The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-02 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY BILL.

Mr. BECKETT gave notice of his intention of pro-
posing certain clauses in the Committee in the Bank-
ruptcy Bill.

RAJA OF SATTARA.

. Mr. HUME gave notice that on Monday next he
shauld move that an humble address be presented to her
Majesty, praying her to appoint a Commission to in-
quire into the allegations of the petition presented to
that House from the Baja of Sattara.
The Order of the Day for the appointment of Mana-
gers of a Conference with the House of Lords was then
read.

Lord G. Somerset, Sir J. Graham, Sir Cr. Clerk, Mr.
Estcourt,.and several other Members, were appointed as
Managers over that part of the House of Commons.
After the Conference had been held,
Lord GRAN VILLE SOMERSET informed the
House that the managers bad delivered to their Lord-
ships the reasons for disagreeing to their Lordship's
amendments.

Mr. COBDEN bogged to repeat the question which
he had put to the Right Hon. Baronet last night, with
respect to the vessels fitting out to take part in the
Mexican war.
Sir R. PEEL said he believed the facts were these—
two vessels were fitting out, one at Blackwall and the
other at Liverpool. It was said that those vessels were
being fitted up for the Mexican Government. Application
had been made to the British Government to permit
them to be manned with British seamen, and that per-
mission had been refused. The honourable Member
was under the impression that one vessel was to be
commanded by an officer who held a commission in her
Majesty's navy. He could state, that in consequence of an
application from the Texian Minister on the subject, that
Minister had been informed that no officer in her Ma-
jesty's navy would be allowed to serve the Mexican
Government against Texas. The Texican Government
had been informed that if hostilities should take place,
it was the intention of the English Government to main-
tain a perfect neutrality.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the treaties with Texas had
been laid on the table at so late a period of the
Session, that no opportunity had been afforded
of bringing under the consideration of the House
the state in which those treaties left the com-
munication between this country and Texas. There was
a law in Texas that no free subject (f colour
should remain there longer than a certain time. He
would feel it his duty, whenever a convenient oppor-
tunity arrived, to call the attention of the House to the
subject.
Lord PALMERSTON said he believed the laws in
Texas were precisely the same as the laws in the southern
states of the United States.

Mr. O'CONNELL said it was only in the State of
Carolinalthat the law existed.

Lord -PALMERSTON said that so far as the
Texian Government from being at our mercy,
that we were on the contrary at their mercy.—
(Hear.) They had already secured the recognition of
their independence by treaties with the United
States of America, with France, and the Nether-
lands, and the question came to this, whether the
commerce between England and Texas should be placed
on the satre footing as the commerce between Texas and
other countries, or whether we should be exposed to dis
advantages to which other States were not subject ?

Mr. C. BULLET said that he did not thinit it would
be proper to require of a State to alter its internal laws
on entering into a treaty with another country.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE thought that the House had no
business to interfere in such questions as the present. It
was a subject for the consideration of the Governments
of different countries.
Mr. HUME said he should consider it would be most
desirable that our Government should interfere, if
possible, to prevent the hostilities which had taken
place between Mexico and the Texas. Those hosti-
lities would necessarily produce great misery in those
States, and would necessarily greatly inconvenience
British trade.

Sir R. PEEL said, that the dissensions between
those States and South America, had been undobtodly
attended with the worst effects. They carried on their
hostilities with the bitterest animosity ; pirates were en-
couraged to enter into their service ; they destroyed
each other's commerce ; they prevented the growth of
their natural prosperity. Those events, in addition,
interfered with their communications with those
countries which were the first to recognize
their independence. But it was principally:on the ground
of the fatal consequences to those States themselves
that those hostilities were to be deprecated. Every
effort in the 'power of the British Government
would be made to contribute to the restoration of tran-
quillity-in those countries.
The Report of the Committee of Ways and Means
was brought up, and leave was given to bring in a Bill
founded on the resolutions.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.

On the motion of Mr. C. BULLER, the Bribery at
Elections Bill (No. 2) was read a third time, and passed.
(LEFT SITTING..

