The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING JULY 6, 1844.

tali'EltlAL PA 11,LIANIEN'f.
I..OUSE 0 F LQRVS, July 5.
__Their Lordship re-assembled for Parliamentary business at
Five o'clock, when the LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on
the Woolsack.'

MORGCCO.
The Earl of MIN TO sail he rose for the purpose of
Putting the question, of which he had given notice, respecting
the naval force to the coast of Morocco. He understood the
mediation of this country between France and Morocco had
been rejected, and, though he deeply regretted it, he was not
surprised that such should be the case, because he did not
think they had placed themselves in such a position
as to afford to any weak State that assurance of their support
which symptoms of preparation on their part would afford.
The independence of Morocco could not be an object of indif-
ference to that House, for there were positions on the coast of
that empire which would be most injurious and dangerous to
the interests of this country if they fell into the hands of any
other .State, and a place of importance in the neighbourhood of
that Coast, the island of Minorca would be placed in jeopardy.
Be would have felt less anxiety on this subject
It he could find anywhere in this country the means of making
I display of strength on that coast. But the naval force of the ;
Country was so reduced, that he did not know where his Noble
Friend opposite could look for the means of producing an
unpressioa there. Negotiations were good, but it was
necessary they should be backed by some force—
(Rear, hear)—and he had the highest authority in that
oes
R
s e. that of the Noble Duke opposite, fur such an opinon. i
Ana debate on the 14th of August, 1838, on the state of their
etnnmereial relations, the Noble Duke said he considered the
!Tinto of those relations was owing, in a great degree, to the ex-
tensive weakness and tottering condition of their naval esta-
borce lishment; and, further on, he said he considered the naval
of the country to be in too feeble and tottering a condition
e.answer the purpose intended, of giving protection to
It commercial interests in all parts of the globe. Such
"as the language of the Noble Duke in the
fear
•;3•ti, at a time when they had eighteen sail of the
commission in every part of the world, besides a
its
serve at home of four or five ships of the line; but
thei!" far different now, though it was quite obvious
filer e were questions pending, not ,only with regard to
Thoceo, but with regard to the Oregon and Texas.
present Government had succeeded to a fleet of twenty
tiroi„Piof the line. They were justified in making some redue-
rin that numbe because there had not been of late the
ionluslyneece'ssi tY
for keepingr
up a great naval force as had pre-
wiedos armed. But they had made reductions to a degree
sent ~,i'4l°re had never been known or dreamt of. At the pre-
line, e-,°,4'.e!at there was not in commission a single ship of the
Were nine `hose employed as flag-ships for admirals. There
Mom, e autPs of the line only in commission at the present
ladle n • Of these two were in the East Indies, one in the West
ra s; and there' were three guard-ships. In the Mediter-
th"san fleet there was only one ship of the line, and that was
entonsis-tmedP
beee;a."tPl and there was the Albion, which had recently
etoloendlyas the flag ship at Cork. The navy of England
nine ships of the line, and that at a time when
gree a,tate of affairs abroad was such as necessarily to create the
bet the
anxiety. He did not say there was any danger of war
pee2,,ne Manner in which the solution of the questions at present
`2(lng would be brought about, would depend greatly
t°,l! the respect in which we were held, and that respect
ii05.1.1d be increased by our keeping up a respectable naval force.
a_eped his Noble Friend would tell them that he had re-
tfi;rers to appeal to. Considering the present state of
French fleet, we ought to have have an increased
eet
the Mediterranean. We ought not to abdi-
epait; the command of the Mediterranean entirely to
e,-;Tnee. but still to maintain our power in that sea. Not
-17 y had his Noble Friend reduced the number of the ships of
Sessels but he had also reduced the number of smaller
( Hear, hear.) He besought their Lordships to
recollect all that had been said on former occasions as to
the necessity of keeping a resrve at home for the protection
of our own shores. He had e
not any apprehension of any
attack on our own shores, but he regretted the
Nuetions which had taken place in the naval force
1 the Mediteranean. He could not see without uneasiness
meorrommad of the naval foreedestined by France to act against
occo connfided to the Prince de Jeenville. Hewould re-
irai-
n from saying anything reflecting on the character or con-
'et of his Royal g lli hness but their Lordships could not but
trbee_olleet what had passed on' a former occasion, and knowing
1.17 sentiments which had recently been expressed by his Royal
Neigbintess__ lie saw his appointment with regret. The
vhicite Earl concluded by putting the question of
°, he had given notice, namely, If it was the
Inciatton of her Majesty's Government to adopt any,
wie.what, measures to send to the coast of Morocco or else-
.e such naval force as may suffice for the protection of
British inter ?
The
ests .
q,e7ti Earl of lIADDINGTON was prepared to answer the
sending en of which the Noble Earl had given notice as to the
,e, a British force to Morocco.
Earlti of 1111NTO had yesterday given notice of his ques-
iasl.'2 he exact terms in which he had put it, and it was so
of `sC.teat! in the votes. He had understood that the Secretary
