The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-11 00:00:00

EUROPEAN POPULATION OF
ALGERIA.

The last census of the European population in Al-
geria gives the. following results :
December .31, -1841—French, 15,497 ; Spanish,
10,790; • English and Maltese,-4,576 ; Italians, 3,436 ;
.Germans,&c., 1,422 ; total, 35,721.

• ,
December 31, 1840—French, 12,554 ; Spanish,
7,721; English and Maltese, 3,395; Italians, '2,753 ;
Germans, I 1 967 • total, 27,680.

Out of 1,000 Europeans, 434 are French, 302
Spanish, 129 Maltese, 96 Italians, and 39 Germans,
and natives of other countries not specified. The
French are in an absolute majority at Philippevilre
and at Cherchel], the Spanish at Oran, and the Mal-
tese have been for several years in possession of the
relative majority. at Bona. The inferiority in the
number of women, compared with that of men, shows
how much our establishment is as yet removed froth
the equilibrium which exists when families are well
constituted. Ihe 35,721 Christians of the regency
are divided by age and sex in the following manner,
17,313 men, 8,207 women, and 10,201 children. Fdr
1,000 men, there are found in the whole of the population
474 women; and 589 children. By a happy compensation
fertile insufficiency in number. European Women are
more fruitful in the colony than. in Europe, for births
which are in France but one for 32.60
are in Africa one for 28'67. This comparative in-
crease has been maintained with very feeble varia-
tions since 1833, and this effect of a law well-
known in the increase of, population, will not
come to a stop, until the number of inhabi-
tants shall approach. the limits which are ae-
signed • to it by the resources of the country.
The number of deaths. continues unfortunately to be
greater than that of birthS, se that the increase of the
•population is to be astaibed entirely to continued im-
migration. - In ,1841 the births were 1,246, deaths
1,588, the proportion. being ore birth in 28.67 inha-
bitants, and one death in. 22.49. The following. re-
turns of the deaths in various places of Al-
geria contradict • all • the received • opinions • as
to the respeetiVe salubrity; of.. several points
occupied by the French. In Algiers there are POO
deaths out of 20.85 inhabitants. Oran .274 in 19.35.
Bona, .131 in 3016. Philippeville, •123 in 31.8. Mosta-
ganem, •013 in 35.91. Bugia, .009 in 48.00, and Cher -
ellen, .020 in 16.65.. Very striking and very strange
anomalies are also observable in other respects. Whilst
the civil population • scarcely loses one individual in
22, the army, which has neither women, children, nor
old men amongst its numbers, and which is composed
of men in the.prime of life, loses 1 out of 7 by disease,
spleen, and nostalgia; the. officers -are attacked -five
or six times less than the common soldiers. , In 1840,"
in an effective force of 62,331 men, 9,567 died in- the
hospitals alone. Soldiers, condemned to confinement
for offences are, contrary to general. experience, from
being forced to live a regular life, much less se-.
verely treated by disease, and escape better. In the
Jewish population in the towns of Algiers, Oran; Bona,
and Mostaganem, during • the years 1838, 1839, and
1840, the loss was one in 39.31, which gives, with an
almost imperceptible difference, thaproportion observed.
in France. The Turks lived to great ages at Algiers, and
the natives, on whom death falls heavy in.towns,
pear to preserve in the country parts their ancient
longevity. In the European population, also, very
striking differences may be remarked, according to the
classes of society, the professions, and the manner of
living. To quote a single .example, in 1840 amongst
grown men there was one death in 21.35, and amongst
women one in 3544. It must be then allowed that the
vitality of the new population of Algeria, and of the
army, depends in a great degree on moral and political
causes and shocks which require to be studied with
great care. Perhaps when the European population
shall be well settled down and have become accustomed
to the climate, the present mortality may decrease,
and the country become as it was in the time of the
Romans. Sallust in his Jugurthan war says, " Pleros-
que senectus dissolvit, nisi qui ferro aut bestiis
inte-
riere, nem. morbus baud scepe quemquam superat.''
