Debates anti vroccebinns fit Vatliament.

THE POOR-LAW.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. Tito:wits Dulecoxi moved an instruction to the Committee on the Poor-law Continuant Bill, that a clause should be introduced " to abolish the plurality mi proxy system of voting in the election of Guardians."

Mr. EWART seconded the motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed it. The principle of plurality tag proxy-voting had been deliberately sanctioned by the House on the several occasions, and had been embodied in three Acts of Parliament The question had been fully discussed when the Irish Poor-law oat before the House, and he did not think there was any dispositions adopt Mr. Duncombc's " instruction."

The motion was rejected, by 112 to 35.

General JOHNSON moved " that it be an instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision to prevent the improper sea ration of man from wife and parents from children in the Union work. houses."

Lord JOHN Russm.J, said that this question, like that embraced in Mr. Duncombe's motion' could be more properly brought forward when the whole subject of' Poor-laws should again be discussed in Portia. ment. He believed that in workhouses generally the separation of nun from wife was made ; and the motion would prevent that being clone ie the Union workhouses which was done in every other workhouse.

Mr. WAKLEY said, that as Churchwarden for one of the most exten• sive Metropolitan parishes, he must state, that the separation of the sexes in workhouses was " perfectly unavoidable."

Motion withdrawn.

General JOHNSON moved that the bill be " committed " that day three months ; for further progress was useless.

Motion rejected, by 127 to 26.

The House went into Committee.

Mr. Tnomas DUNCOMBE moved an amendment to the first clause, which limited the operation of the bill " to the 14th of August 1840, and thenceforth until the end of the next session of Parliament."

Amendment rejected, by 110 to 42.

Lord JOHN Russimi. then proposed a clause which' authorized the Guardians of the Poor to take into the workhouse the children of widows and able-bodied men with large families, without the parents of the children, provided the marriage of the parents had occurred before the passing of the Poor-law.

Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE strongly objected to the proposed mode of relieving able-bodied labourers ; it would be liable to very great abuses He moved to expunge that part of the clause which confined the relief to those who married before the 14th of August 1834 ; for, if there were to be any relief given out of the workhouse to the able-bodied, he would not make any distinction between those married before and those married after the passing of the Poor-law.

For Sir Thomas Fremantle's amendment

78 Against it 48 Majority 30

General JOHNSON moved the omission of the words which empowered the Guardians to admit children into the workhouse.

For the motion 36

Against it 90

Majority 54

Mr. PARTNGTON, said lie was sorry to perceive that Lord John Rus- sell's clause had been "defeated by a sort of utameuvre."

Lord JOHN RUSSELL must oppose the clause as it now stood, because it was plainly inconsistent with the principle of the Poor-law.

Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE denied that he had practised any trick; but he was dissatisfied with the clause as it now stood, and would op- pose its being made a part of the bill. (Cries (If "Oh, elm !") Mr. WARLEY said, the country ought to understand what the House was about ; and lie moved that "the Chairman report progress."

Motion rejected, by 102 to 15.

The question was put, "that the clause be added to the bill." For the clause, 47 ; against it, 64. So the clause was finally rejected; and the Committee rose.

BIRMINGHAM MAGISTRATES AND POLICE.

Lord Jens: RUSSELL, on Monday, moved the order of the day for the Committee on the Birmingham Police Bill. Sir ROBERT PEEL felt it necessary to suggest some alterations in the bill. lie hoped Lord John Russell would take power to appoint

salaried Magistrate for Birmingham for a limited period—say three years ; until it should be decided under whose control the police of the town should permanently be placed. With respect to the increase of military force, he was ready to support Lord John Russell in making a larger augmentation of the Army than he had proposed ; and he intended i

to support the Government in making the civil force of the country generally more efficient. He also cordially concurred in the propo- sition to form a permanent Police for Birmingham, but regretted that it was not to be established on the same plan as the Metropolitan Police. He thought it desirable that no local body should have the power of making

