The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-11 00:00:00

IMPECtIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July ln.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'Clock.
COLONIAL POSTAGE BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up and the Bill
ordered to be engrossed.
The Assessed Taxes Compensation Bill was reported.
The Three-and-a-Half per Ceuts. Exemption Bill was
recd a third time and passed.
The Vagrants' Removal Bill was also read a third time
and passed.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES REGISTRATION
AND REGULATION BILL.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved that the house do resolve
itself into Committee on this Bill. .

The SPEAKER having left the Chair the House re-
solved itself into Committee.

On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. GLAI)STONE, in answer to a question from

Mr. Hawes, said it was intended to propose a clause on
the bringing up the report, to extend the.operation of the
Bill to Ireland. The reason the Bill would not be ex-
tended to Scotland would be explained by the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate.

The LORD ADVOCATE said that to extend the
operation of the Bill to Scotland would create consider-
able confusion, and it was, therefore, intended to intro-
duce a separate Bill on the subject to apply to Scotland.
Mr. HAWES complained of this Bill being extended
to Ireland without notice, and without any Irish Mem-

ber hating been on the Committee.
Mr. GLADSTONE said an Irish Member had been
added to the Committee. _ .

.....
Mr. S. CRAWFORD wished to know why this law
,was to be applicable to Ireland and not to Scotland ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there were diffi-
culties in connexion with the law with regard to Scot-
land which did not exist with regard to Ireland.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said he was not prepared to say
that this Bill should not be extended to Ireland, but he
_ _

did think before it was so 'extended notice should be

given, So that parties interested might have an opportu-
nity of becoming acquainted with its provisions, and of
ascertaining how it was likely to work.
Mr. GLAI)STONE said the Hon. Member for Roch-

dale was quite right in the view he had taken. The fact
was, the Bill did not yet apply to Ireland, but only to all
companies having establishments in England. He in-
tended-to raise the question of applying the Bill to Ire-
land, by putting a notice on the Order-book to that
effect, when the question could be fairly discussed, and
the House would be in a position to come to a fair and
dispassionate judgment on the question.
Mr. HAWES said he thought the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman was, of course unintentionally, somewhat mis-
leading the House. The fact was, the Bill did extend to
Ireland practically. The word Ireland, it was true, was
not specifically mentioned in the Act, but it applied to
all Irish companies having branches and establishments
in England, and therefore it could not be said not to apply
to Ireland.

Mr. Y. HODGSON moved as an amendment, that the
words " railway companies" be inserted after the words
" banking companies.
Mr. GLADSTONE said it was his intention to pro-
pose that all joint-stock companies for the construction
of public works should be subject to this Act as well as
railways. They should be all subject to a general system
of registration, which was rendered necessary by the
circumstance, that frequently the public were misled by
seeing the names of noblemen and Members of Parlia-
ment in the list of provisional committees in those specu-
lations. The object of the registration was not to en-
able the companies to proceed with their works without
having an Act of Parliament. He did not think it ad-
visable that they should be allowed to do so, as it would
prejudice Parliament in favour of their Bills when they
came before the Legislature. Publicity of the condition
of a company for the construction of public works from
its commencement, and the security of the public, were
his chief objects. The fees for registration were to be
applied to defray the expenses of a general office of re-
gistration, 'and in no company for public works should
the shares be transferable until the company had ob-
tained a certificate of complete registration.
Mr. HODGSON said he would withdraw his amend-
ment, and wait to see the state in which the Bill would
come out of Committee.
Mr: GILL suggested that this clause should le
postponed.
After a short discussion, however, the clause as
amended was agreed to.
Clause 3 was agreed to.
Clause 4, which relates to provisional registration,
was then proposed.
Mr. PARKER said this clause appeared to him very
badly arranged. Why, under it parties might be sub•
jected to a charge of conspiracy.
Mr. GILL was of opinion it never could be carried
out. It was altogether of a most incomprehensible chartist •
ter. Take every means possible to prevent the formation
of dishonest companies, but let them not so legislate that
people would be afraid of forming any companies what-
ever.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was not afraid there
would be any indictments for conspiracy under this Bill.
Parties having the wish to form a company, and having
a bona fide intention with respect to it, would find no
difficulty in the matter. The very regulation herein
enjoined, would be the best security they could desire
for their own property and interests.
Several verbal amendments were proposed and agreed
to, and the clause thus altered was ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 5, relating to fines and penalties was, after
some slight modifications, agreed to.
It being now three o'clock,
Sir W. CLAY suggested that the Chairman should
report progress, in order that the Bill might be re-
printed. It would be impossible to proceed with the
clauses of the Bill in its present state.
clauThsese
pro forma,
atnhdenthweenntillthwr oa us g
ohr
dtehree
dr et main in o
bereg.
committed on Friday next.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES REMEDIES AT