would communicate his motion to his Noble Friend.
t Precise
eEli isa
ort of°GH AM—Read, read.
MINTO then read the notice from the votes in
The words :n which he had put the question.
nut he arl of lIADDINGTON had nut read the votes.
Riven__,;:ould take the Noble Earl's question in the terms
f
N4erneeo or elsewhere. They had heard the
.speech o
Its quest! Earl wh which he thought proper to introduce
tlueSt'
4, to
vs. The practice of making long speeches in putting
was thich ,a," a most inconvenient one, and one
a'oet the Noble Earl was very partial. He
aPeech to re
• al Illy to the Noble Earl's question, not to his
about to atl he
ich I pet had any idea .
that the Noble Earl was
it ° e force of
question respecting the distribution of the
neeessar British navy, he should have thought
before h y to refresh his memory as to details
e came
ng speech
le ever was down to answer. that statement.
, more taken by surprise in his life than by the
Earl ought to madeIla
that h s the olunibus rebus, connected with the British navy,
had been
Secretes by the Noble Earl. He thought the Noble
the
Much of diplomat f ye waited for the presence of his Noble Friend
vernment leavTnacY-Te
Foreign Affairs, as his speech involved so
The Noble Earl complained of the Go-
near'. the g D—Y one ship of the line in the Alediterra-
th h time that taken there was not the
g test chance , step was
e' the occurrences taking place
Itheieh. had been lately threate d It was not supposed by
to
haveid ritish Government,tthanetne
because the French chose
this a sailing squadron in the :Mediterranean, that therefore
should
retr-
y was to follow their example The Noble Earl sea' In
recollect, too that the Mediterranetin was not a distant
!e n answer to the question of the Noble Earl, he begged to
fo.ri that her Nlajesty's Government had sent to Morocco such
ees as they thought the circumstances required, and if it was
meet'"s it was in their power to add to that force. With re-
to elsewhere, he begged to state that the Govern-
10t had such forces in every station as they had
Th'ught right for the preservation of British interests.
of had greatly increased their force on the Coast
od Africa. Ships had been sent out, and others had been or-
,ered there, and nothing would have prevented them from
lerneilein them out before lint the necessity of having a force in
th, 'LI. He thought that he had proved that the statement.of
int "°lsle Earl that Ministers had neglected British
e 'rests, in all parts of the world, was totally without founds-
As he had stated before, the Government had sent such
.i''reeS. to :Morocco as they thought the circumstances ye-
ll
.rti, and that they would add to these forces if necessary.
lusted, however, that the anticipated events in Morocco
'An slot take place.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
14essage from the Commons, consisting of Sir George
th,:kand other Members, brouht up the Bank Charter Bill,
id,eb slreland)
1.,.`: 'sons' Discipline (Scotland) Bill), the Linen Manufac-
Bill, the Education of the Poor Bill,
Th_arFis, Leith, and Granton Bill, and several other Bills.
Lord Campbell, Marqs of Londonderry, the Earl of Rosebery, and
7hc i. rose simultaneously to address the House.
Chancelloarquii of LONDONDERRY appealed to the Lord
.
ormii r whether he had not a right to address their
eus,ioe.Pa On the subject which had just been under dia-
1, Tbe LOet
The
-ad beg, CHANCELLOR said that, as the irregularity
Ea: e did not know where it was to terminate.
bore, ,n :1 of H ADDINGTON hoped that this would be
to "al, in future. They often had Noble Lords rising
th,110.., 'le or six times when there was no question before
and sometimes when there was a question.
te,s7, Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he begged to
that the Noble Earl's returns be printed.— (Laughter.)
ta,:vas' surprised to see the extreme sensitiveness of the Noble
Afteir with regard to the force in the Mediterranean.
fr,ei the Nob
clear statement which they bad heard
Affairs" Noble Lord the Secretary of State, for Foreign
nations en a previous occasion—after the e.xpla-
creet 3 which had been made, he thought it was highly melts-
had to re-open the subject.' The Noble Earl (Aberdeen)
het ~,e9rldueted public affairs, not only with credit to himself,
jasti_elth advantage to the country. He thought that it was but
t_o_ the Noble Earl to make these remarks.—(" Move.")
sp,e"4 Earl of MINTO said the Noble Marquis had made his
The Af°n an intimation that he was about to move.
'raw h. arquis of LONDONDERRY said he would with -
Th motion.—(Laughter.)
been te"aidartinis of LANSDOWNE said that the motion had
e,L, and it could not now be withdrawn.
lip CHANCELLOR said no motion had been
ecressVo,tlu he could not put a nonentity.—(Laughter, and
Question, question.")
Pbr'in't i„‘", A!\IPBELL rose to move the order of the day for
Committee on the Law of Libel Act Amendment
Was The en
re Earl ROSEBERY said, before the order of the day
p_awri, he wished to state that, in consequence of leaving
-`)Mosisteewctold not be able to act as a Member of the Secret
The be,on the Post-office.
Es,4ll,te of WELLINGTON then proposed that the
rl .t.," of A ' 'name should be withdrawn, and that that of the
Lore should be substituted.
BROUGHAMb said his Noble Kinsman would, no
„i'l'ointt:. an excellent member of the Committee; but his
-"asolueh-nt would be a deviation from the principle laid down,
Lord a' he was formerly a Cabinet Minister.
NcehAINIPRELL sai object n d- that objec would equally apply
and Learned Friend.—( Great laughte)
Mittee. arne of Lord Auckland was then added tort
e Com-

