Star.
London, England, 1830-04-03 00:00:00

SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 3, 1830.

N°• 13,439.

MR. OWEN.

AA PUBLIC MEETING will be held on EASTER
MONDAY, April 12, at Twelve o'Claek, In tlte CITY 01.

LONDON TAVERN, Bishopegate-street, to consider the
MEANS of a PERMANENT REMEDY for the DISTRESS
of the WORKING CLASSES, and for the moral evils under
which all parties suffer ; and also, for the disunion which has ever
prevailed among all religious sects, with a view to establish a per-
petually increasing prosperity, and to destroy , fnr ever, even the
germ of future religious animosity.
ROB ERf OWEN.
Bedford-square, March 29.

BRODIEMAN AND LANGDON'S PENCILS.
IN consequence of the numerous frauds and imposi-
tions practised by persons selling PENCILS pretended to be
of our manufacture, and bearing the Name of our Firm, and the
Marks used by us, we feel ft necessary to caution our Friends and
the Public at large against such practices, and to give this Public.
Notice, that all persons concerned therein will be prosecuted.

NETTING AND BUNTING FOR FRUIT TREES.
FOR the STACK YARD, GARDEN, and CO-
LONIAL SETTLEMENTS. WATER PROOF RICK
CLOTHS. completely fitted up. Marquees, and Tents of various
sorts, improved dressed Cloths, Tilts, Sacks, Ropes, &c. with other
articles of similar utility. The Foreign Settler, as well as the re.
sident Agriculturist, may be supplied with the above desirable
articles on moderate terms, by BENJAMIN EDGINGTON,
No. 5, Tooley-street. Address, Benjamin Edgington.
A few Second-hand Cloths which have been used only a few
days, to be had at reduced prices.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE, April 2.

WINDSOR CASTLE, Attscu SI.

The King bas been pleased to appoint Henry Hope, Esq. one of
the Grooms of his Majesty's Bedchamber, in the room of Sir Ed-
mund Nagle. deceased.

DECLARATIONS ON INSOLVENCY.

MAMAS T•TLas RYAN, Pialeld-street, Hortoo, merchant.

BANKRUVCIES ENLARGED.
WILIJAN Psacmat, East Gate, Deeping St. James, Lincolnshire,
firmer, April 9 to April 27, at eleven, at the Court of Com-
missioners.
Josue Sumusan, Beaumont-mews, Weymouth-street, Mary-la.
bonne, corn dealer, from April t 2 to April 27, et nine, at the
Court of Commissioners.

ON CASTE.
Castum drat.--C AT L:i.i

From the Asiatic Journal.

PRI C 70.

No part of the institutions of the Hindus has teen raw assailed
than the division of the people into castes, or classes, the distinctions

of which are perpetuated throughout posterity. It has ban teamed
an "abominable system," and an "artful invention of the devil so
prolong his power on the earth." It is considered by poildeol
writers " unnatural ;" and a shrewd ccononiist holds It to be ac
diametrically opposed to, and incompatible with, thooraosmargokoa

Gip* of our nature. that its existence, in a perfect state, is altoge.
thee ideal ; that is to say, the caste system, strictly speaking, never
existed at all.

Bold paradoxes, and staggering lit potheses, are not unpopular at
the present day. A denial, therefore, of the fundamental axiom,
that whatever is--is, does not incur the risk of that ridicule which it
would have provoked in times when men thought much before they
wrote. Will it be attributed to presumption, after such an exam-
ple, If we say a word or two on behalf of caste ?
That there is any thing unnatural in a social system, the indivi-
duals composing which, in order to secure the order and integety of
all its parts, have separate and distinct offices and employments al.
lotted to them, seems to require a very hardy assurance to main.
tab. It is, on the contrary, a system which appears the most na-
tural, that is, the most obvious to a primitive people, and one
which, if the frame of the society was constructed at an early period
of the history of mankind, and was adapted at once to a people, In
the East, who had made a considerable advance towards civilisation,
would be, perhaps, the beat that could have been devised.
Institutions, like dress, roust be accommodated to the local and
peculiar circumstances of the people for whom they are intended.
Blankets and German feather-beds, trial by jury, and the elective
franchise, may be equal nuisances to the inhabitants of the torrid
regions. The people of Arcadia rejected liberty, as onerous to
them. We are not to assume, though it is almost invariably done,
that because a political institution contradicts our own notions of
abstract right, and those of our European neighbours, that therefore
the political system of the people, who were in a high state of ci.
vilisation when the inhabitants of Europe were savage*, is a mono.
meat of folly. The error may be in us, not in them.
Every social theory, not utterly impracticable, has supposed
gradations and distinctions of some kind, of office, employment,
rank, or title. The principle of equality itself is modified by the
shades of intellectual superiority which diversify the human race. In
a social system which grows up slowly and insensibly from a ewe
of nature, the various degrees, and the different stations allotted to
the individuals, proceed from natural and accidental causes, operating
conjointly. Wealth and property, as the society advances, generally
regulate, in the greatest measure, the interchange of ranks. Power
is the immediate agent, but power is the instrument by wealth
works. - The axiom that " knowledge is power," implies that
knowledge can command the avenues to wealth, or employ its re.
..pterstair
monshlqrail
wiser worms to effectuate its ob*

the distinctions between them are not impassable as in Hindustan.
In theory, indeed, a free-born Englishman, whatever be his station,
is as good as a peer. But, what is the real state of the case ? Why
that, in practice, there are large masses of free-born Englishmen,
who are condemned, not by the operation of a statute indeed, but
by the force of circumstances arising out of the constitution of so-
ciety, to toil from generation to generation in the same routine of
labour. For example : look at our agricultural labourers; look
at those who, " from eve to morn, from morn till dewy eve," are
the humble servants of steam-engines, or ply at the loom in the
garrets of Spitalfields and Coventry. These are the soodras of our
society; and in comparison with some of that caste in India, taking
all the circumstances of the respective conditions into consideration,
they are often Infinitely more deserving of compassion.
In theory, it is true, a weaver or a ploughman may work his way
into the House of Commons or that of the Peers: the path being, no
doubt, just as open, as easy, and u practicable, as that which leads
to the city of Timbuctoo. 8o eshatriyas, and even snodras, hare be.
come brahmins ; but the thing has happened very rarely.
It is more observable by foreigners than by ourselves, how much
the English nation delights in the theories with which its political
institutions abound. That the king can do no wrong ; that there
is no possible injury without a remedy ; that every English.
man has a voice in the imposition of taxes, and in fact taxes
himself, with a variety of other ancient maxims, arc strenuously
maintained by Englishmen as theoretical truths, with all the pert'.
nacity of Voltaire's Pangloss, whilst their practical falsehood is not
only visible but Falpable.

lint, setting aside the example of England, which is a country of
all others where cute would not be expected to be found, yet where
its principle, nevertheless, k found, is there no other country in
Europe where the caste system, or something very like it can be
recognized by some of its characteristic features? Let us look at
Russia.

