The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-19 00:00:00

BtIN-, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAI 7 IA 18*

trustees that were connected with the charities of
the country. And then all these charities were to be
taxed for the maintenance of this machinery. The good and
well-administered charities, those in whom the trustees acted
in the most fair and impartial manner, were to be saddled with
the expense of those that were badly and carelessly adminis-
tered. The mode in which the trueces already appointed
were to be interfered with met with his decided opposition, as
uncalled for and unjust. On these grounds he objected to the
second reading of the Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord (the
Lord Chancellor) had promised them some amendments in the
Bill, but all that had yet been proposed was the exception of
some few charitable bodies from its operation. The general
features of the Bill to which he objected still remained. He,
therefore, called on their Lordships to vote against its second
reading.—( Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of SALISBURY said, that notwithstanding
what lied fallen from the Noble and Learned Lord who
had just sat down, he must support the second read-
ing of the Bill. The abuses that existed in those
charitable trusts were such as imperatively required a measure
of the present kind. The Court of Chancery at present was a
most expensive quarter from whence to expect redress and a
cheap and simple substitute was required. Unless a measure
of the present kind was carried he did not see any means by
.which a remedy could be effected. The Noble and Learned
Lord (I ord Campbell) had talked of the reformation of the
Court of Chancery as the proper step to be taken, but it was
notorious that there was little hope of effecting a change at
present in that quarter. Judging from the period that a re-
formation in the Court of Chancery had been deemed neces-
sary, and how little had been done to accomplish it, he had but
small expectation of much being done in that direction for
some time. What was wanted was a cheap, efficient, and
summary jurisdiction, and this Bill he apprehended would pro-
vide that. Seeing nohope in any otherquarter, in spite of all the
objections that had been urged, he would vote in favour of the
second reading of the Bill. He had come to the House with
the impression of voting against it, but after the speech of the
Noble and Learned Lord (the Loral Chancellor) in moving the
second reading, though he (the Bishop of Salisbury) had still
objections to some of the details, he would support it in the
present stage. Any defects in the Bill might be amended in
Committee.

Lord A BINGER supported the second reading of the Bill.
It was his impression that while the administration of charities
would be placed on a fair and efficient footing, they would be
more secure and better protected than under the present state
of the law. He had not heard any good reasons advanced
why the Bill should be rejected.
Lord VROTTESLEY wished to say a few words on the
present measure. lie had listened carefully to the objections
urged against the Bill, 'but he did not think they
had been successful, or had made out a case
why the Bill should not he allowed to pass. At
this late .hour be was not anxious to trouble their Lordships
at any length, but he must really shortly state some of the
abuses of the present system. Nearly three-fourths of the
small charities of this country were swallowed up by the officers
and parties who administered them. Surely then it was high
time to establish some tribunal—iome corrective authority=-
to see that these charities were properly dealt with by those
who had the administration of them. At present, a vacant
trusteeship could not be filled up without an expensive appli-
cation to the Court of Chancery, and it was this difficulty and
this obstacle which caused so much mischief, and so often led
to those misapplications or misappropriations of the charities
which the public so loudly complained of.—( Hear, hear.) The
fact was, the machinery of the Court of Chancery was far too
costly to be resorted to for correcting abuses in respect of small
charities. Indeed, the idea of employing the Court of
Chancery fur furthering the interests or correcting the mis-
application of small charities was almost as absurd as it would
be to employ a ponderous steam-engine to pick up a pin at the
foot of the Woolsack.—(Hear, hear and laughter.) He was,
therefore, favourably disposed to this Bill, which, in his opi-
nion, would establish a very useful, and, in the present state of
public charities, a very necessary domestic tribunal.—( Hear,
hear.) lie could not understand the opposition of trustees to
this measure, for one would have thought that they alone, of
all others, would be anxious to obtain every assistance in their
power for carrying out the objects of the charity intrusted to
their care ; and he, for one, was inclined to believe this oppo-
sition assumed a very sinister aspect.--(Hear, hear.) He had
other details which he should have been glad to have gone into
at an earlier period of the evening, but he hoped enough had
already been said to induce their Lordships to give a second
reading to this Bill.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—

. ..
Contents
Non-contents 4l
Majority — 1
The Bill was consequently lost.
Their Lordships then adjourned at a Quarter-past Twelve.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 18.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
WEST YORKSHIRE RAILWAY.

