The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-29 00:00:00

an immense number of colliers and miners were assem-
bling in that district, and going round to stop all the
works. lle left them taking the direction to our pits at
Bunkcr's-hill. We are now, lam persuaded, entering
upon a scene of confusion ; Bread or blood' is chalked
upon the walls, and it is openly talked of to have a
regular disturbance next Monday at our wake. Already
we hear of marked men. I could give you the names
of several of our ironmasters thus marked for popular
vengeance. Last week a party came to my house ; on
the door being closed, they cried out, It's no use
shutting the door ; open it, or we will burst
it open, and help ourselves ; we want bread, and
bread we will have.' On some loaves being given
them, they left. Surely the men who have grasped
the reins of power cannot be so blind and be-
wildered as to imagine that such a state of things in a
district like this can last many days, or that it is safe to
allow it to be so. I envy not their position ; I would
not, for all their power, be subject to the dreadful and
bitter curses denounced upon their heads—curses deep
and long, by the unemployed, as they stagger, through
weakness, from our doors.

"There was an immense meeting at Swan Village,
near West Bromwich. I have n9t, heard the result.
Excuse these hasty lines, and believe me, &c.
" S.—Yesterday (our market-day) we might just as
well have closed our shops ; there is really no business
doing." . _ _

" Bilston, July, 27, 1842,
" My dear Sir—On Monday the town was very quiet,
as the meetings at Swan Village and Walsall tempted
many to go there. At Swan Village the meeting was
very large ; some reports say from 10,000 to 15,000;
but I think, from the best authority, there were from
5,000 to 7,000. The Rev. Mr. Stocks succeeded in get-
ting a hearing, but their great man, Mr. O'Neil, was the
principal speaker. He advised peace and obedience to
the law, but used very strong and imploring language.
I hear Lord Dartmouth passed the place during the
meeting. In the evening meetings were held at Wed-
nesbury and Bilston, and the people were very importu-
nate for relief: At Walsall, after holding a meeting, a
body of miners set off to the collieries at gently, and
stopped those men they found at work. Yesterday morn-
ing the men employed breaking stones at our Union
house, finding the guardians intended to pay them sd.
instead of 11b. mutton and oatmeal, and considering it a
drop of wages, refused to go to work, formed themselves
into a procession. and marched through Wolverhampton,
Willeuhall, and Bilston. About 300 passed my house.
They then returned to the Union house, and threatened if
relief was not given to commit violence. After consult-
ing Mr. Hill, a Magistrate, the guardians who could be
got together, about six o'clock, p.m., agreed to give them
' the wages as if they had worked, so that the men gained
a great victory. To-day they are working at the old
wages, and are emboldened to ask for a Sunday allow-
ance, as well as for the six working days. The board
meet again to-morrow, as the applications for relief are
much on the increase. The miners in the neighbour-
hood of Walsall were all stopped by those already out of
work ; after a meeting at Wednesbury, they went round
in a body of from 200 to 300, soliciting relief: The
tradesmen gave them food, and, in some instances, mo-
ney, to the amount of 2s. and 3s. at a house. To-day
has, however, has been the most important ; large bo-
dies of from 200 to 400 have passed through this dis-
trict, either compelling the men at work to desist, or
else giving them warning of the consequences if found at
work next week. The notices for a reduction of wages
expire on Saturday night, and they are determined not
to go in at the reduction. This afternoon about 300
passed through the country between Wednesbury and
Bradley. About 400 have come to Bilston, from Wal-
sall ; they called at Bunker's Hill Colliery, and com-
pelled the men to leave work ; also at the Bull Holes'
Colliery ; they then came up the town, and in some in-
stances took bread and meat by force, and in many cases
the shopkeepers gave them what they demanded, and
some closed their shops altogether.
" The Magistrates are now at the King's Arms Inn,
swearing in special constables, the town is in a very
alarming state, and though I do not fear a riot, I do fear
the men will take food where they can find it, and thus
subject themselves to the law, and the town to the ex-
pense and unpleasantness of having, a military force
placed in it. Besides I see no prospect of amendment,
for the manufacturers have almost no orders, and are,
not able to sell the little they do sell but at a serious
loss. Sir Robert Peel is not, cannot be ignorant of the
state of things in this and other manufacturing districts,
a state of things hourly getting worse, and he is not
honest in saying the accounts of distress are exaggerated.
I am surprised Government do not leave everything
else, and turn their attention to the condition of the
starving thousands, daily increasing around them. One
common ruin appears to await us all, if our trade is not
immediately revived • charity will do nothing for us, and
poor-rates will shortly bring us all to one common level.
I am more and more convinced that free trade measures
are just and right, and will remedy our distress. ,
" I have just heard that 400 colliers or more are gone
to the neighbourhood of Dudley from Wednesbury and
Bilston, and that a large meeting is to be held to-morrow
to arrange for a general strike.