The It uedan people are distributed into three classes, the limits
of which are defined with as much precision and exactitude as those
of the castes in India : the noblesse, the bourgeoisie, and the serfs.
No indit idual of either of these three classes can, by any act of
Iris own. step into the higher class; it is contrary to law. A
slave may be manumitted and received into the next class, the
bourgeoisie; a bourgeois may, by an act of grant and favour, re.
ceive a patent of nubility from the Crown; but these arc concessions
which so far from tending to weaken the system of classification, is
calculated to keep it up.
Where then is the difference, the practical difference, between the
classification of the different grades of society in Russia and the
caste system of Hindustan? The anti-Hindu will tell us that the
rigid confinement of the natives of that country to the trades and
professions of their respective ancestors, has a tendency to palsy the
efforts of the mind, and to restrict them to a dull, plodding routine
of practice. which admits of no bold innovations of improvement.
It limy be so ; but the fact is that eie Hindus arc not thus con-
fined; that with very few exceptions, a Hindu may follow what
business he pleases, though for obvious reasons, he generally prefers
the pursuit of his forefathers.
The Hindus are a systematic people : all :heir notions are east in
the same formal mould. They would be better able than ourselves
to appreciate the doctrine of Moliere's physician, that is better
for a patient to die, than to be cured against rule. Their meta-
physics are almost unintelligible, by reason of the wonderful ,re-
' finement of precision by which they are distinguished. It may be
truly said of them, In the words of 31ilton, that they are regular, and

Then most, when most irregular they seem.
Upon the whole, castels not an unoatutal institution, nor is it dia.
metrically opposed to or incompatible with, the strongest ptinciples
of our nature. Whether the devil had any hand in contriving it,
may be left to the Parliamentary Committee to assertaio, if they
have sulliekot leisure.

The celebrated tortoise, which had bent for nearly 200
yews an inhabitant of the Bishop's palm at Peterboeough, dial
on Friday low.

AMU& Ya4TEaDAT.
Wb the M: kr the prosecution lad dosed. Ms. iss•tioe
1411,ste aged oo the pagans severally for their delene.es.
The"; an peoduced ahem defaces. Those of Latr.bc,eit sod
Osa ameabssitavoll the ofieir of the goat, tad Sisley raid I a t own.
a Mime trne to thellinowhig doers—"i OHM
.11,11: wad of the jay, to give saw credit at
NB g WPM 1211111111* six ow Asps. own et the muse of the inquiLy
1 uhieh you Woe hoes ism* Let the result be as it may,
dee regret I have beta road to fat since the foal
mhos& the dammed kit 1.1 Nek Mil neftlt lose Its poignancy.
ham new deulvd. It mega lemi been %allot my own Nez: of
what is due to myself m diff as a ma. so have hied the
act Which ikpr Iva et lite; but it is equally slue to
myself that oor saimela amid be called to the unbending obeli-
:L-47 with itYe6eWtlhosedaimedcvayembrdtaaa me deride',
ris an atonement *1 weak sot Token with any premeditated
in:dice—not uttered fits say studied view to intuit o wound
the feelings elf the patio to whom they were address.d, but
*own from me in des boa of argument, at moment of e,reat
excitement. and doting a Fried an which it is to he feared
many fatal gourds were erget:dered, some few only of which
the public here been acquainted with. You laa‘e heard bow unhe-
sitatingly as apology was tali A•cd by me, with a riaw to mint and
satisfy- the irritable feelings of the decesmt —how ...crossly h was
pressed ' • • essok-sts:4
_ .
ga
as a

my
_ jury, /het Iter
this be not so., Is there any thing in the circumstances, or
in the evidence, to warrant the assumption that the meeting was
sought by Inc? On the contrary, is it not clear that the fatal
meeting was aniclovo7y avoided that every tl ir.,i
was done on my part to prevent encounter. And kt me c
that conduct with the way all the advances, on my pad, tow:.rds a
reconciliation were met by the decessed--low they were spurred at !
and that repulse accompanied by expressions which, bad there re._
been any previously exciting cause. would have been sufficient, with
most men, to have caused a meeting, which might have ended as
fatally as that I now deplore. Motivesof pusillanimity and cowardice
were imputed to me ! What, then, was the alternative offered to
me, to avoid meeting ? Nothing less than that [ should furnish my
unfortunate antagonist with the meana of stigmatising me as a coward,
and of placing me in that degrading situation that would haveciused
me to be shunned by all honourable men. After this was it not text
to impossible that I should have refused the meeting so imperiously
demanded andpe persisted in by my opponent ? lam the son of an
old and meri Seer and myself a soldier from my sixteenth
year; a certain line of conduct is pointed out for men so situated,
from which hitherto there has been no means of deviating. Is there
anything to distinguish this case from whirs ? Have not the dtcb.
tions of the deceased, acknowledging his regret fur Isis obstinacy,
end his admission of the fair and hotiourahle manner in which the
meeting was conducted, exculpated me from ell but the
naked act, which has happened to many other men without
having been called upon to answer so serious a charge as this
which is now made against ma Gentlemen, I now most solemnly
declare, that no feeling of malice actuated me—that I w,uld, by
every means short of actual disgrace, have avoided the meeting.—
The facts of the case are before you, and I am persuaded that you
will contemplate them with candour and liberality, ard in taking
that candid and liberal view of them, you will not feel )onrselves
justified in pronouncing me guilty of the crime of wilful mur-
der. My life, gentlemen, and, what is deurcr to me than life,
my character for honour as a gentleman, and humanity as a man,
hang upon your breath. lam charged with the crime of wilful
murder. But of this high offence you cannot pronounce me
guilty, unless you are satisfied that in committing the act which
unfortunately produced Mr. Clayton's death, I was actuated
by pre-conceived malice against him—unless, in the language of
the law,. that act was committed with malice aforethought.—
Had not the necessary form of the %proceedings included in the
.
same indictment the two me associated with me on
this trial, I might have Z thelmeillt of testimony which would
have satisfied you beyond silusetrosirsy and doubt that not only
when I came on the ground t d I believe that my apology would be
accepted, but that until ]lle. C. took his station, and -pointed his
pistol at my person, I could not be psswaded that he meant to pro.
coed to extremities. But i Oust tb *sib already in proof will
convince you, that_sa fht Ma Val ljavjagipadalliNl6o4.o

Allan aniCrus desire to avoid lisndsbei, and under
a hope and belief that such en issue would be avoided."
Cox's defence was to the same effect t Bigley's as follows :
"My lords, and gentlemen of the jury—l adopted every per.
suasion, from first to last, to prevail on my unfortunate companion to
accept the apology • but his keen and mistaken sense of honour left
no alternative. On the night preceding I threatened to inform the
police ; when Mr. Clayton assured me if I did I should make
._
both quarrels my own. I begged I might be permitted to
withdraw ; but the unhappy deceased, my companion and friend,
appealed to my feelings of regard and affection for him, and said
his honour was lost if i did so, as he was without assistance in an
hour of peril. I could not resist his appal, and unhappily 1 went.
On the ground I urged him, by his friendship and regard for me, to
accept the apology again offered, but in vain. Aly lords and gen.
tlemen. my life and honour are in your hands. Never before was I
called upon to act in the capacity in which my generous but too
sensitive friend had placed me; and if released from my present
more perilous position by your verdict, I shall live to deplore the
fatal sacrifice of my friend, and to be aware of, and thankful for, the
knity I trust I shall experience."

Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up. There was no doubt, if parties
went out with deadly instruments, intending to use them against
each other, and did so use them, and death did occur, that was
murder. Therefore the observation of Mr. Clarkson, that Mr.
Bigley could have no malice against the party killed, as he had, in
fact, acted as his second, although very ingenious, had no avail in
point of law. If they were satisfied that they went out with a
common purpose to use Instruments calculated to produce death,
and did use the Instruments, and death was the consequence, it was
murder In the survivors. There was quite enough In the evidence
to involve Blgley In the guilt of the rest. li any thing In the
case could render it possible that the offence of the parties
should only amount to manslaughter, he would point it out ;
but there ;was nothing which, if they believed the evidence, could
reduce it to a lower class of crime than that of murder. It was
said by the prisoner, and it appeared by the evidence, that Lam-
Wein was unwitting to go to the ground at first. But as he did so,
his previous reluctance could wake no difference in his offence, what.
ever difference it might make in the degree of punishment to be in.
flicted, supposing the highest degree of punishment should not be
thought necessary. All they would have to consider would be.
whether these persons went out together, armed with deadly wea-
pons, intending to use them one aereinst the other ; they did use
them, and death was the consequence. lie concluded by an ob.
serration on Lautbrecht`s defence, that no matter who the persons
might be, the highest individuals in the land, who set such an ex-
ample, would still be amenable to justice.
The jury inquired of his Lordship whether they could find them
guilty of any other crime—as manslaughter—than 'porde/ ?
Mr. Justl.e BAYLEY said if they found them guilty of any crime
it must be murder, as there was no circumstance in the ease which
could render the offence only manslaughter.

The jury retired, and, after after an absences of about two hams,
returned and asked, first, what length of time elapsed between the
opening of the coach.duor ar.4l the tiring ?a—whether Lambreeht
acted on the defensive or no:?—whether the voice of Clayton, heard
by the waiter, was in an angry tone ?—and whether the distance at
which they fought was measured ?
These questions having been answered from the kreened judge's
notes, the jury again retired. At the end of an hour and a half
more they returned a verdict of ' Not Guilty." . '
Air. Justice BAY LE V said he had no doubt the perilitui situation
of the prisoilers would have an ttfect he operating as an example to
the prisoners, anti to all persons acting in the situation of seconds.
Thmugboot the trial, and even when the verdict was pronounced,
Lambrecht and Gus were perfectly unmoved. Higley shed tears
when lie spoke en his defence, and when the verdict was pronounced.

Considerable Etnettion has been excited at Eton, by
an affray between the popOacc and a nobleman, one of the studemp.
It originated in some offensive epithets having been applied to the
nobleman by a labouring man, and his lordship having severely
chautised the offender, a party, headed by bargemen, attacked bim
and compelled him to take refuge in a haute in the nfthbourbood,
after teceiving some severe injuries. The original ogkndn was,
however, we understand, in a much worst, if hot In ti dangennb con.
d ition.—Court Aimed.
Friday se'nnigbt the American brig Ftoyd sailed from
Orr uock for New York, vitliatnetim alters the Wink, o'venel
oilier mania ie &lowed to Jews of dm Netts.
The paragon, pemented • asptly group of yams aid both
seaes--egrieskarieta meshantel. Meese•
le a aer4ber of
g" /walk men, C. 41190 111.1011 n'ORI ewe Pawl,
by tbli want of *ark, to maps arm to hilte
carpet meredbeteey in dm stale et Nov 04 .
was erected eilit moles ahem a yeeris4l4 lull
alarmed by sea; mthriYelly Irma wereA taken
out tor that purpose.
•

pttisaed by the gentlemen implicated in tha untortonato reenk-a
his acceptanett that sot or.ly was I
lttlbtr, and .rewissllitzt ts:si
outal the deceased
man could do, that he should forgive the nibecti. I say, as fair
a man could d bgenive t ebb* essavidkas
the as any rsspect fir Int
to admitted into society upon u footing t.i
would alone render life desirable, cannot go. I appeal to jo
own experience, my Lord, and gentlemen of the jury, *halt

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-FRIDAY.

Lord IVIIARNCLIFFE presented several petitions from clothing
ilistricts in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying the removal of
the waives from York to Wakefield, in the cases which occur in the
11'est Riding
The Noble Lord likewise presented several petitions from clothing
dir•triets in Yorkshire, in favour of throwing open the trade to India
and China.—Referred to the Select Committee.
Sir A. ORANT, Lord F. OSBORNE, and other members of the
House of Commons, brought up the Tanjore Commissioners' bill,
with some private bills.—Read a first time.
Mt. Crafer, from the Treasury, presented at the bar an account
'of corn imported from Ireland since July 15, 1828.
A person horn the Trinity House presented at the bar the account
c.1•11e Pilots' Fund for the year 1829.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from certain in.
'habitants of the Tower, against the punishment of death for forgery.
'rte. right rev. prelate said that he perfectly coincided in the prayer
of the petition, and his earnest hope was, that the time was trot far
distic:r when the punishment of death would be expunged from the
.!rainte-book—(hear)—except in cases of great atrocity.
The petition having been read at length, was laid on the table.
A petition to the same effect, from the inhabitants of Nuneaton,
,Northamptonshire, was also presented by the Bishop of LONDON.
Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from a place in Derby-
eh re, ir. the absence of the noble duke (the Duke of Devonshire) the
Lira Lieutenant of that county, praying that the trade to the Rust
Indies and China may be thrown open.
The Earl of KOSLBERY said, having seen, from the votes in
the other House of Parliament, that a Bill had been introduced
there for a public measure (the alteration of the Court of Session in
Scotland.) which would in all probability come before their lord-
ships, in order to obtain information connected with the subject, he
begged to move for returns to which no objection was offered. The
noble earl then moved for an account of the Fee Fund of the Court
of Session, as established by the 50th Geo. 111. cap. 112, showing
the receipts of the fund, and the application thereof, from the 21st
1821.—Agreed to.
The Earl of CHICHESTER presented a petition from Lewes,
Sussex, against the punishment of death for forgery.
The Duke of NORFOLK—My lords, I hold in my hands a pe-
tition which I am requested to present from persons professing the
Jewish persuasion in the West London district, praying the removal
of civil disabilities on account of religious opinions, under which
they at present labour. As an English Catholic, but lately admit.
ted to the benefit of a seat in this house, I should be most ungrateful
if I did not support the prayer of this petition, which I beg to as-
sure your lordships Ido most cordially. (Cheers.)
The noble duke presented a similar petition from persons profess.
ing the Jewish religion, residing at Chatham and Rochester.
Lord KING presented a petition to a like effect from the Jews of
the southern district of London.
Lord AUCKLAND presented several petitions from clothing dbl.
tricts in Lancashire, in favour of throwing open the trade to India
and China. The noble lord also presented petitions against the
practice of Suttee, from certain congregations of dissenters in Lan-
cashire.—Referred to the Committee.
The Earl of DARNLEY said he had a petition to present from
au individual, of whom their lordships had no doubt heard—an
honest, straight-forward man, JohtiLawiess. The petition was in
favour of the introduction of the poor laws in Ireland.
Lord GOWEtt presented a number of petitions from dissenting
congregations in Staffordshire, against burning widows in India,
some of which embodied another prayer—viz. the abolition of sla-
very. Among the places enumerated from whence the petitions
came were 13ursleno. Lane End, and Newcastle-under-Lyne.