Police appointments. He did not think the inhabitants gene-

rally would wish the Town-Council of Birmingham to make these ap- pointments. To the establishment of the Town-Council itself, he be- lieved, nearly one-half of the inhabitants were opposed. The charter of incorporation seemed to have been drawn up without much considera- tion. For instance, lie believed it was doubtful whether the Council could impose a rate. Sir I.Villiant Follett's opinion was against the making of a rate, as he considered the power of the Town-Council in that matter doubtful and uncertain. Then there were other reasons against empowering the Town-Council to appointthepolicemer. Seve- ral appointments already macie ry that body were objectionable ; ani evinced a very

strong partiality for those persons who hail been mem-

bers of the Political Union and had coiiperated in politics with the ma- jority of the Town-Council. Could the inhabitants who differed in politics from the Council feel confidence iu the acts of men who had made a Delegate to the National Convention Registrar of the Mayor's Court? Could the Government think that a person who used such lan- guage at a public meeting as he was about to quote, a proper recipient of local authority ? Sir Robert proceeded to read the speech in ques- tion, the tone and style of which will be seen from the following extract— "They were aware that there was no man Ivho had more strongly urged the right of the people to resort to physical force than he had. For twenty years he had been telling the people that if they could not get rid of their grievances by one means they must by another. At a late town meeting, in tic Town- hall, over which Sir Eardley Wilmot presided, he had stated it as his opinion, that men in power would not be moved by any sense of justice to do what was right for the people, unless they were afraid of something else. In tact, he stated that physical force was nothing less than what was represented by moral force. They would theretbre see he had gone as far its any Illall in maintain- ing their right to resent their wrongs. But suppose he was to say to them, their wrongs were so great that they could not, and ought not any longer to endure them, and that they ought to strike that night. (Cries of "Ni, no: dint won't do! ") Suppose he was to tell them that they must proceed Ihrtlu- with that night to arm themselves? (Cries of" Nim, nu :") Why, they might as well that night as any other. (4, No, no!'') They were as well prepared as that night month. ("Kim, no !") If it would not be wise that night, why would it be wise next week?" ("Xo, no! ") While Sir Robert was reading, Mr. SCHOLEFIELD called out to !dm to name the person whose speech he quoted.

Sir Romer proceeded—

"The honourable gentleman is already indignant at it. What stronger proof is there of my position, than that of the honoundile Member for Birmingham saying nay to these observations, and repudiating the man who could use such language? The honourable gentleman sha11 have an opportunity impatience

manifested vindi- cating himself; and I must express myself pleased and glad at the manifested. by him on this occasion—it so strongly discountenances the senti- ments and the individual who gave utterance to them. But what will the honourable gentleman say when I tell him, that that lane-tinge has not only been held in Birmingham, but that the individual who held it has been ap- pointed Clerk of the Peace by the Town-Council of the borough ? Ula, I ask the House, must people think who have been victims to the agitation which is recommended by this gentleman, when they find him not alone invested with power, but also actually the advocate selected for the defence of same of the mecniliaries—he the Clerk of the Peace appointed by the Town- Council ? Was that a wise appointment, to say nothing worse of it ? was it a discreet, a judicious appointment ? The Clerk of the Peace for the borough employed in the defence of those engaged in its destruction! I have been positively assured that on the faith of 'July, the day on which the riots broke out—the day on which the property of several inhabitants of the town had been exposed to destruction—the town itself narrowly escaping--I am posi- tively assured, I say, that on that day Mr. Edmonds, from his official scat in the Public Office as Clerk of the Peace for the borough of Birmingham, did appear as agent for one of the Chartists accused of being concerned in the work of devastation, and conducted his defence before the Magistrates. Was such a proceeding on the part of a person in such a situation calculated to dissipate the cruel delusion tinder which these miserable and misguided people laboured? Can it lie denied that it proved the connexion between the Poli- tical Unions and the Chartists at least to their full satisfitetion ? "

He contended that they who had established Political Unions must undergo the responsibility of having also established Chartism. They were morally if not legally responsible for acts committed by the Chartists, when no longer able to direct the storm which they had raised. Mr. Attwood himself had recommended obedience to the forty- nine Delegates to the Convention ; but he apprehended that the conduct of those Delegates had rather disappointed Mr. Attwood. For himself; Sir Robert said lie was quite willing to go along with the Government in tlte practice of forbearance carried to its legitimate extent ; but he implored them not to sanction illegal combinations, by giving to Dele- gates of the Convention the power to control the police of large towns.