On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, this Bill was read
a second time, and ordered to be committed.

REPORTS.

The following reports were brought up, the amendments and
alterations agreed to, and the Bills ordered to be engrossed.
Bath Waterworks.
Port Ellen Harbour.
Bristol and South Wales Junction Railway and Ferry.
Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Railway, and Port, &c. of
Goole.
Stirlingshire Midland Junction Railway.
Alford Valley Railway.
Hamilton New Gas.
Morayshire Railway.
Aston Rates.
Great North of Scotland Railway (Eastern Extereen).
Gollon Inclosure.
North Western Railway.
East Coast Railway.
South Leith Church.
Edinburgh and Northern Railway (Branches from the Dundee
and Arbroath ilailway, and Tay Ferry Improvement).
Kennington-lane, &c., Lighting, &c.
Gorbals Gravitation Waterworks.
Lancashire and North Yorkshire Railway.
Liverpool, Manchester, and Newcastle-on-Tyne Improvement.
Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway.
London and South-Western Railway Amendment.
Portsmouth Harbour Pier.
Midland Railway ( Erewash Valley Branches).
Midland Railway ( Erewash Valley Extensions).
Midland Railway (Claycross to Newark).
Caledonian Insurance Company.
Leeds and York Railway.
LEICESTER AND TAMWORTH JUNCTION RAIL-

WAY.
On the motion of Mr. GREENE, the order made upon the
6th day of March latt, for referring the Leicester and Tam-
worth Junction Railway Bill to the Committee of Selection was
discharged, and the Bill was also discharged.
CONGLE ['ON AND CREWE RAILWAY.

The order made upon the 19th day of March last, for re-
ferring the Congleton and Crewe Railway Bill to the Com-
mittee of Selection, was discharged, and the Bill was also dis-
charged.
SCOTTISH MIDLAND RAILWAY.

The order made upon the 2d day of March last, for referring
the Scottish Midland Junction Railway (South Inch of Perth
branch) Bill to the Committee of Selection, was discharged,
and the Bill was also discharged.
EAST LINCOLNSHIRE RAILWAY.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY.
On the motion of Sir J. EASTHOPE, this Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed.
OXFORD AND CHELTENHAM RAILWAY.
Mr. BERKELEY presented a number of petitions in favour
of this railway.
CALEDONIAN EXTENSION RAILWAY.
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
On the motion of Mr. HUDSON, :the Midland Railway
(Birmingham and Gloucester Branches) Bill was read a second
time and ordered to be committed.
On the motion of the same HoN. MEMDER the York and
North Midland (East Riding Branches) No. 1, the York and
North Midland (East Riding Branches) No. '2, and the York
and North Midland (Whitby and Pickering Extension) Rail-
way Bills, were read a third time and passed.
The Sidmouth Market Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The Midland Railway (Leicester and Swannington Altera.
tions and Extension) Bill was read a third time, and passed.
NORFOLK RAILWAY EXTENSION.

This Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed.
WARWICKSHIRE AND LONDON RAILWAY
( HAMPTON AND BANBURY LINE).
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.

STO WAIARKET NAVIGATION.
This Bill was read a third time anti passed.
WEST RIDING UNION RAILWAY (No. 2.)
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.

LIVERPOOL AND BURY RAILWAY.
This Bin was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.

The third reading of the North Staffordshire (Churnet
Valley), the North Staffordshire (Harecastle to Sandbach),
and the North Staffordshire (Pottery) Railway Bills, was
postponed till Thursday.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG moved that the order (pith May)
that the report on the Carnwath and West Linton Railway
Bill do lie on the table be discharged, and that the Bill be
withdrawn.—Agreed to.

notice that he would ask a question almost. identical with that
put by the Hon. Member for Southampton ; and, in answer to
it, he wished to say that it was intended to introduce a
general measure before any local Bills should be considered.
It would be well to suspend the progress of all local Bills till an
opportunity was given for the introduction of a general
measure, in which would ba established a regular code of fees.
This he submitted would be the most regular course of pro-
ceeding.