In the year 1764, when wigs went out of fashion,
the ‘vig-makers of London were thrown out of work,
and reduced to distress. They petitioned George 111.
to compel gentlemen to wear wigs by law, for the benefit
of their trade. As the wig-makers went in procession
to St. James's to present their petition, it was noticed
that most of those persons, who waited to compel other
people to wear wigs wore no wigs themselves ; and this
striking the London mob as very inconsistent, they
seized the petitioners, and cut off ali their hair par force.
Upon this Horace Walpole observed—" Should one
wonder if carpenters were to remonstrate,. that since the
peace their trade decays, and that there is no demand
for wooden legs."—Leicestershire Mercury.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,
HOUSE OF COMMONS, Aug. 1.
CASE OF DR. M‘DOUALL.
(Continued from our Third Edition.)
Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion.
The question having been put,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was sorry to feel it his duty to
detain the House for a short time in resisting the motion of the
Hon. Member. In the first place he should confine himself to
the facts of the case, relying on the information he had received
from Mr. Jeremy, the Magistrate before w hom the case was tried.
The most important fact, and the one on which the whole ques.
tion totally turned, was the character of the meeting to which
the petition related. He should state the character of the ori-
ginal meeting, of which the one in the Broadway was only a
continuance. The meeting was called in a Dissenting Chapel
at Deptford, for the purpose of hearing a lecture on the
Corn-laws from Mr. George Thompson, one of the paid lec-
turers of the Anti-Corn-law Conference. He had in his hand
the original summons of the meeting, to which the clergyman
and trustees of the chapel were parties he had nut a word to
say of this meeting itself, though he might regret that a place
of worship had been used for such a purpose. The clergyman
of the chapel was on the platform, together with the
trustees. On the doors being opened a general influx of
strangers partaking of the opinion of the Chartists took place,
and, immediately on their arrival, the utmost confusion arose.
A wish was expressed by them that the clergyman and the
trustees should have the platform, and that the chair should be
taken by a working-man. On this, he had been told, that a
scene of the utmost violence and confusion instantlt arose.
Dr. M'Douall wished to address the meeting on behalf of the.
Chartists ; there was great shouting and confusion. One of the
trustees escaped from the chapel, and called in the police. The
moment the police appeared, there were shouts of " Attack
the police," " Beat the police," and reference was
made to a scene which had recently occurred at
Kentish-town, when a collision had taken place between
' the police and the populace. The chapel was cleared,
1 after some struggle. Dr. M'Douall declared his inten-
tion of holding a meeting in the open air, and a multitude, in a
state of great excitement, followed Dr. M'Douall to the Broad-
way. This he ( Sir J. Graham) contended constituted a
continuance of the riotous assemblage in the chapel. Arrived
at the Broadway Dr. M'Douall mounted the Deptford rostrum
—the parish pump—and proceeded to address the multitude.
The language he made use of was violent, and the multitude was
in the highest state of excitement. The alarm of the inhabi-
tants was great. The Broadway was part of the road leading
to Greenwich, of the Great Dover-road. The multitude oc-
cupied the carriage-way and the footpath, completely blocking
up the highway; the evening was far advanced; tt was be-
tween eight and nine o'clock. Darkness was approaching, the
meeting was tumultuous and excited, and the language held
by the Doctor was violent. Under these circumstances the
Super intendent of Police felt it to be his duty to call upon the
meeting to disperse, and entreated the Doctor to descend from
the pump. The Doctor refuted. The Superintendent said
he should be forced to compel him. The Doctor then con-
sented to come down, and an offer wax made to make a clear
passage for the Doctor to go home. He refused to go; and it
was not until then that the police felt it was their duty
to arrest him. A violent attempt was made to res-
cue him—violent language was used—blows were struck—
three or four more persons were apprehended by the police,
and under these circumstances the Doctor was conveyed to
the station-house. It was perfectly true that in the excited
state of the town bail had been refused. Dr. M'Douall had
complained of the confinement, and of the manner in which he
had been treated when Le had been locked up in the station-
house. Now he could state that an offer had been made to
Dr. M'Douall to afford him any accommodation he might de-
sire, but he (Dr. IVP Douall) had refused every offer that had
been made. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombe) then pro.
ceeded to state what took place the following morning when
the case was brought up for hearing before the 'Magistrates.
The Hon. Gentleman relied upon the fact, as he stated, that
none but policemen were examined. He (Sir James Graham)
thought he understood the Hon. Gentleman to say that to
independent witness was heard.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—I said no inhabitant of Deptford.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—The Hon. Gentleman said that "
no inhabitant of Deptford was heard. Now he (Sir James
Graham) is ould not trouble the House by reading much of the
evidence which he held in his hand taken before the Magis-
trates. The Hun. Gentleman said that there was some doubt
with respect to the charge. Now he ( Sir James Graham)
would read the chrrge made before the illagistrate upon which
the hearing took place. Dr. Al'Douall was charged with caus-
ing a great number of disorderly persons to as,emble together
in a place called the Broadway, in the parish of St Peter,
Csentford, and with using language of a violent and inflaramae
tory :tature, tending to excite a further breach of the peace, and
eausisg a great obstruction to the passengers in the public
streets and thoroughfares. Now the Hon. Gentleman said that
the testimony of the police was not to be relied upon. He
(Sir James Graham) admitted that he (lid not place so much
reliance on the testimony of Superintendent Menai:et', who was
the responsible person, in refusing to take bail for Dr. M'Douall,
and who took so. prominent a part in compelling him to
desist in addressing the multitude. He (Sir Jame
Graham) found by the evidence of Smith, a police-
man, that a crowd was in the street. He ( the witness)
saw men and women rushing to the chapel, one after
the other. He saw the' defendant get on the platform. The
police interfered and there was a cry to serve out the police,
and give them bludgeons, the same as at Kentish-town.
There were three cheers given for O'Connell—(Laughter)—
three c'heer,s fPr the Charter, and three eheels for Dr.
WDetten•