(Old age wears out the greatest number, unless such
as perish in war or by wild beasts, for sickness rarely
destroys any one)..

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 10.
NOTTINGHAM WRIT.

Sir G. GREY wished to know whether the Hon.
Baronet intended to press this motion, as there was
an understanding in the liouSe with respect to petitions
of this sort that notice should be given of them, end his
Hon. Friend had acceded to that by placing the notice
on the paper for yesterday. Ile was ready to admit that
if his Hon. Friend insisted on his right, it was com-
petent for him to lsking it on, but he would put it to him
whether it would be advisable for him to do so.—(Cheers.)
Sir R. H. INGLIS observed that the application of
his Right Hon. Friend had not so much surprised him,
as the cheers that had come from the Hon. Member
for Montgomeryshire, because he knew -very well that
when a vacancy occurred it was a matter of course that
a writ should issue. If it was the opinion of the House
that he should' not proceed, he would withdraW his
motion.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Go on.")
He believed the :impression of the House was that lie
should at once proceed with his motion. —(Nor and hear.)
He could not indulge the hope 'that his motions would be
unopposed, as were those of the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose, after the interruption which had taken pace. The
motions of the Hon. Member for Montrose were pre-
cisely of the same nature.
Sir G. GREY,-But there was ageneral consent of the
House with respect to those motions.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS (in continuation) said he was totally
unconnected with the persons from whom the petition
proceeded, and he presumed the petition was intrusted
to him from the opinion he expressed upon the issuing of
writs in general. He did not mean by his motion to &tel.
tify the decision the House came to respecting the
motion of the Hon. Member for Bath, or any rules of
the House irrespective of that motion. He was not
calling on the House to take any proceedings
to baffle the decision it had come to respecting
the 'notion of the Honourable Member for
Bath, and -he begged to call the particular atten:ion
of the Hon. and Learned ..Member to that point.
It was only a happy accident which had placed the
borough of Nottingham in a different position from
Reading, Penryn, and the other boroughs. There
was nothing-, therefore, he should contend,
which was essential to the object of the Honourable
Member for Bath's Bill to exclude-Nottingham from
having a representative in the Commons' House of
Parliament.
Mr. ROEBUCK--I have proved nothing yet.
Sir R. INGLIS—The hon. Member said that he
had proved nothing yet. He (Sir H. Inglis) thanked
him forthat. He would-say,then,that they vecreproceeding
to the disfranchisment of Nottingham, not only on no proof,
on no Report of tbe Committee, on no sworn evidence
alleging guilt on the part of Nottingham ; but
the Honourable Member himself, who had brought
in a Bill for the purlieu of inquiring into the alleged prac-
tices of bribery and corruption at Nottingham, said at
once, very honestly and candidly, and he (Sir R. Inglis)
thanked him fir it, that he had proved nothing against
Nottingham, then he (Sir R. Inglis) would say that Notting-
ham was entitled to the general rule of the law, which was to
allow the franchise to every corporation not proved to be
guilt f. He would call on the Hors. Member for Bath to dis-
prove this, that there was no evidence in history in which a
writ had been suspended, except on the Report of some Com-
mittee whose attention had been specially directed to the subject.
In the present instance, not only was there no such report,
but there was nothing but the representation of one
Honourable Member rising in his place and very
dramatically pointing with his finger to his friends
on that side, or hip enemies on this. They had nothing
but his own ipso digit declaring that the borough had
been the scene of bribery and corruption. He would now call
the attention of the House to the proceedings with regard to
Nottingham which were matters of history, as far as being en-
tered on the Journals of that House would render them so.
On the 4th of May a Committee of that House was appointed
to try the merits of the • Nottingham election, and that Com-
mittee declared that the Right Honourable Sir John Cam
Hebhouse and Sir G. de H. Larpent were duly elected.