opposed to the Bill ; and he admitted that the majority of the
puisue judges were against it. He entertained the very
highest respect for the opinions of those venerable magistrates,
but he must confess, that he would much rather ask them how
the law is, than how it ought to be.—( Hear, hear.) The con-
stant practice of any system blinded the most
acute to its defects ; and there was a difficulty in throwing
aside an old system, with which persons had became thoroughly
acquainted and adopting a new one. It was but right to
say that those same Judges had, with one exception, given it
as their opinion that the Bill for allowing counsel to pri-
soners was unjust and unnecessary ; although now, he believed,
they all admitted that it was a splendid improvement of the
law. His Noble and Learned Friend would also recollect that
the Judges almost unanimously opposed the mitigation of the
penal code. When the Bill was brought in making forgery no
longer a capital crime, the majority of the Judges foretold that
it would be followed by a vast increase in the crime of
forgery, and by the destruction of commercial credit.
They had been equally hostile, equally unanimous,
and equally zealous against the Bill of last year, which
had been adopted unanimously by their Lordships, and
all but unanimously by the other House of Parliament.
Now, with regard to the exclusion of the truth in cases
of libel, it should be remembered that it was only judge-made
laws. There was no Act of Parliament, there was no imme-
morial usage to be pleaded in support of the practice. All the
decisions on the subject were fluctuating and contradictory. It
was only in 1792, that it had been declared to be law. In the
reign of Charles 11., Judge Pemberton had allowed the truth to
be given in evidence in a case of libel, en a charge
that Sir Edmundbury Godfrey had killed himself.
In 1702, in the case of the King v. Fuller, which was a prose-
cution for a seditious libel, Lord Holt had urged the defendant
to give evidence of the truth of the libels. "If your state-
ments are true," said Lord Holt, addressing the defendant,
" bring forward you; witnesses, and I will hear them." The
first case in which evidence of the truth was excluded, was the
case of the King v. Franklin, tried before Chief Justice Wrenne
in 1731. In 1777, on the trial of Horne Tooke, before Lord
Mansfield, the defendant was permitted to give evidence of the
truth of his statements. His case broke down, and so the pro-
secutors had reason to rejo'ce that the evidence had been ad-
mitted. lt was not until Mr. Fox's Libel Bill was passing
through that House, that the judges gave it as their opinion
that the truth could not be admitted. Yet, en that very occa-
sion, they declared one thing to be law, which the Parliament,
in that very Bill, declared to be not law. He trusted, there-
fore, their Lordships would not hesitate to adopt this improve-
ment, and complete the law of last year. There was one ex-
ception made by the Bill, and only one ; and that was in con-
formity with the maxim of the law, which declared that the
Sovereign could do no wrong. He therefore excluded from the
operation of the Bill all personal attacks on the Sove-
reign. With regard to the procedure to be adopted,
he proposed that as it was in many cases of public libel
impossible to separate matters of fact from matters of com-
ment, so as to enable a justification to be pleaded, as in cases of
private libel; that, in these cases of public libel, the defendant
should give notice to the prosecutor of his intention to prove
the truth of his assertions, and that the facts should go to the
jury, who, if they should be of opinion that the facts were un-
true, or that the defendant had been influenced by bad motives.
woull find him guilty. The judges, although they disapproved of
the principle, admitted that this was the best method of carry-
ing at out. The law had been almost forgotten, in consequence
of the mildness of the executive administratilhoaenw,,chaounntdstidhneeorlteadbwytshtthailetl
remained, and might be revived at any time. He trusted their
ELonrgdlisshhimpsenwoouugldhtptaosshothldisthmeirsrigurhe,ts b
for he
forbearance of the public prosecutor.
The LORD CHANCELLOII. opposed the measure as one
calculated to do great evil. It was sufficient to refer to the
opinion of the judges to know that the law of England excluded
evidence of the truth in these cases, and he imagined that those
learned persons had declared what the law always had been,
and not merely what it was at the time they had declared it. In
an action for damages, the defendant might plead the
truth as justification, and the judge state to the
jury the nature of the libel, the nature of the justification,
and told them if they were of opinion the justification had
been made out, they must acquit the defendant. If the prose-
cution was by indictment, by the late measure justification
could also be pleaded. In these cases the functions of the
judge and of the jury were clearly defined. The object of
public libels was to isicite to a breach of the public peace, or
to bring the Government into contempt. It was no defence
of such conduct that the libels were true—that would possibly
only increase their evil effects. Now if the course proposed
by this Bill ,were to be adopted, if only one fact alleged could
be proved true, it would be competent to the jury to find the
defendant not guilty, at their caprice and discretion. Their
imaginations might be influenced by an artful address, and if
only one part were proved it would be competent to hem to
return a verdict of acquittal. It was putting in the hands of
juries an uncontrolled power, which might lead to great abuses
in the administration of justice. Notice would be given in
every case in order to secure the opportunity of making an in-
flammatory address to the jury. Parties prosecuted fur these
seditious libels generally were persons who fancied themselves
orators, and defended themselves, and how did they defend
themselves ? Why generally by a repetition of the calumnies.
Now the judge could interrupt him, and prevent his going
on, but would that be the case if this Bill were to become law ?
Why, a party might come into a court of justice and repeat
the charge, and the judges could not interfere in any way. The
party said he should offer evidence of the truth of the charge,
and the judge was bound to sit silently and hear it. W ell,
then he offers in evidence some vague rumours ; he is told
the court cannot receive it, and the jury find a verdict of ac-
quittal. Such would be the effect of his Noble Friend's Bill.
When a man was vilified, was he not to appear in a court of
justice, was net that the height of injustice, and what was the
answer to this? Why, that the. Attorney-General will con-
duct his defence. This was one of the principles of his Noble
Friend's Bill. He was sure, if their Lordships considered the
subject, notwithstanding all the praises of his Noble Friend of
his own Bill, they would feel assured that it was impossible to
pass the Bill consistently with a due regard to justice. Under
the provisions of the Bill the whole of the Royal Family
might be libelled with impunity, and under it the character
and conduct of a foreign sovereign might be put in issue in the
courts of this country. Such were the consequences of his
Noble Friend's Bill, that he felt called upon to propose that the
Bill should be read a third time that day three months.
Lord BROUGHAM supported the third reading of the
Bill. He must confess that he was not a little alarmed when
his Noble Friend rose from the Woolsack to address the House
immediately after his Noble Friend who had moved the third
reading of the Bill. But his Noble and Learned Friend on the
Woolsack had relieved him of much of Isis anxiety by the ar-
guments he had used, for they rather made for his Noble and
Learned Friend (Lord Campbell) than against him.—(Hear,
hear.) The appeal to the law by his Noble Friend might
have done a few years ago, but it would be of no avail now. As
the law now stood, his Noble Friend behind him ( Lord Camp-
bell., and his Noble Friend at the table (Lord Monteagle),
might join together to libel him (Lord Brougham)—they
Might give as much evidence against him as they pleased, he
being out of Court. Such was the law as it now stood, but
by the law as it was ndw proposed, no such thing could happen,
because the Attorney-General would prosecute the parties,
and would• rebut the libel by preying its falsehood. The
Noble and Learned Lord having most humorously described
the manner in which a defence was got up to a charge of libel,
observed that it was always assumed that the truth could be
proved, while under the present law it was impossible to do it.
He had known juries, over and ever again, prevailed upon to
give verdicts against the truth of the case. The law, as it at
present existed, exposed juries to the arts and stratagems and
declamations of counsel. The Government, as the law now
stood, always went into Court with a stain upon it. Let their
Lordships look to the case of Sir Arthur Piggot. He charged
the Lords of the Admiralty with sending over troops in unsea-
worthy ships, and if that prosecution had been proceeded with,
if it bad gone to trial, it would have been impossible, as the
law now stood, for them to have defeated the slanderer, and
have proved the truth of the libel, as the evidence that would
have been offered for that purpose would have been re-
jected. He was some time ago counsel in a case against the
clergy of Durham, he dil all he could to procure a verdict. He
got the jury to take three or four hours to consider their ver-
dict ; they at last found a special verdict, rather for than
against him, and the detendant was never brought up for judg-
ment. If the law had been in the state in which it was now
proposed to place it, the case need not have occupied ten
minutes. If there was any one principle in English law which
was clear and understandable, it was that whatever tended to
keep the public opinion with the law, and against the criminal,
was wholesome, and that whatever tended to set it against the
prosecutor, and against the law, was to be deplored. Never
had he seen any man brought up for judgment in such a case
without public sympathy being in his favour. The object of
this Bill was not to make public libel defensible, but only to
provide that the case should be left with the jury,
His Noble and Learned Friend said there ought to be an ex-
ception in the Bill with respect to foreign Princes. With re-
spect to the Sovereign of this country, the reason for the excep-
tion was obvious. As, according to the laws of this country,
the Sovereign was unimpeachable, it would be perfectly incon-
sistent to allow evidence to be adduced. There was not one of
the objections of his Noble and Learned Friend to the present
Bill, which would not have equally applied to the Bill of last
year.