LAW AND IN EQUITY BILL

The. House then resolved itself into Committee on
this Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL; in reply to a ques-
tion from Mr. Hawes, said that the object of this Bill
was to apply the law of bankruptcy to Joint-Stock
Companies.
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
On clause 3 being read,
Mr. GILL moved the insertion of the words " excep
railway and canal companies."
Mr. GLADSTONE could not see on what ground the
Hon. Member selected two particular classes for exemp-
tion from the operation of the Bill, and must decidedly
oppose the amendment.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause was
agreed to.
The other clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, and
the report was ordered to be brought up on Thursday
week, when it is understood that several modifications
promised by the Government are to be introduced.
On the motion of Mr. LOCKHART the Monkland
Railway Bill was re-committed.
Mr. HAYTER presented a petition from an individual
in Dublin against a clause in the Dublin and Cashel
Railway Bill. The petitioner was entitled to 6d. in the
pound on all money paid into the Court of Chancery in
Ireland, and this clause deprived him of that sum.
Mr. SHEIL—He was made usher of the court when
he was six months old.—(Great laughter.)—The petition
was then brought up.
Mr. T. DUNCONIBE presented a petition from the
nailmakers of Dudley and the neighbourhood, against
the truck sytem. The petitioners stated that they got
five shillings a week wages, and this sum they were com-
pelled to lay out with their masters.
Mr. WATSON presented a petition from Clitheroe
against the Mortmam Acts.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. HUME—I beg leave to give notice, Sir, in con-
sequence of that ungentlemanly act last night—(Great
laughter)---of counting out the House—
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman will please to
withdraw that expression.
Mr. HUME —Well, Sir, unhandsome act -then.—
(Laughter.) So long as we were talking about dogs
the House was not counted, but when I came to
talk about men it was counted directly. I shall bring
forward my motion on going into Committee of Supply.
Mr. WODEHOUSE gave notice that to-morrow he
should put a question to the Secretary of State for the
Home Department relative to incendiary fires in Norfolk.
STATE OF THE NAVY.
Sir C. NAPIER rose to put a question to the Gallant
Officer opposite (Sir G. Cockburn), and he was extremely
sorry that the First Lord of the Treasury was not in his
place while he did so. During the tenure of office by the
late Government, the ships of the navy were inefficiently
manned, and they were frequently complained of
by the present Government as well as by himself
and brother officers. The presont Board of Admi-
ralty, however, on coming into office, very pro-
perly improved the
_state of the
,navy with respect
to the manning of the ships, excepting with re-
spect to the guard ships which at present had only third-
rate crews. The question he had to ask was, whether it
was true that the Albion had sailed with a reduced
crew, and that the Caledonia and St. Vincent had em-
barked 150 supernumerary marines instead of the same
number of seamen. The Albion was an 84 gun ship,
and he understood that she had sailed with 750 men, the
full complement being 850 men.
Sir G. COCKBURN, who spoke in so low a tone of
voice as to be scarcely audible, was understood to say
that the Albion had sailed with her full complement of
men, which was 750. Three-decked vessels of the second
class had 850 men, but the third class only carried 750
men, and that was: the full complement for the Albion.
With regard to the other question, the Hon. and Gallant
Officer was right. The complement for the guard-ships
was 620 men each, but an occasion had arisen in which
it was desirable that one of these ships should go out
as quickly as possible, and it was arranged that she
should take 750 seamen, and also 120 marines.
The vessel alluded to was quite suited for the great ob-
ject for which she was sent out. She was quite equal
to take her own part either with friend or foe. He was
delighted to be able to state to the House and-the
country, that his orders for this vessel to sail arrived at
Plymouth between one and two o'clock in the day, and
the ship was on her course at an early hour the next
morning.—(Cheers.)
Sir C. NAPIER—Then, am I to understand that, in
future, our ships are not to be manned by seamen, but
by marines ?
Sir G. COCKBURN—Certainly not ; but, in a case
of emergency like this, where the supposition might
arise in some people's minds that the lives of British
subjects in Morocco might be in danger, he (Sir G.
Cockburn) was glad to be able to do that in a moment
which, if done otherwise, might have caused great delay
in the sailing of the ship.--,(Hear, hear.)
THE STATE TRIALS. .
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he had a question to put
in reference to the proceedings which had recently taken