Mr. O'CONN7—LI.—I
O'Connelli

,ryercion, did -you .t.a.l

Sir .1. H was O'Connor.—( Laughter. ) He
(the witness) told the defendant that that was not the proper
place to go on in that way. The Honourable Gentleman
said that that evidence was partial and not to be relied
upcn. Now he would read to the Hcuse the evidence
of a witness named William Dew, a watchmaker, who,
if he was not a resident of Deptford, was not connected
in any way with the meeting —('l he Right Hun, Baronet
then read the evidence of William Dew, which appeared in
The Sun of Wednesday last.) With respect to the character
of Dr. M•Douall, the Hon. Gentleman had notified that this
was not the first occasion on which he had been present at
riotous and unlawful meetings. It appeared that in August,
1839, he was tried at Chester for raising a tumultuous meeting,
sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment in Chester Castle,
and required to find sureties, his own of 5001. and two of 1001.
each, to keep the peace for five years. Now, with respect to
the harshness of the proceedings before the Magistrates. After
hearing the statements against the prisoner, the Magistrate,
before Dr. INl‘Douall entered into his defence, notified to him
that he would then declare his opinion as to the case as it stood;
he thought there was not any evidence adduced i hat was sufficient
to induce him to commit himfor trial for holding an illegal meet-
ing, he was willing to take his recognizances in 50/. and two sure-
ties of 251. each, to keep the peace; and so ler from Dr.
M'Douall objecting to this course, he willingly acceded to it,
and upon the cksing of the case he stated that he was satisfied
with the arrangement, and thanked Mr. Jeremy for deaing so
leniently with the case ; and so far from Dr. M'Douall press-
ing forward the hearing of the witnesses, he declared himself
satisfied with the course pursued by the Magistrate. The
Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that some novel course had
been pursued with respect to this matter. Now he begged to
state distinctly that no new power had been given to the
constables; and if any illegal act had been committed by
the constables, the law was prepared to vindicate such
conduct ; and if any constable had been guilty of an illegal
act, the law would be the first to punish it.—(Hear. )
It was competent for the House to interfere to remedy any de-
fieiences in the existing law ; but it was not part of their usual
functions to interfere in the ordinary administration of justice.
He vi as not by any means prepared to say that great and pecu-
liar cases of urgency might not arise, in which it would be the
duty of that House, as the great inquest of the nation, to insti-
tute an inquiry into the administration of the law. But he did
not think that the present was a case of sufficient importance to
justify such a course of proceeding. It was not a case which
resembled, for instance, the disturbances at Preston, or the
still snore serious disturbances at Manchester. The Hon.
Gentleman had said that the powers exercised by the police
ought to be closely watched. Now he (Sir J. Graham)
did not deny that. He did not deny that the motion of the lion.
Gentleman would be attended with advantage in showing that
parties who considered themselves aggrieved might have their
case discussed in the House. But he could.see no benefit that
would be likely to arise from an inquiry into the facts of the
present case. He was satisfied that no injustice had been done ;
and that upon the whole the parties in question had met nut
only with justice but with leniency.
Mr. O'CONNELL said it was quite a mistake to suppose
that his Hon. Friend had directed his motion against Sir.
Jeremy. It was of the police, and not of Mr. Jeremy that he
complained. Nothing could be more unprovoked and unjusti-
fiable than the conduct of the police in the case, and their pro-
ceedings against Dr. AI 'Denali. The right to meet to petition was
sanctioned by the Constitution, and the right of the people to
meet for the purpose of public discussion was only another mode
of expressing public sentiment ; therefore it was one of import-
ance when it was sought to put down the expression of public
opinion.—( Hear, hear.) When the Right Hon. Baronet
talked of Manchester it ought to be recollected that it was the
interference of the police which produced such scenes.—(Hear,
hear.) It had been said that there was great excitement, and
because that was the case men were to be dragged to dun-
geons. 11e thought that there was a clear illegal arrest in this
case, and it would be satisfactory to the public that an inquiry
should take place.—( Hear. )
Mr. HAWES said that he hoped a more satisfactory state-
ment would be made than that of the Right Hon. Baronet,
which was most unsatisfactory. The Right Hon. Baronet laid
down the law that a constable had full power to decide upon the
legality or illegality of a meeting, and was entitled to disperse it
if it was one of an illegal character; but if not, he would be
liable to an action. And it was for the prospective damages that
might be given against a constable that the meetings of the
people were to be put down.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped
that they would have a decided condemnation of such conduct,
and that they were not to pass through the ensuing months
with the doctrine of the Right Hon. Baronet in force. The
allegations in the petition were not denied. It had been said
that the public ways were obstructed. But was that to be
assigned by the Secretary of State as a reason why public
meetings should be prevented? If they were they would be
going back to the days of high flown Toryism, and it such a doc-
trine remained unchecked and unreproved, they would soon
have the Right Hon. Bat onet proposing a re-enactment of the Six
Acts.—( Hear, hear.) Nobody would accuse him of causelessly
blaming the conduct of the police. He was always anxious to
retain to them a due exercise of their. power ; as a friend of
order, he would go a good way to maintain their authority.
But the present case was a wanton abuse of their power, and it
would have well become the Right Hon. Gentlemen
to have expressed his disapprobation of it in much
stronger language than he had done. A public meeting was
not to be put down by such interference. There had been
two inquiries, and if the police had not been to blame, they
had had an opportunity of showing it. If that body was to
preserve anything like a popular character, and to be relied on
by the great mass of the community, it must certainly repress
its tendency to abuse its authority. Under all circumstances,
he thought the House would not be justified in refusing to
grant the inquiry.

The AI4OIINEY-GENEBAL thought that inquiries of
this description, unless called for by special and extraordinary
circumstances, by loss of life or by some unusual
excitement, were calculated to be exceedingly mis-
chievous. He (lid not pretend to decide whether
the meeting in question was legal or illegal. The origin of the
meeting was the announcement of a lecture by Mr. Thompson
It appeared that Mr. Thompson did not attend as announced,
and that some circumstances occurred which induced the trus-
tees to send for the police. The trustees sent for the police to
clear the chapel.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—No.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had understood that such
was the case. At all events the chapel had been cleared. The
Doctor said that if he could not be heard in the chapel, he
would be heard in the open air—went to a vacant space out of
doors—assembled a meeting, and blocked up the public high-
way. Now clearly it was the duty of the police to clear the
public highway; and while a person was haranguing a multi-
tude it would be absurd for the police to attempt to clear the
Way, unless they also removed the person causing the mischief.
They were perfectly justified in removing the cause of the ob-
struction. That was the law • but he hoped that no Hon.
Member would imagine that he was attempting to justify the
application of the extreme rigour of the law ; on the contrary, he
thought that a great deal of forbearance ought to be practised.
They were asked to inquire into the law. For what? They
had been told of two cases in which inquiry had taken place.
but those cases were of quite a different character. In the
Calthorpe-street case, there had been an actual riot, a police-
man had been stubbed by one of the multitude, and a Coro-
ner's jury had actually acquitted the person stabbing him, being
of opinion that he had done it in self-defence. It would be
most mischievous to institute an inquiry instead of leaving the
person aggrieved to his remedy at law. If a party felt
himself aggrieved, he should apply to a Court of
Law for the remedy instead of to that House. The
Hon. Member had said they ought not to separate with-
out some expression on the part of the Government on the
subject. His Right Hon. Friend had stated that on all occa-
sions where the authorities had been ai plied to they acted
under great responsibility, and v. hat more, he would ask, could
be required? He (the Attorney-General) was ready to at-
tend to every complaint ; but he trusted the Hon. Member
would not think it necessary for the Government to give their
opinion upon every particular case.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought it was not competent for the House to interfere in the
present stage of these proceedings, and he trusted therefore
the law would be allowed to take its course.