From the procredings which subsequently took place, it a-
peared that • dime individuals were bona fide elected. lie
had received yesterday, while in the House, a letter addressed
to him by the individual whose name he last mentioned in
connection with the borough, Sir George de Larpent. He felt
it to be but justice to his lion. Friend, Sir George de Larpent,
to produce this letter t» the House. He hoped that it was not
supposed by the majority, or by any, that Sir George de Lan•
pent bad withdrawn his presence from that House for the pur-
pose of avoiding any proceedings which the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath might think fit to take. The fact was,
which he did know till that communica'ion was made to him,
that five weeks before the date of the Report of that Committee,
Sir George de Larpent had been confined by a severe medical
and surgical malady, and that he had not been able during the
whole of that time to leave his room. Now. he (Sir it. anglis)
begged the House, and he begged the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, to understand that he did not mean to assert or in-
sinuate, on the contrary, Ins repudiated the idea that Sir G. de
Larpent was induced to accept the Chiltern Hundreds in cone
sequence of the sate of his health. He did not assert that—
he did not wish the lion. Member for Bath to believe it. He
did not require that eloquent look from the Hon and Learned
Member for Bath. He asserted that Sir G. de Larpent ac-
cented the Chiltern Hundrenswith no such motive, but he
(Sir ft. Inglis) appea'ed to the Hou e to rescue him from any
imputation of having left the Ihmse in order to avoid that
question, when he told the House that, for five weeks before that
sine, to the present time, he had been almost wholly confined to
his room. Bat his ( sir R. Inglis's) case was as strong, if such
were the fact. He had a perfect right to accept the Chiltern
Hundreds even with that view.
Mr. ROEBUCK.—No.
Sir R. INGLIS denied this. He did not insinuate that he
accepted the Chiltern Hundreds on account of ill health. He
denied the Right of the Hon. Member to put the question
which he had, and ho believed that many lion. Members who
a; the time had most unwillingly listened to the questions
s4.ich he then had asked, had since teen reason to think the
House ought not to have sanctioned the course the Hon.
Member thought fit to pursue. Nottingham did not stand
alone.—( hear, hear.) Nor did even the other boroueha to
*birth the Hon. Member had alluded; because there were many
other boroughs equally deserving of the attention of the Hon.
A!ember for Bath with the boroughs of Penryn and Falmouth,
Lewes. Harwich, Reading, and Nottingham ; the seven other
boroughs front which petitions had been presented against
the sitting Members on the score of bribery, in which the
question of bribery had not been at all gone into; and the Hon.
Member would be justified, according to his theory, in insti-
tuting inquiries into the circumstances attending these elec-
tions.—( Hear, hear.) There was a goodly list of other
boroughs similarly ,ettneted,--( Hear,
„beer, ). ought tq
have added-Great Marlow, Clittierbe, Ilear, hear,
from Mr. Roebuck)—to the list. He meant Belfast thnhr
the old pe,icior.—(Hvar, hear.) In Weyer:llth thc:e was a
the sitting; Member en the score of bribery.
Mr. BERNAL—In the imArtnf

Sir R. H. INGLIS—The Hon. Member said that in the
case of Weymouth there was no compromise ; and why, he
asked, was not similar credit given to similar assertions of Hon.
Members?--(Hear, hear.) In 21 cases, in which allegations
of leribery had been made, the petitions had been withdrawn,
and all the boroughs FO circumstanced stood on the same foot-
ing as the boroughs mentioned in the Hon. Member's Wit-
nesses Indemnity Bill. The point at issue was not whether
the Hon. and Learned Member had a right to take six bo-
roughs and exclude twenty-one, but whether be had laid be-
fore the House a sufficient ground for excluding a portion of his
fellow-subjects —who, by the Constitution, were entitled to the
! elective franchise—from the exercise of their rights. —(llear. )
The Hon. Member might contend that the case did pot rest
,upon his (Mr. Roebuck's) mere ipse dixit, because one of /be
Members had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and the other
' had refused to answer his question. !I his was another violent
presumption of corrupt and guilty bribery. if the Hon.