Mr. SCHOLEFIELD fully admitted that the Town-Council of Birming-

ham was diametrically opposed to Toryism ; indeed, they might be called Radical. But they had been elected in a fair fight by the rate- payers. They might not have as much money as sonic persons ; but they were as honest as any persons in Birmingham, ay or as any in that House. In the choice of their officers they excluded political opponents; but this was no new principle. When they proceeded to impose a rate, their power was disputed; and it was a pity that any doubt existed on that point ; and it wits also to be regretted that Lord John Russell did not back his friends, as a Tory Minister would have clone in similar cir- cumstances. As to Mr. Edmonds, lie might have taken a lead in the recent agitation, and used unwarrantable expressions, but his appoint- ment was unanimously agreed to by the Town-Council. It was not per- haps perfectly consistent with good taste that Mr. Edmonds should have acted for the Chartists, but the Attorney-General had done much the same thing--he had defended men who deserved to be hanged. Mr. Scholefield himself had heard Sir John Campbell defend men ac- cused of piracy, and who got off through his advocacy!

There was very little doubt that it union now existed between the Chartists and the Tories, in opposition to the present corporation ; and the tools of Tory malice were, he dared to say, well rennue•rated for their services. No man could be more °Noised. than he was to ph■ sisal three; and he was convinced the people could only obtain their ril.;hts In uigsgol means, and by cen \lacing that house, if possible, and at all events the nation, that they were entitled to the redress I heir grievances. They complained, with justice, that they were obliged to eat dearer bread than the labourers of other countries ; and lie was convincee that nothing would put an end to their complaints but the relief by that House of their burdens.

31r. THOMA:; Arrw000 denied that he,,,as responsible fur the violent acts which had been committed. On the contrary be maintained that if the press had fairly reported his speeches :nod writings, such would have been their influence on the popular mind that no outrages would Ima VC oe- curred. He said that the appointments L lime Town-Council had been excellent appointments. 31r. Douglas. lie6is;rar of the 3layor's 'mart, was a man of great knowledge of piditic,, and was hilliest, n+ right, and houourable ; his main Emit was, that IAA og too like Sir 11iili33rt Peel in it predilection lute he did tint do thll .justice to the publication of 31r. Attwood's letters and spe,elies. Mr. Att-ourl was utter12,. opposed to placing the Police of hiirnuinelotit under the control of the Home Secretary ; tbr he believed that much of the violence exlmibimed in Bir- mingham was attributable to the presence of the London Police.

Lord ;roux defended Ministers from the charge of having hastily granted charts3rs of inemwpormaion. They had metal in con- formity with the directions of the Mammieipal Act. Ili: Nv a, aware that in towns where no corporations Lad exis!ed. the aullioriV of the new corporations must necessarily be weak, mid this was irrespective of the party politics of the chief officers. The Maior of Newcastle had taken O. more extreme part in polities than the May or of IlirmimItain; yet he had no difficulty in suppres,ieg a riot there, lieeause the people were accustomed to obey the local authorities. lie bad expressed his dis- pleasure at the conduct of 'Mr. E:1;.1;eul,, and was not satisfied with the reply of the Birmingham 3Ingistrat es. that the trials in which Mr. Edmonds would be engaged were to take plate at Warwiek, not in Bir- minghtun. With respect to the eantrul of the Police, with much re- luctance he 1111a come to the cenelusiiin, on ire insider:Won of all the cireumstauces of the case, that Sir Peers phut was preferable to his own ; and therefore he wonld :r •1ity Lis hill tom as to place time police of Birmingham fur two years me: ler a Commuissioner named for the Purpose.

Mr. HEmE expressed his regret at Lord John Russell's determina- tion. Ile would ten times rather see 1110 charter witlidraWn altogether from Birmingham, than see the Tewm Cmemeillors, elected almost unanimously by their fellow townsmen, degraded in the mounter they were likely to be.

Mr. LAw Hooens defended the agricultural labourers from a charge made by Mr. Attwood, that "nine out of ten of them were rick- burners. Mr. I bodges a,ked. Mr. Auwomsl, whether it wa- consistent will that large share of charity and benevolence to which he al a ays laid claim, to nmke such unfounded accusations against the rural popu- lation?