Mr. SHEIL did not think the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man who had just sat down had paid attention to what had
been stated by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State
for the Home Department. It was his opinion that the police
had exercised a sound discretion. It would appear as if they
were about to have new principles relative to the interference
of the police with the right of the people, laid down by the
Right Honourable Baronet, the Secretary for the
Home Department. The meeting in the presen
case had been held for a perfectly legitimate pur-
pose, and had been dispersed by the constabulary
upon their own authority. The House had been told the other
• day, in the Sedgely case, that they should not interfere, lest.
they might seem disposed to disturb the verdict of a Jury. But
there had been no verdict of a Jury in the present instance ;
so far was that from being the case that the Magistrate had
declared there was no evidence to show that there had been
anything illegal. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary
for the rime Department, had stated that he approved of the
conduct of the constabulary, and that they had used a wise dis-
cretion. Now he (Mr. Sheil) should say that in making that
statement the Right Hon. Baronet himself had not used a wise
discretion. If the case were an isolated case between man and
man, or the Right Hon. Gentleman and Dr. M'Douall, he
(Mr. Sheil) would have said nothing ; but the reason he at-
tached so much importance to this case was, that it would lead
to most dangerous consequences.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman seemed to suppose that before any constable could act
a Magistrate must have read the Riot Act, or issued a procla-
mation.—( Hear, hear.) Now, the object of reading the Riot
Act was for the purpose of inflicting a penalty upon persons
remaining after the Act had been read. But if the constable
saw a person creating a disturbance, he was at liberty to take
that party into custody. All they could say was, that he did
it at his own peril, and if he arrested a party who was not
guilty, he was liable to an action. But what were the facts
upon which the House was called upon to grant a Committee?
From the statement of the Hon. Gentleman, it was quite im-
possible for the House to judge what the facts were. Every
Hon. Gentleman who had spoken on that side attached
no blame whatever to Mr. Jeremy, the Magistrate.
Now let them look at the history of the case down to the time
it was disposed of by Mr. Jeremy. It must be recollected that
Mr. Jeremy did not discharge the party, and he did not say it
was a false accusation, but on the contrary, heisaid, this party
is brought before me, he is guilty of a breach of the peace.
His conduct has not been such as would warrant me in
committing him, but he must find sureties to keep the peace
—(Hear, hear.) ( The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then.
read the evidence given by the policeman Smith, as published
in The Sun of Wednesday last.) In his opinion there was no
ease for inquiry.
Lord PALMERSTON said it appeared to him that those
who had objected to this motion had given very good reasons
why the House should egree to it. The Attorney-General said
it was quite right and proper that when grievances had been felt
they should be brought under the consideration of the House, and
yet he was against any inquiry taking place. What was the
character of the present discussion ? Here were statements
on the one side tending to show great impropriety of conduct
on the part of the police; here were statements on the other
side alleging that the conduct of the police was wise and dis-
creet. Why if there could be a case in which the public in-
terest required that there should be some inquiry, it was such a
case as that. He thought it was very expedient that the
[louse should come to some conclusive determination as
to the facts which had been brought under its considera-
tion. It appeared to him that there were good grounds
for inquiry, because it seemed to him, upon thu state-
ments which had been made on the two sides, that tile
conduct of the police was not very wise sir discreet._( Hear,
hear.) It had not been alleged by the Attorney-General or
the Solicitor-General, that the meeting was en illegal one. The
Attorney-General said he would undertake to say that if a
meeting led to the ob,truct ion of a thoroughfare, it must on that
account become illegal. Why, probably no fair took place in a
country tom which might not be dispersed on that ground.—
(Hear, hear.) Upon what ground, then, was it that Dr.
IVl'Douall was arrested? It must have been in consequence of
something which he said which was in its nature actionable,
which was illegal. But when he was brought before the Magis-
trate the Magistrate did not put him on his trial for any conduct
en his part which was illegal, but he simply bound him
over to keep the peace.—( Hear, bear.) Now, he confessed
he was not disposed to go so far as his Hon. Friends had done
in approving the conduct of the Magistrate. It appeared to
him very questionable whether, if the Magistrate found no-
thing in the conduct of Dr. M'Douall which rendered him
liable to prosecution, whether there was any ground for holding
hjm tb bail to keep the peace,—(Hear, bean) He owned, it

,ared to in" , at thls rite er itivo!vci; irincil le of same
impc,tance—a prim:tie, in wnat degree, i.,),(1 in what cases, '•':
constables were justified in interfering to put down publie
meetings, and in arresting individuals who were taking
part in them. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now,
he thought that the constables in this case exceeded
the proper line of their duty, and he thought it,'
especially at that moment, when Parliament was going to se-
parate for a long time, and when it was possible that many in. C''-
siances might occur during he recess in which meetings of that
kind would assemble--(Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Ministe.. =
rial benches, and laughter from the Oppositinn)—and in.which
constables, acting under a mistaken impression of •their duty,. "
might interfere in a manner which would be productive, of
great public inconvenience ; he thought that was a casein which'
the House would act wisely in instituting an inquiry to'ascer...
Lain the real facts of the case—from an examination of the two '
sides—that it there were no ground of complaint it might be
made known ; and if there were ground of complaint, the Go-- ..;;
vernment might take measures for preventing the recurrence of-
such conduct. On the whole, he thought there was goods
ground for acceding to the motion of his Hon. Friend.