Member had lived in the days when persons were accused of
witchcraft he would, no doubt, have proceeded on the same princi.
ple on which the ordeal of water was conducted: if the witches
swam, they were considered guilty, and ordered to be taken
out and burnt ; if they sank, they were considered innocent ;
in either case, they perished,—( Hear, hear.) If the Honour-
able Member for Nottingham had said, " I admit- the coin-
promise," the reply wculd haze been, then you are guilty; if,
on the other hand, as was the fact in the case ot Sir John
Hobhouse, he had refused b answer, his refusal would have
been construed into an evidence of guilt.—( Hear, hear.) Ile
could not but cill the attention of the House to two or three
of the statements contained in the petition. The petitioners
stated that they had expected as a matter of course, and of
law, that that House would, as soon as a vacancy occurred.
have taken the necessary measures to 1111 up that vacancy, and
to restore to the electoral body of Nottingham that rightet hat
privilege, and that outy which the Constitution Lad vested in
them ; but the petitioners said they believed that the writ had
been withheld by a resolution of one branch of the Legislature.
He hoped that he would at all times treat that House with the
respect which was due to its Ikleinhens collectively and indi-
vidually; but in the discharge the duty which had been
volved upon him by the petitioners, he could not but say that
a permanent suspension of the writ, by the act of cone branch
of the Legislature, was, in his opinion, plainly and flagrantly
unconstitutional. the parties to this petition were nearly as
numerous as those who voted at the last election; and these
parties declared that they were n Wier parties to the com-
promise, nor to any of those corrupt practices which had been
alleged by the Honourable Member for Bath. They stated,
that in no other. ca,"e of a similar kind, had the writ been sus-
' pended, except upon the report of a Select Committee, stating
that the sitting Members or their agents, had been guilty of
bribery. The writ had been su-pended, not by any order of
tke House, but by- what his Right Honourable Friend, the
Member for .Devonport, had called a tacit understanding.'
His Right Honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury,
had acknowledged fully, freely, and cheerfully, that the issue
of the writ, was a right which ought not to be withheld except
for a reasoneble time, and for good cause shown. He would
ask the House whether, en that day, the Nth of June, he had
not a right to ask the House to ditect the speaker to take the
nocessery steps for issuing the writ ? What was a reason-
able time could not be decisied by statute ; it must
depend upon the judgment and feeling of the Ho-
nourable Members who . Constituted that House.—( Hear.)
He felt that in moving that the writ do issue in this instance
he was only.askieg fur what any Hon. Member would feel
himself inclined to ask under similar circurnstences. The Hon.
Gentleman coucluded, by moving that the Speaker do issue a
new writ. for the election of a burgess to serve in Parliament, in
the room of Sir G. G. de H. L 'Tent, who had accepted
the office of Steward of her.Alejesiy's Chiltern Hundreds.
Mr. G. KNIGHT secended the. motion. It cooed not be
denied shat the i-suing of the writ was the right of the borough,
except in a Case of extreme necessity. It seas no light matter
to withhold the writ, and nothing but a case of the last neces-
sityi could justify the doing so. 1% hatever sum of money had
1-been expended in, the last election, not a shilling of it had been
spent in drinking or riot. The franchise of a borough was
• once considered a very great matter, and that 'House was slow
to entertain any motion of a destructive tendency ; but now it
was quite another thing; now,"if the Simon Pure of the House
thought proper to get up in the most irregular and disorderly
manlier, and asked them to depart from their usual custom,
I they were to disfranchi,e six or seven boioughs. He thought
I if the House persisted in this course it would do anything tot
increase the respect in which it was viewed by the community.