"fam, dear Sir, very truly yours,
" ROBERT BEW.
" Rev. W. H. Bonner, London."
"Bilston, July 27, 1842.
" My dear Sir—We have been, and arc now surrounded
with, scenes which cannot be allowed or continued, with-
out leading to the complete breaking up of all social
older. Our town has been completely occupied, since
noon, by a body of near 1,000 men, seizing provisions
from the shops when denied, and causing so much alarm
that many of the tradesmen in the upper part of the
town closed their houses for safety. Just below me they
carried off some legs of mutton, and, on a grocer and
provision dealer giving them some loaves of bread, they
commenced devouring the meat in a raw state, and almost
ready to fight over it, and the crumbs of bread which fell
while they were devouring it. They have been round to
the whole of the pits in our district, and compelled the
men to leave their work. This was effected without se-
rious injury to any. In case of resistance, as in a few
instances, they ducked the men in the pools, and threat-
ened to kill them if they attempted to work again. I
attended a meeting near my house last night. I suppose
there were near 2,000. It was adjourned until to-morrow
evening, when they are to adopt certain resolutions, of
the same character as those adopted by the colliers in
the Potteries. I fear we shall be subject to the same
scenes of confusion then as to-day. One man whom I
addressed said, What are we to do ? We cannot live
many days unless we take by force what we cannot get
otherwise.' I replied, But how unjust to fall back upon
the tradesmen, who are almost ruined as it is, and two-
thirds of us must close our shops ere long.' Then,'
said the man, ' come with us and fight for it ; we mean to
do so next week ; this is the only chance for us ; we can
only die by the soldiers, and we may as well be shot to
death as starved.' This is a sad state of things. I anti-
cipate some of our friends wijl give you more particulars
by this post, therefore trust you will excuse brevity.
" Yours very truly."
Mr. SHAR3IAN CRAWFORD, M.P., next addressed the
meeting. He said he had no personal interest in manu-
factures, his entire income was derived from land, and
he could not therefore be supposed to advocate the views
he entertained from any personal motive. He was con-
vinced that the success of the cause which the League
advocated was as essentially the true interest of the
agriculturist as of the manufacturer. He conceived that
those who were connected with land and advocated the
existence of the Corn-laws, entirely mistook their own
interest. He was of opinion that the Corn-laws instead
of raising rents tended to lower .them and keep them
down, and tended to diminish employment (he spoke of
the agricultural labourer). No rents were so high as
those drawn from districts in which manufactures were
connected with agriculture. They were much higher
than the rents drawn from districts whore the tenant
relied solely on the production of corn, as the means of
paying his rent. He advocated the occupation of land
by small farmers, whose capital was their labour, instead
of its being let out to large capitalists. The advantages
to the country at large from the occupancy
of land by small farmers would be inestimable.
When the labourer was prosperous every class in the
community shared in that prosperity ; but when the
selfish views of monopolists were carried out, as at the
present time, the anomalous state of a prosperous class
in the upper circles living in the same country where
the labouring classes were starving, was the consequence.
Sir R. Peel had stated the annual income of this country
at 166,000,0001. sterling, and was it not a most extraor-
dinary thing that with such an enormous wealth as that
the great mass of the people should be starving ? Some-
thing must be lyrong in the institutions of the einpire to
cause such a state of things. With respect to ma-
chinery, though in its immediate effects it was injurious
to the operative by throwing him out of employment,
yet it was ultimately productive of great advantages by
the increased demand for labour. The Hon. Gentleman
here entered into lengthened details to show the advan-
tages resulting from a division of the land into small
holdings, and read extracts from a pamphlet, published
by himself, to prove that four acres of average land
would be amply adequate to support a working man and
his family, allowing sibs. a day of food to every member
of a family ; whereas, the dietary in the English
workhouses was to each individual only 18 ounces
of bread, and three ounces of cheese, while in Ireland
it was still worse, namely, seven ounces of meal and
3-ilbs. of potatoes. That allowance was divided into two
meal's, because, as the Commissioners stated, great incon-
venience would arise from having a third meal or supper.
In proof of his theory, he referred to the condition of
operatives in Belfast, where the mills and manufactories
were being shut up, and the labourers were in conse-
quence thrown out of employment, and having no law to
fall back upon were in a state of starvation, while such
of them as had small holdings were comparatively well
off. In the agricultural districts, according to the Re-
port of the Commissioners, pauperism had ls tely increased
30 per cent., and in some places 50 per cent. The influx
of puupers from the agricultural into the manufacturing
districts and towns, which was the consequence of that
increase of pauperism in the former, ,greatly aggravated
the distress prevailing in the manufacturing districts,
and he, therefore, told manufacturers that it behoved
them to look to the condition of those labourers who
were connected with land as that condition had a great
influence upon the poor-rates, which they had to pay.
Though he did not think the Corn-laws were the sole
evil that affected the condition of the working classes,
nor looked upon their repeal as solely conducive to the re-
moval of such evil, yet he insisted that without the re-
moval of those laws no other measure could be adopted
which would be beneficial in its operation to society.
The repeal of the Corn-laws should form the basis of
every measure for improving the condition of the opera-
tive community. They ought also to look to the im-
provement of legislation generally. Hereterraenddtocot
exertions of the Anti-Corn-law League,
trasted them with the proceedings of the House of Com-
mons, which, on this subject, were not in conformity
with the sense and interest of the country, which he be-
lieved to be properly represented by the League. He,
therefore, suggested to the Conference to adopt a resolu-

tion indicative of their sense of the conduct of the House
of Commons in despising their exertions on behalf of
their starving countrymen. After a few further observa-
tions, the Honourable Gentleman sat down amidst much
applause.
On the motion of the Rev. Mr. BROWNE, the thanks
of the meeting were given to Mr. Crawford.
The Chairman declared the Conference adjourned
till to-day

ELECTION COMMITTEE.
IPSWICH.

The Committee met again yesterday morning at eleven
o'clock; P. M. Stewart, -Esq., in the Chair.
Mr. AUSTIN resumed his address.-The Learned
Gentleman commenced by discussing at considerable
length the bearing of the Treating Act. With re-
spect to alleged acts of 'treating, he contended
that there was no evidence tracing the fact to the
knowledge of the sitting Members. Again, what were
the alleged acts of bribery ? If he (Mr. Austin) went to
a friend of his and asked him to dine with him, and in
the course of the dinner he requested his friend to
vote for a certain party, and that friend complied,
they might just as well strike that man's vote off
the book, as to say that those persons who had break-
! fasted at the Salutation were rendered incompetent
to vote. He would then proceed to the question of what
they called agency. He had endeavoured to strip the
case of its colour-to crack the shell, and to come at the
kernel. He said that Mr. Bristoe never was the agent
of the sitting Members. He said that Mr. Cooke never
was the agent of the sitting Members. They had no au-
thority whatever to act on behalf of the sitting Members.
Supposing this questionable case to be a case of corruption,
Mr. Bristoe had no authority to act as he did, nor had
Mr. Cooke. He said it was the highest injustice and
cruelty to visit on the head of the sitting Members the
misconduct of those parties. It would be as much in-
justice as to visit upon the heads of *Mr. Moffatt or
Mr. Gisborne the conduct of the parties in the affair of
the Orion. He said that Mr. Bristoe and Mr. Cooke
never were • agents. They were no more agents
for the sitting Members than they were for
Mr. Gisborne or Mr. Moffatt themselves. These seats
had been vacated by a Committee in the present session
of Parliament, on account of acts of bribery of the -most
profligate description. They would recollect that the
writ was for some time suspended--they would recollect
that discussion after discussion took place with reference
to removing that suspension. It was ultimately removed.
There could be no doubt that the disclosures made on
that occasion must have had a certain moral effect
on the electors of the town of Ipswich. The same thing
happened in 1835, when Mr. Kelly and Mr. Christopher
lost their seats upon a similar petition. On that occa-
sion the vacancy was filled up by Mr. Wason and Mr.
Morrison. They obtained their seats easily and tri-
umphantly in consequence of the moral impression made
by the disclosures against the Blue party on that peti-
tion. The same thing happened the other day. The
two gentlemen were easily and triumphantly re-
turned in consequence of the moral effects which
had been produced on the electors by the late
petition. Mr. Morrison was returned by a large majo-
rity, upwards of 100 ; but the majority at the ate elec-
tion, was upwards of 140. The sitting Members must
have been bold men, indeed, to have determined to carry
their election by corruption. No ' • they went down de-
termined that not a shilling should be spent in cor-
ruption. What did Mr. Gladstone say to Mr. Ridley ?
" If there is to be money spent, we shall lose our elec-
tion." He hoped Hon. Members would remember what
their expenses at their elections were, and then he (Mr.
Austin) would tell them what Mr. Gladstone's were at
the last election ; and he would also tell them what Lord
Desert's expenses were. Mr. Gladstone paid the enor-
mous expense of 2501, and Lord Desert paid the same.
He (Mr. Austin) would venture to say that no Member
of Parliament had been returned in the present session at
less expense, even beginning with the Hon. and teamed
Member for Bath.
Mr. PROTHEROE-The remark does not apply to all.
Mr. AUSTIN-The Hon. Member was one dissentient;
but he (Mr. Austin) would venture to say that the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath paid a greater sum than
2501. at his election. He (Mr. Austin) would read
the items of the expenses at the late Ipswich election:
Travelling expenses, 371. for certain voters from
London and Newcastle ; the expenses of twenty
voters from Woodbridge, &c., 26/. 14s. ; the ex-
penses of the detention of three vessels beside the
Success, 241 16s. ; the expenses for constables, in-
cluding the constables employed in the procession,
120/. 2s. 6d. ; expenses for messengers, 31/. 6s. 6d. ;
expense for hustings, 331. 17s. Bd. ; committee-room,
20/. 4s. Id. ; expense for horses and carriages, 421.
17s. 9d. ; the band-for he supposed they would not
wish to have an election conducted like a funeral-391.
19s. ; ringers, 91. 9s. ; the procession, in addi-
tion to the constables before-mentioned, 281. 12s. ;
clerks, &c., 15/. Is. 10d. ; dinner for the clerks
at the election, 31 Is. • the rent of the assembly room,
31.'; Mr. Jacobin's bill for attendance, 12/. 13s. 10d.; and
miscellaneous expenses, 11. 4s. 6d., making in the whole
4591 Os. Id., which being divided by the figure 2 would
give 230/. for each of the sitting Members. There was
not one farthing further expenses whatever, and
that money was paid by Mr. Hunt. Not
a farthing was paid for bribery, as there was
no bribery whatever at the election. Upon this
state of facts they were called upon to unseat the sitting
Members, and lie asked them whether they did not ex-
pect from the manner in which the case was opened.
that extravagant acts of bribery would be proved ? The
Learned Gentleman read a great number of au-
thorities on the question of agency, and con-
tended that Mr. Gladstone and Lord I)esart were not
bound by the acts of Mr. Cooke or Mr. Bristoe,
Even if those acts were held to be corrupt, he put to the
Committee that Mr. Hunt was the only accredited agent.,
and by his acts alone could the sitting Members be
bound. The conduct of Mr. Hunt had been pure and
upright, and the whole expenses which he had incurred
only amounted to 460/ for the two sitting Members.
He had done his duty. He had attempted, and he felt
he should succeed in establishing a great Parlia-
mentary principle. Here they were called upon
to unseat Members because some fool or some scoundrel
had, in an alley of that city, bribed a voter, and this
without proof. He felt that law and justice were on his
side, and he entertained no doubt that the Committee
would come to a resolution exonerating the sitting Mem-
bers from the charges brought against them, and declare
them duly elected, and discharging them from all suspi-
cion which'had been attempted to be cast upon them.
He would sit down, therefore ; and if lie did not succeed
he should be more astonished than he ever was in his life.
Mr. TALBOT then proceeded to call the following

