The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-03 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, AUGUST 3, 1850.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, August 2.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.

BOROUGH GAOLS BILL.

This Bill was read a second time.
MUSEUMS AND LIBRA.RIES BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
PETITIONS.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition praying for
the enfranchisement of oopyholds.

lIYDff-PARK.

Lord BROUGUA NI understood that it was intended
to pave the road from Hyde-park-corner to Kensington
with huge blocks of granite is the nature of paving-
stones, and he wished to know if it was true or not,
and if a similar operation was to take place in the park
itself, which would render it more safe for waggons to
go upon, but not for persons to ride upon. This was
one of the consequences of the new law that the Attorney-
General was the sole judge of all cases be-
tween the subjects and the Crown, and exercising
judicially a more than judicial power, a power which
no attorney had any right to`assumo ; and the Attorney-
General was, according to Sir Robert Filmer, only the
attorney to the King, and he exercised it by
giving judgment in his chamber in favour of his
client. There was no petty prince in Germany,
Turkey, or Russia, who was more absolute than the
Sovereign of this realm, if the opinion of the Attor-
ney-General was to be taken in opposition
to the opinions of those lawyers who had been engaged
in hundreds more cases than the Attorney or Solicitor-
General. He had never received more heartfelt thanks
than he had from the persons engaged in this case.
There was dead silence in this House and in the other
House when the case was mentioned, which proved the
power there was when the name of Prince was uttered.

The LORD CHANCELLOR had not on a former oc-
casion thought fit to eater on the discussion, because he
thought it was irregular. He did not think it right to
express an opinion so long as the case might come before
the House in another manner. When his Noble Friend
said the other House was silent, he thought his Noble
Friend could not have consulted the ordinary channels
of information, because the Attorney-General had
given an answer which ho considered perfectly
legal and satisfactory, as' he should be prepared to show
when the subject should be brought before their Lord-
ships in a regular manner. As to the quotation of his
Noble Friend from Sir R. Fame:, it merely went to show
that the Attorney-General represented the public as an
attorney represented his client. He represented the pub-
lic, but in a case of this sort did these people
represent the public and complain of public
wrong? They did not. If they were private persons
they could proceed by indictment if they had suf-
fered wrong ; if they came as representatives of tho
public, the Attorney-General was the proper judge. This
park was the property of the Crown, and he took it that
tho Attorney-General had exercised a sound discretion
and wa3 responsible for what he had done. Let his
Noble Friend then bring this before the House in a
regular manner, and he would not fail to prove to
the satisfactionof every impartial man that the Attorney-
General had exercised a sound discretion.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGH Al`ri said it was a common course to
raise questions of this sort on presenting a petition,
and if his Noble Friend hal no better foundation for his
law than for his knowledge of the rules of Parliament
he would fail in proving his case. He had a perfect right
on presenting a petition to open the v. hole case. No one
ever denied that the Attorney-General had the right to
act as he had dune, but.the whole question was as to dis-
cretion, and he repeated that this was not a free country
if the Attorney-General refused access to the courts of
law and 6 (pity.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose to answer the
question about paving. fie contended that his Noble
and Learned Friend had departed from the orders of the
House in entering into a discussion as to the functions
of the Attorney -General on the presentation of a peti-
tion. In answer to the question, he had to state that the
persons who had to erect the build:rig hail undertaken to
pave the way from the gate to the building.
Lord BROUGHAM—Not the road?

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—Not the road.
Lord BIiOUGHAM was very glad to hear it, and
placed the most implicit trust in the statement of his
Noble Friend.

certain sum to support the dignity of tho Crown, and
every particular was stated most minutely. A state-
ment was made of the necessary expenses, and upon
that statement a certain sum was voted. The sum total
was dependent upon the details. If the details altered
in the course of time, might not the sum total alter too.
Why was the whole sum voted? Was it not because it
was composed of the details? The reason why the esti-
mate was made with these details was, that Parliament
might be able to apportion a certain sum. He wanted to
be sure that there was no diminution in the sala-
ries, or in the number of the office-bearers, and that the
same officers were employed, and the salaries given.
That was his object. If there was no check, every one
of these officers might be placed in abeyance. Parlia-
ment had a right to inquire into this subject. He had
made similar motions over and over again in the other
House, with the countenance of Noble Lords who sat
opposite. But a singular change had come over his
Noble Friends. There was now great delicacy enter-
tained with regard to these subjects. That used not to
be so when he led them to the attack in the House of
Commons. When he moves for a statment of the droits
of the Admiralty, did any one suggest that he was doing
an unconstitutional act ? He urged that, session after
session, until at length the Government gave in, and now
it was regularly returned to Parliament.