TERf art ere
D uk
, BANK CHAR.
C motion of the eof WELLINGTONBILL , the Bank
the No brieni„ll was read a first time and ordered to be printed,
ott T„"""a
next uuke stating that he would take the second reading

The m PUBLIC HEALTH.
day 'arquis of NORINIANI3Y gave notice that,
Majesty
thoins
the :'..eek , he should move a humble address to her
- .matory condition of the people-
a Lord LAW OF LIBEL.
'it'd r
He
CAMPBELL moved the order of the day
Bill. He
the
hid he,saing of the Law of Libel Act Amendmentr 13
take i.,` time had at last arrived when their. LoHdoshhipads hhaodpetdo
that t:.'le_ensideration this important Bill
01l th:t Lordships would have agreed to it, as
he had
the .._ same principles as the Apt of last session, but
in
being founded
,_rinortification of understanding that it was to be opposedliast
4si rs entiiled to the highest respect. In the Bill
_e.
f (14 their Lordships dealt with the subject of private d
i4.4l,:ahtri°_,,,. it
passed a Bill with the double object of protect-
tiaZisti..;te character and punishing slanderers.
quete.,ect Ufa of stating that that Bill worked well.Hel hactiontshoe.
*eekl more stringent enactments, more than one slannderous
azair Y. Paper had been dropped, and frivolous prosecutions
of
..list erjourl had been checked. The great principle
,t_it Bill was that it admitted the plea of the truth of a fact
tof,lriustilication on a charge of libel. This plea had been here-
plea er,t'acluded, both before the jury and after the
.verdict, as a
sideti: the mitigation of punishment. Nay, it was con-
the ''' In aggravation of the offence, for the maxim arose.,
LordsgjNer the truth the greater the libel. Their
a d e '' pa W ere shocked at such a doctrine, and enacted, that if
ft r et:endant proved a thing to be true, and that he published it
tl',is ne. Public good, he should be entitled to an acquittal. But
iii.,, 17triciple applied only to private cases and actions between
I..'.u.vidttals. With regard to Government prosecutions, the old
Iptern still prevailed. His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord
(Irraiihm), in the letter which he had addressed to Sir James
calli aiil, complained of this defect in the law. He (Lord
th,,P:!'el) acknowledged it to be a very great one, but he
pr„_ geut
.It, more expedient to apply the principle first to private
pli7. ut'etti, knowing that it must inevitably afterwards be ap-
0,:,..1.te public ones. In cases of seditious libel, it did not, and
hal:tinot, to apply. But where a defendant stated certain specific
td„jne thought it a monstrous principle that the truth or
Nie"uudot these facts should be considered immaterial. Sup-
a case, in which a man asserted that troops were being

sent abroad in transport ships that were not seaworthy, he Lord DENNI AN thought that so important a change in the
might state that without any seditious motive, or from any law ought not to have been proposed without much more con-
wish to stir up disaffection among the soldiers. He might be ac- sideration. The Bill of last year was referred to a Committee,
tuated by a patriotic wish to promote the welfare of their defenders and repeatedly discussed by persons of the greatest expe-
in arms. Or, suppose it had been stated that the army of the rience in such matters. The present Bill was brought
Noble Duke in Spain was not properly supplied with provi- forward as a corollary to it, but it had not received the same
sinus, in consequence of some fault of the Commissariat, would consideration. There was a specific offence ; the offence of
they not allow the defendant to show that what he stated was j sedition. His Noble and Learned Friends appeared to have
perfectly true, as in doing so he must be assisting the leaders ! confined their attention to one single branch of sedition, and
of the army in this country ? Or, suppose the charge was ! that one of the least public importance. Forty or fifty years
made against the Queen's Ministers of receiving bribes from ago every public newspaper, remarking on the conduct of the
foreign Powers, he ought to be allowed to prove the truth of Government, was at the mercy of the Government for the
that statement, since the attempt to do so would only cover time being ; but that danger was now passed, and no Attorney-
him with confusion. He would suppose another case—that of General would be stupid enough to institute a prosecution,
a person of whom it was published that he opened letters in merely because the Government would be inconvenienced by
the Post-office ; would it not be monstrous that the defendant newspaper remarks, and if he did the jary would give
should not be allowed to prove the truth ? The present prat- heir verdict for the defendant. In the year 1609
tics was most injurious to the individual, if acted upon; and I the Morning Chronicle was prosecuted for reflecting on
their Lordships must consider it as if it were acted upon, be- King George the Third, with reference to the Government of
cause it po-sibly might tie at the pleasure of the Attorney- Ireland ; Mr. Perry defended himself on the ground of the
General. It was injurious to the individual, because an inno- right to discuss the measures of the Government, and the
cent, praiseworthy person might be convicted of a crime, jury acquitted the defendant. Now was not the crime of
whereas he ought to be rewarded ; and it was also most inju- sedition a crime in itself? Had they not seen people rising
rious to the public, because people would be apprehensive of up in arms and rushing to the destruction of their neighbours'
stating facts which might be necessary. Where the lives and property ?—(Hear, hear.) He put that case because
truth could not be proved at the trial, or after it arose out of recent proceedings.—( Hear, hear.) The at-
conviction, it operated in favour of the defendant ; tacking of a man's character tended to a breach of the peace,
where the libel was false, as had been shown by Mr. Starkie, by leading him, as Dr. Franklin expressed it, to resort to the
one of the law Commissioners, they could not believe the liberty of the cudgel.—( Laughter. ) He admitted that some
charge was false where evidence of the falsity was not ad- advantage had arisen from the Bill of last year, by improving
mitted, and punishment must be awarded as if the facts were the respectability of the press ; but he did not think a sufficient
true. It might be said, that though the facts were true, the time had elapsed to enable them to say that it conferred very
publication was wrong, and that the press ought not to meddle great benefit. What he chiefly complained of was that this
with such subjects. They might say, as a Learned Chief change was proposed without sufficient consideration and de-
Justice in the sister island said, that the Houses of Parliament liberation.
were the places where these matters were to be canvassed. Lord CAMPBELL replied. He said it seemed they
Even if that were so, the law of England was defective in were now called on to reverse the unanimous decision of last
this respect—that they would provide no remedy for wilful ca- year; every argument used against the present Bill would apply
lumny. They placed in the same situation the person who exactly as much to the Act of last year. His Noble and
stated what was true from laudable motives, and the person Learned Friend acknowledged that this Act, as far as it had
who stated what was false with the worst intentions. Then been tes•ed, had been found to work well. He concluded that
they departed from all analogy with regard to the law of libel, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the ascertaining, by
for in other eases they allowed the circumstances to be given affidavit, the truth or falsehood of statements in a
in evidence, but not with regard to libel. For instance, in a criminal information. Ths Noble and Learned Lord
case of assault, all that led to the assault might be given in had alluded to the case of the Duke of Brunswick.
evidence. The defendant might even give in evidence that he Would not the convictions in that case have been much more
was !.belled by the prosecutor, and that being se provoked, he satisfactory, if there had beerean opportunity of showing their
laid a horsewhip on his back. After the Bill of last year, how utter falsehood? When the King of Hanover was assailed by
incongruous was the law if they rejected this Bill ? Under charges of a similar character, he boldly appeared in the wit-
the law of last year, in a prosecution for private defamation, ness-box and denied the truth of those statements. Under
the truth might be given in evidence, but if the Attorney- the circumstances, and after the declaration of his Noble Friend
General filed an ex officio information, and called the private on the Woolsack, supported as he had been by the Chief
defamation a seditious libel, the truth could not Justice, he much apprehended the fate of this Bill. They
be given in evidence.—(Cries of " Hear, hear). It might overwhelm by a great majority the decision of last ses-
seemed to him that, in this way, they brought great scandal sion—they had the opportunity of doing so; but it
on the administration of justice. He believed there was one must not be suppned that all those who were absent
authority against him, for whom he had the sincerest respect. —(There were not more than two or three Peers on the
He was afraid the Bill was not approved of by the Lord Chief Opposition benches)—were indifferent to this Bill.—
Justice of the Queen's Bench, one of the most zealous, steady, (Laughter.) His Noble Friend ( Lord Cottenham) was ab-
and enlightened friends of liberty that ever blessed this coun- sent in consequence of believing that the Bill was perfectly
try.— (Hear, hear.) But he must remind his Noble and secure.—( Laughter.) He could not believe that the Noble
Learned Friend, that he stood alone in thinking the truth Lord on the Woolsack could be so grossly inconsistent as to
should be excluded. All those who were examined before the oppose the Bill. There was his Noble Friend (Lord
Committee on this subject, with the exception of his Noble and Brougham), who had spoken so strongly in favour of the Bill
Learned Friend were of opinion that the truth should be ad- —he could not be supposed to be indifferent to the Bill.
milted as an ingredient. His Noble and Learned Friend be- The LORD CHANCELLOR—He prefers something else
hind him, and the late Chief Baron of the Exchequer, whose to the Bill.—(Laughter.)
memory he should always regard with respect and affection, Lord CAMPBELL said he did not think his Noble and
were of opinion that the truth should be admitted. He was Learned Friend was one of those " whose god is their belly"—
afraid that his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack was (Laughter)—for on any public question, he knew he was ready