Mr. O'CONNELL said there was nothing unusual or illegal in Mr. Edmonds's conduct— That gentleman, woos his personal a most r..spectiilit and honourable man, mid also a f lioionghl■ houe4 refaloer. He had been elairged by the right lionourab4: baronet, and censitril liv the noble had, fee having engaged in defence tti a Chartist. What was the situation in which that gentleman was placed ? Ile was, to be sore, the Clerk of the Pewee for Bir-

mingham, but he was also a practising attorney. If the house thought it right to malm it unlawful for a 1. '!erls. of the an attorney,

connni• .3, 1.0 .11.• WOIN li;111t. .pat ishment.

then, should Ale. Edmunds ti I

But all that the law new said wa,, mho- he should not be at liberty to practice at the sessions in Birmingham ; it did not deprive him of the rigid to practice out of those sessions ; and the cliat!.'e htlainst the parties for whom he had

acted was triable at the :\ sizes at Therefore it was perfectly plain that Mx. Edmunds was justified. in O..:.udiug, nay, was bound. to defend those partica.

Mr. BnomEirrox believed that a good feeling prevailed among the bulk of the Lancashire artisans ; and, with respect to the Manchester Magistrates, he would say that there were none of them men of' ex- treme opinions, and they had been chosen from the most respectable inhabitants of the place, Mr. 'WA K T,EY hoped Lord John Russell would persevere with his measure, and not take advice film Sir Robert l'eel rather than from his friends on the Ministerial side of the House.

Mr. HAwEs recommended Lord John to see whether he could not, with some modifications, adopt time priuciples on which the London Police Bill was founded.

Lord Jolty RusseLE was aware that he laid himself open to the charge of adopting Sir Robert Peel's suggestion ; but if he thought that thereby he best secured the peace of ifirtningharn, he should not be de- terred front acting on Sir Robert's ad; le, by any such consideration.

Committee on the bill deferred to Pi iday.

P‘O3TAGE.

ML SPRING BICE, on Monday, moved the third reading of the Post- age Bill.

IMPRISONMENT FOR CHURCH-RATES.

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, on Tuesday, called the attention of the House to the case of John Thorogood, imprisoned in Chelmsford gaol for non-payment of church-rates. Thorogood was a poor man and a Dissenter; but he hoped that the House would not therefore suppose that his religious opinions were not as firmly and conscientiously fixed as those of the richest and noblest in the land— This poor Dissenter complained of having been imprisoned in Chelmsford gaol for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. dues for church-rates ; that he was there treated as a felon ; that ho had been there six months; that for eighteen hours out of the twenty-four he was kept in solitary confinement ; that none of his friends were allowed to see him, except at the hours appointed by the prison regulations ; and that he had applied for leave to see his wife on Sunday, and was refused.

The Visiting Magistrates denied that he was imprisoned with felons ; and it was true that the felons had recently been removed to another prison. There was a difference between the treatment of Thorogood and the felons, but in some respects Thorogood's was more severe. With respect to -visits of his friends, the Magistrates remarked, in a rather unseemly manner, that " the day consisting of twenty-four hours, was the same for debtors and felons and for John Thorogood." The prisoner had been allowed to see his wife only on four Sundays during thirty weeks, and now that permission was absolutely refused—

He would now ask, whether n11 this persecution was likely to redound to the credit or advancement of the Church Establishment ? The petitioner stated that he had done nothing to violate the law, and that he had been subjected to this persecution merely on account of his conscientious resistance to the pay- ment of church-rates and all such compulsory exactions for religious purposes, which he considered contrary to the doctrines and spirit of Christianity. He would ask whether the Church would dare to prosecute their demands for church-rates in Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, or Birmingham, or any of the large towns ? and if not, why did they persecute so unrelentingly this unfortu- nate individual? It was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago, when moving a resolution on the subject of church-rates in this House, that in the town of Manchester there were thirty4housand inhabitants who resisted the payment of them. Now, if the law was to be applied at all, why should it not be equally applied to ale?

He maintained that it was rank cowardice to select this unfortunate man for punishment and persecution ; and though the House could not at once effect an alteration of the law, it could express an opinion on church-rates and the treatment to which the petitioner had been sub- jected; and he would move a resolution-

" That whereas it appears by certain papers laid before this House, that John Thorogood, a Protestant Disssenter, has been confined in her Majesty's

county gaol of Essex since the 16th of limitary last, for neglecting to appear hi the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, for the non-payment of 5s. 6d., being the amount of church-rate assessed upon him for the parish of Chelmsford ; and whereas, during this period, the said John Thorogood has been treated with uncalled-for severity,' it is the opinion of this House thatthe imprisonment of the said John Thorogood is not only cruel and unjust, but re- flects great discredit upon those at whose instigation these proceedings were instituted, and under whose sanction they are so pertinaciously and vindictively continued ; and while this House laments that it has not the power of affording immediate relief to the said John Thorogood, yet it is of opinion that it will be the duty of the Legislature, at the earliest possible period of the next session of Parliament, to make such alterations in the existing laws for levying church-

:rates as shall prevent the recurrence of a like violence being ever again inflicted upon the religious scruples of that portion of her Majesty's subjects who con- scientiously dissent from the rites or doctrines of the Established Church."