Referred to the Committee.
The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from persons
professing the Jewish religion at Portsmouth, praying the removal
of tlisabilities.

GREECE.

Lord HOLLAND—My lords, ;eeing the noble secretary of state
for foreign affairs in his place, I rise for the purpose of putting a
question to him. At the commencement of the present session of
parliament we were informed, in the speech from the throne, that
measures were nearly completed for the final settlement of Greece.
I wish to ask the earl whether the documents connected with that
question are in that state of forwardness that it is likely they will
soon be laid on the table ? If so, I wish to know whether it is his in-
tention to lay, them before your lordships before the recess ; or, if
not, what time afterwards we may expect them ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN—In answer to the question put tome
by the noble baton, I beg to say, my lords, I am afraid it is impos.
sfble before the holydays to lay the papers on your lordships' table ;
but I confidently hope, immediately after the recess, they will be
laid before the house.
Lord HOLLAND—CouId the noble earl inform the house
whether the delay merely arises from matters which have not
been completed, or whether from any new negotiations now car-
rying on.
The Earl of ABERDEEN—There are points in negotiation not
yet settled; but I have the satisfaction of assuring the noble baron
that the most perfect concert exists between the three powers on the
subject.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from the
inhabitants of 'Warrington against the punishment of death for
offences against property. The noble marquis also presented a pe-
tition from the Town Council of Arbroath against the East India
monopoly.
FINE AND RECOVERY.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to take that opportunity
of inquiring whether the noble and learned lord on the woolsack
intended to bring forward a measure relating to the better regulation
of the practice of fines and recovery. The evils of the present
system had been clearly pointed out by the commissioners in their
inquiries on real property, and they had suggested an improve-
eient in the law on the subject which he had just referred. He
ventured to express a hope that the noble and learned lord
would. in the course of the present session, introduce a bill on
the subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he took leave, in answer to
the question put to him by the noble marquis, to state that it would
be better to wait and see what the commissioners recommended, be-
fore any particular measure was introduced. The different parts of
their report, to which the noble marquis had alluded, appeared to
Win (the Lord Chancellor) so connected together, that, until the ge-
neral view of what they did recommend were seen, it would be more
advisable not to bring forward any legislative measure on that par.
titular subject. When their recommendations were fully seen, he
begged to say that no delay on his part should occur to retard the
object of them.
FRENCH ARMAMENT TO ALGIERS.
The Marquisof CLANRICARDE—My lords, I rise for the pur-
pose of putting a question to the noble earl opposite, the secretary for
foreign affairs, relating to a matter of no small importance :—I
refer to the expedition now preparing in the South part of France,
with a view of attacking Algiers. I wish to know, from the noble
earl, whether his majesty's ministers have received from the French
government an explanation of the views and objects of sending forth
that armament ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN—In answer, my lade, to the question
put to me by the noble lord, I beg to reply that his majesty's go-
vernment have been in communication with his most christian ma.
jesty's ministers upon the subject referred to, and have hitherto
every reason to be satisfied with the answer of the French govern-
ment, and that the explanation is as satisfactory as his Majesty's mi.
nisters have a right to expect.
rain. RETYOID.
The Marquis of SALISBURY, in rising to move the third read-
ing of the bill for indemnifying the witnesses from any penalties
which they might be liable to in giving evidence at their loniships'
bar on the East Rettord disfranchisement bill, said that he did not
certainly, when he introduced the bill, meditate any opposition to
it, especially on the part of the noble baron (Lord Holland.) The
bill wat similar to others which had passed their lordships house ;
it was one which the general practice, in like cases, not only au-
Illorized, but rendered necessary. Their lordships had never taken
away any elective franchise without the parties who were considered
Mi worthy holding the privilege being heard in their own defence.
• rile Coble marquis then referred to precedents—in the year 1771,
'elle Test Of New Shoreham, 1789.* the Aylesbury and Penryn
cases, in ail of which similar bills of. Indemnity were passed. He
• had examined the standing ceders of the house, and found no less
• which the principle for which he con-
__ . introduced
and the
impu-
impu-
course
' offer
felt