to sacrifice every sensual gratification. But even now he would
divide the House, though he should stand alone, in order to
see how many would remain consistent.
Their Lordships then divided ; the numbers were—
For the third reading
Against it
Majority against the Bill —3o
SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
The Earl of HADDINTON reported to the House the deci-
sion of the Committee appointed to inquire into precedents as
to the doubt raised upon this Bill, whether it did not require
the consent of her Majesty in order to be brought in and dis-
cussed in Parliament. The Committee stated, as the result of
the inquiries, that the Bill was one that does so require the con-
sent of the Crown.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and the House
aSjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 5,

The SPEAKER. took the Chair at Four o'clock.

Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from an individual in
Lancashire, against the New Poor-law Bill. The petitioner
attributed to this law the existence of Chartism, Rebeccaism,
and the Anti-Corn•law League.
Mr. EWART presented a petition from the wood sawyers
of Paisley, praying for protection against the use of machinery
in their trade. _ _

Lord ASHLEY presented a petition (we did not hear from
what plane), signed by 2,400 persons, against the Truck System.
After an interval of a quarter of an hour, during which no
business was done,
Lord S A NDON moved that the Secret Committee of Post-
office Inquiry might have leave to sit, notwithstanding the ad-
journment of the House.—Ordered.
ACCIDENT AT BOLTON.

Mr. FERR AND, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet, the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department in his place,
begged leave to draw his attention to a dreadful accident that
took place in the town of Bolton, on Monday last ; by the
bursting of a steam boiler iu a factory one man was killed, and
three or four seriously injured. We understood the Hon.
Member to say, that some mismanagement of the machinery
was the cause of the accident, and that the man who had lost
his life had only that morning come into the employment, with
the nature of which he was unacquainted. As there were in-
spectors of railways, he wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
whether the Government had no power to prevent such fearful
accidents in factories ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Government had no control
over factories such as that which was exercised over railways
through the inspectors.
MEDICAL REFORM.

Mr. D. BARCLAY begged to ask the Right Hon. Baro-
net whether he had abandoned his intentions respecting medical
reform, or intended to carry through his Bill this session ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he would lay the Bill on the table in
the course of this session.

In answer to a question from Mr. BELLEW,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was his intention, during
the present session, to lay on the table of the House a Bill to
amend the law of settlement in Scotland and Ireland. He
should not, however, proceed with it this session.
Captain PECHELL gave notice that, on Tuesday week, he
should call the attention of the House to the claims of the
lunatic officers in Haslar Hospital.
The Committee on the Joint-stock Companies Bill was
postponed till twelve o'clock on Wednesday next.
The Committee on the Canal Companies Bill was postponed
till Monday.

Government the propriety of extending the period to twelve stage he would be prepared with an instruction, in order to
calendar months. effect the amendment desired, and the necessity of which he
Sir J. 'GRAHAM said he thought the lion. Member for • clearly saw.—( Hear hear. )
Finsbury was right in his view of the case, and he should there- After a long and Se.sultory conversation upon verbal amend-
fore agree to his proposition, and move that the word " six" be ments, the clause was agreed to.
omitted, and the word " twelve" inserted. On clause 6 being proposed,
Mr. S. CRAWFORD begged sincerely to thank the Right Mr. HENLEY suggested that some modif cation should be.
Hon. Baronet for this concession, which was a most humane made in it by the Government, as it was of a most stringent
and just one, and would be sure to command the approval of character.
the people. Sir JAMES GRAHAM agreed to omit certain words
Mr. STUART WORTLEY moved the following amend- (inaudible in the gallery), the effect of which would be greatly
ments : in line 18, to substitute " one year" for " six to ameliorate the clause.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
months ;" also, after the word " child" to add these words, The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 7,8, 9, and
"or at any time thereafter, upon satisfactory proof that the man 10, without discussion.
alleged to be the father of such child has admitted the truth of On clause 11 being proposed,
such allegation." The clause as it stood would induce many Mr. WYNN ELLIS objected to the power given to the Corn-
men to give an all ,wance to the woman for six or twelve missioners, of apprenticing illegitimate children, which could
months, in order to prevent her making any api•lication against he much more properly exercised by the poor-law guardians in
him, until it would be too late; and at the expiration of the their several districts.
six or twelve months discontinue the allowance, while the Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said he had received from his
clause as it now stood would exclude her from every remedy. constituents instructions to object to this clause, on the same
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was still opinion that there should grounds as those stated by the last speaker—namely, that the
be some limitation of the time for the protection of the accused guardians upon the spot were the best judges of what ought to
man. 13e done for these unhat children.