Mr. MONCKTON MILNES gave notice that, to-morrow
evening, he would ask the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord
of the Treaiury, whether any instructions had been given to
the British Ambassador in Paris, to invite Ibrahim Pada
to this country.

DANISH CLAIMS.
Mr. CHRISTIE, on behalf of Mr. Hawes, intimated that
he intended to postpone the order of the day for going into
Committee on the Danish Claims till June the 10th.
EAST HAMPSTEAD UNION.
Captain PECHELL moved that the petition of the ratepayers
of the parish of Winkfield, complaining of the conduct of the
Poor-law Cornmiss:oners, and the proceedings of the board of
guardians of the East Hampstead Union, be printed.
After a few words from Sir JAMES GRAHAM, to the
effect that it was intended: to send down a Commissioner to
make inquiry into the matter, the motion was agreed to.
GAME-LAWS.

Mr. COLLETT called the attention of the House to the
circumstances which had recently taken place in Sussex in
connexion with an information laid against a poor person
for purchasing game at the instance of Sir Charles
Taylor, and who was severely punished by the magistrate.
The lion. Member then read an information which had been
laid against a person of the name of Burnard, at Petersficld, to
the same effect, and stated that an answer had been given by
Lord Langdale to the effect that the information had not been
acted upon, which had been laid before Sir Charles Taylor.
S r JAMES GRAHAM said that the person referred
to by the Honourable -Member for Athlone (Mr. Collett)
had been convicted under the game-laws. The name of that
person was Silvester. The question was whether this person
had been committed on the information laid before Sir Charles
Taylor Now he had made inquiries of Sir Charles Taylor,
and he found that that gentleman was not on the bench at the
time the conviction was made. He had also made in-
quiries of the bench of magistrates as to what had taken
place on this occasion, and lee found that there was
no reason for the Ministers to interfere, as, from what
had taken place, he did not think that Sir Charles Taylor
had been Mean implicated, and therefore no case, so far as he
could see, has made out for the interposition of Ministers.
Sir Charles Taylor was present, but took no part in the busi-
ness. The policeman Hall denied that he had had any con-
versation with Sylvester in reference to the transaction, and
he ( Sir J. Graham) was unwilling to bring the character of
an Hon. Gentleman into juxtaposition with that of a con-
victed horse-siealer, in that House.—(Laughter.) It appeared
that Sylvester had been convicted at Manchester for the crime
of horse-stealing, and he considered, therefore, that his evi-
dence should be received with a considerable degree of doubt.
Since the Hon. Gentleman had put his first question he had
introduced another charge; which he ( Sir J. Graham) had
had no opportunity of investigating, and, therefore, when he
came down to answer the first question, he was quite unpre-
pared for the copies of affidavits which an Hon. Member had
laid before the House. (The Right Baronet then read the re-
port of the case, as it appeared in the provincial papers. )
Now then he understood the question to have been narrowed
to the three persons he had named ; but if there was to be a
new question he hoped the allegation would be made on affi-
davit, and if they should not be proved to be true, the whole
question would then be properly investigated by the constitution
of criminal proceedings against the party making the affidavit.
Mr. COLLETT said, the Right lion. Gentleman would
see that the report eructed to the conviction of Mrs. Bridges.
Mr. BRIGHT said, there always appeared to be extra-
ordinary sympathy in that House for any official who
might have any charge brought against him, espfrially if
he happened to be a magistrate.--( Cries of " Oh, oh," and
Hear.) He would contend for it that such was the fact, and
he did not think that any Hon. Member of the House would be
found hold enough to deny it. He (lid think that the Hon.
Member for Athlone was perfectly justified in calling attention
to this matter ; and there were many persons in 'Petersfield
who had said that what had appeared in the public papers
was a correct representation of what had taken place,
and that Sir C. Taylor was present in the justice-
room, and did not contradict it. It appeared
that this woman had been convicted on the information of a
servant of Sir C. Taylor, and that certainly looked suspicious,
and the woman was sent to gaol for a month. How could she
know that the person in question was not licensed to sell game?