Lord ICION fEAGLE—That's merely a return of a
branch of the public service.
Lord BROUGHAM said it was not so at the time ho
referred to. It was in consequence of similar perse-
vering motions, that Mr. Pitt consented to give up pri-
vate property of the Crown to the value of 3,000,000/.
That was just after the battle of Trafalgar. Since then
the whole details of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lan-
caster were produced regularly, and he thought there
should be a similar annual return of the expenditure of
the civil list. _ _

Lord MONTEAGLE said that his statements were
supported by the fact. The salaries of the great officers
of State had been the subject of Parliamentary inquiry
and the civil list went to the Crown. Ia the reign of
George the Third and George the Fourth debts of the
Crown amounting to 3,700,0001. were to be paid by
Parliament. They had then upon such applications a
right to inquire into the expenditure of the civil list, but
he thought his Noble and Learned Friend wrong when
he said that because they inquired then they should in-
quire now. He saw no necessity for any such inquiry,
even if it wore a I,gitimate subject for their Lordships
to entertain. _ _

The Marquis of BREADALBANE said that when
the civil list was granted regulations were drawn.up re-
specting the number, the amount of the payment of all
salaries connected with the great officers of state, and no
payments were read; and no alterations could take place
without the counter-signature of the Queen and three
Cabinet Ministers. The Lord Chamberlain had no
power whatever to make any alt.rations. And it should
be also borne in mind by their Lordships that no less a
sum than 12,000 i. per annum, out the civil list reve-
nues, was paid as an income-tax. He should therefore
oppose thy: motion being put.
Lord BROUGH A. ~.1-1),) you mean a vote of censure
on me?—(Cries of " Order, order.")

The motion then dropped.
MERCANTILE MARINE BILL.

Earl GRANVILLE moved the second reading of this
Bill, and expre3sed a hope that no opposition would bo
offi:rel on the present oce.lsion,particularly as persons of
the highest intelligence and respectability bad given
evidence before the C.,romitteo that such a Bill would
have a vary gre•:t infiaence on the morality of naval
officers. Lie th,.iught that nothing could be more effec-
tually beneficial than that captains and mates should be
subject to the super vision of the Board of Trade, Ile did
not wish at that I Ate hour to en:er into the details of the
Bill, but, while he hawed that it would not then be ob-
jected to, he would be pteparel to discuss any objection-
able point in Cotninitt.io.
Elrl WALDEGRAVE said that he would not oppose
tho second reading, though there were some clauses to
him objectionable. _ _ _

EArl COLCHESTER joined in the same sentiment,
and hopLA that tho Bill would be rererrcd to a Select
Committee en Monday, which suggestion was agreed to.
The Bill was then ryal a second time.
The Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill was read a third
time, and passd.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 2.
CRIME AND OUTRAGACTSIRELAND) CON-