Mr. T. EGEATON said that the argument of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Stuart Wortley) had not been met by the Right
llon. Baronet. The argument of his lion. Friend completely
removed the objection, that an extension of the time would be
unjust to the man. Could not the Right Hon. Gentleman
introduce words at the end of the clause, that the woman
should not be excluded from proceeding against the man after
the expiration of twelve months on producing proof of the pay-
ment of money during that time ?
Mr. ESCOTT was strongly opposed to the amendment
of his Hon. Friend (Mr. S. Wortley), as it would bring back
many of the evils of the old law.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was sorry that his Hon. Friend
had thought it his duty to charge him with having introduced
an illusory measure. That charge coming from a quarter so
respectable, rendered it the more painful ; and he must, there-
fore, give it his firm denial. The clauses to which the Hon.
Gentleman had referred had been framed with an honest spirit,
and he would always be ready to enter into a discasssion as to
their merits. With respect to the amendment of the Hon.
Member far Yorkshire, he must say that he could not give it
his support, in consequence of the ambiguity of its terms. Be-
fore he sat down, he would express a hope that his Hon. Friend
the Member for Oxfordshire, would not adhere to the opinion
which he had expressed.
Mr. HENLEY said, he had spoken of the Bill, and not of
the conduct of the Government with respect to it.
After a few words from Captain Rous, Mr. Morris, Sir
Walter James, and Mr. Borthwiek,
Sir J. GRAHAM repeated that he had conceded the ex-
tension of the time to twelve months, and he would now so far
accede to the proposition of his Hon. Friend as to agree to the
addition of these words to the clause—" that the putative father
shad be liable, after the twelve months, upon proof of the
payment of money within twelve months after the birth of
the child."—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. S. WORTLEY expressed- himself satisfied—(Hear,
hear)—and withdrew his amendment.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
On clause 3 being read,
Mr. B. DENISON thought that the power of appeal,
which this clause conferred upon the putative father was un-
wise and improper, and entailed great hardship on the poor
woman who sought to establish her claim against the father
of her child. He therefore proposed that in bastardy cases
three magistrates instead of two should be present when the
female came forward in the first instance, and that their adjudi-
cation should be final. The power of appeal, as granted by the
clause, would render, in most instances, the whole intentions of
the Legislature nugatory.
Mr. BUCK seconded the amendment.
After a few words from some Hon. Members, pro and con.,
Mr. DENISON intimated that ;he had withdrawn the
amendment, but

Sir C. NA PIER, on behalf of the parish of Marylebone, also
objected to this power being vested in the Central Com-
missioners.
Two other Hon. 'Members, wh ise names we could net learn,
also strongly opposed the clause.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he might be wrong in having pro-
posed the clause, but no one, he was happy to find, impugned
his motive in doing so. He was afraid that in those local
boards of guardians, local interests would be consulted at the
expense of the persons about to be bound out. Under the
Miners and Colleries Act, certain restrictions were imposed
against binding young children to miners and colliers, and he
thought that, in the present Bill, the same restrictive power
should be exercised. It could not be denied that in local boards
of guardians there might be a natural though selfish desire to
economise, even at the expese of the poor little helpless children
whom they might be willing to bind into a distant, and,
perhaps, incommodious situation, in order to rid themselves,
and their district of the probable expense of providing for them
in future. What he wished to impose was not any unnecessary
or unfair restriction on the board of guardians, but only to
give to the Poor-law Commissioners a power over
the appointments: of the board, which would tend
towards the benefit of the poor apprentices. He had
been accused of endeavouring to increase the powers of the
Poor-law Commissioners, and giving them an arbitrary control
over the poor. He did not think he lay Open to this charge,
as he had been always most anxious to give the Commissioners
only such power as would counteract the, perhaps, too par-
simonious tendency or neglect of the boards of guardians.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER hoped the Right Hon. Baronet
would not withdraw the clause, which he considered one of the
most useful in the whole Bill. He believed that one of the
greatest evils of the present measure was its neglect of proper
provisions for parochial apprentices. He thought that a power
vested in the Poor-law Commissioners was absolutely neces-
sary in order to protect poor apprentices, and have them pro-
perly bound and properly treated.
Colonel WOOD would not wish to restrict the powers of
the Poor-law Commissioners ; but he thought the imposition
of this duty upon them was unnecessary. For there was no
provision in the clause to prevent what the Right Hon. Gentle-
man considered so great an evil—viz. the binding out of ap-
prentices in distant parishes.
Sir JAMES GR A HAM rose and said, he attached consi-
derable importance to the penalty which would be enacted in
this clause, and which he trusted would prevent the abuses re-
garding apprentices which existed in the present measure.
Mr. DUNCOMBE objected to the large powers conferred
on the Poor-law Commissioners by the provisions of this
clause. They were useless besides; for how could the Com-
missioners at Somerset House be supposed to know what would
be most beneficial to a child in a remote part of the kingdom ?
Surely those who lived on the spot, and who were fathers

Colonel WOOD, in the most earnest manner, intreated that
he would not do so. He considered the power of appeal as
entailing the greatest hardship on the unfortunate female.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he thought two justices would be
sufficient ; and it might be inconvenient, and in some instances,
almost impos,ible, to procure the attendance of more. The
power of appeal could be discussed at a future time.
Mr. DENISON withdrew his amendment.
Mr. RORTH'WICK suggested that the allowance made by
the father to the mother of the child should not be paid by him
to her, as the contact might be dangerous.—(Laughter ) The
sum allocated by the magistrate should be paid to some third
person for her—an overseer or other parochial official.
, Mr. ESCOTT said all the compassion seemed to be for the
woman, but his experience in these matters—( Great laughter)
—led him to think that the putative father was frequently as
deserving of compassion. He did not approve of the principle
of sending the putative father of the child to the House of Cor-
rection, if he were not able to pay the sum prescribed by the
magistrates.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the provision, however hard it might
seem to some Hon. Members, was found to be absolutely ne-
cessary. In fact, without the terror of imprisonment which
this clause held out, one of the main principles of the measure
could not be carried out.
The clause as amended was then agreed to,
Clause 4 was then proposed.
Mr. B. DENISON proposed to omit the words from the
clause which gave the power of appeal from the decision of the
magistrates in cases of bastardy.
Mr. BORTH WICK supported the amendment. He trusted
her Majesty's Government would take the subject into their
consideration.
Mr. T. EGERTON believed that if the provision giving
the power of appeal were allowed to remain in the Bill that it
would be nugatory and ineffective.
Mr. HAWES thought the power of appeal ought not to be
taken away.
Sir J. GRAHAM said this was a very important clause, and
he would recommend the Committee to be cautious in coming
to a decision upon it. He thought the power of appeal ought
to be retained, as it would act as a preventive to injustice.
Mr. WA KLEY could not see why the appeal should only
be on one side.