Mr. EASTHOPE and Mr. I.I.kwEs rose together to second the motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed it. Mr. Duncombe had inconveniently mixed up two distinct subjects— Mr. RICE said, " Certainly "—to prevent extensive smuggling of letters.

The bill was read a third time.

On the question that it " do pass,"

Sir ROBERT PEEL was alarmed by a remark he had heard, that letters post-paid would be sent as safely as newspapers were now— There was a security with respect to newspapers which they had not with respect to letters. There were few persons who did not expect newspapers. and if they were not delivered properly they would go and make inquiry. There was, therefore, a positive check with respect to newspapers. But poor persons to whom letters were written, not expecting them, would have no such motive for inquiry. He thought that it would be a great obstruction to the advan- tages that were expected to accrue from this measure, if it were attended with any insecurity. lie thought they might advantageously try the experiment in the first instance with the Twopenny Post in London; and, with the experience of that trial, they might call upon Parliament to make the plan general. There was another point also to which the attention of the Government ought to be directed, namely, that they should not impose too much trouble upon the obtaining of stamps or stamped paper. Huth respect to the registration of letters, that, he thought, would become a sort of privileged postage—the rich would pay, the poor would not. And the consequence would be, as now with the early delivery, to postpone the great mass of correspondence and to make unregistered letters more insecure.

Mr. F. T. RARING said, the experiment could not be fairly tried if restricted to the Twopenny Post.

Bill passed.

The petitioner complained. that he had been treated with great severity in gaol : that was a distinct question in itself, and he would suppose for the pre- sent that such severity had been used; but then the honourable gentleman vent on to say that therefore, on account of this severity, church-rates being a cruel and unjust system, ought to be altered. But it did not at all follow that if this petitioner had not been treated with this severity, the system of church- rates would not be quite as unjust and cruel. A man might be taken up on a charge of felony, and treated with undue severity ; but it did not follow, for all that, that the law against housebreaking or robbery was a bad law. With respect to this particular case, the Magistrates stated that the petitioner was sot confined with felons, but lead a room sixteen feet by fifteen and nine feet high. As to the indefiniteness of the period of his imprisonment, that again resulted from the state of the law, and could not be laid to the charge of the gaol regulations. This petitioner was committed for contempt upon the war- rant of Dr. Lushington, for not answering to a citation for the payment of this church-rate. This might be a bad state of the law, but it was not the fault of the regulations of the gaol. With respect to the restriction as to the admission of rushers, he did not see that there was any great hardship in a tritioner's being allowed to see his friends only between the hours of ten and tour—a period of six hours. It appeared that this person had a room allowed

him to meet his wife on Sunday ; but having collected a crowd at the window

he addressed them on the hardship of his situation, and on the severity of th' M1 law under which he was imprisoned. The Magistrates thought that such cu, th duct tended to disturb the general order of the gaol, and therefore deters* the I not to allow him the indulgence which up to that period he had enjoyed, f wisel to his general treatment, he believed that the Magistrates did not treat Idadraw with any unnecessary severity, seeing that they were answerable for hie a&r• PEE; custody. As to the general question of the state of the law, he was not ue of those who wished the present system to be continued ; he wished so, much they had some substitute by which the sums now collected for thei, pairs of the Church could be raised in a less objectionable and onerous soli, ner : but he would not enter on that question at that time.

