be en-
titled to compensation. If any Hon. Member brought in
a clause to compensate the coroner of Birmingham, or of
Bolton, he would support the motion.
Mr. C. BULLER said he thought they had better
discuss one clause at a time. His Hon. and Learned
Friend had made an excellent speech, but not upon the
present clause. It was difficult to limit the efforts of the
human mind, but the present clause appeared to be the
summit of human impudence. (Hear, bear, and
laughter.) The corporation of Manchester had been liti-
gating for many years, and when the matter was decided
against them, they said " Pay us our costs. and we will
litigate no further."—( Hear, hear.) The House had no
right, in a Bill like this, to force a compromise upon
those who did not wish it.—(Hear, hear.) He would
venture to say, if the House sanctioned this clause, they
would sanction the most impudent and preposterous claim
ever made to it.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. CRESSWELL said the decision in the Queen's
Bench was merely formal.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the case was ar-
gued fully in every point before the Judges of the Exche-
quer Chamber. and he considered the question of the
Charter was fully decided.
Strangers were then ordered to retire, but no division
took place, and the clause was withdrawn.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN then moved the second
clause of which he had given notice, for giving compensa.
tion to Coroners and other officers.

After a few words from Mr. WAKLEY and Mr. MARK
PHILIPS,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL reminded the House
and the Hon. Member for Finsbury that according to the
existing law it was in the power of the Lord Chancellor to
order a writ to be issued at any time for the election of a
new coroner, in case it th tuld be discovered that the gen-
tleman filling the office was in any way incompetent to
discharge its duties.
Mr. WAKLEY hoped other parties would not be
coupled with the unfortunate coroners, otherwise they
would stand a chance of having their merits overlooked.
If another coroner was appointed for Middlesex, he (Mr.
\Vakley) could assure the Hon. and Learned Member
that he should never apply to him for compensation.
Mr. GISBORNE said, in the county of Chester,
where an additional coroner bad been appointed, compen-
sation had been given to the party previously in the office.
Mr. W. PATTEN had no objection to divide the
clause and frame a separate one for the coroners, the
clerk of the peace, and the magistrates' clerks.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped the Hon. Gen-
tleman would go further, and extend its provisions beyond
Manchester.

Mr. J. JERVIS suggested that the clause should be
withdrawn for the present, in order to afford an oppor-
tunity to frame a clause which would include all the
coroners.

Mr. MARK PHILIPS would not object to a general
clause as regarded the coroners, but he should certainly
object to compensation to the other officers named i❑ the
clause.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Corn-
mit divided, when there appearel—

..
For the clause 73
Against it ..
Majority
_. - 55
. .

On our return to the Gallery we found

Sir C. DOUGLAS moving the insertion of a clause
providing compensation for the clerk of the peace of the
county Warwick and for the coroner, of the said county,
sitting within the Hundred of Hemlingford.
Mr. HUME complained that the clause had not been
printed, and moved " That the Chairman do report pro-
gress." He had understood that it had been decided that
the clerk of the peace for the county of Warwick was not
entitled to compensation.
Mr. M. PHILIPS could not vote for the clause until
it bad properly come under consideration.
Mr. JERVIS said that by voting for this clause for the
compensation of coroners the House would only affirm
that coroners were entitled to compensation. Hon.
Members would afterwards have an opportunity of con-
sidering the application of the clause to this particular case.
Mr. HUME must persist upon principle against pro-
ceeding with this clause until it had been previously
printed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the Hon.
Member for Warwick would best gain his object by with-
drawing his clause for the present.
Sir C. DOUGLAS said ho would have the clause
printed, with a view to its being brought up with the Re-
port.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON then moved the clause of
which he bad given notice, exempting the Borough of
Bolton from the operation of the Bill. He knew he might
be told that the Bill did not go directly to confirm the
Bolton Charter, but still it would have the effect of con-
firming it in an indirect manner. Several of the rate-
payers had determined to litigate the question at the earliest
possible opportunity, and this case was a perfectly different
case, and a much stronger one than the case of Manchester,
to which allusion had already been made, and they were
apprehensive that they should by this Bill be put in a
worse situation than the one they at present occu.
pied. They were desirous of bringing the question to
to trial, and did not wish to be deprived of the
opportunity of trying the case by the indirect operation of
this Bill. In order that the House might understand dis-
tinctly the operation which the clause of the Attorney-
General would have upon Bolton, it was necessary that
he should explain that at present the Corporation was
unable to levy a borough rate, because, the township and
the borough were not co-termineus. Now the Attorney..
General's clause would enable them to levy a borough-
rate, and deprive those persons of the opportunity of try-
ing the question of the Charter,which they wereanxious to
do, should the rate be levied. Such were shortly
the grounds on which he entreated the House
to exempt the borough of Bolton from the
operation of the Bill. He would be glad to give
any explanation that might be required, but at that late
hour he did not wish to occupy the attention of the House
longer than was necessary.
The clause was then brought up and read a first time.
On the motion that it be read a second time,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should be
under the necessity of strongly opposing the clause, as he
considered that entirely to exempt Bolton from the °pers_
tion of the Bill would be highly objectionable. If it
were sought by that Bill to deprive the inhabitants of
Bolton of the right to question the validity of the charter.
such a proceeding would be manifestly unjust ; but no
such thing was attempted to be done. The inhabitants of
Bolton would still have the power to take any steps
they might think fit to question the validity of the Char-
ter. The consequence of exempting Bolton from the
operation of the Bill would be, that they would not be
able to make any arrangement with the county of Lancas-
ter for the custody and maintenanoe of their prisoners,

end the county of Lancaster would suffer great injustice
in consequence. To correct this inequality, it was neces-
snry that the Bill should apply to Bolton as well as to
Manchester or Birmingham, and there was no reason at:-
signed by the Noble Lord to induce him to assent to the
exemption..