of families themselves, ought to be the best judges.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that in order to meet the objections
of the Hon. Gentleman, and of other Hon. Members who
might be disposed to agree with him, he would amend the
clause, so that it would give the Commissioners power only to
prescribe the terms and conditions of the binding.
Mr. DUNCOMBE was opposed to all increase of power to
the Commissioners, and thought in whatever shape it was con-
ferred upon them, it must be looked upon with alarm.
Colonel SIBTHORP expressed himself to a similar effect.
He looked upon the power the Poor-law Commissioners at
present possessed with feelings of jealousy and alarm.
Mr. WAKLEY hoped the clause would not be altered or
amended. Nothing was more desirable than that there should
be some officers, who would be responsible for the proper
treatment of those helpless creatures—parochial apprentices.
Their condition at present was one of absolute slavery. For this
reason alone he would give the clause his most unqualified and ar-
dent support. The present law did not provide a sufficient protec-
tion for the ill treatment and neglect of these poor creatures.
The masters at present, in most instances, sought them only
for the purpose of making money by them, and, provided they
could effect this object, they cared little about the means
Parish apprentices were, in many instances, employed
from five in the morning until nine at night, and, in
addition to this, they were frequently badly fed, badly
clithed, and badly lodged. And what redress had
these children ? It might be said they could go before a
magistrate. Why, he (Mr. Wakley) had on more than one
occasion, attempted to interfere with police magistrates on be-
half of these poor creatures, but his applications had not only
been treated with neglect but with contempt. To be sure the
overseer went to the house of the master, and when he did, he
was ushered into the best parlour, and the boy was brought in
in his holiday suit, and before his master and mistress, and
with the fear of the birch rod before his eyes, answered those
queries which the overseer put to him.—( Hear hear.) " Have
you any complaint to make, my dear? Don't be afraid to speak."
Of course the poor child said " Ne, Sir," and thus terminated
this little farce. The overseer went away, and the boy re-
turned to his drudgery.—( Hear, hear.) Under these circum-
stances, he thought it absolutely necessary that there should
be some restrictive and unprejudiced influence exercised in the
binding of these poor children. The House was bound to

After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM,
Mr. B. ESCOTT said the reason the appeal was only one-
sided was, that the penalties were all on one side.
Mr. AKLEY said the penalties were not on one side, as
the woman had to bear the burden of the maintenance of the
child. He thought the appeal ought to be made In favour of
the woman as well as of the man.
Mr. STUART 'WORTLEY was of a different opinion. To
give the appeal to the woman would lead to much injustice
and hardship.
Mr. CRIPPS thought that if they were to give the female
the power of appeal the provision would be inoperative, inas-
much as in all such cases as these the female was in humble
circumstances, and had not the means of carrying on an appeal.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD supported the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Yorkshire.
Mr. LIDDELL thought it would be impolitic to extend cases
of appeals to Quarter Sessions.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the fullest consideration of
the subject he was of opinion that the clause, as it stood, ought
to be retained.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the fullest consideration,
he was strongly disposed to let this clause stand over.
Mr. WAKLEY strongly urged the propriety of giving the
right of appeal to the woman, who was the victim of injustice, as
well as to the man, who was the most powerful person and the
oppressor.—(Hear, hear,)
In his own experience as a Coroner,
he knew that one effect of this law was child murder, now in-
creasing to a horrible extent.---( Hear.) He had seen many
cases in which such cases were clearly proved, to the horror and
disgust of the jury. These murders were effected generally, in a
way to render discovery
impossible. The effect of this Bill
would be as bad in this respect as the one it proposed to
amend. Why should the House not take away from women
the temptation to commit so horrible a crime ?—( Hear.) He
trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet, who had treated this
subject with great ability and fairness, would place the woman
on an equal footing with the man.
Mr. H. DENISON, after hearing the statement of the Co-
roner for Middlesex, said that the remedy which that Hon. Gen-
tleman suggested was very inadequate. Indeed, he would ask,
how could the woman, coming out of the workhouse, poor and
penniless, avail herself of such a remedy ?
Mr. WARBURTON thought that the clause was framed in
an oversight of what was the nature of a court of appeal. He
thought that the decision in the first instance should be final.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he had not advocated the appeal
clause. He only said that the woman should be placed on an
equal footing with the man. He knew that the appeal would
be from Noodle to Noodle.—( A laugh.) But Noodle might
act with more caution in the presence of lawyers, and he might
gather up a little sense from their arguments, if he had none in
ne or that the crime had increased. The
himself.—( Hear and a laugh.) He knew that magistrates
were not appointed for their fitness, but through the influence
of their friends, who being unable to do any good with them at
home, found employment for them in dealing with the poor.
Sir J. GRAHAM considered the clause sufficiently difficult
in itself, without being embarrassed with extraneous conside-
rations. From the returns which he had received from all
country, he did not think that the bastardy clauses
feeling of shame and the desire of concealment were mostly the
hadpmotives
r theetha
saed t
O infanticide,ccasioccasioned
d it.—(Hear, hear.) He would throw
out for the consideration of the Committee, that at the end of
H
the clause there was a proviso, which seemed to press with
some hardship upon the woman ; and he would put it to the
Committee whether the omission of that proviso, thereby leav-
ing to the woman the right of appeal, would not be such a com-
promise as might meet the views of those who wished for a
more express amendment.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought the question was too
difficult to be discussed in an assembly like this. What he
wished was, to prevent vexatious appeals, and he would sug-
gest that his Right Hon. Friend should consider this point.
Mr. WAKLEY was satisfied with the concession made by
the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham). But he cau-
tioned him not to be misled by the returns of the coroners, for
in most of the cases there was no possibility of returning a di-
rect verdict of wilful murder.
Mr. B. DENISON said that he had no objection to the
omission of the proviso. But what he complained of was, that
where the man appealed against the decision made in favour of
the woman, she had no means to avail, herself of the judg-
ment, as she could not go to the expense of resisting the ap-
peal. It would be a different thing if the parish were bound to
support the judgment in her favour.
Mr. CRIPPS said that he and his brother magistrates had
made every possible inquiry into the subject of infanticide, and
they came to the conclusion that the crime had not increased
under the new poor-law, but that, on the contrary, the morals
of the people had improved, and the crime had decreased in
their district. He only spoke 'of his own district, and, of
course, did not deny that what the Hen. Member for Finsbury
had stated was the fact in his district.
After a few words from Mr. ESCOTT,
Sir J. GRAHAM hoped that the Committee would pro-
ceed to divide, but with this understanding, that if the appeal
were struck out, he would retain the proviso.
Mr. BO RT HWIC K (who spoke amidst loud cries of " Di-
vide, divide,") recommended the Government to withdraw
the clause and reconsider it.—[The interruption continuing,
with laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh "]—He would move that
the Chairman report progress- —(A, .)
The CHAIRMAN asked who seconded the motion, to which
no answer was given, and
Mr. BORTHWICK proceeded to address the House, but
at last gave way to the repeated cries of " Divide, divide."
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Committee
divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ...
Against it
Majority ....... ...........
Mr. BORTHWICK said he was anxious to prevent the
money payable by the putative father being handed over to her
directly from the person who had already been too successful
against her virtue. The clause did not provide for this, and
in his opinion-it ought to do se- He trusted the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir James Graham) would take this matter into his
serious consideration, with a view of engrafting on some future
clause of the Bill a provision to the effect he had stated.
Sir J. GRAHAM said a few words, which, from the low
tone in which he spoke, we could not very clearly hear, but we
understood their intent to be that the suggestion should have
his consideration.
In answer to a question from Sir H. DOUGLAS,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he agreed with him in opinion that
the father should not be allowed to go scot free when the
woman became chargeable to the parish, or liable to punish-
ment for crime. He would have words introduced into the
clause which should authorise a proper hold upon the man.
The matter would require to be well considered, and whatever
was inserted must be moat cautiously worded. In a future