He knew that at the time when it was illegal to sell game
many Members of that House were in the habit of purchasing
it.—(Cries of "No, no.") They could then be supplied with
as much game as they pleased for dinner. In the present case,
here was a poor labouring man sent to gaol for a
month, and he would have remained there for the fall
time, had it not been hat the Honourable Member
for Athlone (Mr. Collett) kindly forwarded the money to re-
lease him.—(Hear, hear.) No one knew how gross were the
proceedings of the magistrates on the subject of game, and he
trusted that the present case, with the others of a similar cha-
racter that had been brought under the consideration of the
House, would induce the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of
the Home Department to introduce a measure so as to
change the present Atate of the law. Nothing could
be worse than it was at present ; as, from the
great body of the magistrates who adjudicated in these cases
being interested in the preservation of game, it was impossible
to get a just decision.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. LEADER considered the charge of an infamous
character, and therefore he did not think they should bring
forward the name of Sir Charles Taylor in the way they did,
without very good reason. It was not of so much importance
to attack public men, for they were used to it ; but to• charge
a private gentleman, almost 80 years of age, with a disgraceful
proceeeding, without good grounds and evidence, was too bad.
He could say that there were no estates its that neighbourhood
that were better cultivated than that of Sir Charles Taylor, and
he could assert that the bulk of the returns of that estate were
expended in giving employment to the neighbouring poor.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE thought the time of the House
might have been much better employed at the present moment
than the discussion of this matter. The question, if he
understood it aright, was, whether Sir Charles Taylor bad,
in his capacity of magistrate. overstepped the rules which were
prescribed to him for the fulflhueut Li( his duty. fle must say
that he thought the greatest injustice had been done to Sir
Charles Taylor in this matter. lie could not help saying that
he conceived that the Hon. Member for Athlone had deserted
the ground which he had originally taken, and had entered into
a series of statements quite irrelevant to the matter in hand.
He had stated, on the information of Sylvester, that policeman
Hall had been convicted before Sir Charles Taylor in the
penalty of five pounds for a breach of the game laws. Now, it
appeared that the facts were, that this man had not only been
convicted on this count, but on others, of a breach of the game
laws. Now, what were the circumstances? Not only was Sir C.
Taylor arrainged upon the information of a common
culprit without any evidence, but had been so ar-
raigned without any sufficient grounds. He should
inform the House that Sir Charles Taylor had been 34 years
a Member of that House and 35 years in the Commission of
the Peace. Ile thought that under the circumstances the evi-
dence which had been laid before Government against such
facts was quite unworthy of notice, and that the time of the
House had been most grievously wasted.
RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
Mr.- B. DENISON said that from a report presented to
the House on the 17th February, 1846, and which was con-
firmed and received on the 21st April, it appeared that a
certain rate was to be adopted in railway Committees under the
report of the Gauge Commission. On this report a decision
had been come to in one way in room No. 10, and a
decision had been come to in No. 11 quite in a contrary way.
He found that it had been required by the House that to-
morrow he should take part in the discussion of this question
in a railway Committee, and he wished for some communica-
tion to know upon what rule his conduct should be guided.
Sir R. PEEL said he was sorry that the Hon. Member had
given an opinion that, taking everything into consideration, was
erroneous. The report, and the evidence consequent on that
report, had been made by her Majesty's command to the Board
of Trade; and the Great Western Company, the railway which
was principally interested, were allowed upon their application
to make such remarks as they might think fitting; and it was only
after receiving these suggestions that the report was furnished
to the Government. The Board of Trade were fully aware of
the value of those suggestions, but as many interests were in-