witnesses :

Mr. Hunt examined—l am a solicitior. I have been
connected with Mr. Gladstone. It was at my suggestion
that Mr. Gladstone became a candidate for Ipswich. Be-
fore I left London with Mr. Gladstone I was aware of
the principles of Mr. Gladstone as to the conduct of
elections. In the year 1839 I accompanied Mr. Glad-
stone to the borough of Sandwich to canvass the borough.
Mr. KINGLAILE objected to the examination as irre-
levant.
Mr. Hunt—Mr. Gladstone told me before the elec-
tion took place that no moneys beyond the legal ex-
penses were to be spent. • On my arrival at Ipswich I
saw persons connected with the party supporting Mr.
Gladstone and Lord I)esart. I told them all the prin-
ciples upon which we came to canvass the borough. I
told this to Mr. Cooke and Mr. Bristoe, and a number of
other partizans. I considered that I was the manager of
the election. I made out a list of 'returns. I canvassed
with Lord Desert, and all applications were made
to me respecting the election. I am a stranger to
Ipswich. I took the returns every day. On
two occasions I took the returns at Mr. Steward's
private rooms, es it was more convenient. I communi-
cated to Mr. Steward, on that occasion, in the most
distinct terms, that the candidates would not spend any
money, and he fully concurred in that arrangement.
This was at Deck's rooms. I have the account of the
expenses which Mr. Austin read. I never gave any
authority to Mr. Cooke or Mr. Bristoe to act at the
election. I never gave authority to any one except Mr.
Steward. In May, I gave Mr. Steward a cheque for 10/. to
remit to Mr. Jacobin in London. In June, I gave him
another 100/. ; and on my arrival in London, I sent him
one for 1001 I then received a letter from Mr. Steward,
suggesting that I should send 290/, which I did, making
altogether 500/, which was the precise sum of money I
had received from the candidates. A less sum was ex-
pended, and Mr. Steward is now in my debt.
Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLtes—I have not been at
many elections. I have heard that every candidate
disclaims bribery when he goes to an election. lam
quite a stranger in Ipswich, and I relied very much
on the local friends of . the candidates there.
Mr. Steward lives in Ipswich. I met him the
night I arrived in Ipswich, at Deck's room. I did
not know of the tickets being given to the
voters. I heard that some of the parties in Ipswich in-
tended to give breakfasts on their own account. I can-
vassed with Lord Desert two days. I canvassed in com-
pany with Mr. Cooke on the Monday. I did
not know at that time that he had been reported
for bribery. I should have gone with him, even if I
had known it. I believe he is a very respectable
man. If the landlord of the King's Arms supplied
breakfasts to the voters I did sot know it. I never knew
that refreshments were given on the day of the
election until I heard it in this room, and believe
now that there is some mistake. I have met
Cooke at the Little Carlton Rooms. I think Mr. Cooke
told me that he had been sent to Newgate by the House
of Commons. I had intercourse with him after
that, for I believed him to be a very re-
spectable man. I did not tell Lord Desert or
Mr. Gladstone that a person had been canvassing who
had been committed to Newgate. I did not think it was
my duty. I was not aware of certain voters getting 30s. for
their travelling expenses from Harwich until last Thursday
week. I should not have paid 30s. for a voter coming six
miles. I believe that the money was paid by Mr.
Steward out of the money I sent him. There has beta
no account given to me of the tickets issued to the Blue
voters. I know Mr. Bristoe. I canvassed with him two
or three votes. I told Mr. Steward that no expanses
would be paid except travelling expenses.
By Mr. AUSTIN—I never intended for a moment to
treat with Mr. Bristoe on the footing of an agent. From
the conduct of Lord Desert and Mr. Gladstone they never
loOked upon him as such. I never felt bound by
any act of Mr. Bristoe. He had no authority to contract
any debt on the part of the candidates. The same answers
distinctly apply to Mr. Cooke. I told Mr. Steward, as
distinctly as a man could speak, that the candidates would
not sanction any expenditure of money. I never gave
the slightest authority for the breakfasts. Several ap-
plications were made for breakfasts, but I said " We are
prepared to lose the election, rather than sanction such a
course. I used all the means in my power, to avoid any
illegal expenditure. There is not a farthing due from
the sitting Member to any person in Ipswich, on account
of the election. At the time of the election I thought
travelling expenses were legal ; if I had entertained a

contrary opinion, I should not have allowed it. It was
my duty to avoid every expense beyond the legal ex-
penses. It was my duty, and my decided intention.
The Committee then adjourned till eleven to-day.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.
(From the Votes and Proceeettngenf the Monaco' Commons.)

WEDNESDAY, JULY '27.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS (No. 2.) BILL.
Question put, " That the 26th Clause stand part of the
Bill :"—The Committee divided :

Jlionby, H. A.
dam, William'
Bowriog, 1)r.
Brotherton, J.

Callaghan.'D.
Cobden, Richard
Colebrookc, Sir T.
Crawford, W. S.
Duncan, George
Duncombe, T. S.
Dundas, Admiral
Ebrington, Viscount
Gibson, T. M.
Hawes, B.