Mr. HARVEY was not surprised that Lord John Russell characterized the the petition as inconvenient— Lord JOHN RUSSELL—" The motion, not the petition." H Mr. HARVEY continued. Looking at the state of the session and it vast importance of the subject involved in the petition, it would n) pet doubt be convenient to treat Thorogood as a very insignificant person_ He quite agreed with the noble lord that there was a distinction be• Me tween objecting to the payment of church-rates and treating with eel, tempt a legal process ; for he regarded it of the first importance in ever, civilized community that individuals should be compelled to _yield an in. staid obedience to the mandate of the law, otherwise it would be in tie power of individuals, from the most censurable motives, to defeat the proem of the law. But why did they not apply the same principle to matters of this description that they applied to questions of property ? If an individual with. held his answer on a question involving property, did they permit thatthe party should be put not only to great expense, but should. be permanent', withheld from his right, by allowing him to remain in perpetual imprison. ment ? They did no such thing ; and the reason was obvious. One questiia involved a matter of property ; the other of conscience. One party was treated with respect ; the other with ridicule. A man resisting a demon/ from conscientious motives, and imprisoned in consequence, met with Teri little commiseration ; but when a man withheld from some powerful individual information respecting the distribution of his property, all the apprehensiond apoibireuhmencsi; of justice were kindled, and Ile was made to feel the effects of his a much milder treatment. If he did not give his answer voluntarily, it wa taken pro confess°. Why not, lie asked, pursue the same course in mattersol ecclesiastical demand ? It would not be convenient to do so, because, if the petitioner were the sort of man he apprehended, and ventured to think for himself, though in humble circumstances, it was desirable that he shouldbe selected as an object of legal persecution. And why did he say this? De. cause the honourable Members he was then addressing, and particularly this connected with Essex, knew that any person in arrear for tithes or church. rates might have a warrant issued against his property for the amount if it exceeded 40s. Why had not this been done here ? Because John Thorogood was a troublesome man, who had an opinion of his own on religious matters, and an independent course of conduct in politics ; and as Chelmsford wass great Conservative citadel, it became important to deter any man in humble circumstances from daring_ to think for himself. It might be said that 5s. was a trifling demand. Yes; but this man could not appear to the process under 6/. Now ho wished to know from the noble lord, who had expressed something like sympathy for the conscientious scruples of the Dissenters, whe- them it was right or just, or likely to calm the exasperation which inoculated the entire mass of the people, to say that a man should have no opportunity to resist a demand of 5s. 6d. without being subject, for a preliminary proceeding, to the legal demand of 61. As the Members of that House had no sympathy with any case but one which involved prOperty to some considerable amount, he asked if any one amongst them was asked for 1001. where he thought he was liable to a demand of 901., what would. he say if told he could not put in his answer without paying 6001.? They would be all alarmed at such a case, and all their party hostility would yield to the single sentiment of hostility against such au exaction. And yet when a poor man, who told them he was a shoe- maker, and in whose case 5s. furl. might amount to half his salary, (lie knew how pleasing this word was to the ears of the House,) appealed to their sympa- thy, he was treated with neglect. This poor man asked, " Why should 1 pay this demand ? I neither enter your church nor agree to your doctrines." However, he would. not go into that question. But suppose this man was told, " You must pay 5s. 6d. Say yes or no. If you don't agree to do so, here is a process signed by Dr. Lushington, a great Member, citing you to the Ecclesiastical Court." 'Well, this poor man might seek legal advice, and though told that the demand. might be clear robbery, he must pay 61. 5s. before he mitered on his defence. Was that a state of things to satisfy the great mass of the people?

Mr. DUNCOMBE, in order to meet Lord John Russell's views, pro- posed to substitute the following resolution for that which he had moved- " That John Thorogood, a Protestant Dissenter, has been confined in her Ma- jesty's county gaol of Essex since the 16th of January last, for neglecting to appear in the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, for the nort-pav- meat of 5s. 6d., being the amount of church-rate assessed upon loins for the parish of Chelmsford. It is the opinion of this House that it will be the duty of the Legislature, at the earliest possible period of the next session of Parliament, to make such alterations in the existing laws for levying church-

rates, as shall prevent the recurrence of a like violence being ever again inflicted upon the religious scruples of that portion of her Majesty's subjects who con- scientiously dissent from the rites and doctrines of the Established Church."

The House divided on the question, " that the words proposed, to be left out stand part of the question." Ayes, 20 ; Noes, 44.

Another division took place on the question, that the original ques- tion "be now put." Ayes, 42 ; Noes, 20.

The main question was then put and agreed to. The effect of these proceedings is, that Mr. Duncombe's altered resolution, as given above, was carried.

ROYAL ACADEMY.

