The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-07-03 00:00:00

T LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

ground for cancelling the appointment was the difference of po-
litical opinion between the noble lord and the present adminis-
tration, he should prove, that however wide the difference of
opinion might be, it formed no just ground for the removal of
the noble lord.' Was the ground of objection to th:s appoint-
ment that it had been made by the late president of the board of
control (Lord "Ellenhorough j? He would appeal to his suc-
cessor (Sir J. C. liobhouse) and ask whether the individual re-
commended by that noble lord was unfit to administer the
government of India ? He would now ask what were the oh-
ectiens to Lord. Heyteshure's fitness for the offire of governer-
general ?• Ile had already filled some of ;he highest offices, and
had been long before the public, and he ( Mr. Praed) had never
beard a word against the manner in which he had discharged
the duties of those appointments. lie would therefore call ou
the government to show some specific reason for the cancelling
of the noble lord's appointment. Ile would not be satisfied with
a mere declamatory answer, but he wished, for a substantial
reasou, for he thought that it was most ilujust to the noble lord,
who had already received so many marks of the royal favour on
account of his public services, to let his character -be whispered
away by idle rumours. He would appeal with confidence to
many hou. members opposite for their knowledge of the services
of the noble lord (at that time Sir William A'Court) while in
Lisbon, where he had a delicate and most important duty to
perform, and for the efficient discharge of which he had been
raised to the peerage. He had on that occasion received the
cordial thauks of Mr. Canning, and also of the government
which had succeeded that of Mr. Canning. Taking this as
fact, and it could not be denied, there was nothing in the con-
duct of the noble lord to create any objection to the noble lord's
fitness for the high station to which he had been appointed.
The only ground, then, on which his appointment was cancelled
must have been his difference in politics from the present
government, and that he (Mr. Praed) would contend was not a
sufficient ground for the exercise of his majesty's prerogative.
In 18.33 the government disclaimed the intentipn of taking the
patronage of India into their own hands, but the present case
would seem as if they were disposed to depart from that rule. •
The change of the government and the diffeience of political
opinion between the newly-appointed governor-general and the !
new administration would not, he contended, justify the revo-
cation
of the appointment. It was, he admitted, necessary that j
the governor-general should have the confidence of the govern-
ment at home, and also that of the directors ; but if by "confi- !
dence" was meant " coincidence in political opinions," then he
would say that the same principle which would justify the re-
vocation of the appointer ent of a governor-general of India
would also justify the removal of all who held important ap- I
pointmeets under. the preceding government. ( Hear, hear.)
Lord lleyteshury had been appointed for some time, and had I
got everything ready to take his departure. Nose, under those
circumstances; if want of confidence, or in other words, want of
coincidence in political opinion, would justify the cancelling of
Lord Ileytesbary's appointment, it would also justify his recall,
if he had gone out. there was another reason why this prece-
dent was a most dangerous one. In this country, where the
demand for men capable of filling all departments of the public
service could be readily supplied, it 'was necessary that every
important public office should he filled by persons in the con&
dence of government; but in India there was often difficulty in
filling many important appointments with men of proper quali-
fications; and if this principle of coincidence in political opi-
nion with the government at home were to be adopted, the diffi-
culty would be increased by having to select from only one party
(hear, hear) a principle which never had been adopted with re-
spect.to appointments in India. Another reason against the
adoption of this principle was this—that it was most important
to the stability of our dominion in India that the directors
should have the great authority in their own hands, in order
that the respect of the people of India should be continued to
them. Was it, then, at such a moment as this that the govern-
ment should expose them to the,contempt of thepeople of India
by suddenly, and without any reason assigned, cancelling the
appointment of the governor on whom their choice had fallen?
Let him add, that if the government set the example of teach-
ing governors-general of India that they exist as such only by
the contingency of agreeing in political opinion with the ad-
ministration aChome, they would, teach them also to make all
their patronage and influence subservient to the continuance
of the government at home. (Hear hear.) It was well known
that since 178,1 the government had administered the affairs
of India without any reference to European politics. (Hear.)
Mr. Praed then quoted the opinions of Mr. C. Grant and
the Marquis of Lansdowne in support of his argument, and also
that of Mr. T. B. Macaulay, who, speaking in that house on
the India bill, had said:—" Sir, what we want is a body inde-
pendent of the crown, and no more than independent ; which
shall he neither the tool of the ministry nor of the opposition."
Wheh Sir Robert Peel came into office he did not recall the
gentleman appointed to the government of Bombay, Sir Robert
Grant, although that gentleman had acted in opposition to his
government; but there was a still stronger case, that of a mem-
ber of the Legislative Council of Calcutta. Mr. Macaulay,
who had been appointed by the government preceding that of
his right hon. friend (Sir lt. Peel,) and whose recall, if the
principle adopted by the present government were to be adhered
to, would have something stronger than that fur the recall of
Lord Heytesbury to recommend it,—Mr. Macaulay had by his
erroneous cpnstruction of a clause in the Dew act relating to
India acted in a capacity which he was not ant horised to do by
that act ; but though that would of itself justify his recall,
though he would admit that the error was a slight one, yet the
government at home had not taken that course. for. Praed
concluded by moving that there lie laid before the house, " Co-
pies of any communications which have passed between the
Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India and the Court
of Directors of the East India Company on the subject of the
revocation of the appointment of Lord Heytesbury as Governor-
General of India.' _ _ _