place in the House of Lords. The arguments upon the
writ of error having closed, it was said that the Judges
had left, or wer: about immediately to leave town. The

question he had to put was, whether the Government
had made any .arrangement, in order that judgment
might be given in this case during the present session ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he really could

not see what Government had to do at all with making

any arrangement upon the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
There had been an argument of six days aidressed to
the House of Lords on the writs of error; and on which

argument, by the way, the counsel for the plaintiffs in
error occupied no less than five days, and counsel
for the Crown only one.—(Hear.) As to the impression
made upon the minds of the judges who were to decide
upon the case, he (the Solicitor-General) could of course
say nothing ; and he knew just about as much as to the
time when the final decision of that high tribunal would
be delivered.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of her Maje Sty's Government if
there was any expectation of a report from the Irish
Land Commission during the present session, and if so
whether the House might look for any legislative mea-
sure founded upon it in the course of the next session of
Parliament.

Sir R. PEEL said he believed the Commissioners had
determined not to make any partial report. Whenever
they (lid report he (Sir R. Peel) should be prepared,
without loss of time, to make t heir statements and.opmions
the foundation for such legislative measures as might

suggest themselves.
Mr. PETER BORTHWICK complained of the prac-
tice of counting out the House when measures of im-
portance were to be brought forward.—(A laugh.) He
himself had ha .I measures of great importance—(A
laugh)—and when he was about to bring them forward
the House was counted out.

Mr. CRIPYST-sUidiVai.ihe Hon. Member for Mont-
rose (Mr. Hume) was counted out last night at the wish
of the flon. Member for Evesham himself.
Mr. BORTIIWICK emphatically denied that he had
ever been a party to " counting out."
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY wished to ask whether the
Bill ought to be read before counting out ?
The Speaker's answer was not heard in the laughter
which the question occasioned.
Mr. HUME said that he did not complain of the

conduct of the other side of the House; for he thought
that he was deserted by his own side—(Cheers and
laughter)—when a Bill to repress the stealing of dogs
was before the House there was no danger of a count-
ont, but when a question of importance to the public
was to come on the strongest party could count out.
After some further conversation, the House proceeded
to the other orders of the day.

FIELD GARDENS BILL.
Mr. COWPER moved the second reading of this Bill.
This Bill would confer great benefit on the poor man,
and he therefore confidentltrecommended it to the House.
He proposed that in all future Inclosure Acts a portion
of the land should be reserved for the purposes of this
Act. The land, however, was not to be given to the
cultivators absolutely, but only the occupation of it, and
that upon lease. He trusted that the Right Hon. Gen •
tleman at the head of the Home Department (Sir
James Graham), would not feel it his duty to op-
pose himself to the Bill, for, if it was not permitted
to proceed, there could be no legislation upon the
subject during the present session. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had sufficient to do in his own department,
or he might invite him to take charge of the present
Bill. But it was the last " straw " that broke the
camel's back, and that Right Hon. Gentleman's avo-
cations were already sufficiently onerous; and indeed he
doubted if it would be in his power to carry through
Parliament the many Bills already under his care. He
. .

(Mr. Cowper) should therefore strongly urge this Bill
upon the consideration of the House, more especially
as it was one so much calculated to benefit the moral
and physical condition of the people.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD seconded the motion
and gave his most hearty approval to the Bill. Wher-
ever the allotment system had been tried, the production
of the land had been increased and the
condition of the labourers had been improved.
It was quite plain to any one who looked at the state of
England that it was not half cultivated, and if spade
husbandry were introduced it would afford increased
employment, and give increased produce. None of the
common lands of England should be inclosed except
such as were indispensably necessary. He conceived
that it was not desirable to give less to the working man
than an acre, but yet would accept of less, so that it
might support him when he had not a sufficiency of em-
ployment ; but when he had not, he did not think less
than an acre would be enough to keep him in compara-
tive comfort.