A discussion of some length took place on Tuesday, on a motion by Mr. HOME, that a return to an order of the House of Commons issued on the 14110 of March, and calling upon the Royal Academy to furnish certain particulars respecting their receipts and expenditure, "be laid before the House forthwith." Mr. Hume supported his motion in a speech full of details, to prove that the Royal Academy possessed large funds which they expended injudiciously and not for the advancement of art. He contended that the Academy were bound to obey the order of the House ; and that they could make out no case of exemption from obedience, being a public body using a building which had cost the country 43,0001. Sir ROBERT INGLIS moved that the order be rescinded ; and en- tered into a general defence of the Academy. He denied that the Academy were amenable to Parliament. The key of the building they occupied had been put into their hands by the Sovereign, not by the House of Commons.

press Hou gain WA

acs she pr

mi

6C1 on pc at to

alai

of

et

ti

tl

Isdr. P.HOWARD seconded the amendment. Mr. HAWES supported it : warfare against the Academy utterly unworthy of he thought this petty SPRING RICE thought the Academy would have acted wisely in making PtRhe. return : he rather -wished Mr. Hume to with- the House. draw his motion, but since„isto7s, made, let it stand good. Sir ROBERT and Lord Jonx RUSSELL opposed the

PEEL, Mr. POULETT THCLI

present motion ; though they all maintained the entire right of the House to call for the returns, and considered that the Academy would gain credit by making them. Mr. EWART, Mr. WYSE, and Mr. WARBURTON contended,

that the House ought to enforce their order for the returns. Motion negatived, by 38 to 33.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE: PUBLICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS. On Wednesday, Lord Jonts RUSSELL presented to the Commons a Petition from James and Luke Hansard, printers of the House. To put Members in possession of the facts, he would read a letter addressed to Messrs. Hansard, a copy of which was annexed to the petition— The letter was dated Street Hill;i2119;th of July 1839, and came from an attorney and it stated that the writer had been in- residing at 47, Fish Polack to take legal proceedings against them for having printed 13turbrtisehed a certain report and certain minutes of evidence respect- ing ing the island of e.w. Zealand, which evidence and report contained a tidse, scandalous, and malicious libel u on Mr. Polack's character. The letter went on to state, that in order to save the Messrs. Hansard the inconvenience of personal service, the writer requested to be furnished with the name of their attorney, to whom he would instantly send process. The petitioners went on that they bad in this report and evidence on the state of the 1;:la state,ndof New Zealand In obedience to the order of the House; and having set out a copy of the letter they had received, they humbly prayed for some in- struction from that honourable House on the mutter of the petition, and as to the course which they ought to pursue iu resisting or defending such threatened action. He moved that the petition, be printed, and taken into consideration next day.

Sir ROBERT PEEL understood that the report in question was a re- port of the House of Lords, communicated to the Commons by the Lords, but printed previously by order of the Lords.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said such was the fact.

Motion agreed to.

On Thursday, there was a long discussion on this subject.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved a resolution- " That Messrs. Hansard, in printing and publishing a Report and Minutes of Evidence on the present state of the Islands of New Zealand, communicated by' the House of Lords to this House on the 7th of August 1838, acted under the orders of this House; and that to bring or assist in bringing any action against them for such publication, would be a breach of the privileges of this House.

" That Messrs. Hansard be directed not to answer the letter of Charles Shaw, mentioned in their petition, and not to take any step towards defending the action with which they are threatened in the said letter."

Lord John explained the course he intended to take. In the'ease of Stockdale versus Hansard, he had been of opinion, that as the House had suffered the Attorney-General to appear before the Courts of Law and defend Messrs. Hansard, in the expectation that the Judges would have decidedto uphold the privileges of the House, the House ought not to op- pose the decision of the Judges, though the narrow and contracted view they had taken of the question had much surprised him. Having, how- ever, informed the Courts of what the Commons considered necessary to maintain their privileges, and having obtained the decision of the Judges, he consideredit degrading again to instruct the Attorney-Ge- neral to appear before them. He therefore proposed that measures should be taken at once to protect their printer, and that it should be declared a breach of privilege to proceed against him. Lord John also dwelt for some time on the advantage to the public of disseminating the evi- dence and information on which Committees formed their Reports and the House legislated.