TIN UA&C E BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. NA VIER supported the Bill. He was desirous of
legislating in the most equitable spirit towards all parties
in Ireland; and ho hoped that, at all events, a very short
period would elapse before she House of Commons would
honestly and fairly legislate with a view to the settle-
ment of the question of landlord and tenant.—(Hear.)
But when the Right Hon. Baronet (SieeW. Somerville)
came to ask the House for a measure which did not sus-
pend the constitution of Ireland—(Hear, hear)—which
did not seek to interfere with the privileges of any honest
man, which only asked for the continuance for a short
and limited period of powers which, if called into action
at all, would only be called into action in the event of
disaffection and disturbance again arising in Ireland, he
(Hr. Napier) did not feel himself justified in withhold-
ing his support from such a measure. He thought it
was quite right that the House should extend that power
which they sought to thu Government. Iu legislating IT
Ireland, it was their deity to take the country as they
found it. It was their duty to proceed with
temperance and faircess—to look at both sides,
and with a just regard to the circumstances of the
p nor. With regard to the murder of Mr. Mauleverer,
to which the Hon. Gentleman had referred, he had
looked into the circumstances of the case, and had in-
quired into the eroceediugs el that gentleman for many
years back, and he was unable to find one unjust or
cruel act on the part of the victim of that bar-
barous murder. All his proceedings had been marked
with the utmost moderation and temperance. The
Hon. and Learned Getleman then went at some
length into the; case of Mr. Mauleverer and others, in
order to show that there was a deep-seated agrarian
combination among the peasantry against the rights of
property.
Mr. FLUME rose to order. They were at present
called upon to vote on a Bill for the remedy of present
evils, and Hon. Gentlemen were going into circum-
stances which had happened long ago.
Mr. NAPIER defended the course he was taking.
Hon. Members had attacked the landlords, and oppor-
tunity ought to be allowed fur defence. He should give
his cordial support to the present measure, and also to
their Landlord and Tenant Bill, when it came on.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was anxious to address
the House, because the Hoe. Gentleman who seconded
the motion had refused to grant a continuance of these
powers to the Government for a limited time, on
grounds with which he (Lord John Russell) could not
agree. What the Hon. Gentleman in tact said was this—
You have had a law subsisting for some time by which
you have changed the state of society from one of pre-
valent crime and outrage, and of terror on the part of
peaceable inhabitants—from one of murder and assassi-
nation, frequently and repeatedly committed, into one
of peace, order, and tranquillity. Crime has greatlrdimi-
nished ; these outrages have been far less fre-
quent than formerly—the peaceable inhabitants,
whether they be landlords, tenants, or labourers, have
felt greater confidence than they have hitherto done—
the country has consequently had those means of im-
provement which it did not possess when crime and
those
et undeservinghnpadotewdye or
powers.—(Hear.)
outrage were the rules and orders of society; and
c neod w
od
fhe declare
oro
because you have done this, and had powers
entrusted to you by Parliament which we do
not allege you have abused in establishing that
tranquillity,dgtnooirofdaatnnshmtkoo
means
—a e
continuance
thenew at
eirnr.ask.—(Hear.)
GovernmentaritlN
con-
fidence; and therefore wo refuse you such a continuance
un-
worthy of the powers for which you now come forward
that_ar(etuhulatf
att ourrerw)lya
slibyeowtheers
wileorues et rbeefufseirngeretor
amnesanatojsuasytifithcaattisounchopf
o
continued, but at the same time, when the Hon. Gentle-
man described them as subversive of the constitutional
rights of the Irish people as British subjects, he did
mean to contend that that was an erroneous de-
scription of the powers which were given by the
Crimes and Outrages Act.—(Hear, hear.) It was
not an Act giving powers which in 1833 and 1834 were
granted by Parliament to prevent any discussion in
public meetings of any alleged grievances of the Irish
people.—(Hear.) It was not an Act like former insur-
rection Acts, by which even peaceable inhabitants of a
district were prevented going out at nights. It
was not- an Act which at all, as he thought,
affected the legitimate rights of the innocent and peace-
able. On the contrary, it was an Act which gave
power to the Lord-Lieutenant, when a district was
in a state of disturbance, and when offences against
the law were frequently committed in it, to pro-
claim that district, and thereupon certain con-
sequences followed. The Lord-Lieutenant might
place in that district an increased constabulary, which
would be protection and security to the peaceable inha-
bitants of that district, and at the same time orders
might be issued that fire-arms should not be held by
any one except by persons to whom licences
were granted for that purpose ; and those
powers were not granted to local magistrates
or persons at all affected by the local or political pas-
sions of the die:tint, but they were committed to per-
sons named by the Executive Government.—(Hear,
hear.) It was then not a right description of this mea-
sure to say that it was subversive of the constitutional
rights of the people. He was quite ready to admit
that such powers should not be asked unless they were
necessary for the welfare of the people for whom they
were enacted; but he thought enough had been said on
this subject to induce him to observe that the Govern-
ment would not ask for powers for preserving the
public peace if they did not feel confident
that the ordinary law, without such extraordinary powers,
would not enable them to maintain that peace.—(Hear.)
At the very commencement of the present Government it
would be recollected they proposed the continuance of an
Arms Act, which they found existing on the statute-
book, from the month of August until the following May,
so that in the meantime they might consider how it ope-
rated and how it was received. But it was said that the
people of Ireland should have been allowed to
exercise their own discretion on the subject, and
that no arbitrary measure of the kind should '
have been imposed on them without their consent.
What, however, would have been the consequence if the
Government had trot consented to take such powers from
Parliament, and -had left the peace of the county to be
preserved without the interference of any act of
the Government? The open purchase of arms
by persons who pritoured them fir the purpose
ot disturbing the peecelif the country, to make the high-
"Y"' ""fe, eoul.; have het tie industrious farmer
unAsfe and unprotected, and plecod the whole country in I
a state of insecurity.---(Hear, bear.) Ile confessed
he
never felt the weight of responsibility
more than when he had to consider the