took tO'thern ; they were the orphans of the State; and he
felt grateful to the Government for introducing the present
clause.
Lord J. MANNERS said that he had heard enough to con-
vince him that the Poor-law Commissioners had exercised the
power for the benefit, and not for the oppression, of those who
were not able to defend themselves. He should give his cordial
support to the clause.
Mr. COLQUIIOUN wished to know whether the Com-
missioners would be empowered to limit the hours of labour
for children.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no dif-
ficulty at all about this, as the Commissioners could insert
clauses in the indentures of apprenticeship, limiting the hours
of labour for the children.
Mr. HAMILTON supported the clause.
Mr. ESCOTT said, that if they gave the Commissioners
the power of limiting the hours of labour for children to a cer-
tain time, they would be adopting a principle which the House
had already refused to sanction in the Factory Bill.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD opposed the clause.
After a few words from Mr. P. BORTHWICK, the Com-
mittee divided—
For the clause
Against it
Majority
Clause 12 was then proposed, and after a short discussion,
agreed to.
On clause 13 being proposed, which regulates the number of
votes each rate-payer shall possess,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved an amendment, the effect of
which was to abolish the system of p'urality voting, and to
place the owner of property and the rate-payer, and all rate-
payers, on the same tooting ; namely, to give each party
one vote.
Sir J. GRAHAM defended the present system, and said
that he was fortified in his opinion by a recent decision to which
the Legislature had come on this very subject. This kind of
voting had been sanctioned by the Legislature in the last
session: of Parliament in the Irish Poor-law. Bill. He did
not think it would be consistent with justice that the occupier
of property rated at 1001. a year should be placed en the same
footing, with respect to voting, as the occupier of property
rated at 5001.
The Committee then divided. 'The numbers were—
For the amendment l7
Against it .
Majority for the clause
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On the reading of clause 14,
Mr. HAWES said that the rate-payers ought to have the
power of impeaching proxies in the election of guardians, and
he suggested to the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham)
to introduce a proviso to that effect. He was himself prepared
with such a proviso.
Sir JAIIES GRAHAM recommended the Hon. Gentleman
to bring forward his proviso, as a distinct clause, at a future
stage, or to be added at the end of the Bill.
Mr. HAWES would act upon the suggestion of the Hon.
Baronet, and gave notice that he would propose the clause on
bringing up the report.
Mr. HINDLEY admitted that the clause, as introduced by
the Right Hon. Baronet was a great improvement in the Bill.
Captain PECHELL would admit that this was a very use-
ful modification of the Bill. But neither this clause, nor the
one proposed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury would meet
his views, and he would move that the clause should be
omitted altogether.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE admitted that the clause was a great
improvement; but he was opposed to the system of proxies
altogether, except it were in the case of female rate-payers.—
( A laugh.) He had received communications from Gravesend,
showing the abuses to which the system was liable. The
owners of property were very few ; but the collector of
the rents held the whole of the proxies, and thus had the nomi-
nation of the guardians fur the two great parishes of which that
union consisted. He would not object to the clause if the
latter part of it, which gave such a power to the collectors of
rents, were omitted.
Mr. HINDLEY suggested that the proxies should be re-
newed every six months.
Mr. HAWES thought that the time allowed for notices
should be extended to more than fourteen days.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought that it would lead to much incon-
venience to give a greater time than was necessary for due in-
quiry and the detection of fraud.
Mr. W AWN moved an amendment for the omission of the
words in brackets, which gave power to stewards and land-agents
to hold proxies.
On this amendment the Committee divided,
For the amendment
Against it
Majority ... --142
The clause was then agreed to.
On the reading of the fifteenth clause relative to the annual
election of guardians,
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that he had received a
letter from a gentleman, a member of one of the largest boards
of guardians in the kingdom, suggesting several alterations in
the mode of electing guardians. He did not mean to propose
any amendment, but pressed upon his Right Hon. Friend to
consider the recommendations of his correspondent.
On the 16th clause being proposed,
Mr. S. CRAW FORD proposed that it be omitted.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the omission of the clause 45
Against its omission
Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 17, 18, and 19 were agreed to, after which
Sir J. GRA HAM moved that the Chairman should report
progress, and ask leave to sit again on Thursday at half-past
four o'clock.
The Militia Ballot Suspension Bill went through Com-
mittee.
The Vagrants Removal Bill went through Committee.
The Stock in Trade Bill went through Committee.
The Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill went through Com-
mittee.
The Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
The Assessed Compositions Bill was read a second time,
and was ordered to be committed on Monday next.
REGISTRY OF SEAMEN.
Mr. S. HERBERT obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
amend and consolidate the laws relating to merchant-seamen,
and for keeping a register of seamen. The Bill was brought in
and read a first time.
THE IRISH CHURCH.
Mr. P. BUTLER moved for a return of vacancies which
had recently arisen in the Established Church of Ireland, and
of the names of the parties appointed to fill them.

Lord ELIOT said if the Hon. Member would produce any
instance of improper appointment, or any proof of miscon-
duct on the part of those appointed, he would not object to the
return. But this not having been done, and knowing that it
could not be done' he felt it his duty to resist the motion.
Mr. BUTLER persisting in his motion, the gallery was
cleared for a division, but no division took place, and the motion
was negatived.