Mr. FERRAND expressed his sincere gratitude to the
Hon. Member for bringing forward this Bill, and' hoped
the Government would allow it to become the law of the
land. The allotment system answered remarkably well
in his (Mr. Ferrand's) district. The Right Hon. Baronet,
the First Lord of the Treasury, hitherto recommended
the allotment system in the agricultural districts, and
there Vf as no reason to think it would not answer equally
well in the manufacturing districts.
Mr. ESCOTT supported the motion. The allotment
system, which worked such benefits, was purely volun-
luntary, and he did not approve of the principle ex-
pressed by the Hon. Gentleman, of fixing the rent for
land. He would wish to see whether a great deal of
benefit might not be done without any legislative inter-
ference between landlord and tenant.

Mr. HUME said he thought the allotment system,

though established by law, could be only carried out by the
zeal of the local proprietors. He doubted the propriety
of the Bill. The situation of the humbler classes in this
country was distressing in the extreme, and worse than
that of any of the kingdoms on the Continent ; but he
thought some more searching and efficient remedy
absolutely necessary.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM would not oppose the second
reading of the Bill. He thought the allotment system
generally good, but believed its success entirely de-
pended on the zeal of local proprietors. He felt sur-
prised that the Hon. Member for Rochdale recommended
in very strong terms spade husbandry and
small farms, but he (Sir James Graham) thought
they were, in many cases, the causes of distress. The
real benefit of the allotment system was to give the poor
labourer enough to engage that time which would be
otherwise unemployed. He was afraid that the machi-
nery of the Bill would require great alteration in many
of its most essential details, but would not, however, at
present, enter into any very critical examination. He
wtelletl-disposed
sm all qua
ma notni tgi e
tshoef
albaonudr too-
then
thought it one of the first duties of proprietors of land
l
Mr. CHILDERS, as a member of the Committee,
classes.
Mr. and
would express his concurrence in the provisions of
the Bill

Lord WORSLEY advocated the system of allotments,
inasmuch as it would afford assistance, though not the
entire means of livelihood to the poor man. It was advan-
tageous to the poor man to be able to grow his own
vegetables, but he would not at all recommend the
system of apportioning waste lands out to the poor as
gardens, for they would not be to them worth the ex-
pense of cultivation. He would give the poor man a
garden besides his cottage—not a larger piece of land
at a distance from it. Having expressed this opinion he
would support the second reading.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Wednesday next.
COURT OE. ARCHES BILL.