propriety of abandoning the continuance of a measure
which had tended in a great degree to abate the state of
disturbance and insecurity which then existed. And if
on that occasion he hid a lesson read to him
as to how he should act in future, it was
that he should not prematurely part altogether
with such powers as were given by the present
Bill. Ho must, however, admit that though he did
not consider that these powers were, as the Honourable
Gentleman the 2alember for the city of Dublin had stated,
subversive of the constitutional rights of the people,
yet he did think they were extraordinary powers,
and ought not to be granted by Parliament fur
any long period, and he confeseed a very fair objec-
tion might be taken to the period for which the continu-
ance of the Bill was originally proposed, but he should
be quite satisfied if the Bill was allowed to continue
from the 31st of December next until the end of
next session, instead of for four years, as previously
intended.—(Hear.) At the lapse of that time Parlia-
ment would again have the question before it, and
would have to consider whether these powers ought
to be continued ; but he would entreat the
House not at present to declare that such
powers were quite unnecessary, and that the Lord-
Lieutenant should be left during the whole of the autumn
without any effectual means of quelling disturbances.
The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale, who
proposed the amendment, referred to the sub-
ject of legislation on the relations between land-
lord and tenant. Now the Government had re-
pentedly endeavoured to introduce a Bill which
might give satisfaction on the subject to the coun-
try. Last year a Bill was referred to a Select Committee,
and that Committee made a report, which was laid on the
table of the House; and in the present session
another Bill was introuced by the Government, founded
mainly on the result of the deliberations of that Com-
mittee, but the subject was one of such extreme difficulty,
and so much opposition was manifested to its provisions,
that the Government were forced to come reluctantly
to the conclusion that, so far from remedying the
evils complained of, it would only aggravate the
discontent and excitement that already existed
on the subject. Then the Honourable Member
for Rochdale was constantly starting objec-
tions, and while he opposed the Bill he asked for
the insertion of other provisions, which he (Lord
John Russell) did not think to be of a nature
that Parliament could sanction. He (Lord J. Russell)
thought that while on the one hand they should give
• every security to the tenant which legislation could
give, it was not right on the other—when the
engagement between the landlord and tenant
is that the tenant should hold his land
for a certain term, such tenant being known to the law
either as a tenant at will or for a term of years—it would
not be right for the Legislature to step in and E ay,
" We will make such a condition between the parties
as will place the right to the property not in the land-
lord but in the tenant."—(Hear, hear.) It would be
cererary to all principles of law and justice that Parlia-
ment should assent to such a principle. He thought that
principle was not only unjust, but contrary to all the rules
and maxims which guided the rights of property.
Under those circumstances the Government were com-
pelled to say they would pause for a time and endea-
vour to see whether such provisions as they had
proposed could not be modified or amended, or whether
other measures could be introduced which would give to
ter aets all the rights they could possibly ask for with-
out interfering with the acknowledged rights of landlords.
—(Hear.) Ho did not think, however, that the absence of
some provision:, of that kind was a reason for refusing
the sanction of the present Bill, though he was free to
Iconfess that the law as it at present stood was in a very
uneatisfactory state. He did not think it advhable to

enter into th-e consideration of other mcazures; such, for
in:Aline.), as that suggested by Mr.'Napier, with regard
to waste lands. Though the Government did abandon
a Bill on that subject, they very much increased
the sums which were advanced by the Exchequcr
fcr the purpose of what was called arterial drainage, and
he thought it of much greater importance that they
should increase the productive powers of land already
cultivated by
.measures of that kind than apply their
re J-_)nrces to entirely waste lands. which could not
yield crops until after the lapse of a considerable period.
hear.) He had no wish, however, to enter into
any disputed question on that or other subjects
at present, but would at once ask the House
to give the Government leave at least to
bring in this Bill. It should be limited to two years,
end he thought it would be imprudent on the part of the
House if it did not concedw these powers for the preser-
vation of the peace of Ireland, to which it was deemed
on all bands the Acts of Parliament and the conduct of
tho Administration had tended.—(Cheers.)
_ _

Mr. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL said that the cir-
cumstances under which this Bill had been origin ally
introduced were very different from the present state of
Ireland, when everywhere there was tranquillity and obe-
dience to the law. He hoped that no time would be lost
in settling this question, for they might rest assured that,
if they did not, it would speedily settle itself.
Mr. BRIGHT said that he had intended to
havo entered into the case of Mr. Mauleverer,
in defence of the coroner, had he supposed that
the Honourable Gentleman the Member for the Uni-
versity of Dublin would have brought, it forward.
With respect to the Bill itself he thought that no case
had been made out for it. The cessation of crime and
outrage in Ireland he attributed to other causes than the
;existence of this Act, and he certainly should vote against
its continuance.

