The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-11 00:00:00

therefore, that their lordships would give a second reading
to the bill.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said that on one occasion
when he had been obliged to prosecute a pickpocket he had
been kept dancing attendance at the Clerkenwell Sessions
to give evidence before the grand jury, and after all the
operation of finding a true bill did not last five minutes.
Had this happened to any person engaged in business the
inconvenience must have been very great.
Lord CRANWORTH expressed his concurrence in the
general principles of the bill.
Lord WENSLEYDALE said it was impossible to resist
the case made out by his noble and learned friend, but he
should be exceedingly sorry if the bill were made the
ground for the total abolition of grand juries in the coun-
trY. (Hear.)
The bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a
second time on Tuesday next.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY. )
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

NEW MEMBER.
The Earl of MARCH took the oaths and his seat for West
Sussex.

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the Minis-
terial Reform Bill, as an insult to_ the common
sense of the country ; in favour of vote by ballot ;
for an inquiry into the Newfoundland Fisheries ; from
Mr. Washington Wilks, for a repeal of the paper
duty ; from different Dissenting bodies, for a removal of the
disabilities under which theylabour with regard to endowed
charities ; for an inquiry into the treatment of some Indian
mutineers, &c.
EAST INDIA ARTILLERY, &c.
Sir DE LACY EVANS moved for an address for copies
of correspondence between the late Court of Directors, the
President of the late Board of Control, and the present Secre-
tary of State for India, respecting the artillery forces
in India, from the commencement of the late
mutiny to the present date : Also, address for copy of a
despatch from Lord Canning, dated from Allahabad vin-
dicating his Council in India, in respect to Certain unfa-
vourable comments made on their conduct in this country.
—Agreed to.
THE MINISTERIAL BILL OF REFORM.
Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that, on the motion for
the second reading of the Government bill to amend
the representation, he would move the following reso-
lution :—" That, in the opinion of this house, it is neither
just nor politic to interfere in the way proposed
with the rights exercised by the possessors of the free-
hold franchise, and that no measure will satisfy
this house or the country which does not provide
for a greater extension of the suffrage in counties and
boroughs in England and Wales than was contemplated by
the present measure." (Cheers.)
THE ELECTORS OF EAST RETFORD.
Mr. FOLJAMBE—As it appeared that by Parliamentary
paper, No. 108, of last session, the registered electors
of the borough of East Retford entitled to vote for
the northern division of the county of Nottingham were
only 86 in number, whereas it appeared by the county re-
gister of voters that the number amounted to 1,466, he asked
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an explanation of
this difference, and whether the proposal to disfranchise
the freeholders of the borough in respect of their county
votes extended to the cases in which hundreds were in-
cluded within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he had referred to the registry No. 108, and its contents
were correctly stated by the hon. member. These returns
were made by the county officer, and the Government had
no control over them. With regard: to the second part of
the question, he did not propose to disfranchise county
voters within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs, and he
intended to introduce clauses to effect an identity of suffrage.
between borough and county voters.