.4r
could be

Med the
or of
have
have
on the
• Ann-
connected
anions had
objeetione

wen anew
seprobly: dr.
link too* strong
''Ane were not

suirqvis
bye, these
period—in ..ipport lord, after
some further observations on this point, proceeded to describe, at'
some length, the difference which exists between public and private
bills, particularizing the nature of evidence required in bills of the
former description, before the legislature gave its sanction. The
great principle on which this bill went, was on the assumption that
the East Retford Bill was a bill of pains and penalties. Nothing
could be mote erroneous than such a supposition. It took from
the electors of Fast Itetford no right ; it scattered the franchise they
already possessed in a greater number of electors, which might per.
hapsdiminish the value of the franchise. If a bill of pains and penal-
ties was before the house, their lordships would, in humane con-
sideration to the parties to be affected by it, observe all those wise
forms which distinguished that house in its judicial capacity. The
precedents mentioned by the noble marquis in support of his case
were different from those of the bill before the house. Similar bills
were introduced when witnesses refused to answer questions airni.
noting themselves • but in those cases it was assumed that evidence
was required. This was his objection to the present bill. It as-
sumed that there was already an insufficiency of evidence. The
other house had the bill, yet they were to assume that that
house had it without having sufficient evidence before them.
Their lordships were also aware that the bill was founded upon the
report of an election committee established by act of parliament. It
was theduty of that committee to try the election, and report on it
to the house, and that ought to be sufficient for their lordships to
act upon in a ease like the present. lie repeated that this was not
a bill of pains and penalties, taking from the electors any vested
rights. The idea that such a bill as the East Retford Bill was
a bill of pains and penalties arose from the peculiar nature of
the first bill of the kind brought into Parliament —(Hear hear.)
—That was not a bill to disfranchise the Borsugh Of New
Shoreham, but to incapacitate certain persons. The Bill was
chiefly against an association of persons in the borough, calling
,
itself ' the Christian Society," which, by fraud, hypocrisy, and
corruption, had endeavoured to possess themselves of the borough.
That bill, therefore, had mixed objects. The other part of the bill
went to an extension of the franchise. It was a bill, to use the em.
phatic language of Lord Chatham, one great object of which was to
transfer New Shoreham from the banks of the Ganges to the county
of Sussex. In the bills introduced in the Cricklade or Aylesbury
cues, there was nothing which could warrant their being considered
as bilk of pains and penalties but from the notion conceived of the
double object of the New Shoreham bill, the same course was fol-
lowed as to evidence to be produced. In the Aylesbury case two pe-
titions were presented, one for and another against the bill, but the
course taken by the house in that case was, that the counsel and wit-
nesses in favour of the bill were ordered to withdraw, and the coun.
sel against the bill were heard in the first instance. Now, had the
bill been considered in the light of a bill of pains and penalties,
the patties promoting it would have, in the first instance, been
called upon to prove the allegation. In such cases, witnesses were
examined to prove the guilt, as necessary to the foundation of the
punishment. He could show that not merely the transfer of
the franchise from a borough might be done without the neces-
sity of examining evidence, but their lordships had the prece-
dent of the transfer of the highest authority of the state- that of
the crown itself; transferred not merely from an individual, but
taken away from a family, with whom, according to some of the
received notions of legitimacy, it existed as a right; and yet no
evidence was considered necessary at their bar. (Hear, hear, hear.)
The Duke of Saxony, one of the parties excluded, was not
called upon to show that he was not a Papist, or that he was
not arbitrary in his disposition, as was alleged, as the ground for
the transfer. With this precedent before them, would any of their.
lordships insist on the vested rights of voters for a borough ? Look
at the case of the union with Scotland, in consequence of which
many places ware disfranchised which had sent members to the
Scotch Parliament ; they were not heard at the bar, nor was any evi-
dence offered that they had done any act which deserved the for.
feiture of their elective franchise. The same rule prevailed with
Ireland. Many boroughs were deprived of the right of votingkiere,
many Peers were deprived of the right of seats in Parliament.
some compensation was made to them, and justly.--(" Hear,"
the Marquis of Salisbury.) He understood the cheer of the noble
marquis, but how far did this admission, as to compensation, maim
for the noble marquis's argument ? Was the preamble of that bill
proved at their bar ? And why should the preamble of a bill for
extendinethe franchise of East Retford require evidence mole than
those of the bills for totally disfranchising as many bow& k
Scotland and Ireland ? The measure of last year, with respect
to a large body of freeholders in Ireland, was in point,—of
men, whose right of voting was not held in trust, but existed by
common law. Those men were disfranchised without any evidence
being heard at the bar : nay, their petition to be heard was refused.
He owned that his consent to that measure was extorted from him
only by his conviction of the great benefit of the measure which
accompanied it. That measure of disfranchisement was passed
without examining any evidence. If their lordships sanctioned
the bill now before them, it would establish an extremely injurious
precedent, and would militate against all reforms, however useful.
He would repeat to their lordships the trite maxim of Lord Bacon,
that time was a great innovator. All who admitted that must also
admit that our constitution contained within it the power of re-
moving any bar or impediment to improvement. But nothing
could lead to more dangerous consequences in the minds of the pub.
lie than the opinion, that there was something in the constitution
and practice of that house which was opposed to improvement. As
no case of necessity existed for this bill, he must therefore oppose
it, and protest against being thus called upon to pronounce on the
evidence which might be adduced in support of the bill until be
knew what was its nature.

The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to offer to their lordships
a few words to explain the reasons why he thought this bill ought
to be read a third time. He must begin by remarking upon the
quotation which the noble lord (Hollmd) had made from Lord
Bacon. He agreed with him in the correctness of the trite maxim
of Bacon, that , time is the greatest innovator ;" but whenever that
quotation was used, he should like to hear the words which imme-
diately followed it given—" It were good, therefore, that men in
their innovation should follow the example of time itself, which,
indeed, innovateth greatly, but quietly, and by degrees scarce to be
perceived--(hear.) The other point was, whether bills of this kind
should be considered as bills of pains and penalties. It was true that
the bill in the case of Cricklade was so considered by Lord Mansfield.
He would take the point as put, and admit that the right of voting
was held as a public trust; but where there was a charge for the
abuse of that mist, it was, he must contend, necessary to take evi.
dence to prove the alleged delinquency. The noble baron said that
that they might be satisfied with the evidence taken before the
committee of the House of Commons; but the House of Commons
itself was not satisfied with that report. In the case of Penryn
the same course was adopted. The noble and learned lord,
after quoting the cases of Shoreham, Aylesbury, Barnstaple, and
Orampound, to show that the same course, as to evidence being
given at the bar, was adopted which was proposed in the present,
contended that the necessity for examining evidence being once ad-
mitted, they ought, according to all principles of law, to pass such
a bill as the present, to indemnify the witnesses against the conse-
quence of their evidence ; otherwise that evidence might be incom-
plete. It was necessary to protect a witness who gave evidence at
the bar, in a way which would effectually guard against all prose-
cution ; for, according to the principle he had laid down, such a bill
as this was necessary for the purpose of getting the fullest evidence.
On the occasion of Orampound a bill for indemnifying the wit•
nesse' was found necessary, and carried through all its stages in one
night. The same mode of proceeding was resorted to in the case of
Penryn. There was no departure recorded from this course on their
, journals. For the lost 30 years it had been usual to indemnify such
witnesses. On these gruunda, therefore, he should move• that the
bill be read a third time.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that, if witnesses were still tequi.
site, they must, of course, have a bill like that now produced. Upon
that point he apprehended there sou no difference of opinion ; but
the question was, whether their lordships ought to examine wit.
nines at all. The preamble of the bill stated that it was necessary
to examine witnesses at the bar of that house ; and his objection
was that this expression seemed to Impose the same rule upon their
lordships upon all similar occasions. This precedent their lord-
ships would be obliged to follow, perhaps, in eases where there
might be no necessity for examining witnesses. He differed al-
together from the noble and learned lord on the woolsack on one
point. The powers of such committee did not stop where the
noble and learned lord supposed they stopped ; for the committee
might report upon general malpractices. The committee on the
East Retford election stated in their report that they considered it
their duty WWI the attention of the house to the general practice of
bribery and corruption which had prevailed in elections for that
borough. The noble and learned lord, therefore, sou wrong in sup•
posing that the powers dam* a Committee were limited to the par-
ticular election. He came back to his objection,that the preamble pre-
duded that house from proceeding in similar cases without evidence.
If this were to Abolish a franchise, evidence might be necessary;
but it did not take away a franchise. It proposed that others should
partake of the right ,of voting for members for East Retford; but
did not deprive any one of that right. What was the tight in qques►
don ? merely the right of being_ represented by person for whom
the voters voted penonally. The personal representative, the%
would be mill the stubs. He was no reformer. Be thought that
any gesat addition to the democratic,' power of the Henn of Csm.
mono would prevent the Government from going on, no boo as it
remained a Monarchy. He saw Bills of this nature introducid
with pain; but if they were to have such Bills, let them deal pro.