On the question being put from the chair,
Sir JOHN HonHousi did not know whether the hon. member
was really serious in his intention to take the sense of the house
on the motion just read from the chair. • The house and the
country know all that in his opinion was necessary to be known.
If the hon. member thought this exercise of the prerogative of
the Crown was indiscreetly used, no papers which could be pro.
duced would make the fact more clear. 11 he disapproved of
the revocation, and the house should go along with him in the
opinion, no doeements would be necessary. There would be
great inconvenience in publishing the confidential communica-
tions between the Court of Directors and the Board ofeontroul,
and it might give unnecessary pain to others to have those facts
and circumstances published. If the house should decide that
the government was wrong in revoking the appointment, they
would bow to its decision, but until the house took that course
the government would continue to adhere to what they consi-
dered to be their duty, for they thought it would be highly pre-
judicial, not only to the interests of India but to those of the
empire at large, to publish the documents for which the hon.
member called. The hnu. member had asked him, "Do you
object to a nominee of Lord Ellenborough ?" To that question
he would,reply at once, "1 do." (Great cheering on the mi-
nisterial benches.) "I do not," continued Sir John Hobhouse,
"object to the capacity of that noble lord as inadequate to the
duties of his recent office of President of the Board of Centroul,
but I do object to his sending out a Governor-General to India
for nie. (Loud cheers from the ministerial benches.) When
be asks me whether I have not seen in my office proofs of the
genius and talent of Lord Ellenborough, I willingly admit to
him that I have seen proofs that Lord Ellenborough takes very
large and enlightened views of what ought to be our public
policy in India. (Cheers from both sides of the house.) I say
this, because it is only due to the noble lord. But there is a
wide dis!inction between this and the inference which the lion.
gentleman wishes me to draw. I say it does not follow that be-
cause I think Lord Ellenborough a distinguished man, and
because he appointed Lord Heytesbury Governor-General of
India, and because Lord Heytesbury had not sailed when I ices
first appointed to the office which I have now the honour to hold,
lam therefore to confirm that appointment. ( Hear, hear.)
The hon. member said that the recall of Lord Heytesbury by
the authority of his maiesty's government must hurt the cha-
racter of the Court of Direct Ors in their dominions :in India.
He had said further, that when the news should arrive in India
that the Governor-General recommended by the Court of Di-
rectors, and approved by his majesty, was not to be sent out, it
must tend materially to shake their authority. Dad the hon.
gentleman ever considered, if his argument were correct. how
much more their character must have been hurt, and their au-
thority shaken, by what had occurred in that house during the
sessiiat of 1833 ? 'When the East India Company's charter was
under discussion, the King's governthent was opposed upon it
by all the influential gentlemen in the Court of Directors, and
yet it persevered in carrying it notwithstanding. The hon.
member had repeated the assertion over and over again, that
the revocation of the appointment of Lord Heytesbury would
shake their authority in India, and so perhaps it would. But it
was much better that the authority of the Court of Directors in
those regions should receive a shock than that the cordial sym-
pathy which ought to exist between a Governor-General and
the myriads intrusted to his sway should be weakened.
At the close of the debate the numbers were, for the motion
179, against it 254. The motion was consequently lust by a
majority of 75.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL.
The 11th, 12th, 13th, and I,lth clauses of this bill were readin
committee, and, with some amendivents, agreed to.
CATOOLIC MARRIAGES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
The house adjourned at two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS--TUESDAY. JUNE 30.