- Sir ROBERT i'EEL said his Right Honourable Friend
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under;
whose superintendence the metropolitan police generally acted,
had intimated to the Hou:e that in his opinion there was not
sufficient gi ound for him to interfere for the punishment of
this person, and supposing the House from the information
before it was dissatisfied with the judgment he had formed,
and there were no mode whatever of conducting any inquiry
except by a Committee, there might possibly be some plausible
ground for acceding to the motion. But were there no means
of determining whether this constable had exceeded his
duty, besides the appointment of a Committee ?—( Hear, hear.)
Was his Right Hon. Friend's decision final and conclusive?
At a very moderate cost the parties might compel the legal
tribunals of this country to determine whether the police con-
stable had acted justifiably or not. Ho might commence
an action against him for false imprisonment or for
the refusal of bail; and which would be the more
satisfactory as ruling the law, the dcei'ion of a Court of Justice,
or the House of Commons? Suppose the House of Commons
—not having evidence upon oath be it observed—should decide
that the constable had acted illegally, that would be no legal
rule if a Court of Law came to an opposite conclusion, a Court
of Law being a regularly constituted tribunal, and having
evidence upon oath.—( Hear, hear.) He deprecated the
House of Commons exercising its judicial functions in such a
case. Ile would be the last man in the world to encourage a
constable or any other person in a const .nt annoying enforce-
ment of the law, even where the law was upon their side;
he thought they would only discredit the law by too much
rigour in its application; but on the other hand let them
remember the peculiar, position of these men, whesl°lo;4
were intrusted with the execution of the law, and-'9O
let them forbear by their censures and needleiii tt
inquiries from discouraging men who held a responsible. tritsti;"ciji
and acted faithfully and honestly in the discharge of their g
ties. Let them suppose that in consequence of the nos%i
interference of the policemen there had been a serious riot, and
life had been lost, what would they have said of the man then? a
At any rate, through his conduct there was no riot, and no one- 7,j0
had been injured. What were the facts of the case? There
was a meeting in the chapel an hour before, and a conflict be- c';
tween Corn-law repeaters and Chartists took place. Was
there a mere commotion in the chapel ? On the Contrary', ft
were not the seats torn up by the contending parties? Were .4'
not blows struck ? They had heat enough in that NOUSe some-
times; but suppose they proceeded to the length of tearing up 1.
their seats. If there were nothing but excitement, loud cries .„
of "Hear, hear," from the Chartist advocates on the one side, and
vehement declamation on the,other, that would not approach to a
riot. Probably the House recollected the story of the man in Ire- .
land,who described the rebellion in 1798 as a "hurry ;" when a
certain event took place, he said it took place " in the hurry of
98."—( Laughter.) Another man described the insurrection
in 1803 as "a dispute in commerce."—( Renewed laughter.)
He could not undertake to say that the conduct of the police-
man in this case was justified. There was a discretionary
power vested in men, who were not, perhaps, well qualified by
experience to exercise it ; but, taking all the facts into con-
sideration, the cries of " Serve out and bludgeon the police,'
and the conduct of the persons assembled, he thought the con
duct of the police could hardly be blamed. It was now open-
to the individual to institute a prosecution against the police-
man. All he asked was, that they' would not go out of their
ordinary course to assume functions which properly belonged!
to a Court of Law.

,

Mrr. T. DUN COWIE replied. He believed that she
greatest portion of what the Right Hon. Baronet had stated, ow
the authority of others, was a tissue of misrepresentation. He•
had no hesitation in saying that the seats were not torn up, ail&
that no damage was done to the chapel, With respect to ttop
policeman Mallalieu, it was not surprising that he had a vindie►-
live feeling against the Chartists, as he was one of the police-
men who were sent down to Birmingham.—( Oh, and cheers. )
The Right Hon. Baronet was perfectly consistent in refusing'
the. inquiry. It was the principle of Toryism to refuse•
inquiry. If the House read the petition of the 5000 per-•
sons assembled on Blackheath, they; would find that titer
stated that the meeting was legally assembled, and they con-•
sidered that they were not bound to submit to such conduct. •
He believed that the people would not submit to it, and if any"
loss of life ensued, the Government who refused to inquire into•
the facts of this case would be responsible.
The Hulls? then divided, when there appeared—
For the inquiry 3O
Against it
Majority against the inquiry
LY