NORITY—AYES, 39.
Hindley, Charles Pulsicwd, Robert
Hollond, Robert Roebuck, J. A.
Hume, Joseph Sheil, R. L.
Hutt, W. Thornely, Thomas
Mitchell, T. A. Tufncll, H.
Morris, David Turner, Edmund
Napier, Sir Charles Vane, Lord Harry
O'Connell, D. Wawn, J. T.
O'Connor Don Williams W.
Palmerston, Visa. Wood, li.
Parker. John Wood, G. W.
Pechell, Captain TELLERS.
Plumridgc, Captain -
Protheroe, Edward

Allix, John Peter
Anti obus, Edward
Ashley, Lord
Astell, William
Baird, W.
Baring, W. B.
Baring, H. B.
Bateson, Robert
Blackburnc, 1.
Blackstone, W. S.
Boldrro, H. G.
Praniston, T. W.
Broadley, 14.
Bruce, Lord E.
Buller, Sir J. Y.
Campbell, A.
Clerk, Sir George
Cockburn, Sir G.
Colquhoun, J. C.
• 3rrY, Right Hon. 11,
Crime, W.
Darner, Hon. G.
Douglas, Sir C.
Duncombe, Hon. A.
Eaton, R. J.

MAJORITY—NOES,
kotlett, Sir William
Forbes, William
Fremantle, Sir F.
Fuller. A. E.
Gaskell,Jaines Alilnes,
Gladstone, W. E.
Gore, W. It. 0.
Goulburn, Henry
Graham, Sir James
Grogan, Elward
Hamilton, W. J.
Hardinge, Sir H.
Hawkes, T.
Herbert, Hon. S.
Hodgson, Richard
Hornby, John
Howard. P. H.
Hussey, Thomas
Inglis, Sir R. H.
Jerinyn, Lord
Jones, Theobalrl
Lascelles, W. S
Leicester, Earl of
' Lincoln Earl of
Litton, Reward

Eliot, 'bird
Escort, Ilickham
Flower, Sir James

Lowthir, J. H.
M,sterman, John
Mcyncll, 11.

Buller, C.
Hardy, John

3).
Morgan, Octaviui
Mundy, E. Miller
Neville, Ralph
Newry, Viscount
Nicholl, J.
Parke, C. W.
Peel, Hon. Sir R
Polhill, ;Frederick
Pollock, Sir F.
Praed, W. T.
Pringle, A.
llushhrook, Colonel
Sandan, Lord
scarlutt, It C.
Sibthorp, Colonel
Somer.et. Lord G.
Stanley. Lord
Stuart, H.
Sutton, Hon. h. M
Taylor, J. A.
Trench, Sir F.
Vivian, J. E.
Worsley, Lord
Young, John

TELLERS.
Darby, George
Henley,,,OrYarner

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 28.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the
Woolsack in the absence of the Lord Chancellor
shortly after Five o'Clock.
A Message from the Commons brought up the
Tithe Commutation (England and Wales) Bill, and
several other Bills:
EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the third
reading of the Exchequer Bills Preparation Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM saw nothing objectionable
in the Bill except the first clause, which made the
Assistant-Comptroller of the 'Exchequer responsible
to the Treasury, which he had not hitherto been.
The LORD CHANCELLOR at this time took his seat
on the Woolsack, and was congratulated by several
Noble Peers on the restoration of his health.
After a few observations from the Duke of
WELLINGTON, • the Bill was read a third time.
The Noble Duke then moved certain amendments,
which were agreed to, and the Bill passed.
CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Earl of RIPON having moved the third read-
ing of this Bill,
Lord MONTEAGLE said that he wished to take
that opportunity of alluding to some points connected
with our commercial policy. He perceived that it
was proposed in the Bill then before the House, to re-
move the duty which had been imposed on the exporta-
tion of cement-stone in the original tariff. lie wished
to ask what were the motives which had induced the
Government to alter their intention upon that sub-
ject. He had a few words to say relative to the
position in • which the Corn question was
left by the Government. It was known that there
was now a considerable portion of foreign
corn in bond ; and he was happy to think that
a considerable portion of that corn was at
present likely to be released; lie should rather
find, that our markets would be relieved in
that way than by any special interposition of the
Government, which would free corn from the duty
to which it was by law subject. The effect to
the consumer of the admission of 1,200,000 quarters
of corn on the payment of a duty, or without any
duty at all, would be precisely the same in the one
case as in the other ; because the price would
be regulated not by the amount of duty
paid, or by the absence of all duty, but by the
amount of corn in the market as compared with
the means of the people to consume that corn.
The only effect, therefore, of admitting the corn
duty free would be to put so much money in the
pockets of the holders of corn. There was another part
of the question to which he wished to direct their at-
tention. If the price were low in this country
the admission of 1,200,000 quarters of foreign corn
would be considered as an evil, because it would glut
our markets ; but, on the other hand, if the price were
high, the admission of foreign corn would be consi-
dered as a benefit, inasmuch as it would afford a relief
to the . consumer. But what was the operation of our
present system ? Why, it produced the very opposite
result from that to which lie had alluded. If a rise in
price were anticipated, not one single pound of foreign
corn would be introduced for the purpose of remedying
that rise ; but, on the contrary, if a fall in price were
anticipated, the result would be that foreign corn would
be taken out of bond for consumption ; and the farmers
would suffer from the double circumstance of an abund-
ant harvest at home, and from the importation of large
amounts of corn from abroad. There was no fact, in
his opinion, which- could offer a more entire refutation
than that to which he had thus alluded, of the principle
upon which the existing Corn-laws were 'founded. He
had no objection to make to the present Bill in particu-
lar ; but he believed that the evil in question was one
which would be inseparable from any sliding-scale, how-
ever ingeniously it might be contrived.—(Hear, hear.)
He had a question to put to his Noble Friend opposite
(the Earl of Ripon), relative to the position in which we
now stand with regard to our commercial connexion
with Portugal. They knew from public report that there
was every probability that we should be able to enter
into a commercial treaty with Portugal ; and he con-
fessed that he looked forward to the conclusion of such a
treaty with peculiar interest. He wished to know what
was the present state of our negotiations with respect to
that treaty, as far as her Majesty's Ministers thought it
prudent to disclose them? He had a second question
to put to his Noble Friend, relative to the negotiations
between this country and the Brazils, with respect to
the expiration of our present treaty with the Brazils.
He believed that the two Governments put a different
construction as to the time of the expiration of the treaty.
He wished to know at what time the treaty would
expire in the opinion of our Government, and also if
there were any negotiations going on with respect to its
renewal? The third question he had to put to his Noble
Friend was, whether her Majesty's Government had
taken any- step respecting the late ordinance of the
French Government relative to the duty on British
yarns, and whether any step had been taken by her
Majesty's Ministers with regard to the expressed inten-
tion of the Belgian Government to give a qualified ac-
ceptance to the French ordinance, by imposing a higher
duty upon our yarns? lie was aware, however, that the
intention expressed by the Government of Belgium
could not be carried into effect without the consent o!-
the Chambers.