. .
Lord KENYON presented two petitions, one of them from
Winchelsea,;COritemplating of certain proceedings ou the part
of the pootin,i_ commissioners.
The Earl of Ross:11E1{1, presented a petition from the minister
and elders of a congregation in Edinburgh against the grant of
public money for church accommodation in Scotland.
On the motion of Vi-count DUNCANNON, the select committee
for inquiring into the best plan to be adopred for rebuilding the
two Houses of Parliament was revived. • .
Lord KINNOUL moved for a copy of an art of the General
Assembly of the church of Scotland, of the 'Nth of May, 1835,
and a copy of the regulations for carrying that act into effect.—
Ordered. NATIONAL morcAnoN.
Lord BROUGHAM moved the order of the day fot resuming
the adjourned debate on his resolutions relative to education.
Viscount MELBOURNE assured his noble and learned friend
(Lord Brougham) that the whole of his Majesty's ministers had
the object of general education as much at heart as he (Lord
Brougham) could possibly have. But he thought that a bill
would be preferable to his resolutions, and therefore recom-
mended him to withdraw them and bring forward a measure
founded upon the principles he had laid down.
Lord Bnocu II A M addressed the house at great length, and
adopting the suggestion of Lord Melbourne withdrew his ieso-
lution.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TUESDAY.
• PENIUN ELECTION.
A ballot was taken for a committee to-day on the Perirvn
election, and the gallery was consequently not opened till tweOty
minutes past four o'clock.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL.
Petitions praying that all inchoate rights might be preserved
under this bill were presented by Mr. G. Price, from Sandwich;
by Mr. l'raed, from Yarmouth; by Mr. Miles, from Bridge-
water; and by Sir It. Vyvyan, from Bristol. Petitions in favour
of the bill were presented by Colonel Gore Langton, Mr.
Parker, and Sir M. W. Ridley.
YORK ELECTION.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from the city of York
complaining of bribery, corruptiou, and undue practices having
been had recourse to, at the last election fur York. Ordered
to lie on the table.

The SPEAKER, addressing them respectively by -name, said,
this house had resolved that they had been guilty of a beach of
its pi ivileges by absconding in order to evade the service of the
wad rant ot the Speaker, requiring them to appear before the
committee to whom the petition complaining of undue returns
for the borough of Ipswich had been referred to give testimony.
This was a very grave offence on their part. There was no
duty more incumbent on all persons, in all ranks and conditions
of life, than to afford their testimony in order that the guilty
might be punished and the innocent exculpated. In this in-
stance their offence had been. aggravated by the circumstances
under which it had Miceli place. They had anticipated that an
inquiry was likely to be instituted in that house, acting for and
on behalf of the public, to maintain the purity of elections, and
to secure the interests and rights of his Majesty's subjects ; with
that anticipation, and with a full knowledge that they were in
possession of facts important to be disclosed for the due ,admi-
nistration of justice, they had absconded to avoid service. Tne
circumstances of their case called for a more severe punishment
than the house in its lenity and mercy was disposed to inflict.
The house had taken their petitions into its consideration; it
found they had expressed their Sorrow and contrition for the
ofliSnee they had committed, and it was disposed to administer
justice leniently, iu the hope that that, and what they bad al-
ready suffered, would act as a warning to them, produce a salu-
tary and permanent influence on their future conduct, and that
they would always bear in mind the best atonement they could
make for the offence of which they had been guilty would be in
Showing that they were ready to appear on whatever occasion,
and in whatever place, they might be required to give all the
evidence within their power, in order to carry into execution
the ends of justice. Hoping that this effect would be produced,
he had only furi her to inform them, that th'y should now be
discharged upon the payment of the usual fees.
The parties then bowed and withdrew.
PROSECUTION BY TIIE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

Mr. GISHORNisaid that he rose to move, accorilitaz to the
notice he had given yesterday, that his Majesty's attorney-gene-
ral be directed by the house to prosecute all the parties will.) ap-
peared to have been guilty of bribery at the Ipswich election.
As he understood the motion was not to be opposed, ho should
not make an observation upon it.—Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

Lord J. RussETt.:l;led that hon. members would now per-
mit him to move the order of the day that the house resolve itself
into a committee upon the municipal corporations bill.
Mr. Hume, Mr. Hutt, and Mr. 'Trevor postponed their mo-
tions. . _