He seconded the motion fur the issue of the writ.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, he was sure-the House would excuse
him, if, after the manner in which his conduct had been alluded
I to, he should address to them a few words upon the present
motion. He should first observe, that he could not account for
' the censures of which he had been the object. He had not
asked for the suspension of the writ for Nottingham. The writ
had been 'suspended by a mere motion of that House, and with
the approbation of the Right Hon. raronet at the head of the
Government.—(Hear, bear.) He had never spoken upon the
I motion—he had never expressed an opinion. upon the matter ;
Land therefore he did not see why-he was to be appealed to—why
he was to be assailed by the virtue of the Holt. Member for
Oxford, and by the supereminent and sublime virtue of the
Hon. Member f r Nottinghamshire (Mr. G. Knight). The
Hon. Member for Nottinghamshire said, that he (Mr. Roe-
buck) had been invariably telling the House that he was the
only honest man in is. Now he would ask whether that were
a true statement? He put it plainly to the Hon. Member, that
he had no right to make such a charge. If he had not made
such a declaration, he would ask, what was the value of the
Hon. Member's statement?
Mr. GALLY KNIGHT—Over and over again you have
' stated it.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he supposed that was something like
the announcement of the Hon. Member, that though he hid
assailed the late Ministry, he was not opposed to their policy.
I They all knew now what was the meaning of what the Hon.
Gentlemen had said. What he bad said in Jute he denied in
January ; and what he meant in January was very different
from what he had said in June. He (9,r. Roebuck) had said
nothing to the House of himself. He had charged certain
Hon. Members with proceedings which they hart not the cou-
rege to deny some acknowledged the charge, and others would
rot answer. Ile had stated that in Nottingham a compromise had
been entered into. Charges of bribery had been made, and
for the purpose of avoiding those charges, it was agreed that
one of the Members for the borough should retire. That Hon.
Gentleman had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds ; and the Right
Hon: Baronet declared that that was a circumstance pregnant
with suspicion. The Hon. Member for Oxford said that he
would-not state that Sir G. de Larpent did retire,but he (Mr.'
Roe buck) said that he had retired because he wished to avoid
then investigation into bribery. Was that denied? What said
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government?
Why, that the subject was pregnant with so much suspicion
that the writ ought to be suspended. What had he (Mr. Roe-
- buck) to do with the suspension of the writ? jhe Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite had come down for the purpose of making ar,
onslaught on him, and that Hon. Member should very soon
find the value of that onslaught. Why, be would ask, should
he be dragged into this question ? Ile had had nothing
to do with it ; and, in, fact. he had discussed the question
with himself yesterday, whether he should- come- down
to the House, and the result of that discussion was.
that ho had staid away because he had never uttered a word
about the suspension of the w-it for Nottingham. It was the
work of the House, and sanctioned by her Majesty's Govern-
ment. Could there be any doubt that there had been in Not-
tingham a foul carispiracy to cheat the people of England by
buying up a coustitueucy ?.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then,
'why did they charge him, when he wished to bring them to
light ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it to bide the poor corrupted
•voter, or the rich corrupting candidate? What was it they
were so tench r for? 1 ney said they had a regard for the
privileges ot the people of England. So had he (Mr. Roe-
buck) Ile wished that the privileges of the people of Eng-
land should not be bought and sold like sheep in thashambles.
For that purpose he brought forward the consideration of a
measure, which may be a subject of laughter to Hon. Gentle-
men opposite, but which was one of grave consideration to
the people out of doors.—( Hear, bear.) It was for their sake
that he stood up and thought be was best doing his duty in not
allowing the interests of this great people to be bartered for
gold to the highest bidder, and that he who did so should be
fixed and crucified before the people. It eas between them
arid the suLjeet.of his inquiry that the Right Hon. Member f
Oxford came. He threw his shield over the past, and said
that hew-as not to inquire into the subject, for it was only
inquiry he asked fur, and not that the writ should be sus-
pended. He would net have risen at all, and would
not have said a word -on the subject, if be had
not been so pointedly arid personally alluded to by
both the Hon. Gentlemen, and in a manner little in,
accordance with the usual courtesy of the House. He (Mr.