The Earl of RIPON said that the Government had
been induced to remove the duty they had at first pro-
posed to raise upon the exportation of cement-stone,
because they had found, upon inquiry that it would only
have the effect of throwing a number of industrious
people out of employment. lle would not then follow
his Noble Friend into any discussion upon the corn
question. There was, at present, a notice on the papers
which would enable them to ascertain under what cir-
cumstances corn had hitherto come out of bond. As to
the questions which his Noble Friend put, he had first to
reply that it was perfectly true that her Majesty's Go-
vernment were in negotiation with Portugal, of which
the object was to put the commercial relations of the two
countries, in all their essential branches, on a more satis-
factory footing. The disposition of the Government of
this country was to act with perfect fairness towards
Portugal : and he had no reason to suppose that the
Government of Portugal was disposed to act in any
other spirit towards us. With respect to the Brazils,
his Noble Friend had asked him when it was that
the British Government considered that our ex-
isting treaty with the Brazils would expire, and
whether the Brazilian Government agreed with them
upon that point, and whether there were any negotiations
going on for the purpose of renewing that treaty. Her
Majesty's Government were of opinion, as their prede-
cessors had been, that the present treaty would not ex-
pire until November, 1844 ; but the Brazilian Govern-
ment, who had taken a different view of the matter,
contended, and they had not as yet desisted from the opi-
nion, that the treaty expired in 1842. That question, as
well as our commercial relations generally, with the
Brazils, was under the mutual consideration of the two
Governments. He was not, however, at present in a
position to enter into details upon that subject. With re-
gard to the ordinance published in France respecting
our linen-yarn, and the course taken by the Belgian Go-
vernment in coincidence with that of France, he could
only say that her Majesty's Government had felt it to
be their duty to make such representations to the Go-
vernments of France and Belgium as the circumstances
of the case seemed to them to require.
The Bill was then a third time and passed.
THE NEW POOR:I. AW.___

On the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, the
Poor-law Amendment Bill went through Committee; was
reported to the House, and ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.
HEARING OF COUNSEL.
Lord CAMPBELL rose, pursuant to notice, to move
that no, Member of the other House should be heard
as counsel at their Lordship's bar. He could
bear testimony to the -Hon. and Learned Gentleman to
whom he referred being a barrister of great honour,
great zeal, great learning, and ability, and one than
whom none could perform their duties in a
more bold, able, and disinterested manner. But their
Lordships were not to look to the character of the indi-
vidual, but to the consequences of the system. They
had, in common with every other judicial body, the
power of determining who were, and who were not, to
act as counsel before them. The Court of Common
Pleas had recently determined, in opposition to an
order of the Privy Council, that the old rule of that
Court should be enforced, and none but sergeants-at-
law should practice there. The Court of Queen's Bench
determined who should be callectto the bar, and even

the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and the Central Criminal
I Court, and the Courts of Quarter Session, had all exer-
cised the same power. As their Lordships were a
judicial body, there was no objection to a barrister being
a Member of the Commons, appearing at their bar as an
advocate in cases of appeal, or even of impeachment.
But when they had under their consideration a legisla-
tive measure, in which they had a concurrent jurisdic-
tion with the House of Commons and the Crown, was it
expedient, was it decorous, that a Member of-the other
House, who had to consider, or had considered the Bill
in his legislative capacity, and who might have
at a future stage to reconsider their Lordships' decision
on the Bill, to appear at the bar as the professional ad-
vocate of a party either for or against it ? If such a
practice prevailed, what would be the consequence ? An
eminent Member of the bar, being also a Member of the
House of Commons, might receive a retainer, which he
could not (according. to the rules of his profession) re-
fuse, to defend or to oppose a Bill upon which he should
have in the House of Commons to give a vote according
to his conscience. It might be said that this was a ques-
tion with which the House of Commons alone ought to
deal, but he repeated that it concerned their Lordships ;
inasmuch as it. regarded what persons should be alkvved
to appear at their bar in the character of counsel.—(Hear.)
Upon these reasons he thought they ought to interpose
to prevent such practices from being established, for if
they did not then interpose, the practice would be
established. This was not a special case in which no
other counsel could be employed. He would refer to
precedents on the subject, and after very considerable
research he could only find three instances in which
anything of the kind had occurred. The first of these
was in 1616. lie believed it was not generally known,
and he therefore felt it his duty to mention it to their
Lordships. In Sir Henry Fin's case leave was given
to plead at the bar of their Lordships. He rather ap-
prehended that it was passed over in curium. It was
sent before a Committee of the House, and never came
before the bar at all; therefore it could not be entitled to
the :lightest weight. From 1616 to 1693 there were
ninety instances of leave having been given to Members
of the House of Commons. A very distinguished case
occurred in which leave was given to Members of the
House of Commons, which was the case of the Bill to
dissolve the marriage of George IV. and Queen
Caroline. Leave was then given to his Noble and
Learned Friend and Mr. Denman to appear at the bar
of their Lordships as counsel against that Bill. Now
even that case was not to be considered a
precedent for allowing a Member of the House of Com-
mons to plead as counsel at their Lordships' bar, for or
against a Bill. When a Bill came from the House of
Commons, every Member was supposed to agree to it.
If the Speaker said the "ayes" had it on the third reading,
or any other stage, every Member was supposed to
acquiesce as much as though a division had taken place.
When leave was given to Mr. Brougham and Mr. Den-
man—though at the time they were deeply in the confi-
dence of Queen Caroline—they being her Attorney and So-
licitor-Generals—even on that occasion there was a stipu-
lation made that if the Bill came into the House of Com-
mons they should not be permitted to vote upon it.
Lord Castlereagh made art application for the Solici-
tor-General and Attorney-General for the King to ap-
pear at the bar upon the same stipulation. Therefore it
was on the distinct understanding that they were not to
vote for or against theßill. But in the case of the Sudbury
Bill, the Bill had passed the other House, and the gentle-
men had voted upon it. There was one other precedent to
`which he would refer, and that was in 1830—the case of
Sir Jonah Barrington, who was a Judge in Ireland, and
there was a charge made against him of malversation in
his office. A resolution was agreed to in the House of.
Commons to adiress the Crown to remove him from his
office.- Those resolutions were communicated to their
Lordships, and an inveaigation took place. and wit-
nesses were examined, but the case did nit attract any
attention. The same objection was then held as on this
occasion. Mr. M4Queene had written a very valuable
book on the subject of the practice of the House of
Lords, and he said distinctly that no Member of the
other House could plead as counsel on any Bill of a
legislative nature. For these reasons, he trusted their
Lordships would establish this Standing Order. He re.
gretted it had not fallento a person of greater experience
in that House, but he trusted they would not look to the
individual but to the importance of the subject. lie would
therefore conclude by moving that it be a Standing Order
that no one should be heard at the Bar of the House as
counsel for or against any Bill who is a Member of the
Commons House of Parliament.
The LORD CHANCELLOR should confine what he
had to say on this motion to a few observations. He
certainly could not bring his mind to support t he motion.
It was not his intention to follow his Noble and Learned
Friend through the extensive details which he had gone
into, because no one could doubt that their Lordships had
the authority to refuse hearing counsel at their bar.
One argument of the Noble Lord was that the practice
would cause great inconvenience, but he (the Lord
Chancellor) did not know where the inconvenience had
arisen. Another argument of the Noble And Learned
Lord was that it would introduce a new system of bribery.
Now, considering that his Noble and Learned Friend had
been a member of that profession, in which he had prac-
tised so long, and in which he was so much distin-
guished, and knowing as he did the character of those
who pleaded at the bar, it was the greatest injustice to
suppose that any case of that description had even arisen.
It was an imputation of which he was sure they were un-
deserving. It appeared to, him that it was very doubtful
policy to introduce a new Standing Order on the subject.
They might object to a person from the other House of
Parliament pleading at the bar but those persons might
resign their seats. and they might still appear at the bar
in the same character, and use the same arguments
which they would have done before. He could
not persuade himself that if the journals of their
Lordships' House were searched, many precedents
would be found in which Members of the other