Sir It. Peer. said that there seemed to be an impression that
there Was a desire on the part of those with whom he was associ-
ated to throw some obsteuction in the ray of the noble lord's pro-
c'eeiling with his bill. Now, so far fromthat being the case, he'
begged tcystate most distinctly that they were most anxious to
have it on, and to proceed with it with as little delay as possibly
can take place. (Cheers.) Great inconvenience took place to
all parties from every delay that occured. The more steadily
they proceeded with it, by far the better would it be both for
their individual interests and for the interests of the, public.
(Hear, hear.) As far as he was concerned he should give it
every possible facility, and he sincerely wished that an arrange-
ment could be made whereby they could confirme their debates,
upon it without any interruption whatever. (Cheers.) If they
took that bill for an hour and a half one night and for two tours
an•alier, very great delay would unavoidably take place, and,
on the bringing up of the relnt, time would be a succession of
those very amendments which ought to have been discussed iu
committee. No doubt there would be great inconvenience at-
tending the morning sittings, frein the number of election and
and other committees now sitting, but if any arrangement
could be entered into by which they might regularly and on
certain days, and at. certain hours, proceed with the 'bill, and
continue its discussion as long as they possibly could devote
their attention to it, the public business would in a most ma-
terial degree be accelerated. (Hear, hear.) So far from
having the slightest objection to the measure, he should, on the
contrary, be most happy to do all in his power to facilitate its
progress, (hear, hear,) and that it would be the most acceptable.
course to those with whom he had the honour to act. (Lotid
cheels.)
Lord J. R usseLL said, if any persons were to be found ready
to impute to the right hon. gentleman an inclination to obstruct
the progress of this bill, he (Lord J. Russell) was not one of
them. (Hear, bear.) He believed the only object of that right
hon. gentleman was, that the principles and provisions of the
measure should be fully and fairly discussed, and he feared if
other matters were allowed to interfere, it would lead to au un-
usually protracted session. There was no other motive of any
kind that he would attributeao the right hon. gentleman. With
respect fo two motions which bad recently been discussed on the
subject of the order in council and the recall of Lord eytes-
bury, it had been the wish of government not to postpone them
indefinitely,' and therefore they had been brought on pursuant
to the notices which had been given. If, however, in the course
of to night and Thursday and Friday they did nut make that
progress in committee which he expected, he should be obliged
to consider whether some other arrangemeut could not be made
as respected the morning sittings. (Hear, hear.)
'the order of the day having been read, Lord J. Russeta,
moved the 14th clause, which, after some discussion as to the
appointment of revising barristers, wits carried.
Clauses 15, 16, 17, and ltzi were agreed to, with some verbal
amendments, without a division. .

On the question that clause 19, which enacts that " in every
borough shall be elected, at the time and in the manner herein.
after mentioned, a certain number of fit persons, who shall be
and be called the ' council' of such borough, and one fit person
who shall be and be called the ' mayor' of such borough, and
the number of persons so to be elected of the council in each
borough shall be the number mentioned in conjunction with the
name of such borough in the said schedules A and B," be
agreed to,
Mr. H. Hughes and Mr. Borthwick moved amendments to
this clause which they subsequently withdrew.
• Capt. BEI:KELE! moved as an amendment, a provision that
" uo person in holy orders, licensed dissenting ministers, (v-
-eers of customs; stamps, excise, or in the pustotlice" should
hold'a seat in any municipal council.
This ainendruent having been put by the chairman,