SUPPLY:
The House then went into Committee of Ways and Means,
and the following votes for the service of the year were
agreed to :-
9,970,207/. surplus of Consolidated Funds.
111,3391. surplus of Ways and Means; and
500,0001. to supply deficiency in Exchequer bills of last year.
The House then resumed.
The Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill went through Coo a'
mittee. Report to-morrow.
The Court of Chancery Offices Bill was read a second Lir a."
Committee to-morrow.
TOBACCO REGULATIONS BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved' the
Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Rg port
on the Tobacco Regulations Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the Bill was a most inquisitorial
one—that it interfered with a number of important tate -rests,
from whom he had presented many petitions this s ession,
complaining cf its provisions. It would require at 11 ast ten .;
thousansl new offieers to visit all the small dealers in tv baceo
a circumstance which would doubtless create very great patron-
age for the Government, bet would entail very grew; and un-
necessary expense on the country. He moved du' ; the Bill
be committed that day three months.
Captain PECHELL seconded the motion.
The SPEAKER, having put the question,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said. that
the question was one which considerably affected the revenue
derived from so important an article of coessumption as to-
bacco, in consequence of its being so much adulterated with
sand, ochre, and other deleterious substances. The practice of
adulteration was carried on to such an extent as to call for an
immediate remedy. The Bill would give time to parties hold-
ing the adulterated articles to dispose of them, and thus thg
trade would be put on a wholesome footing, •
Mr. HAWES begged to remind the /'Anus,. that this Bill
had been abandoned by the late Guyer= ent. The Report of
the Commissioners was not in favour of the Bill of the Right
Honourable Gentleman. If the surrey was applied to the
manufacturer and not to the dealer, it would be merely
introducing another party, namely, the dealer, who would
be likely to make adulterations in the article. But whether t
there were adulterations or not depended on the purchaser of ;
the article. A high price would always ensure a pure article. '
The Right Hon. Gentleman could not speak with conadenee
of the Bill, and he therefore hoped he would not press-. it. The
principle of it was vicious, and it would not produsse any great
benefit to the revenue. He therefore hoped the Right Hon.
Gentleman would not persevere with the measure.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
reason he brought the measure forward was, that if ke did not
do so, the present evils would require a much stronger one.
Dr. BOWRING thought the diminished consumption of to-
bacco was to be attributed to its high price. He hoped, that, ~
as there was a difference of opinion on the subject, the Right
Hon. Gentleman would postpone the measure till next session.
Ir. M. PHILIPS said that there was a difference of opinion
on the subject of this Bill among the constituency he had the
honour to represent, but alter having given the best attention
in his power to the measure, he tame to the conclusion of op•
posing the Bill. He believed if the Chancellor of the Es.-
chequer would give to the next session to consider the (Nes-
lion, it would afford the greatest satisfaction.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
9
Against it
53
Majority against the amendment,,, —44 '
The Bill was then re-committed the various clauses were
agreed to with some amendmente ; and the House resin:led.
Report on Wednesday next.
ECCLESIAS fICAL CORPORATIONS LEASING
BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM hiving moved that the Report on this
Bill should be received,
Mr. V. SMITH rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the
Bill should be re-committed. He would wish, for his part,
that the Bill should not be proceeded with during the present
session. The Bill had been first introduced in the other
House by the Bishop of London ; bat it was found that
it should have originated in te House of Commons; .
and the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home
Department, had taken charge of it in that House.'
It appeared to him (Mr. V. Smith) that the measure was one
which would never attain the;purposes for which It had. been
framed. He explained the general purpose of the Act whieh
seemed to give to corporations, sole and aggregate, the pouter'
of leasing their property, and he cited one case, occurring in the l '.•
year 1765, when the corporation of London obtained a lease Ir.
from the Bishop of London, by the terms of which only one-
sixth of the value of the property went to the Church ; this -•.,,e^
was a system which he wished to check, as it would tend se'
to deprive the ecclesiastical corporations of that surplus • :Ze revenue which might be applied to the improvement of the Church itself, and the abrogation of Church rates.
He had other reasons for wishing to postpone this Bill. The
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford had given up hi p
intention of bringing forward a measure for Church Eater
sion, on the udderstanding that the Right Hon. Baronet at rpe,
head of the Government would give it his best considerat:
and be prepared to state what course he should adept in t.,
next session. He also wanted to follow up the plan pia sposed
by the late Government, of introducing a better system of
management of Church property, with a view of app hying the
surplus so produced to a settlement of the 9,uestion of
Church-rates.—( Hear, hear.) He wanted to ,get at what
that surplus might be. e therefore wis'ned this Bill
to be withdrawn for the present, in order tint it might re.-
ceive the best consideration of the Government during the re-
cess. They were now giving away the power by which the
surplus he had alluded to might be produced, The calcula-
tions of Mr. Finlayson had by no means herein overturned, on
the contrary they had rather been augmented, and it might
now be stated that the surplus would be 31',6,860/. He thought
there could be no possible necessity for the measure .passing
this session. He quoted the effect of Vac Act passed for the
niprovement of the ;:isbop of London's estate, to show what
might be expected from a genera). measure of the kind.
bUtirhddeirt, thatg lleases,
es::
Te Bisliwhich
gave the power of granting the
Bishop received an improvement of the re-
venue to the amount of one. third of the ground rents. It did
appear to him that they were throwing away a direct source of
revenue. He believed the question might be so settled as t
give satisfaction to all parties, and the public would by t io
means be satisfied if the Right. Hon. Baronet should in r
other session come forward and ask for a grant of money fur
Church extension, when he had by this measure thrown a fray
an opportunity of gaining a revenue that might be applied with
e:ery justice to this purpose. He therefore moved that.: the
Bill be committed this day three mouths.
Sir J. GRAHAM said it was impossible not to allow that
the Right Hon. Gentleman had argued an intricate and dif-
ficult question with very great ability and fairness. He could
not but follow the example he had set in contending that any
improvement of Church revenue thus obtained should be
applied to no other purpose than the maintenance of the Church
as by law established. There was nothing in this Bill iricon-
sistent with that object, but even on this principle the BPS;
was a large step in the right direction. The Bill was intrAse.
duced by the Bishop of London in the other House, and "Audi-,.
the sanction of the Ecclesiastical Commission, nor dug
it contain anything inconsistent with the five re-
commendations of the Report of that Coramission.
The Pilk got rid of leases on lives and fines upon, renewals.

This ]
The ,

Mon
.tt
the r
seat
Principt
'taking
Atnanirn4

Capt;
five coi
of Srai
The_
ftt.thitt

TllO

Ail

colt
this
are
/111-1,

~,i ~~CIC

rn pubiie
e taking
Now,
exceeded -oc
ught it,'
g to se-
many in ill
gs of that
Ministe- •
in. which ,•i+
ieir duty,. "
uctive. of
:in which
to ascer-
f the two
might be
the Go--
irrence of -
iv as good •
.•

le Friend -,
it, under
ally acted,
a was not
hment of fir,
formation
I formed,
ly inquiry
plausible
no means
.eded his
ar, hear.)
nclusive?
the legal
olice con-
:ommence
t or for
he more
1 Justice,
Commons
old- decide

no legal
a Court
d having
sated the
in such a
tcou: age a •
enforce- lo
heir side;
too much
let them :1,
en,
law, and
needless •
ible trust,-
their du-
the non-
s riot, and .
lan then?
nd no one
? There
onflict be- '„;
ce. Was -
contrary, '
s? Were
.11.15 e some-.
tearing up
loud cries
e side, and
roach to a
an in Ire-
;" when a
hurry of
surrection
aughter.)
he police•
cretionary
ualified by
into con-
e police,'
Lt the eon-

now open-
he police-
it of their
r belonged

that the
stated, cns.
tion. He•
rn up, ancit
pct to the
1 a vindie-
he police-.
cheers.).

refusing'
to refuse•
5000 per- •
that they
they con- •
conduct.
.nd if any
uire into•

30
80
-59

id Itleatar
rear were

last year.

igh Con 0•

end ur

loved,: the
le Rs port

gaai torial
`rests,
- -

* ession,
ast tea
ti baeco—
)l patron-
and nn-
►' ; the Bill

said that
e revenue
:ion as to-
.ated with
practice of
ill for an
rties hold-
thus thy

this Bill
Report of
the Right
ed to the
be merely
rho would
t whether
-chaser of
re article.
:un.2denee
it. The
any great
ight Hon.

d that the
ke did not
one.

ion of to-
)ed, that,
he Right
:t session.
>f opinion
e had the
attention
In of op-
the Es.-
:he quits-

he House

53
—44
mes were
rem imed.