House had appeared at the bar, in support of, or
in opposition to, a legislative measure. If their
Lordships thought it necessary to alter the practice, he
hoped they would not do so without an anxious inquiry
as to whether they should lay down a general rule
or not in each case as the occasion required.
He also objected to measures of this nature, which
were general in their form, but were really di-
rected against an individual, and framed for a particular
occasion.—(Hear, hear.) It was unworthy of the House
to legislate in such a manner. If it were necessary to
legislate on the subject at all, let the measure be brought
forward in the early part of the next session, and con-
sidered in a Select Committee. Before he sat down he
wished to say that Mr. Waddington was appointed
to examine witnesses, in the case of the Sudbury disfran-
chisement, before it was known that the Noble Marquis
who had taken charge of the Bill wished that any other
forensic assistance should be provided.
Lord BROUGHAM entirely agreed with his Noble
and Learned Friend on the Woolsack in his objections
to the proposed Standing Order. To propose a new
Standing Order was one of the rarest and one of the
most difficult tasks which any of their Lordships, how-
ever learned, however experienced, however skilled in
the usages of Parliament, could undertake, In the last
thirteen years, during part of which he had had the ho-
nour of sitting upon that seat, which was now se much
more worthily filled by his Noble and Learned Friend
(the Lord Chancellor), and was for six sessions occupied
by his Noble and Learned Friend beside him (Lord Cot-
tenham), there had been no new Standing Order proposed,
except in one instance, when he (Lord Brougham).pro-
posed one, and then it was referred to a Select Committee,
and on that occasion their Lordships considered the
framing of a new Standing Order so important, that
they called in the assistance of the two Chief Justices
and of the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. The acute-
ness of his Noble and Learned Friend, which never
perhaps failed him before, had failed him in this in-
stance ; and his steady judgment, which in all cases was
direct and level, was warped by the peculiar view which
he had taken of the subject, that it was an imperative
duty upon him, above all, to meddle with their Lord-
ships' Standing Orders.—(Laughter). His Noble Friend
said the judgment of an advocate was warped by a re-
tainer. Well, what had that to do with their Lordships?
Some of them might have known as well as his Noble and
Learned Friend the effect of a retainer in warping the
judgment.—(Laughter.) But what of that? What concern
was it to their Lordships now?—(Great laughter.) If
it concerned anybody, but the party directly concerned,
and the more concerned, as the retainer was larger—
(Renewed laughter)—if it concerned anybody else it
was the House of Commons.—(Hear.) He did not deny
that a retainer might warp the judgment. He did not
deny that it might be—that it had been—a cover for
bribery. But it did not concern their Lordships. It was
a matter for the House to consider, within what limits
it should restrict the professional labours of its Mem.
bers.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend

had referred to the occasion when Members of the
House of Commons (of whom he had the honour to be
one)—appeared at the bar to defend her late Majesty
Queen Caroline. His Noble and Learned Friend was of
opinion that their appearance at the bar on that occasion
was not to be taken as a precedent, because
he (Lord -Brougham) and his esteemed Friend, now
Lord Denman, held at the time the offices of Attorney
and Solicitor-General to her Majesty. But his Noble
and Learned Friend showed the most profound igno-
rance
as to the facts, and the most inconceivable careless-
ness in his statements—(Laughter)—for Dr. Lushing-
ton, who was also a Member of the House of Commons
at the time, and was not the official adviser of her Ma-
jesty, was retained, and did most ably plead at the bar
against the Bill of Pains and Penalties.—(Hear, hear.)
His Noble and Learned Friend said that he (Lord
Brougham) and Lord Denman ought to have accepted
the Chiltern Hundreds, and that they would be sure of
being re-elected on account of their popularity. Indeed I
Where did his Noble and Learned Friend learn so much
of the facility of re-election ?—(Laughter.) Why this
was another instance of his Noble Friend's ignorance of
the facts. For he (Lord Brougham) actually gave no
tice of his intention to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, and
also gave notice that he meant to retire from the House
of Commons only for a time. But he was given to un-
derstand that if he did retire he would not be re-elected.
He denied the statement of his Noble and Learned,
Friend that Members of the House of Commons appear-
ing as Counsel at their Lordships' bar were not as
amenable as other Counsel to the decision and control of
their Lordships. Let any Counsel, being a Member of
the other House, do anything of which the House thought
it would be proper to express its disapprobation, and he
was sure that they would visit his conduct with the same
censure, and to the same extent, as the conduct of any
_Counsel not possessing a seat in the House of Commons.
There was a Standing Order of the other House passed
in 1692, and renewed in 1695, that was to say, in the best
days of our Constitution, prohibiting Members of the
House of Commons to attend at their Lordships' Bar, but
that order had not been enforced by the other House. If;
however, they did .not enforce it, that was no affair of
their Lordships. He eia not see any possible harm that.
could result to their Lordships froc, ii, .1. .t 1),
other House appearing in tlu i LAX. 1, 1
therefore, with which they had nothing whatever to do,

in which they had in his opinion no business what-
ever to interfere. His Noble and Learned Friend
had disclaimed any intention of wishing to intro-
du.,e his motion with any particular reference to the
case of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill, in which
Mr. Roebuck was to be heard at their Lordships' bar.
But if his Noble Friend had no such wish, it was cer-
tainly a strange circumstance that his Noble and Learned
Friend had introduced his motion the very day before
Mr. Roebuck was to have been heard. With regard to
that Learned Gentleman, he would take that opportu-
nity of saying that a more inflexible man in public and
private life lie had never known ; and after he had said
that, it was but small praise to add, that he had never
known a man of larger information and greater ability.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he saw no
reason why they should interfere in the present case by
introducing a new Standing Order.
Lord CAMPBELL replied. He disclaimed any in-
tention of introducing his motion for the purpose of pre-
venting Mr. Roebuck, as an individual from heir g heard at
their Lordships' bar. The reason why he had brought for-
ward his motion before that Hon. annearned Gentleman
had been heard was, that the fact of his having been so
heard, might not be quoted as a precedent against him-
self in bringing the subject under the consideration of
their Lordsips. He defended his motion on the broad
principle, that a man should not be a judge and an advo-
cate in the same cause.

The motion was then put, and negatived without a
division.

The Court of Chancery Offices Abolition Bill went
through Committee, was reported to the House, and
ordered to be read a third titre to-morrow.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Order of the Day having been read for the second
reading of the Limitation of Actions (Ireland) Bill,
The Earl of GLENGALL opposed the motion. The
Bill involved considerations of great importance which,
he thought, could not be fully considered at the present
advanced stage of the session.
The Archbishop of ARMAGH supported the Bill.
Its object was to assimilate the law in England and
Ireland.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE hoped the Bill
would not now be persevered with. It involved various
and complicated details ; and, he thought, that nothing
but evil consequences could follow from a hasty inter-
ference in the case on the part of their Lordships
Lord Cottenham, the Earl of Wicklow, and the Bishop
of Derry, spoke in favour of the Bill.
The Earl of GLENGALL again expressed his dis-
approval of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR supported the Bill.
Its would be best discussed in Committee.
After some further conversation, the Bill was read a
second time, and was ordered to be committed on
Tuesday.
The Drainage (Ireland) Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Election Petitions Trial Act Continuance Bill, and
the Wide-streets (Dublin) Bill went through Committee.
The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Bill, and the Licensed
Lunatic Asylums Bill were read a third time and passed.
The South Australia Bill went through Committee,
and was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

Some other Bills were forwarded a stage, and the
House adjourned.