Mr, NAPIER explained, stating that he had not gone
so fully into the case as he might have done.
Mr. MOORE moved the adjournment of tho debate.
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that course would not be
pursued, hut that the House would allow the Bill to be
iutroduced, and reserve any further discussion till the
scud reading.
Mr. C. ANSTEY complained that the rules of the
House had been violated by the introduction of this
qucAi3n without notice, and he should therefore oppose
the progress of the measure, and vote for the adjourn-
ment.

Sir G. GREY observed that, the former Bill baying
been withdrawn, no notice for its re-introduction was
necessary.
Mr. SCULLY said some returns bad been laid upon
the table within the last few days connected with the
state cf crime and outrage in Ireland, and the debate
ought to be adjourned till the House had had an oppor-
tunity of looking into them and seeing if there really was
any necessity for the Bill.

Mr. M'CULLAGH thought the statements of the Hon.
Member for the University of Dublin were calculated 0
create so much misapprehension, both in Ireland as
well as in this House, that he could not allow the Bill
to be introduced till he had attempted to confute it.
Mr. HUME called upon the Government to consent
to the adjournment. The Bill praposed to suspend to a
certain extent the constitution in Ireland, and it ought
not to be hurried through.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment ... 29
Against it ... ... 89
Majority ... —6O

Oa our retain to the gallery we found
Mr. HUMS still urging upon Government the pro-
priety of adjourning the debate. He would not vote for
the Bill tilt he had heard further reasons for it.

Mr. BRIGHT complained that Irish measures were
being hurried through in a most unseemly manner, and
he protested against this mode of proceeding.
Lord J. RUSSELL proposed to adjourn the question
till after the other orders of the day, but be would pro-
mise not to bring it forward after 11 o'clock that night.
Lord CLAUI) HAMILTON looked upon the Bill
as a measure of protection for the peaceful and orderly
portion of the people of Ireland, and ha fur one hoped it
would be pressed forward with as much rapidity as pos-
sible. He hoped Government would not listen to the
opposition of the mock friends of the poor, to be found
amongst some of the Irish Members who misrepresented
their constituencies.

Mr. REYNOLDS denied that those who opposed this
Bill were the mock friends of the poor.
Mr. BROTHERTON protested against the continu-
ance of this discussion, which had no connexion with the
Bill they had been debating. It was wasting the time
of the House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. A. STAFFORD pressed the House to accept the
proposal of the Noble Lord, and adjourn the debate at
once.

After a few words from Mr. C. ANSTEY, who moved
the adjournment of the House, to enable him to speak
again, the debats was adjourned till• after the other
orders of the day.
The House then adjourned, at halflaet three, to half-
past five o'clock.

The House resumed at Half-past Five.
PETITIONS.
Mr. HUTCHINS presented a petition from coal-
miners in Forfarshire against the Coal-Mines Inspec-
tion Bill.

111 Ir. REYNOLDS presented a petition from the Lord
Mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Dublin, praying
that the House would not pass into law a Bill for the
amendment of the Municipal Corporations of Ireland,
and that if the Bill should pass into a law that the
House would insert ts,elause to relieve the ratopayers
from the payment of more than one moiety of the paving
and lighting rates.
Mr. ELLICE presented a petition from the trustees
of the Coventry Savings' Bank against the Savings'
Banks Bill.
MOTIONS FOR RETURNS.
Mr. BOUVERIE laid on the table of the House a
huge bundle of papers in the shape of returns relative
as we understood, to turnpike trusts in Scotland, which
had been moved for by one of the Members for Glasgow.
He said they afforded a striking exemplification of the
inconvenience and expense resulting from Hon. Members
moving for such returns. In this instance it had taken
the clerks in a public department two yearS to compile
these returns.

Mr. ROEBUCK hoped the House would have some
protection in future against the recurrence of such a
circumstance by the appointment of a Committee or
otherwise.