SING

't on this

It did
twee of
ed as t j

by Ao
1 in r
;n ey for
a Fray
ed with
hat; the

m- that
tnd dif-
e could
tat any
u!d be
:lurch
incon- •
he Bi',ll
intr
id bndl
n'•
e re-

iissior,.

ewals;

----
that•• f '^-ytoast's, , "
, sin Leo., but it held ott a strong probabitity of their abo.
°Ytheir being the inducement of a comloon interest to
titute leases for ninety-nine years, instead of leases on
it:es and fines upon renewals. Nor was there anything in it
keecsistent With the public interest, as there was a strong
disposition to prefer a lease of ninety-nine years, which was
ritiost a certainty, to a lease on lives, wnich was subject to uneer-
gco linty. The public had the deepest interest in the most advanta-
management of this property. There was no public interest
thilitating against this measure. With respect to the Eecele-
''''tLeal portion of the question, there were four sources of re-
lute to which they could look. First, there was the Bishop's
4,1 The incomes of the Bishops were fixed prospectively,
si!'' as the Bishops fell in—a maximum income having been
ird--under. this Bill any surplus revenue that misht arise
t`°
ter. the deaths of the present incumbents ivould be applicable
t ecclesiastical purposes, subject only to the rent-charge of the
:leeeeding Bishops. Then with regard to the diaconal and
iiatinlar property; there were four Chapters at present in
nu respect in precisely the same category as the Bishops, and
Ale* were the Chapters of Westminster, of St. Paul's, of
ittatichester, and of Durham. Any future augmentation
is,stsite value of the property of those Chapters
szt.'''`Kt -be available to ecclesiastical purposes; that
the
to say, to the augmentation of small livings, or to
°f the
endowsnent of new churches, subject to the rent-charge
stslie incumbents. He proposed, by the present Bill, to ex-
end that rule to the other Chapters, and he would introduce a
...alt* to that effect.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the prin-
ttple ought to be extendesi to all. Having disposed of the
tro''',e,GPal and the diaconal and capitular fund, he now came
the corporations sole, the rectories, and vicarages. He
104 told that many of these incumbents were vicars in large
.:as, having cures ill-endowed; but considering that a con-
terable.portion of the property rendered improvable by this
Sill might be building ground of great value in the neighbour-
13°?,i of large towns ; and fearing lest, by the operation cf this
Ilns he might be creating in the midst of a large town, having
sSlense
.populations where there was a great deficiency of
ritual instruction, a cure that should be over.endowed, he
sta`ltaken what he trusted would be found be an effectual pre-
illation against the occurrence of such an event. He had, for
ex Purpose, introduced a proviso, that where the population
ii:eeded 2,000 the income should not be more than 600/. a year ;
that Where the population did not exceed 1,000, the income
5,°414 not exceed 5001. a year ; and that where the population
b!s, below 1,000, the income should not exceed 3001. a year ;
1,7 that any surplus should go to the general fund for im-
14.7ing- small livings, er for endowing additional churches,
mosediate neighbourhood of the property to have the
pre-
tence over districts in the distribution of the surplus. He
isclghtthat this Bill was calculated to carry out the principle
rotated by the Right Hon. Gentleman in common with
,srsei lit,namely, that the Church herself should devote the
se:le surplus of her property to ecclesiastical purposes con •
tt tell with the pastoral care of the people before she applied
tin,the state for that purpose. The Right Hon. Gentleman
Omitted that that was the best purpose to which this
14.nis could be appropriated, with the exception of one which
sas(airs Vernon. Smith) thought perfectly legitimate, but
ttch he (sir J. Graham) could not think so, and which the
tt ht lion. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) candidly confessed he
Present did not think it to press. He
tssZasa), therefore, earnestly recommendedthe Bill to the at-
°l2 of the House, as a measure calculated to place at the
400'41 of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be used tor
ss.`setlY ecclesiastical' purposes, the largest possible amount of
-settlite.
ts's". HAWES said that undoubtedly the Right-Hon. Gen-
si;msin had made some considerable and most important
Feat
in the Bill, which he (Mr. Hawes) looked upon as
Cat concessions. There was one point, however, on which
sr` 'fished to be satisfied. Was any portion of that fund thus
stteslted to be diverted into the hands of any private parties,
t.ner lay or ecclesiastical, after the present incumbents should
:te fallen in ? If it were, the Bill would not have his eons
; if it were not, he would no longer oppose the measure.
House ought to have a clear assurance on that head.
sss"'n' JAMES GRAHAM explained, that although in his
echhe.had stated there were four sources from which this in.
ct;ease of revenue was to be deived, he had yet omitted to en-
()11 the fourth source, which was the sinecure rectories ;m and
ue Whole of the increased revenue derivable from these four
s;s4,ecas subject to the charges to which he had already alluded,
i'llictunder the provisions of this Bill be available for cede-
aatical purposes, and go to the augmentation of the general

•HENLEY said that the holders of Church Leases had
:tea that, under this Bill, an end was to be put to their
feo7,tsk: They were in perfect ighorance of what was preparing
and he did not think a measure of. that importance
If .111 d be pressed forward at such a late period of the sesion.
ter were pressed to a division he should vote against the Bill
committed this session.
Dlr
•BROTLIERTON thought the Bill ought to be post-
4e). It was professedly for the advantage of the Church, but
really for the advantage of the holders of Church property.
te:n 'VERNON SMITH would not, after the ample con-
th:ioos which had been made by the Right Hon. Baronet, and
qis° which he had given, press his motion to a
The motion was then withdrawn, the Report was brought up,
kid the Bill ordered to be read a third time on Friday.