Mr. BOLLING could assure the Attorney-General
that Bolton was peculiarly situated ; it was divided into
three townships, Great Bolton, Little Bolton, and the
northern part. Great Bolton being only within the
borough, all the expense relating to that could be
taken out of the poors'-rate. But with regard
to the other portions, they were obliged to levy
a second rate, which was objected to. The parties
agreed to levy in a friendly manner, for the rate, in order
to try the question ; but after carrying the proceedings
to a certain point, the corporation party had given up the
contest. The Bill would go to legalise the Tevying of
rates other than those authorised by the Municipal Act,
and or, that ground he claimed the exemption sought.
The Queen could grant a charter, but she could not grant
the power of levying money. He did not oppose the
Charter per se, but they were desirous of trying whether
they could be legally saddled with this rate; 5,000 rate-
payers had petitioned not to be saddled with the
useless expenditure for a gaol and quarter ses-
sions, when they were within ten miles of Manchester,
to the prison of which place their prisoners might be con-
veyed by railroad at a shilling a-head. Two years ago
they had had a police force imposed on them by the Noble
Lord, which had cost 3,000/. in the last year, and 5,000
of the rate-payers now appealed to that House for protec-
tion against that Bill.

Mr: A INS WO RTH said that the petition alluded to
by his Hon. Colleague had been got up under false pre..
tences.—( Hear, hear.) The town had been placarded with
bills stating that a gaol was to be built at the cost of 20,0001,
and: a new poor-house at the cost of another 20,000/. ; of
course, the rate-payers were anxious on the subject. The
fact was, there was no intention to build either a
poor-house or a gaol. The Bill would however,
give thorn the power of using the goal to which his Hon,
Colleague bad alluded, therefore if the Bill passed they
would be able to enter into an arragement with the coun-
try on the !subject. With respect to the charge of the
police Bolton was in the same situation as Birmingham.
The Corporation bad appointed a police ; their right to
do so had been opposed ; the old pulice had been kept up,
and constant quarrels between the two had been the conse.
quence. His Hon. Friend had alluded to the expenses of
the Corporation. But it was a fact that the Corpora.
tion had effected a clear saving of 500/. a year by the
quarter session alone. They had formerly to send all
their prisoners to Manchester.—(Hear, hear.) The argu-
ment of the Attorney-General was very just, that the
county had at present to support all the borough prison-
ers, although the borough contributed nothing to the
county rate. The Hon. Member then referred to the
repors of Captain Jebbs to sh3w that a large majority of the
householders had petitioned for the granting of a charter.
There were 5,115 householders in favour of the corpora-
tion, and no more then 2,956 against it. There was,
therefore, a much larger proportion of the inhabitants in
favour of the corporation in Bolton than either in Man-
chester or Birmingham. Indeed, there seemed to be no
other objection to the including Bolton in the Bill than
that there would be no one to compensate except the co-
roner.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the House would not
countenance the motion of the Noble Lord the Member fcr
South Lancashire ; or rather be hoped the Noble Lord
would see the propriety of withdrawing his motion.
Mr. G RIM LDITCH, who was very imperfectly heard,
supported the motion of the Noble Lord (Francis Eger-
ton), and hoped the Noble Lord would press the question
to a division.

Mr. M. PHILIPS (amidst loud cries of " Divide,
divide") said that be had been requested to oppose the
proposition of the Noble Lord.--('' Divide, divide.")
The expenditure of the borough would be diminished by
the Bill, in one item to the extent of reducing a charge
of 181. to 31. 15s. He hoped the clause would not be
pressed.
After a few words from Lord F. EGERTON, which
were inaudible in the gallery, the Committee divided,
when there appeared—

For the clause
Against it 75
Majority 44

The House then resumed, and the Chairman reported
the Bill, which was ordered to be received on Friday next
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (No. 1) BILL.
The House having gone into Commitee on this Bill,
Mr. HAYTER moved the fallowing proviso to the
clause awarding compensation :—" Provided always, and
be it hereby further enacted, that every annual or other
sum of money awarded by way of compensation or other.
wise, under this Bill, to the Honourable Robert Campbell
Scarlctt, now one of the Masters of the Court of Exche-
quer, shall cease to be payable, when and so soon as he
shall succeed to the dignity of a Peer of the United King.
dom."—Agreed to.

Tho Bill then went through Committee, the remaining
clauses having been agreed to.
Mr. FOX .MULE obtained leave to bring in a 8.11
to explain and amend an Act entitled " An Act to extend-
the Practice of Vaccination."
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at One o'Clock.