Mr. DISRAELI thought the House should pause be-
fore it came to any decision which would restrict the
facility of obtaining returns. No doubt there were con-
siderable abuses, but there would be considerably more
if it had not been for many regulations, for which they
were indebted to the Hon. Member for Montrose, and
there would be still more if any serious restriction were
sahnodrt cmonrv. ercsaotbidonen, intowohkichpalSrltr: Lieu in
subjectM r.
placed upon the ordering of returns.
T hAo rfneerlya,
dropped. _

COUNTY COURTS BILL.
Mr. GREENE appeared at the bar, and announced
tin:, in compliance with the request of this House,
thvir Lordships had agreed to a coniennne on the
but,j,?ct of the County Courts Bill, which they had ap-
pointed to take place immediately in the Royal Gal-
lery. The son. Gantleman tied seTeral other Membere
then left the Souse.

On their return, Mr. GREENE, as manager, announced
the result of the conference, which was ordered to lie
upon the table.

SMITHFIELD.
In reply to Mr. HEATHCOTE,
Sir G..GREY said that he had stated on a former (w-
-ee, Yion the ''eneral recommendation contained in the re-
port of the Commissioners for the removalof Smithfield-
market, in which recommendation the Government con-
curred. A copy of that report had been sent by the
Government to the City Remembruncer on the 24th of
June, with a communication calling the attention of the
corporation to the recommendation and to the present
state of the market, and desiring to know whether the
corporation of London was willing to undertake the con-
struction of a new market. On that day (yesterday)
he had received an answer from the City Remembrancer
to that communication, which ho would read with the
permission of the House. It was dated July 31, and
was as follows:
" Guildhall, July 31.
" Sir,—ln answer to your letter of the 24th of June, I
am directed by the Markets Improvement Committee of
the corporation of London, in pursuance of an order of
the Court of Common Council of the 23d of July, to
state teat your letter, and the reports accompany-
ing it, have been fully and maturely considered;
and the notice of the corporation having been
drawn by your letter to the recommendation of
five of the Commissioners for the discontinuance
of the present market at Smithfield, and the establish-
ment of a new market for the sale of cattle without the
City, the corporation are advised to protest against the
commission being used for the purpose of affecting the
rights prescriptive, chartered, and parliamentarily and
judicially confirmed to the corporation of London, and
cannot concur in the proposed removal of the market
from the place where it has been held by the citizens of
London from time immemorial, under the common law
and their charters, which prohibit the establishment of
any other market within seven miles of the City, and
which charters have been confirmed by Parliament, and
lately supported by the judgment of the House of Lords,
assisted by the judges. The corporation of London,
therefore, feel themselves called upon to maintain those
charters for the sake of the public and of their fellow-
citizens, and rely with confidence that no such Bill as
that referred to in your letter will be proposed to Par-
liament. The corporation having recently prepared a
comprehensive plan and model for the purpose of meet-
ing tee suggestions pointed out by the reports of the
several Select Committees of the House of Commons,
and proposed means for effecting it, they cannot under-
take the task of constructing a new market without the
limits of the City, for which no site, nor plan, nor esti-
mate is suggested; whilst the plan proposed by the cor-
poration is ready when sanctioned by Parliament for im•
mediate execution.

" I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
" E. TYRRELL, City Rtmemurancei.

" George Cornewall Lewis, Esq."
Ho received the letter that day, and be could only say
tbattha Government still concurred in the re2ommenda-
tion for the removal of the market.
Mr. STAFFORD —Has tho Right lion. Gentleman
any objection to lay that paper on the table of the
House?

Sir G. GREY—None.
Mr. STAFFORD—Does the Government mean to
bring in a Bill this session to authorise the removal of
Smithfield-market?

Sir G. GREY—Not this SCESion.
COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION.
Mr. HENLEY asked whether Sir J. K. Shuttle worth
heft' any office at present under the Committee of
Privy Council for Education, and if not, whether any
person was appointed to fill the office lately held by
hia3?
Sir G. GREY said that by an order in Council, dated
January last, Mr. Lingon was appointed to succeed Sir
J. Shuttleworth, who had retired from the office he
htld under the Privy Council, and now held no office
whatever under it.
SALE OF POISONS.

Mr. STAFFORD drew the attention of the Govern-
ment to the subject of the frequent occurrence of murder
by means of poison, and asked when a Bill would be
brought in to restrain the sale of poisons?
Sir G. GREY said there was considerable difficulty
in tramino• a schedule of poisons to be referred to in any
Act of theh kind, and it was not the intention of the Go-
vernment to lay a Bill on the subject on tho table this
session.