Roebuck) never nicknamed anybody, and lie wanted to know
how the Hon. Gentleman opposite reconciled it with his sense
of decency, 'or with the ordinary feelings of one gentleman
towards another, to nickname him before the House as its
" Simon Pure."—( Laughter.) It might be well to laugh ; but
if he (Mr. Roebuck) chose to exercise' half that sort of
power exhibited by the Hon. Gent eman, he might nickname
him in a manner that would make him very uncomfortable--
but he had regard for his feelings. Under all the circum-
stances, he had done railing that should subject him to the
imputation of a desire to have the writ suspended. He ap-
pealed to the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Go-
vernment, whether he (Mr. Roebuck) had in the least in-
fluenced his opinions, and whether his had not Influenced the
House ? The Right Hon. Gentleman might see a differenco
in the cases of Ipswich and Nottingham, bat tie opinion had
110 influence on- his (Mr. Roebuck's) mind, though it had en
the House. In all these cases the Hots. Gentleman had
shown a regard for the privileges and forms of that House, and
he (Mr. Roebuck) bad a right to believe that he had followed
the dictates of his feelings. The Right Hon. Gentleman op-
posite, tiewever, had guided the House in this matter • the
responsibility, such as it was, rested upon his head; and if the
Hon. Member for Oxford had that respe.....t which he ti usted all
men in that House had for parties in the Government, he would
have pointed to the Secretary of the Home Department.
and not to him ( Mr. Roebuck). He (Mr. Roebuck) did not
dictate to the House, he had no power to do so ; but the Right
Hon. Gentleman, as he ought to do—for his power ought to be
predominant in that House,on that side he meant—( A laugh)—
told them bow to vote, and ow they were very much ashamed
of what they had clone.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. G KNIGHT in explanation,
Sir R. PEEL said, if he had used any influence on this oc-
casion, at the same town', he must say that it was an influence
which reason alone entitled him to exercise. He always said
from the first, that this question was one of a judicial nature,
and he had not attempted to exercise any other influence. He
did not think that it would he at all satisfactory to the country
to state that when there were allegations of bribery, that the
result ire the proceeding before an Election Committee should,
in all cases, necessarily he cenclusive.—( Hear, hear.) When
the House appointed the Select Committee to eetermine per-
sonal and individual rights, he did not think that they meant to
inierfere with the general Constitution of the country—( Hear.
hear)--and supposing, in consequence of their having passed
a law last session permitting an inquiry into bribery without
proof of agency, that the fesult was that the investigations were
not conducted as they u ed to be, but that compromises were
entered into, he diet riot think that it would be satisfactory to
Nome to the t anclusien that, in no case the writs should issue.
As he said before, this case being of a judicial nature, ought,
in his opinion, to rest on its own alistract and individual merits.
He entertained this opinion in the case. He knew the impu-
tatiens he would he subject to by this from the Hon. and
Learned Member,—that altogether they ought to act upon
principle; they ought not to apply one common rule to all
cases. •The circumstances were different in the evidence of
different cases. They niust look to those circumstances—
( Hear, hear)—and look to the different cases, and then come
to a conclusion apparently inconsistent; but he did noeihesi-
tate to say, that for every question or charge of a crimirgit na-
ture it was impossible to apply one universal rule with refer-
ence to the evidence bearing on the case. He took the case
of Nottingham. What was the case of Nottingham at the time
when the motion was wade for the issue of the writ? At the
time that. proposal Was made, the House determined to appoint
a Committee of Inquiry. Under these circumstances, it was
stated by a Member, that the investigation before the Election
Committee of Nottingheni had led to a rempromise. It was
alleged that extensive bribery had taken place at Nottingham,
and that for the purpose of avoiding an inquiry into that bri-
bery a compromise had been made. The Committee reposted
that the two Hon. Gentlemen had been rightly returned as
Members for Nottingham. The House then found this strong
fact, that one of those Members who Lad a right-to his seat,
as determined by the Election Committee, the next 'day ten
tiered his resignation. This might be a,-counted for. It was
pte‘ia I that certain considerations, such as ill health, might
hey tSso Hon. Geeti‘mei, tacatieg his scat. But his
( Sir R. Peel's) Hon. Friend did not alit!,

.ze that. That he did