I.perly with them. There was a reform pretty,mwedly spiked of,
' and one which, but for his objection to nay 4o the demo.
aatical power of the House of Commons, lie sheidd be inclined to
consent to—namely, reform in the repesentation of the coun-
ties of Scotland. Should the persons who proposed such a re.
Liam be met by saying—" You- most produce evidence in sup-
port of your proposal," this would be groposterous. Equally so
would it have been if the measure for dilkanchising the Irish 40s.
freeholders had been met in the same manner. He thought that, in
the present case, there was anthers facie case kr Cheir Lordships to
proceed upon ; and he could not, shadow, gine his consent to the
preamble of this bill, which said this it was necessary for their lord.
ships to call evidence, though he might agree to it if the words were
altered to " it may be necessary."
Lord WY NFORD conceived their lordships would act incon-
sistently if they neglected to call evidence in a case like the present.
It had been said by one noble lord, " Walt and see if any of the
witnesses refuse to answer the questions put to them, before you pass
a bill like this." He differed, however, from that noble lord, and
in this respect there was a shade of difference too between him and
his noble and learned friend on the woolsack. He would say
that their lordships should not wait to see if the witnesses would
take this objection ; for it was their duty to protect witnesses,
unasked, and to take care that neither the counsel nor any of
their own body should press a man to give answers which would
criminate himself—(Hear, hear.) Again, it had been asked,
"How do you know that any witnesses will be in this situation ?"
Their lordships had only to look at that evidence in order to be as-
sured that many witnesses would be in that situation. The ques-
tion then was, would their lordships refuse to extend to these wit-
nesses that protection which every court of justice in the country
gave to every witness who came before them ? The noble baron op.
polite, in his very ingenious speech, had described the elective
franchise as k trust. The more general and the more correct de.
acriptiou would be found to be "a trust, with an interest." That
it ought not to be sold was certain ; but where property gave the
right of voting, that property was saleable, and a man was in all',
cases allowed to hold out this right as a circumstance which en-1
hanced the value of the property. If the right were not derived
from property, still the description of "a trust, with an in-
terest," was correct; for would any one say that "people had not
an interest in sending to parliament men who represented their
opinions I" Hence it was not only an interest, but a most valuable
interest, the possession of which the people of this country had often
been envied. If so, ought their to ships to take it away without
evidence? Certainly not. But then it had been said by a noble
baron (Whameliffe) opposite, that they did not deprive the voters
of their franchise; but merely admitted others to share it. Now he

imagined that noble baron would consider Le was really deprived of
a portion of his property, if a number of persons were admitted as
joint-tenants with him on it. Was not this case very nearly the
same ? As they added to the number of persons who were to share
an interest, in the same proportion they diminished the interest. He
must be allowed to say that he entirely concurred with Lord Mans-
field and Lord Thurlow, in the opinion that such bills were bills of
pains and penalties. Of this nature was, in strictness, any measure
which took from a man any thing that he possessed. But if such bills
were not bills of pains and penalties, still they took away a right
which ought never to be done except upon sufficient evidence, espe-
cially in s country where no man had ever been deprived by puha.
ment of a single acre of land without receiving compensation.
With regard to what had fallen from a noble lord respecting the
report of the select committee of the House of Commons, that report,
although it stated the existence of corruption, did not state the extent
of the corruption—which was not merely important but necessary.
The noble baron (Holland) said that these bills were public acts, and
related to public interests. The instances given by the noble baron,
such as the transfer of the crown from the Stuart family, were pro.
ceedings founded upon public and notorious facts. Was such the
case with respect to the matter now before them ? Far from it—the
alleged offence had taken place in a scorner, and required to be
proved by evidence. This was a general principle, upon which
their lordships had always acted, and from which he trusted their
lordships never would depart. He dissented altogether from the
noble baron in the opinion that measures like these would retard the
reform for which that noble baron was an advocate. For he could
not think, that to add vigour and purity to a decayed and corrupt
borough would be a hindrance to reform.
Lord HOLLAND said he had given no opinion as to how far
measures, like that before the house, would postpone or accelerate
the important question of reform in Parliament. But he had said
that bills like this for calling or indemnifying witnesses were cal-
culated to retard the hope of moderate reform, as in the case of
East Retford. For the remainder of the quotation from Lord
Bacon he was anxious to express his gratitude to the noble lord on
the woolsack, because the part suppled was even more favourable
than that quoted, or the argument which ho had attempted to
enforce.

The Earl of CARNARVON hoped that their Lordships would
not adopt a course which must be most unsatisfactory in its nature
and result, in preference to the old established usage of regulating
their decisions upon questions of this nature, by evidence taken at
their own bar. It had been argued, in the course of this discussion,
that because no petition had been resented, and no Counsel were
employed, there could be no party interested in these proceedings.
He must beg leave to dissent altogether from that assumption. lie
maintained that there was a party, and an important party. The
Constitution was that party, and, before their Lordship. consented
to any Inroad upon its rights, they ought to put themselves in pos-
session of all the circumstances of the case in which those rights were
involved. It was their duty to satisfy themselves that the grounds
upon which they were called upon to act were such as to warrant a
deviation from the ordinary practice. Some Noble Lords would
have the House proceed upon the evidence taken by the Committee
of the House of Commons. lie mast observe that that evidence
was, from its nature, the wont which their Lordships, under the
circumstances, could have, because it was not taken upon oath.
Their Lordships, therefore, ought not to be satisfied with that de-
scription of proof, but ought to receive evidence at their own bar,
and govern the steps which they should deem it proper to take by
the facts which should be disclosed on oath before them. Indeed,
in justice tot only to the parties concerned, hut to themselves, their
Lordships were bound to call for such evidence.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE and the Marquis of SALISBURY
each said a few words in explanation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question, and the
amendment brinas:zatived without a division, the bill was read a
third time and
Lord Joint itusszu. and other Members brought up from the
Commons a bill for the better regulation of the affairs of the united
parishes of St. Oiles.in.the.Field and St. George, Bloomsbury,
which was read a first time.

Lord WYNFORD gave notice that on ➢londay he should move
that the 26th and 27th standing orders of the house be dispensed•
with in reference to this BilL

Their Lordships adjounird at
a QUARTEII to EIGET.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-FRIDAy.