Sir ROSYRT PREL said the amendment he'bed to propose re-
lated to the qualification of those who were to he elected mem-
bers of town-councils. A great difference of Opinion existed on
this subject, some thinking that the electors should be at liberty
to select whom they pleased. while others thought a property
qualification itadispensible. lie was quite aware that, accord-
ing to ancient practice, no pecuniary qualifications were re-
quited fur members of corporations, but the usual words of the
charters were that they should elect "fit, discreet, and respect-
able" per,sons to fill the corporate offices. No peculiar qualifi-
cation was named beyond those general ter'ins, hut the spirit of
the charter was, that persons fit for their respective offices
should be, appointed, and he apprehended that even in those
self-elected corporations, whatever might be their defects in
other respects, care was taken to elect persons of wealth and
respectability. Many towns were regulated in their local ar-
rangements—of police, watching, lighting, and so on, by acts
of parliament, obtained generally by consent of the whole body,
or by the great majority of the rate-paying inhabitants; in
some of these the corporation's were included as guardians or
trustees; in others they were not. These acts, he repeated,
were in general sought for by the good-will of the majority of
the rate payers, and were discussed before committees of that
and the other house, but in almost every case it was found that
a body was selected for controlling the watching, l'glitincs, or
ether local arrangements. Sometimes this body was electede
by the rate-payers generally, and sometimes by those who pus
sensed certain defined qualifications, but in all cases there was
a fixed qualification named for those who were to be members
of the governing bode. The right hon. baronet then proceeded
to notice the cases of Manchester. Salford, Birmingham, Shef-
field, Sunderland, l)evonport, Wolverhanipton,, Bilstou, Bol-
ton, Brighton, Stroud and other places, iu all of which the
persons who acted as commissioners were qualified by property
before they were eligible to do so. In asking the committee to
adhere to this course, he sought to introduce no new principle.
They were going to make a new governing body in corporations,
and all he asked was that they should not do away with the
qualification which was usually required of every member of
such body. But they were going to do more than confer the
mere patronage of watching. and paving and lighting. Some
of the corporations under this bill would have considerable pa-
tronage in other respects. They were to be in some cases com-
missioners of charities, and these were reasons why they should
have some qualification as to property. The bill would give
greater powers to magistrates in some corporations, and, lie
would ask, was it right that they should have less qualifications
than mere now given to those who had much smaller powers to
exercise? Another reason for the necessity of a qualifica-
tion was, that a party was liable to a fine for refusing to serve
as a member of the governing body. A blank was at pi esent
left in the bill for the amount of the fine, so that he could not
say what its amount was intended to be; but if a man were to
be fined for refusing to accept an office, he ought to be selected
from that class which could pay the fine, otherwise it would be
gross injustice. But what fine could be imposed on a man with
respect to whom property was no qualification? lie would not
say that the possession of propetty necessarily implied respec-
tafility, but it was at least some
.guarantee, in the party ap-
pointed to office, for his conduct in the discharge of its duties.
It was required of a magistrate that he should have at least
MOO a year in the county ,n which he exercised his functions,
but the mayor of any of the corporations under this bill would
.he a magistrate of the county in a hich it Was situated. Would
it not in , that case be necessary that he should have some qua-
lifieation ? Was it consistent with the principle laid down on
the opposite side, that there should be no qualification for the
mayor of a borough, who, being the returning officer for that
borough, was liable to a fine or£soo for any neglect cif dirty as
such returning officer. Surely it was absurd to say that a man
who might be so fined for neglect of duty should have no quali-
fication as to property. Let him add, that a man was by this
bill disqualified by bankruptcy or insolvency, yet both might be
consistent with strict integrity; but if property was not to he .a
qnalification, why should bankruptcy or insolvency disqualify ?
When he spoke of property as a qualification, he felt that it
would not be proper to attach a very high qualification to the
members of the governing body. In this respect be thought
there ought to be some distinction between towns.. The bill
related to towns, some of which were extensive and prosperous,
and others were small and comparatively poor. Now, it would
not be fair to have the same test of qualification in these two
classes of towns. - lie had looked to the cases of most of the
towns, and he had adopted a lower qualification than that which
was usually adopted, and in making it he had distinguished be-
tween the ton classes of towns recognised by the bill—he meant
those which were divided into wards, and those which were not
so divided; and as he had mentioned wards, he hoped that the
principle of dividing towns into wards would be more general
than it was at present in this bill. He thought that that princi-
ple out to be extended much beyond what it was at present.
He trusted, also, that the committee would go with him in
thinking that it would be right not to adopt a single qualifica-
tion for all towns,. but they would consent to distinguish be-
tween the greater and the smaller towns. In the Birmingham
bill die qualification for the governing body was £lOOO real or
personal property. He thought he could suggest a better mode
of fixing the qualification. It would, in his opinion, be better
to make it consist of joint qualifications; for manv tradesmen
might find it difficult to swear that they had realised £lOOO.
lie would therefore propose that, in towns which were divided
into wards, the qualification for the members of the governing
body should be, that they were possessed of an estate, real or
personal, of the clear value -of £lOOO, or that they should be
rated to the relief of the poor on a sum of not less than £4O a
year.. In towns not divided into wards, the qualification should
be, that the town councillor should be possessed of at least £5OO
in real or personal estate, or be rated to the poor-rate on a sum
of not less than £2O a yeas. Those who thought with him that
there ought to be a qualification, might differ as to the amount
which he had mentioned, but he could not think that he had
stated it too low. There were vaiimis tests in several local
I acts, and he had taken' the lowest. What he had stated was
lower on the average than the majority of the cases in which
local acts had been passed. The right hon. baronet concluded
by moving as an amendment, that after the word "council" in
the clause, the following words should be added—" provided
such members of council who shall be elected in boroughs
divided into wards shall at the time of their election be seized
' or possessed of real or personal property of the clear value of
.£lOOO, or that they should be rated on a rental of net less than
£4O a year, and also provided that all such members elected in
towns not divided-into wards shall at the time of their election
be seized .orposaessol'of property, teal or. personal, of the clear
value of £5OO, or be rated to the relief Of the poor on a rental
of not less thus £2O a year." -
Mr. BLABURN opposed the amendment un account Of its