The second reading of the Court of Arches Bill was
moved.
Mr. H. ELPHINSTONE opposed it as a very bad
thing—worse than any Bill he had ever known introduced.
Mr. R. YORKE 'protested against the framing, of the
Bill, and if it were persevered in, it wonld be his duty
to oppose it. The ecclesiastical law could be reformed
only by abolishing it.—(A laugh.)
After a few words from Mr. EscoTT and Mr. HUME,
Sir J..GRAIIAM said, that as this was an adjourned
debate, and he had already spoken upon it, he would
not now occupy the House by replying to the arguments
on the other side.—(Cheers and laughter.)
The House then divided, when the numbers were--
For the motion
Against it' 3O
• Majority... —l3
GAMBLING ON RACE-COURSES.
Mr. CHRISTIE-moved that Charles Henry Russell
should be heard at the bar by counsel against the Ac-
tions for Gaming Discontinuance Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER asked
whether the petitioner Russell was or was not a party to
the actions now pending?
Mr. CHRISTIE said that he believed the petitioner
was a party to the actions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion, on the ground that the Hon. Gentleman
who proposed it was able to state whether the petitioner
Was or was not interested in the result.
Mr. CHRISTIE said that the petitioner was interested.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE supported the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON said that, in the case of
Wright, there could be no doubt about the land; it was
quite different in the present case. The plaintiff in this
case was only put forward as the screen of other persons.
Mr. M. GIBSON moved that the solicitor for the pe-
titioner, who was in attendance, should be called in and
examined at the bar as to the intent of Mr. Russell in
the action.
The SPEAKER said that the motion could not be put.
After a short discussion the House divided. The
numbers were—
Ayes
Noes
Majority against Mr. Christie's motion 16
Mr. CHRISTIE then moved that the House should
resolve itself into a Committe upon the Bill that day
three months. He would offer every opposition to the
Bill in his power.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied
that the course which he had taken was unfair. He
thought that the Hon. Member ought to have satisfied
himself that the allegations of the petition were true
before he presented them to the House.
Lord PALMERSTON thought that there was no
occasion for warmth of temper upon either side in this
case. As for himself, he had not pledged himself to
vote for the Bill or against it. He certainly thought
that it would be a bad precedent to call- the petitioner to
the bar.
Mr. M. GIBSON thought that the Government had
taken a timid and hesitating part in respect to this Bill.
They had supported the Bill indirectly, but had waited
to see how the wind would blow. lie should be glad to
see all penalties for betting or private gambling done
away with, but he wished the whole general subject to
be brought before the House and discussed, and not -one
portion of that which chiefly affected the Parliamentary
friends of the Government in that House.
Lord STANLEY utterly denied that the Government
had anything- to do with this _measure, or took any in-
, terest in it whatever. What their individual opinions
might be he knew not, but as a Government they had

~.. 14
... 30

nothing whatever to do with the matter either one way
or the other. The plaintiff then before the House was
only the nominal plaintiff; put forward to screen the real
one, who was a man of straw. The Hon. Member for
Weymouth ought to have satisfied himself he knew all
the facts and merits of the case before he had come be-
fore the house to advocate such a cause. Admitting,
however, that the man Russell was the real plaintiff, tke
precedents for hearing him by counsel having been
looked into that day, they were found to be against him,
and on that ground alone did he (Lord S.), not as a
Member of the Government, but as a private individual,
oppose the application now made.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said it appeared to him that
the Government had taken a most indecisive part on this
question, and such conduct he could not approve. The
question was whether qui tam actions were useful or not
—whether the law should remain as it is, or be altered—
and therefore it was not very creditable in the Govern-
ment to declare, through the Noble Lord (Stanley), that
they cared nothing about the matter. However, he quite
agreed with the Hon. Member for Manchester, that
if these actions had been brought against poor instead of
against rich parties, the House would never have been
troubled upon the subject. Still he was willing to allow
the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that next
session the Government would shake off their indecision,
and bring the whole subject before the House, with a
view to an amendment of the law, and an adaptation of
it to the present wants and usages of the country.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had been applied to by the
Noble Lord, the Chairman of the Gaming Committee, to
know what the Government intended to do in

reference to the subject on which that Committee
had just published its report. He had an-
swered
that the report was of a most able
and useful character, but at that late period of the ses-
sion it was impossible for the Government to apply its
attention to the subject. It would, however, he added,
be its duty to give its best attention hereafter to the re-
port and the evidence of the Committee, with a view to
legislate upon the subject during the next session of
Parliament. On that the Noble Lord asked him to
bring in a Bill to extend the Act lately passed until the
next session ; but he (Sir J. Graham) suggested that, as
Chairman of the Committee, be (Lord Palmerston) was
the most proper person to introduce it. He had intro-
duced it ; and he (Sir J. Graham) in his private capa-
city, and not as a member of the Government, felt it his
duty to support the Noble Lord. And in the coming
session he had no hesitation in saying it would be the
duty of the Government to consider the whole subject,
with a view to the Parliament legislating upon it.
Captain BERKELEY said he would rather a son of
his went to the common hazard table than take up the
art of book-making, and all the—he had almost said
dirty—practices connected with it. For his part, he
would never give a vote in that House to screen a gam-
bler, just because he happened to be a rich man, or to
.