Mr. Crafer, from the Treasury, presented certain men pre-
viously ordered.
Mr. Barrow, from the Admiralty, presented certain annual re.
turns relating to that department of administration.
Mr. Berthall, from the Trinity House, presented certain returns
relative to the above establishment previously ordered.—Laid on the
table.

tees XRW HAYMARKET.
Lord LOWTHER brought up the report of the Committee o

the above MU.

.---Mr.EYI4I6 repeated the observations he had made at a previous
stage of the bill, in opposition to its passing into a law, condemning
it as highly injurious to many individuals, his constituents, engaged
in agricultural pursuits.
Lord LOWTHER considered that the house must be fully aware
that the present market fee hay, to supply the principal and major
part of the metropolis, could not be considered in any other light
than a public nuisance. To the inhabitants of its immediate vici-
nity it had long been considered as such, and it was not until
reiterated and general complaints had been addressed to government
that the present alteration had been resolved en, although fora long
time previous its necessity was apparent. There had been no nuns-
assay inconvenience created in the present measure; the line of
policy adopted in this instance was strictly amforstabic to all pre-
vious instances of alterations In large towns, wheal there were gene-
rally some few to complain against an alteration which mast be
attended with benefit to the public at large.
The bill was Ordered to be committed in a committee of the shah
house, and to be taken into consideration on .a future day.
• maw IlitlfoEll,olD MAIZET.
The above bill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn.
mitted.

ST. GILES AND ST. GEORGE'S (RLOODISDURY) VESTRY RILL
Mr. HOBHOUSb presented two petitions spin the above bill.
The one wasadopted at ennead meetinsof the parishioners held that
morning, and was signed. nOtwiihstanding the shortness of the notice,
by 1,000 bons.flAe Inhabitants, whose names and address were sub-
scribed to the petition, and would bear the strictest investigation.
They considered that by the proposed bill they were being deprived
of their imeoemorlal privileges, in the right of toting on the elec.
Itien of paroshlalelleers, by the amount being restricted to the in.
habitants oho =datums than WI rental. The petitioners complained
I—and justly it his oploicat-Lot the sheet time allowed them to op-
pose the present WU riling into a law t for it wits only at half.
past two o'clock that nine sterning. ghat he (Mr. Hobbouse). as
Chairman of the Coninktoli had Pleteettpii the report, after a sitting
of two years, upon thiA,trety/wastion-rqbe laws affecting the select
Male*. (ilsar.) H, taw .01i acme 14141*R-ft& to 60.101 top
report fo in: a laberhette tillforto :Or ) tf, •Weieenttentoocf..
sisa that wed't otiOat briEnter At/ anisitie
before any bill Aosta be pried w might at defiance the
recommendations contained in such upon. The present bill de.

stroyed at one blow the elective principle of those who had to pay
rates of choosing and appointing their own officers in all affairs of
the pariah. The second petition was from Mr. Wakley, one of the
churchwardens, who complained in the same terms as regarded the
parishioners generally, and, in addition, that the election to the
office of churchwarden would be completely abolished, or confined
to a few Individuals. At the meting held that day he (Mr. Hob.
house) was authorised to contradict the assertion made by the hon.
member for the City of London (Mr. Ward), that the bill W 3.4
considered in a favourable light by a majority of the parishioners ;
so far from that being the truth, there were only four individual.
(we understood the honourable member to say), unconnected with
the pariah business, who expressed their full concurrence in the hill.
Mr. WARD denied that he bad made any misrepresentation, and
defied the hon. member for Vi'estminster (Ms. Hobhouse) to point
out any inaccuracy in what had fallen from him on a previous occa-
I 'ion. He spoke upon what had transpired in evidence, and not
from hearsay.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN supported the petitions, and
thought there was nothing so unreasonable as that of attempting to
deprive numerous individuals of the legal right to elect those parish
officers who possessed the power of extorting money from their
pockets. He knew from the parish in which he had resided, the
many abuses practised in parochial business; and as regarded the
statement urged in respect to the present bill, that the parties likely
to be appointed to office were the 'most rich and influential,
he would say that this was any thing but a recommendation in
their favour. It was the same in this case as regarded certain
joint-stock companies ; the rich, or what is termed the most re-
spectable individuals, neglected to attend to their duties. The con-
sequence was, they devolved on a few of the more obscure persons,
who acted in the name of the whole, and hence brought on those
disgraceful consequences which it was most anxiously now sought
to obviate. (hear.) He knew of instances where money had been
fraudulently appropriated, and the principal and responsible parties
were compelled to refund, entirely through the activity of that de-
scription of parishioners who, according to the terms of the present
bill, were too obscure to entitle them to a vote in parish affairs.
He considered this bill an attempt to destroy the elective right of
the parishioner, which, however, be feared, existed more in theory
than in practice.
The two petitions were then ordered to be brought up, and or-
dered to lie on the table.

After some petitions had been disposed of,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading of the St.
Giles and St. George's (Bloomsbury) vestry bill.
Mr. HUME opposed this measure as extremely pAtipitate and
unusual, where a temporary delay might be attended with great ad-
vantage and little inconvenience. The ,petition so nume.
rously signed, which had just been presented, and which
had been adopted in so short a space of time, he thought, ought
to have some weight. After recapitulating the turns of Mr.
Sturges Bourne's Bill, he (Mr. H.) felt of opinion that if the amount
of sum at which rate-payers were allowed to vote was reduced from
301. to 201. it would be attended with great advantage, and tend to re-
store peace and tranquillity in the parish, which was next to impos-
sible if the present bill passed. He considered a man paying 201. a
year as much entitled to vote, where his interests were concerned,
as one who paid 1001.—and the former felt more severely any
coal-practices of his parish officers, and, therefore, was more inte-
rested in their due election. He ( Mr. Hume) was greatly surprised
at the part taken by the noble lord (Lord John Russell), who was
so active a partisan on all occasions for reform and the freedom of
election. In the parish in question, his lordship's family interests
were so much at stake in the preservation of tranquillity and har-
mony in that district, that he (Mr. Hume) was at a loss to account
for the active part which had been taken in opposition to the views
of the majority of the inhabitants. He (Mr. Hume) would conclude
by moving that the bill be re-committed.
The SPEAKER observed that there were three courses of pro-
ceeding in opposing the Bill, according to the usages of the house.
The first was to negative the Bill on ha third reading ; or, secondly,
to move that it be read that day six months ; and, thirdly, by nega-
tiving the several clauses of the Bill, but that could not be done un-
til the Bill was read a third time.
Mr. HUME hoped further time would be granted for the consi-
deration of the Bill, and, with that view, should move that it be
read a third time on the 27th inst.