CANADA LOAN BILL.
..This Bill was read a second time.
&Ile Slavery (East Indies) Bill was read a second time.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.
2n the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
111-'l_r• HENLEY said he did not wish to offer any objection to
principle
rd reading of the Bill, but he objected to the novel
Making the was proposed to be introduced into the Bid, of
ttnanimoues
verdict upon the majority of the jury, instead of the
Captain PEdflet of
the
jury.
ti ye_ conllsideratiolinEtoLL hoed the Right Hon. Baronet would
the claims for compensation of the Judges
of small Debts Courts.
The
.13i11 was then read a second time and ordered to be
emitted on Friday.
LAW OF EVIDENCE BILL.
Tho ecimmittal of this Bill was postponed till Friday next,
ARIBERY AT ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL.
o4"o the motion for the further consideration of the Report
lltis Bill,
VP. HAWES proposed a clause for the purpose of providing
lst i.eating and head-money.
tir•jiARDY said he thought the clause was unnecessary,
treat; coltunon law, as it at present stood, provided that any
its s.n.&given to voters after the test of the writ and before
voided the election. He would appeal to the Learned
lttp solicit to know if this was not a correct view of the
ThS it at present stood.
e SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that under the present
the 41'Y, treating whatever after the test of the writ rendered
;4.0 tlection void, and would unseat the Member. But he ap-
to -t°4
srß ofl this clause, as be thought it a valuable improvement
file l
It •
: AGLIONBY said that there was one principle recog-
thZ in this Bill to which he bad great objection, and that was
)11Ving out-voters with refreshments. He did not know
111::oer it was possible to get rid of this practice, but he thouhgt
talTa candidate ought no more to give such refreshments to
Coters than he ought to pay for ribands and colours.
Ipr r, CURTEIS thought that those candidates who paid
Arlo refreshments were sure to get the votes.—(Laughter.)
Itk.`f. HENLEY thought the House ought to decide what
ts 4 legal treating and what was not. It was now a mere
tter of chance as to what would be decided by a Committee
tie treating. lie thought the House ought to look the par-
y in the face, and say what %Na 3 legal and what was
fro --(Hear, hear.) In county elections, where electors came
fre tlil a distance, he thought they ought to have moderate re-
wlosent supplied to them.
STRUTT thought the Hon. Gentleman ought to state
Moderate refreshment was, and whether it was porter, or
water, or roast beef, or bread and cheese.
tt4:ft (1
er a few words from the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in
11,1 nation, the clause was agreed to.
1,41-" Y the next clause being brought up, the object of which
to prevent the payment of head-money before, during, or
sftt, any election
'gr• HARDY objected to the words "before, during, or
L'er," and suggested that the words " before and after " should
of ,truck out, and that the clause should stand the payment
AN' valuable sum of money, &c.," after any election.
%Itsß , . I'EEL did not think it would be advisable to l
tht. the words " before and after," though he could not f.eave
ee
Th-Use -C>f inserting all the words "before, during, and after."
eY included all time. It was impossible to conceive any
ie that was not either before, during, or after an election.—
pa,_ear, hear.) Would it not be better to let it stand, " the
4,;"ll,_ent of any valuable sum of money, &c., shall be deemed
-ery:P.
sh,"l2,r• AGLIONBY hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet
-14,1 not object to the words, " before, during, or after."
;Zfter some further conversation the clause was agreed to.
st,.; he ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved a proviso at the
Ilplof the 4th clause, to the effect that any alleged act of
of,"„erY must be shown to be committed within three months
st,i'e presentation of the petition, previous to its becoming
i`,l.lect of inquiry bef .re the Committee.—Agreed to.
coming
verbal amendments were made in the other 'clauses,
the House resumed. The Report was brought" up and
tteed to.—Third reading this day.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
str J. GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the
I,„Pose of better defining the boundaries of the borough of Co-
e:
try; rendered necessary by a recent judgment in the- Court of
cheetner, which leaves the borough with one actual and twop
he boundaries, inducing much confusion and difficulty in
e adnainistration of justice between the county and city. He
k4‘"ted tl ttl e town council of the borough had agreed to the
cange4-e t,
Uzents of the Bill.
ave was given to bring in the Bill.
EXCHEQUER BILLS.
MASTERMAN asked whether the Chancellor of the
klohe'que r had received any Report from the Commissioners
vlV4intee' d tolaid inquore thire inteo the Exchequer 13dis fraud, and when it
1 b bef House
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
to4l;se' as yof the et receiveensuingd the Rwpeeoitek, and as soon as , but was led to exp
itcameect it
into his
in the
,-
14
lit'us it should be laid before the House. He understood that
eetvidence was very voluminous.
T
Rouse adjourned at One o'Clock.

4k.R.E THE MINISTERS OR THE
PEOPLE MOST ItiNORANT ?

(FROII A CORRESPONDENT.
4„,1%) sooner had the report arrived in Manchester that Sir
th's Graham had added insult to injury, by insinuating
4,4 the 70,0:90 requisitionists to stop the supplies did not un-
it;rstand the surject, than large public meetings were held, one
7 nnSt. George's-road, at which were present from 6,000 to
$0 persons, and a still more numerous one in Oxford-road.
Pc,,`P meetings were ly addressed diy 'Messrs. Falvey and
44gaa, and a resolution passed repuding the charge of igno-
eee made against the people of Manchester by the Home
becretary. The proceetOngs were characterised throughout
II the respectful, yet firm determination, of those large astern-
ags's of the people to obt tin freedom of industry from the
Legislature.Th e s•
the
ject, too, was temperately, yet energetically handled
vb' le speakers, and the constitutional doctrine affecting the
2Pplies, explained as well ai if Sir James Graham himself had
specimens
on the subject : and if we may judge from the previous
I'ecitnens of the worthy Baronet's pamrhleteering, with much
°re moderation.
It is intended to send a remonstrance to Sir James on his
coi:!0-blooded sneer at the intelligence of the people. One
are g is certain, the men of England know that their supplies
Ahi_stopped by the Corn-laws, and they feel that there is no-
-1,1.,"eg! either morally or constitutionally wrong, in stopping the
4 hinery of the Government that retains them.
Alancliester, July 30.

WI3IPROVEMENT IN THE SELF-LIGHTING SEALING- I
43. c.—We.—We are happy to record an improvement that
,5e patentees, Messrs. Davis, Brothers, and C 0.,. of the
woultry, have just effected in the Self-lighting Scaling-
~,,411- The metal holder being now dispensed with, and
one operation required, a letter can be properly
Sealed
with it, neatly and instantaneously, without the
first
of burning the fingers, as we have done with the
sort, when we have lost or mislaid the holder. Not
the least to astonish us is the price ; a large box, con-
tTng a countless quantity, is sold for 6d. ; there are also
,!.reePenny, and even penny boxes. We advise our
t 21ends to try it, and are confident they will u,e nothing
"a for securing their letters.