HOUSE. OF COMMONS, July 28.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
SOUTHWARK IMPROVEMENT BILL.

The Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to.

ATHLONE ELECTION.

Lord G. SOMERSET brought up the Report of
the General Elections Committee, fixing Monday, the
22d of August, for the appointment of a Committee
to try the merits of a petition against the return for
the borough of Athlone.

COURT ()F EXCHEQUER (ENGLAND) BILL.
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK this Bill was
read a third time and passed.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA BILL.

The Report of the Committee on this Bill was re-
ceived, and to-morrow was appointed for the third
reading.

DONCASTER.

Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from
Doncaster, stating that that town contained 11,000
inhabitants, who were distinguished for their good
sense, honour, and loyalty ; and the petitioners
prayed that if it was contemplated to transfer the'
elective privilege from any borough, the claims of
Doncaster might be considered.
CLASS LEGISLATION.

Mr. HUME presented a petition against class
legislation, and all restrictions upon food.
The Stamp Duties Assimilation Bill was read a
third time and passed.
BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that in Committee
on the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill, he should
move a clause to the effect that no party after he had
completed his 70th year should be imprisoned under
any bankruptcy law.
RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. HUME gave notice that he should to-mor-
row present a petition from the dethroned Raja of
Sat tara.
COMMON LAW COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved that the Order of the Day for the Committee
on the Common Law Courts (Ireland) Bill should be
read, for the purpose of being postponed.
FRENCH CLAIMS.
Mr. DIVETT rose to put a question to the Right
Hon. Baronet as to the present state of the proceed-
ings of the joint French and English Commission, on
the claims of certain English merchants for serious
injuries to their ships and property by the French au-
thorities in the Bay of Portendic. So far back as 1832
very serious outrages were committed upon British
merchants, and in the course of time a Commission
was appointed by the Trench Government, but he was
sorry to say that it only led to protracted
discussion on the part of the French Government ;
and questions of that sort actually involved the neces-
sity of reprisal on our part ; therefore it behoved them
to approach the subject with great delicacy, and not
to produce irritation. This was a subject which in-
volved the peace of France and this country, and the
peace of the world. He had brought the subject
under the consideration of the House, in order to ob •
tain from the Right Hon. Baronet an expression of his
opinion with respect to these proceedings. He had
little doubt what the nature of that expression would
be, because on several occasions the Right Honour-
able Baronet had spoken in a manner which
showed that his opinion was in favour of those
persons who were suffering under those proceed-
ings. In a speech delivered by the Right Honourable
Baronet, on the Navy Estimates, in February, 1842,
he spoke in strong terms of the conduct of the
French Government, and he said he did not think that
they could be vindicated in the course they had taken.
He (Mr. Divett) thought it right to state to the
House the means which the French Government
adopted to appropriate to itself the trade with the Por-
tendic. The Hon. Gentleman was proceeding with
the detail of the unjustifiable manner in which the
French Government proceeded to interrupt their trade
with the Portendic, for which purpose they carried
on a war with the people north of the Senegal, creating
a loss to the claimants of not less than 100,0001., when
Mr. ROEBUCK rose to order. He did not think
that the Hon. Gentleman was justified in discussing
at such length a subject respecting which he had
merely given notice of putting a question.—(Hear,
hear.) He therefore wished to know whether the
Hon. Gentleman was in order.

The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Gentleman
having risen to put his question on the Order of the
Day for going into Committee upon the Common Law
Courts (Ireland) Bill, it was impossible for him to
interfere.

Mr. ROEBUCK said he understood that all mat•
ters arising upon moving the Orders of the Day
should be merely relevant to those Orders, otherwise
he should not have risen. If it were otherwise, it Would
raise the question upon the resolutions he was about
to move.

Mr. DIVETT said that he did not wish to do any-
thing which would be contrary to the sense of the
House. The Hon. Gentleman was, however, enter-
ing at length upon the subject, when
Sir ROBERT INGLIS rose to order. He begged
to repeat the call made upon the Hon. Member by
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, to confine
himself to the question of which he had given notice.
Mr. DIVETT said it was necessary for him to
make a statement relative to the question, but as it
appeared to be against the feeling of the House
he would sit down by merely putting the question of
which he had given notice.

Sir R. PEEL said, that as the Hon. Gentleman
had determined to bring the subject under the consi-
deration of the House in the form of a question rather
than of a motion, he thought it incumbent on him, in
answering that question, to adhere to the ordinary
rules by which the conduct of Ministers in answer-
ing questions was regulated. He was not at li-
berty to enter into the discussion, but he was
justified in answering the quesiion put to him. What-
ever feelings he might entertain on the subject of these
claims—and they were strong—he thought the wiser
and more dignified course to pursue was to abstain
from all harsh and contumelious terms.—(Cheers.)
And if he used forbearing and temperate language,
it should not be thought inconsistent with the
strong' feelings which he entertained as to
the justice •of the claims of those persons
whose interests were involved in the subject. At
an early period of the session he held out strong ex-
pectations that these claims would be satisfactorily
arranged, and his Noble Friend, the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, held out similar expecta-
tions. He was not, however, enabled 1.3 col:fit-LA
these expectations, but he could assure the Hon. Gen-
tleman that he gave no expectations which he was not
justified in giving, in consequence of the assurances
which the Government had received. The Hon. Gen-
tleman who was interested in these claims, more from
a sense of their justice, he was sure, than from any
personal interest he had in the matter,
wns, he sup-
posed, aTvzire r-lvt '
-
between . . r.

Government, and he thought it was better that the
matter should remain in its present state,• than raise