The question being put from the Chair,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose and observed, that, with respect to what
had been said regarding his family, he was desirous of stating that
the only interest they were actuated by was the preservation of peace
and tranquillity in the parish, where certainly they had a large pro.
this
parish lie had wished to have avoided any interference in hep
parish difference', but he had been strongly urged to it from the two
existing parties who had caused the whole affairs of the parish to be
involved in confusion, and it was only to remove those differences,
that he had Inteifered. (Hear.) He did not consider himself at
first bound to advocate the present bill, and was inclined to
recommend a reduction in the amount to which the votes
were limited ; but, from the evidence which had been adduced
before the committee, he had good reasons for altering that opinion.
He thought, if blame attached to any one, it was to those who had
refused or neglected to make their representations known to the
committee. lie felt bound to declare lie coincided in the opinion of
that committee formed, as it was, after the most mature and delibe.
rate consideration. If he had thought the bill at all injurious to
the body of inhabitant., he would have been the first to have oppo-
sed it ; but he felt convinced it was the only medium which could
be adopted to restore perfect harmony to the general body of pa-
rishioners. He should therefore urge the third reading of the bill.
Sir F. BURDETT opposed the further progress of the bill at
the present map, as an encroachment on existing laws of vestry,
and more particularly of Mr. Sturges Bourne 's bilk He con-
demned the present bill as excluding too many persons aho had an
undoubted legal right to vote in parish affairs. lie hoped the sug-
gestion of the hon. member (Mr. Hume) for a temporary delay in
the progress of the bill, would meet with the approval of the house.
Sir T. FREMANTLE supported the bill, and objected to any
farther delay. He thought it of importance that the house should
decide one way or the other, as the parish was in a state of itritatier
and legal contention.
Mr. BARING was in favour of postponement, to give the house
time for acquiring farther information on the subject. It was, he
conceived, of great importance that there should be some uniform
rule for deciding the qualification of voters, and thought that every
person assessed to the amount e,f 20t should have that right.
Colonel DAVIES was apprehensive that uniformity was imprac-
ticable. There were three different bills in the house at present,
and the qualification was different in every one. The bill might be
ed by omitting some of the objectionble clauses.
BYNG expressed himself strongly in favour of postpone-
, ment, and declared his intention to vote against the bill altogether,
if time were not given.
Lord NUGENT objected to the bill, as a disfranchisement of the
majority of the parishioners.
Mr. TENNYSON opposed it, on the same ground.
Mr. BttA MSTON did not think the principle of disfranchise-
ment was at all concerned. as even the hon. member for Aberdeen
was willing that the right should be limited to persons assessed
above 201.
The house then proceeded to a division, when there appeared
For the Amendment..
Against it
Majority against the postponement —34
. The Bill was then read a third time.
Mr. HUME next proposed an amendment, that the qualification
be reduced from 301. to 2.1/. assessment ; and further, that at what-
ever sum a parishioner was rated, he should nut be entitled to more
than one vote in the parish vestry.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he must oppose this amendment.
Iwhich, he must say, was in some degree contrary to good faith.—
' The friends of the Bill had consented to reduce the qualificatier
from 301. to Mi. upon an understanding that no further opposition
would be given to this Bill.
Mr. HUME disclaimed all knowledge of any such mrangement
or comproentee.
Ain some more conversation, the house disk led, when there ap-
peared
For reducing and limiting the qualification...... 27
Against it.
Majority against the amendment
The house again divided upon OW third reading of the bill, who
there were
For the third reading 4B
Against it. 26
Majority
'flee bill was then bead • third time and passed.
Loan Exttorsonottfaes vet-once at LL.
Sir G. CLERK brought up the report on Lord Ellenborough's
Hemet Bilk—Laid upon the table.
Sir G. CLERK moved the Ada mikes fee Monday next.
Mr. A. BLLIS prosiotellogalisst timAeato adds tallith it was PTO'
posed to put forward thierillk 8.,ewl nee Morastas to oppose the
bilk but it ought not ft hbeinsliAllswersi within* teuMh he*f• Be
would pos±posse des eMilletesibiellitafter_dite.balliaga.
thnt the bill
ought to be paired witlesutidehty. Maws., if any Itieicculw
mained to themeless on Alksedap, he Irma bather pneepenelt- It
should not be feegotemanina Illnusday wan fined fur the house ad-
immolate over the bailee.
Mr. SPICING RIO& mid thee the he me, after °editing the evi-
dense so be printed, wedisoe indlsesettly fa proceeding with so
menohlieses. At the matt.tintsit world been injustice to the per-
din to debt the passing of desthill. He looped wrens fietani cloy
rsdnid naese4.
• :Sir GIORQE.GLERJE would yield to the • of the
beseueable combs, and lia,Tuestilly for..the.X • reading of 4°
bill •
The bill was then ordered to be read a third time on Tuesday
neat.

IHrorce
0.

.. . .
a number. than sixteen, in-which the principle for which he e
tended was recognised. The bill, be said, bad been introdu
perhaps rather late, but he bad given due notice of it, and
sieges were taken in the usual manner. Therefore, from the im
tenon of smuggling the bill through. the house, did any. such im
tail'on exist; be stood perf y free. If he were wrong in the cot
'taken; he should be moui yto be set right,' and would o
Ilarct
Ast.spology to.lhe hopsnith such an mot required, bite .he
' serittatied-thaetbe course he bad ,teruni.. was one which their I,
' .istee "Oule‘ 0ons• ides. ,ifte only and pop.ii course that could
PitoPi.C4. A '''''. ' • ,
Lord IitYLLAND commenced with siting that he acquitted
noble merger of an intention of tab!? the house by surprise, c
- jotthEni. fnktti ggle'the bill threw the Louse. It would 1
:beak: !fierbbn (Lcire: ellana,) doubtlessly, to 1
• '.- , • ' :.• ~ ~71.1 , ,''. - irhleh he wastow about to offer either on
.• - . •.., .• 'the. bill; CC when• the itetion Was made for at
• • 1141Mikt • . ' •'• ' ' 'in:jiltit -Evidence on the other bill mune
viih. *we -.- .11011.7Te_ Artfiittd the other Of these omantons
~ jeotli-4'... "... , fri Ufbolit Ala ideating, to. the object
• -4Shltiff-b .4,4.3/billA . Vie tiehle marquis conceived
* ' 'lt'. • -:'.' • Vitita iiilfliOn fats, they Irina tom to
" be- • . iCartettrkime, add hunted it down i bit probibly.
game which he (Lord Ifolitind)'shbuld start was a little too su
for the noble marquis. His (Lad Holland's) objections were

•
as had been supposed; so much to theirinciple of the bill, as to
stzle
the thn' e manner,. and circum ' .which it came WOW tbs.
Rouse.. It wasnee!i'assi to ordshlps gigot* to the
exact stet'[ of the wettest= existed -respatins V* .13111,
and the 'Ober hill :to At applied. (Hear, ham; bear.)
There was no petithas before the house either for or against
the bill. Uport itp being so introduced, the noble marquis
had stated precedents of former times—though, by the bye, these
were at no distant period—in support of it. The noble lordP alter