more in what was called the higher circles of society.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said the hearing of counsel
was opposed on the ground that the petitioner was not
the real plaintiff in the case, and had therefore no claim
on the sympathy of the House, as he could not prove
that any injury was likely to accrue to him from any

legislation thai was about to take place.
Colonel PEEL said, in reference to what had fallen
from a Learned Judge on a late occasion, as to gentlemen
associating with a certain class of persons, he would
take that opportunity of stating that he had never asso-
ciated with those parties. Till the day of that trial,
when he met the plaintiff and others in court, he had
never set eyes upon them to know them by name. And
as to their horses, he could no more hinder a person
running his horse at a race, than he could hinder the
Learned Judge from walking over the course.—(Hear,
hear.) But the fact was, the vexation of these people so
alluded to (with his Noble Friend beneath him espe-
cially) was, that they would not associate with them all.—
(Cheers.) That was the real sore, and it was right it
should be known.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said it had been charged upon him
that 'as a member of the Gaming Committee he had put
questions to the witnesses with a view of exposing
parties to the penalties of the law. This he strongly de-
nied. He had put questions solely with a view of getting
at the truth, and to do this, he would at any time give
every hour and every moment of his time.—(oh, oh.)
Yes, he would, though, to do his duty as a Member of
that House.—(Hear, hear.) He denied that he had been
guilty of any unfairness whatever, and he thought Hon.
Gentlemen who were members of that Committee,
would bear him out in stating that he had not in any
way exceeded his duty.—(Hear.)
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said he did not con
sider the conduct of the Hon. Member for Manchester,
on the Committee, to have been altogether dictated by a
spirit of fairness ; but, before alluding further to this
topic now, he must allude to another subject, about which
there seemed to be some doubt. A person had been
sued for 12,0001. for bets which he had made, amounting
to 23,0001., on a horse named Gaper, his (Lord George
Bentinck's) property, and it was, therefore, supposed
that he (Lord George Bentinck) had some interest in
the result of that action, whereas, in truth, he was in no
wise interested.—(Hear.) He must now say that he did
think the questions put by the Hon. Member for Man-
chester on the Committee, had a tendency to support the
claim of the individual who pressed this most iniquitous
qui tang action—the Hon. Member asked one witness
distinctly if he did not know something about 3,0001.
lost on a bet in the late Derby race.—(Hear, hear.) He
would further say that, had not the reverse been so
positively stated by an Hon. Member in that House, he
(Lord George Bentinck) would have firmly believed
that the object of these queries was to direct the
prosecution. However, the public would judge
whether the inquiries of the lion. Gentleman
were not intended to prejudice the defendants.
He would not notice the observations of the
Hon. Member for Weymouth with respect to what
passed in the Court of Exchequer, but he would say
that he was willing that his conduct should stand the
test of a public.scrutiny, which he knew he would come
out of blameless. It had been urged that this was a
piece of class legislation. In answer to that, he begged
leave to state, that if these qui tam actions did not
affect persons of high rank and station, there never
would have been a single objection to the present pro-
ceedings.—(Hear, hear.) If they looked back but for a
comparatively short period to the history of Parlia-
mentary proceedings, they would find there were
no less than twenty-three precedents, all relating
to persons of humble condition, in which these qui tam
actions had been suspended or discontinued by legis-
lative interference. He had assisted himself on behalf
of the printers and publishers of newspapers, stage-
players, and coal-whippers. Hon. Members opposite
did not object to The suspension or discontinuance of
these actions, although they now raised their voices so
high in the present instance, when actions had been
brought by persons of the very worst description.—
(Hear.) He charged the Hon. Member for Manchester
with associating with a person who had robbed his own
uncles " hell"---(Laughter)—which he thought -
suf-
ficiently discreditable.
Mr. M. GIBSON—I deny it.
Lord G. BENTINCK—Yes, you deny it; but evidence
will be shortly taken, which will show that this person
constantly frequented the house of the Hon. Member, in
Wilton-crescent.