tendency to narrow the rights detectors, and becausehethought
that the want of a qualification would nut be, practically, of any
consequence. He wished to remind the_committee that for the
members now returned to that house by the people of Scotland
no qualification was required, and yet those members did not
vield.to any in that house, fur sagacity, fur intelligence, or for a
'desire to perform their uties faithfully to their constituents.
(Hear, hear.) The same Was the case with respect to the. Ma-
gistrates who under the new system exetcised jurisdiction in the
Scotch burghs. ( Hear, hear.) The electors in those burghs
were indeed curtailed in one of their privileges, having to pro-
-vide themselves with a Ell) franchise, but having that franchise,
they were free to choose whomsoever they pleased. ( Hear, hear.)
If then a precedent were wanted tti justify them in 'adopting
this clause without amendment,-they had a precedent for it in
the absence of all qualification for the persons elected to repre-
sent Scotland in parliament, and to exercise jurisdiction in as
municipal burghs. (Hear, hear.)
Lord SasivoN declared his intention to support the amend-
ment. The qualification which his right hon. friend proposed
was a moderate one, and being moderate, the proposition for
enforcing it would meet, he had uo dosibt, the general approlia—
tion of the country.
Sir .1. HOBIIOUSE contended that the clause as it stood in the
bill was most congenial to its general principles. (Hear, hear.)
In his opinion, all persons who were concerned in borough go-
vernment ought to have the free choice of the borough magis-
trates, who were to have the controul of the hotough funds.
Mr. GOULBURN supported the amendment:
Mr. EWART spoke in favour of the clause, deprecating any
qualification either for the magistrates of boroughs ur members
of parliament.
Mr. BA RING instanced the case of Portsmouth, where, he
said, in some districtsof that town a sufficient number of persons
occupying houses of the required value were nut to be found.
• Sir 11. PEEL, remiaded Mr. Baring that he had proposed a
qualification independent of household occupation. Did the
hon. member mean to say that the/re were only 58 persons in
Portsmouth worth VOW each.
• Mr. BARING.—Of course I do not mean to say any such
thiug.
Lord Jo UN RUSSELL admitted that parliament had required
a property qualification in all the cases the right hon. baronet
had referred to—but having granted that—he was not ready to
grant that they were now bound to follow the course which par-
liament had formerly chalked out for them. No pecuniary
qualification was. required for a common councilman of the
city of London. • In his opinion both reason and principle were
in favour of an unrestricted choice, by the burgesses, of persons
in whom they think they. can most justly confide.
Sir R. PEEL said he wished to show in the'ishservritions he
had offered to the committee that in proposing a qualification
he was sustained by a stream of authorities arising on the part
of those interested in the good government of towns. One of
his great authorities on this point was the noble lord (Lord J.
Russell) himself. (Hear, hear.) When he heard the noble
lord censure these who were not disposed to place implicit con-
fidence in the municipal bodies, he looked to an act immor-
talized by its connexion with the noble lord's name, and which
was denominated "An act for the better regulation of theuuited
parishes of St. Giles-in-the-Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury."
Did the noble lord trust to the good sense and discrimination
of the electors in the choice of the governing body in this case ?
The act provided that one-half at least of the body in each of
the united parishes should at the time of their election, and
during the period of their acting, be resident householders, rated
to the relief of the poor of the joint parishes on an annual as-
sessment or valuation of—what did the committee think ? Not
less than £75. (Loud cheering and laughter.) By the same
act no rate-payer was entitled to vote unless rated to the amount
of £3O a-year. An hon. gentleman proposed that the rating of
voters should be £l5, but the noble lord oliposed and divided
• against the proposition, which was lost. Ihe noble loid• said
on that occasion, that though he thought £3O too high a qualiti—
cation, he considered £l5 too low. Nota doubt seas entertained
as to the propriety of the qualification of the governing body,.
but there were four divisions on the subject of the elective body.
Thus it appeared that when this act was passed, the noble lord,
who now reposed the utmost confidence in the discrimination of
the elective body, had great doubts as to electors choosing the
persons best qualified fur the due administration of theiraffairs.
(" Hear, hear," and continued laughter.)
Mr. P. TnomsoN rose to address the house, but was obliged
to sit down without obtaining. a hearing !—(Titries.)
The house then divided—
Ayes
Noes