volved, and as the evidence was of a voluminous character, it
was necessary that an opportunity should be given for the pro-
per censideration of them. With reference to the subject of
the gauges, it must be remembered that opinion was all on the
side of the narrow gauge.
Sir It. PEEL said the House was aware how much the
Government had been occupied by the business of the House
since the 21st of April. Ho hoped that the report would
shortly be ready for laying on the table of the House.
Lord PALMERSTON said a communication had been
;Made to him of a very ingenuous invention, applicable to the
goods traffic, by means of which goods could be transported
from the broad to the narrow gauge, and from the narrow to
the broad gauge. The inventor had taken out a patent for his
invention, and a report upon it had been submitted to the
Board of Trade by General Paisley. He would ask the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade whether it was their intention to
take any steps with reference to the invention, and also whether
they would have any objection to lay upon the table of the
House the report of General Paisley ou the subject?
Sir G. CLERK stated that there would be no objection to
lay the report on the table of the House.
means of ascertaining the nature of their decision ; as soon,
Mr. RUSSELL said thatthe Gunretialtt.wheesrteeprourtcoomf tphaenyCohmadminso-
sioners, the directors of
however, as they had seen it they immediately opened a com-
municationdeclined to express any
sired to have them reduced to writing.
The and de
with the President
opinion
hoaftoint hbetoheen Boardsstoat
emmoufecuhTt
sr
employedamdte,di se whoto.
The officers of the company
re-
port, and he hoped, however, would be ready in a few
days.
ERE considered that it would be the best
Mr. LABOUCH
further
suspend the. progress of the Bills before
latterly that they hadnothadthtaimt eitfinallyto prepare .
course to
by narrow gauge that they should also ...3 sue-
Parliament for broad gauge lines, and where they where op-
posedponded.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
Mr. WYSE wished to know from the Right Honourable
Gentleman the Secretary
schoolsyotS in had tateforlrte hleanHd,oamned,Difeps:tmwehnatt,
whether the act of incorporationbeenissued for the fur-
therance of the national
steps had been taken for the formation of those schools.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the charter of in-
corporation had been issued, and he understood that the neces-
sary steps had been taken for the formation of the schools.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. BANKES said he had, for the last five or six slays de-
layed bringing before the House a matter which involved a
breach of one of the privileges of that House, because! he did
not wish to interrupt the debate upon the corn-laws. But ho
now wished to state that a statement had appeared in ;a public
neerepaper in reference to a proceeding that had taken place in
that House, and which he did contend was an infringement of
the privileges of that House. He was by no means anxious to
resist the legitimate exercise of the right to
criticise the conduct of public men in that House ;
bat a letter had appeared in the Times
newspaper on Tuesday last, which he wished to bring before
that House. It had been written in consequence of some ob-
servation he heed made upon the state of Ireland, and in an-
swer to which ihe Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland took
the occasion to tannt him (Mr. Banker) with the state of the
labouring poor of Scotland- And a clergyman of Dorsetshire
thought proper to take notiee of that speech, and to write a
letter to the Times newspaper. In that letter the rev. writer
took the speech for his text, and commented very freely. He
I was surprised at that letter coming from the Rev. Gentleman,
knew him to be a. gentleman of character; and:in giving
hbaubtit
he
ef
hsapdeaukliwnagy
fill: hopelnionof that letter he separated. the character of the rev.
a
so treated r ehaitme d (sAulcrh.
wourwiteorrtfbryomofthhehua—rnicolef iant, qwuheositliyo.no,owwohretnhy heof
hcunall.edmite qnueivte.
Banker)
House, he (M •
Last year with the greatest contempt. But when he
spoke man, veho for the first time
addressed the
r Banker) felt that some notice was called for.
awnithhadgrbeeaetnfrienetlothme,
the honourable andreverend writer
Hight Honourable (Sir
James .
the"popularity . a P
Baronet (Sir
He
was
,o hunting parson. .(Loud
The Reverend Geetihtleeman was very fond of dealing in attack.
Gentleman
was called by
nst the Right Lim Baronet at that
espninokmeeonftaaryieos
James Graham)
laughter.)