Mr. M. GIBSON—It is not the case.
Lord G. BENTINCK—WeII, we shall see. The
Noble Lord, in a warm manner, and in severe language,
descanted upon the characters of persons not Members
of the House, and concluded by saying that an attempt
had been made to induce him to come to a compromise,
which he had indignantly rejected.
Mr. HUME denied in the strongest manner that his
Hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) had done anything that
was not warranted by the strictest propriety. He did
not think the attack of the. Noble Lord on his lion.
Friend was just or. becoming ; and with respect to the
informer, about whom so much had been said, he (Mr.
Hume) would have no hesitation in declaring that, for
anything he knew to the contrary, he would as soon
believe him as the Noble Lord.—(Laughter.) Before the
Noble Lord made such charges on his Hon. Friend he
should have looked nearer home. His Hon Friend had stated
his opinions temperately and firmly, and just as he (Mr.
Hume) would have done had he been placed in the same
position ; and it was rather too bad that for so doing
he should be so foully attacked. The Hon. Member had
done his, best to elicit the truth—no easy matter—and it
did appear to him incomprehensible how Hon. Members
could cheer the Noble Lord in his attack upon the Hon.
Member for Manchester, who had only done his duty.—
(Cries of " Hear.") He understood the meaning of that
cry and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cheer, who
understood nothing whatever about the subject.—
(Laughter.) He must say that he had never heard so
much disclosed in that House about what passed in a
Committee up stairs, nor did he think it proper or de-
corous for Hon. Members to accuse one another of their
conduct in a Committee up stairs.—(Hear, hear.) The
scene which had just taken place, as well as some others
of a similar character that occurred not long since, were
not calculated to elevate the character of that House in
the opinion of the people—(Hear, hear)—and ought to
be avoided as much as possible. He believed the pre-
sent Bill entirely resulted from class legislation, and
should therefore oppose it to the utmost of his ability.
Mr. ESCOTT defended the conduct of the Hon.
Member for Manchester (Mr. M.
Gibson), which he
thought had been marked by extreme fairness on that
Committee of which he (Mr. Escott) was a Member.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon Member was fair and impartial
throughout the whole inquiry, and his queries very much
assisted the Committee in arriving at the truth, and
coming to just conclusions.7..(Hear.)
Mr. HAYTER, as a member of. the Committee, like-
wise defended the conduct of the Hon. Member for
Manchester.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said it was perfect nonsense to
say the Bill was not the result of class legislation. He
thought the individual who felt himaelf aggrieved ought
s
to be heard by :counsel at the bar of the House, as lie
-believed that injury had been unjustly inflicted on him.
He would, however, as they had gone so far, vote fur
apparently labouring under
considerable excitement, and said that some, very strong
and unwarrantable expressions had been cast upon him
by the Noble Lord.—(Cries " Order," " Chair.")
The SPEAKER said the Noble Lord had retracted
goSinigr into Committee
s on
rose, thee, Bill.
the offensive expressions.
Sir. D. J. NoRREYS—Sir, I consider I have been
most unjustfiably assailed.—(Order.) However, if—
The SPEAKER--I understood the Noble Lord to
have retracted those offensive words.--(Hear, hear.)
After the Noble Lord made that complete retractation the
House will consider the words not to have been spoken.
Sir DENHAM NORREYS—Then, Sir, I shall not
advert further to the expressions of the Noble Lord
than to say—(Order.)
The SPEAKER again interposed, upon which
Sir D. NORREYS, after in some measure expressing
his satisfaction at the retractation, said, if the Noble
Lord promised not to take advantage of the provisions of
the Bill he would not further oppose it.
Captain pEolgldi deprecated the language which

had been used by the Noble Lord. He would oppose the
Bill.

The trou<e then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee 45
Against it
Majority .,
..
_ _

On entering the gallery we found
Mr. CHRISTIE expressing his regret for having ex-
pressed himself in so hasty a manner. lie was in nowise
inclined to be factious, and would not persist in his in-
tention to obstruct the progress of the Bill. He believed
that the penalties were extremely high, and he would
support a Bill for the suppression of those actions upon
thepayment of costs ? If the costs were given to the in-
former he would withdraw his opposition to the Bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that there had been an indirect
attack made upon him by a Noble Lord which was per-
fectly unjustifiable.
Mr. HUME wished to have words inserted in the
first clause, by which costs should be given to the in-
former.

Lord PALMERSTON had no objection to the Bill
being made a discontinuing Bill instead of a suspending
one. _ _ _

Captain PECEIELL also thought that it would be
better to make the Bill one of discontinuance.

The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause
agreed to.
The other clauses were also ab,,reed to. The house re-
sumed, and the report was ordered to be received to •
morrow.