267
.... 204

Majority against the amendment 63
On the 22d clause, appointing the period for electing coun-
cillors, being proposed,
Lord STANLEY moved as an amendment, that the word
" succeeding" be struck out, and the word "alternate be put in
its place ; that is, that the clause he altered so us to declare
that one-third part of the council should go out of office every
second year, instead of every )ear, as was proposed in the bill;
This amendment was lost one division, when there appeared,
Ayes
Noes

Majority against the amendment.... 4,1
The clause was then agreed to, and the chairman reported
progress, and asked leave to sit again.

BEER ACT.

Mr. A. TREVOR, we believe, obtained leave to bring in a bill
to amend certain parts of this act.

CLANDRSTINE MARRIAGES.

Mr. JACKSON obtained leave to bring in a bill• to amend an
act of the parliament of Ireland, made in the 9th year of his
late Majesty King George 11., for more effectually preventing
clandestine marriages.
WASON presented a petition from Great Yarmouth re-
specting the alleged payment of money to voters there since the
election.

After ti few words front Mr. Pit xEn respecting the signatures
to the former petition, many of which he declared to be fictitious,
the petitioa was laid on the table.
The other orders of the day were disposed.of, and the house
adjourned at one o'clock.

• HOUSE OF LORDS.—WEtroisDAY.
Lord Deriman took his seat at live o'clock.
• A considerable number of private bills were passed a stage,
and several petitions were received, none of which were of pub-
lic interest.
Their lordships then adjourned till Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDESDA T.
The Speaker took the chair at half-past three o'clock-
THE MEDWAY NAVIGATION.
Mr. EmiINSTONE moved that the committee upon the Med-
way navigation bill should be revived. The parties were for
nearly four years before parliament at an immense expense.
The committee to whom the matter was referred had pleased,
however, to adjourn sine die, without agreeing to any report.
Sir E. KNATCHBUnt,, at considerable length, opposed the mo-
tion • and after some observations, in which Mr. Hodges, Mr.
Warburton, Mr. Herries, Mr. Hume, Mr. O'Connell, Captain
Pechell, and several other members, took part.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE said he was willing to modify his motion,
and restrict it to extending the time for the committee to make
their report until the' 20th of July. It was, however, at the
suggestion of Sir E. Knatchbull, eventually agreed that the
debate should be adjourned until to-morrow.
A number of private bills were- then passed a stage.
Mr. O'CoNN sl.t. presented sever petitions, one f7oin Dublin,
complaining that in consequence a all government printing
being done in this country that class of the community were
greatly distressed.
Mr. Hum: as chairman of the printing committee said, they
had already received evidence proving that the printing could
be done in Dublin as cheap as in London, and consequently all
that. could conveniently would in future be executed there.
The hon. and learned member also presented several other
petitions mostly on private subjects, among which was one from
Dublin' praying that corporation reform might be extended to
Ireland.
A very long and most unconnected conversation ensued, in
which Mr. Shaw positively denied the assertion of Mr. O'Con-
nell, that his father, Sir It. Shaw, was not c.n the grand jury to
which several bills for bribery and corruption were presented
and ignored.
Mr. O'Cosm.y.m. again repeated his statement.
The report of the discussion, which was rather of a personal
nature, we are compelled, from the lateness of the hour, to
defer.
[Left sitting.]