any discussion which might throw impediments in the
way of the settlement of the question ; and
when he looked to the origin of those claims,
the delay and interruption thrown in the
way of their adjustment, he could not but feel confidence
that a great country like .France, animated by is,
strong sense of j ustice and keen feelings ofhonour, wou''
compel a just settlement of these claims to be made.
As he had before stated, he would not say more 00
this subject ; he thought the Hon. Member had el;
ercised a sound discretion in putting a question ontiq
and not making a distinct motion. He trusted, how-
ever, that the Hon. Gentleman would not construe
the forbearance and moderation with which he had
spoken on this question into any indifference as to the
importance of the sub;ect.—(l-fear, hear.)
Mr. DIVETT said he should be quite content with
the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet, on the assrlr'
mice that the subject should not be allowed to sleep'
but would he followed up by the Government.
Sir R. PEEL said within the last few days a cm'
munication had been made to the French Govern;
ment, the delivery of which had only been postponed
in consequence of that lamentable event, which, Ns hat;
ever might he thei.r political feelings, he was sure had
excited the deepest sympathy with the sufferings of
the Royal Family of Frarce.—(Hear, hear.) What-
ever delay might occur, he was quite sure that
the British House of Commons would respond to the
feeling he had expressed, both towards France an
the Royal Family, on the subject.—(Hear.)
LAW CO'[JRTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, ell
the motion for reading the Order of the nay'
for going into Committee on this Bill, said that
it was one of great importance, involving tl'er
interests of a great number of persons; a prope
inquiry into whose cases would require communication
with the authorities in Ireland. In the present 501.
of the business of the House, and the importance °.,
giving a full consideration to the subject, he found ?'
impossible that this inquiry could be gone into th,
session, or the Bill proceeded with. But he fUI
wished to give notice that at the commencement
the next session, he-should certainly renew a Bill whio
would give effect to the provisions of the present one!
in order to ensure that saving of expense which he
-was sure would be the ultimate result.
Mr. O'CONNELL concurred in the propriety °fpostponing the Bill. The Bill was then postponed.
CONFERENCE DEPUTATIONS TO VIE
MINISTRY.
Mr. FIELDEN, seeing the Secretary of State f°l'
the Home Department in his place, wished to put
,
a question to him on a matter personal to himself
In the report of the interview of the Delegates from
the manufacturers in London with the Right 1-I°ll'
Baronet, on the 26th inst., as given in the Morro. it
Chronicle and other newspapers of yesterday, thel
appeared this statement : "Sir J. Graham said that it
appeared from a statement made by Mr. Fielder), the
Member for Oldham, that the improved machinery' ha
thrown out of employment 35 per cent. of the hands„,e,a;
gaged in the mills where it had been adopted." The
question he (Mr. Fielden) wished to ask the Right fleflci
Baronet was, first, :whether he had said what belt,
been reported to have said ; and secondly, if he
to what statement of his (Mr. Fielden's) he referral'
Sir J. GRAHAM, before replying to the questle
of the Hon. Member, would just observe that f
could not hold himself responsible for the reports,°.
what had taken place on the occasion referred tOe
Be would make one observation in passing. If thbeti't
reports were published, not on any authority,
from ex parte statements drawn up from ",
mere recollection of the parties themselves, ofie
fidential, he might almost say familiar, intercours_
which at present took place between deputations fro:,
the country and the Ministers of the Crown, must not
cessarily be destroyed, and it would be the duty ,
Ministers in their interviews with such bodies to pre
_
serve a rigid, he might almost say a sullen. silence.-:i
(Loud cheers.) The Honourable Gentleman
that he (Sir J. Graham) had misrepresented.
(Mr. Fielden). He (Sir J. Graham) had eert3P:o'.
asked a question of the Deputation relative to the in'
troduction of machinery into the cotton mantilp,,,;
tories of late years, and as to the effects producedi_L'
that introduction. He had certainly asked o°4
question, and if he recollected rightly he had hetoin
the Hon. Member for Oldham state, in his plane
Parliament, that within the last five years new flia.
chinery had been introduced into the cotton mannt
ture, the effect of which had been to diminish t
employment of manual labour thirty per cent., and that
.consequently manual labour had been displace
to that extent. He had asked the gentlemen of
Deputation if they agreed with the statement of
Hon. Member for Oldham, that manual labour /:sc,t
been displaced by machinery in the cotton rannui6 .
ture during the last five years from 30 to 35 P„,,,
.°r ten
the
The Deputation stated that they differed from
Hon. Gentlemen in opinion. He (Sir J. c
had stated to the best of his recolleceor
v
passed. If the Honourable Gentleman eked him
de-
(Sir James Graham) to what particular
bate he referred, as the one in which the Hon-
Member had made that statement he would admit
'hat had
-
that he could not refer to the particular debate, but
he had a strong impression on his mind that the
Hon. Member had made some such _ statement in his
place in Parliament. If the Hon. Member on"
tradicted him he was bound to bow to the Hon'
Member's more perfect. recollection, but he certainly'
had asked the question bona fide, under the impression
that the Hon. Gentleman had made such a statement'
Mr. FIELDEN had no recollection of ever
,haring,
made any such statement, either in the House or 00"
of the Rouse. It was impossible he could have One
so, because such a statement would be at variance
with the fact, mad with every thing he had
spoken or written on the subject. In proof of this
would refer the Right Hon. Secretary to the form °1
"
a petition -he (Mr. Fielden) had drawn up in 1.841,
when it was expected there would be further legishr.
tion on the factory question, and a copy of whir,
with other papers, he placed in the hands of flee
Right Honourable Baronet the First Lord of In,"
e
Treasury, when he honoured him with an intervie!:
on the 4th of October last, and in that document he
had stated that in 1840, as compared with 1835, in
the county of Lancaster the increase of turning ma.
chinery was 53i per cent., the increase of the con'
,
sumption of cotton 44 per cent., and the increase. of
the number of hands employed in the factories orai
21 per cent• He would take an opportunity of gig'
ing to the Right Hon. Secretary a copy of this draft
petition, and humbly recommend the facts contained
in it to his serious attention. •

Sir J. GRAHAM said he thanked the Hon. Gelc
tleman for the explanation which he had given, 051
exculpated him for the charge of inaccuracy.
Sir R. PEEL said he could confirm what the 110.
Gentleman (Mr. Fielden) had stated, as it was
sistent with what he had said in October last. i:`.;
protested against the course pursued, in reportil'.
those interviews ; it was rather hard that, after giviLi°
two hours of most patient attention to the Depor;
tion, he should be made responsible for a repo"
which was totally inaccurate in the general imPre6'
sion it conveyed.
4e
Mr. AGLIONBY called the attention of th(!. Boy
to a misrepresentation in the Times newsi raper
m
what he had stated last night with regard. to 7,
borough of Carlisle. He was there reported to b 3„
said that before the period of the Reform ]3ill the vii
was hardly an election which was less expensive tit
the election for the borough of Carlisle, an d that si%
that period it had been one of the most e: tpensive,hje
the country. What he did state was, tl tat till ""f
period of the Reform Bill, there was no conistitueve:
more expensive; that since the Reform Bill, the erp;
pense had been extremely small, and that the prae_til;a
of head-money had never existed since tha.:t per'.
until the last election.
The St. Asaph and Bangor Preferment BIM We
l'
through Committee.
Mr. O'CONNELL postponed the motion of vollhe
he had given notice with respect to the ca 6e of ,
Queen against Duffy, in consequence (as IN undc,.,;;
stood) of the absence of the Solicitor-Gel teral
Ireland.
MERCHANT SERVICE.
Captain FITZROY rose to move for leave to btf,
in a Bill to require and regulate the Rl4jfie
nation of all persons who wished to I) ec°ljs.
masters or chief mates of merchant vegesk
The Honodrable Gentleman said he woli'd
the House in the first place what was the preset
dition of our mercantile marine ? Since the r in
our merchant vesseN had increased exceeding Y, by:
number. The cessation of war had been folio of
the spread of our shipping over every 1 yes'the globe. During the war the merchant
sets of this . country sailed in convoys, or in 'twit;
found_ tb,e it
panics of two or three. At present they
bearing singly to every quarter of the globe,
became additionally necessary to ascertain the c 3.13
fications of the commanders. The East India- Corn'
pany's marine was the last mercantile establishment
in which an examination of officers was insisted 111)°11
In our immense mercantile marine, numbering UP:
wards of 20,000 vessels, of about 500 tons burthiet'i;
there was no examination of kind :v,..
'of
respect to the ri,.;;:.,.,-14,:o7! -.:,• :••,, "o
ever able :1?1.1 _:F
commanders rdgh 1'1125
instances in which the indignation of 'Englishmen 7d
roused at the condi: .t of those w!!t, were intros `.l
. ,m" ••
with the e..,- 1-,‘ 7
• '
cu
b. ,ct.
Government would be directed to the su Je.,
His present object was to introduce a measured
which had been prepared by a great rannbr e
practical and experienced persons connected with
shipping interests. He would remind the House thatthe
i
one of the most marked recommendations n, in
Report of the terrinttets ,shish h9d

•

•
of
Boards should be constituted for the examination
ht
Officers in the merchant service. It plight be hoUg