time, he was now with him, and-perhaps that would very mate-
rially alter the Right Hon. Baronet's opinion of the Rev. Gen-
tleman. He hoped that what would fall from him (Mr Bankes)
thlt evening would meet the eyed the Bishop of the dioeme.—
(Crhs of " Oh, oh.") Ile hoped his remarks on the Rev.
Gentleman's conduct would come under the notice of his
Bishop, for that was the proper mole of complaint. This was
the view of the question which he took, and if the Rev. Gentle-
meavnearin acted in the manner he had done, he should certainly
move that he be brought to the Isar of the House. If they
visited persons of infer'ior station and education for infringing
the privileges of the House, he could not see how they could
pass over those in a higher condition of life, and who were cog-
nizant of what they were doing.
not in
was sorry the Noble Lord
n
the Secretary for Ireland was
in his place, the more so as
he understood his absence to arise from illness, as he ( Mr.
Bankes) could not answer the taunt which the Noble Lord had
thrown out. He (Mr. Bankes) had put a question to the
Noble Lord, which had been only answered_ by a taunt about
the Dorsetshire -labourers. _
measure in relation to asked him how the
could benefit Ireland, either nonr or the importation of c a
future
period;
and to the taunt about
labourers being as bad as the peasant the
of
Ireland
y
only answer he would give to that was, howr couldthe measuren
benefit the peasantry of Dorsetshire ?.(Hear, it would not benefit. the. peasantry Of Dorsetshire iteawr.o)uld no
if
benefit the peasantry-, of Ireland. The Noble Lord had n 9 et
yet, however, answered his question about how the
measure
t
was to benefit the people of Ireland. Perhaps some of his
colleagues would da so that night. He ('sir. Bankes) recol-
lected a conversation with the Hon. Member for Durham
(Mr. Bright)—not a confidential one—in relation to the re-
turn of Lord Ashley to that House, and on that occasion the
lion. Member said the reason they (ths Anti-Corn-law
League) attacked Dorsetshire was, because that Noble Lord
had attacked them.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and
cheers.) On the whole of the matter, he could not see that
there was any express declaration, as to the course which was
likely to be pursued, or the effect which was ,likely to be
wrought by the reduction of wages.
Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. Hurts rose together, but on the call
of the House
Mr. BRIGHT proceeded to say that this was a breach of
privilege, and he thought that it should be tested by
facts, and he certainly did think that the recommendation
which.had been thrown out would have been wisely taken.
What might have been the subject of communication to
which the Hon. Member alluded, he could not pteLnd to
know, and it was therefore irtaissilale for him to speak posi-
tively respecting it, without having communication from some
Hon. Gentleman.—(Hear, hear, and cheers, from both sides
of the House.) Of this motion he certainly had had no inti-
mation, but with respstot to the condition cf the labourers of
Somersetshire, in comparison with those of Dorsetshire or
Wiltshire, he could not , whether he had made any differ-
ence with regard to their'. But this much he would say that
if he had stated that there was no difference between the
condition of the people of these counties, and that of the
people of the other counties its England, he should be telling
that to the House, and to the people of England, which would
be grossly unjust to every member of the community.
Mr. HUME wished to ask whether the Hon. Member
opposite had any sufficient documents to show that the subject
was brought under dismission in the House, for without them
he himself was committing a breach of privilege.
Mr. BANKES did nut wish to name the clergyman who
had so severely criticised the proceedings of the Hon. Member
for Durham (Mr. Bright), but if the House desired it he
would do so. He would only state from it, that he asserted
that that lion. Gentleman was not up to his work, and that
he was unworthy of the terms for which he was engaged. He
further asserted that the labourers said, that they knew not
who was in fault, but it appeared to them, one man made the
bullets and another shot them. Who was the real culprit he
could not say.
Mr. CHRISTIE said he was quite sure the Hon. Gentle-
'
man would himself feel no objection to the name being men-
tioned, nor to the production of the letter, a portion of which
was read that night. The Rev. Dr. Northcote was a most es.
timable gentleman, but he was not prepared to say that that,
reverend gentleman, in all instances, could act in such a manner
as to please every one.. His impression was, that there was
rrthing in that letter of which the reverend gentleman should
be ashamed, and nothing certainly that infringed on the privi-
leges of that House. lie was sure that if the Hon. Gentleman
had read the whole letter, the House would say that there was
nothing in it to justify the remarks of the Hen. Member for
Dorsetshire. He was sure that in the whole letter there was
nothing to lead to the charge which had been made in that
House.

Mr. WAKLEY—The reverend gentleman had, no doubt,
the opportunity of reading the debates in that House, and
having noticed the personalities which take place within those
walls, had taken the same liberty out of doors. He feared the
Hon. Member had something to answer for in that respect.
IMPORTATION OF JEWELLERY. _ _

Mr. T. DUNCOM BE presented a petition, signed by 9.96
pawnbrokers, silversmiths, and jewellers of London, praying the
House to adopt some measures to prevent the importation of
jewellery, which was now largely imported into the country at
five per cent.