The resolution having been put, and seconded by Lord Homes,

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that the privileges of the House were intended to be used against the exorbitant power of the Crown, not against individuals. But the state of the country had changed, and the use of Parliamentary privilege had changed with it. He would not oppose the resolutions, for he thought the House should possess all the powers requisite for the welfare of the people ; but he feared they were entering on a course of great difficulty and trouble. Sir ROBERT INCLIS opposed the motion. He much regretted that Lord John Russell should have spoken disrespectfully of the Supreme Court of Judicature in this country. He felt sure that the House would gain no credit in the contest on which they were entering. They could not prevent Shaw or Polack from doing what Captain Fishman had done—take ship some fine morning for Boulogne, return during the recess, carry on the action and obtain judgment before Parliament reassembled. And then what would become of the orders of the House? There was an old adage—" Catch your hare and then dress him "—which he thought applicable to the present proceedings of the House.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, in supporting the resolution, dwelt upon the bene- fit of circulating amours the class of people likely to emigrate the in- formation supplied in the Lords' Report on New Zealand. 6It was of the highest importance that correct information respecting the habits of the New Zealanders and the state of their country should be given to the people. His object in making these remarks, was to show that Parlia- ment, in performing its duty as " grand inquest of the nation," could not keep information of such importance to itself, or cause its Reports to be burned, that libels contained in those documents might not be published. He thence argued that Parliament had the right of publi- cation; and having in the exercise of its discretion decided that certain publications would be beneficial, no extrinsic authority could be per- mitted to interfere with those publications. Dr. LUSHINGTON also supported the resolution, and animadverted upon the conduct of Lord Denman— Was it possible that the noble lord the Chief Justice had forgotten his own noble and useful public services in this House? Had he forgotten, amongst others, his speech in support of an inquiry into the state of Jamaica ; and his various able speeches, always in defence of the liberties of the people? And did he forget that those liberties would never have been in existence, but for the very privileges which he now from his judgment-seat attacked ? He said, without an atom of hesitation, that if that Judge were to be tried by this judgment, he would hold a very mienviable position in the eyes of the world: but however that might be, the noble and learned Judge knew very well that his judgment would not deter the House from the exercise of those functions which it was bound to perform, which the people required that they should perform, and which they were obliged and bound to adhere to.

Mr. FRESHFIELD suggested that a bill establishing the privilege-of the Commons might be passed.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, by this course their privileges would be put in jeopardy without any occasion for it. lie was for a more vigorous course of action than Lord John Russell proposed, and would proceed at once both against Polack and his attorney. It was easy to say that the House ought not to publish libels ; but it was impossible to avoid the publication of lihels- A libel was a publication of any kind which in any way disturbed the feelings of any person whatever. It hail been decided to be a libel to call Lora Ilmai- wieke" the sheep-feeder from Cambridgeshire," and I, rd Itedesdale "a stout- built special-plea:ler," though the firmer wits a sheep-feeder, and the latter * stoat luau tel an admirable special-pleader. Judge Johnson was convicted of both these lie asked, then, how were they to legisli.te without libelling somebody ? There could not be an abuse unless somebody was au abuser. There could not lie a grievance unless somebody was an oppressor. They libelled both in Cie steps which they took to remove the evils of which they were the authors. It was most absurd to attempt to conduct the affairs of the country without being prepared for this predicament.

Lord Jo II N RUSSELL informed the I louse, that he had just received a let- ter from Mr. Polack, stating that Mr. Shaw, his attorney, had proceeded in the action against Hansard contrary to his direction, and that the proceedings would be stopped. Having succeeded in an action against the Times newspaper, and so vindicated his character, he had resolved not to go on with the action he had commenced against Messrs. Hansard. Lord John remarked, that the withdrawal of this action showed that a snore vigorous course in the case of Stockdale and Hansard would have 1 een more politic ; but it did not relieve the House from the necessity of declaring their resolution not to permit similar actions to be brought against their printer.

Sir Rot:seer Pu:Ei. contended, that it was wiser to pass the resolution than take Mr. siConnell's advice and at once proceed to commit the parties offending.— I le thought th..y ought not at 0/)CC to commit any man fir bringing an ac- tion against their publisher, when they had already subilitiej to a judgment in a like case. Observe, too, this was not a vain menace. At least he did nut interpret it in that Ile took the resolution to have reference to this special proceeilii.:; and in that sense it would have one of two effects—it would caner 1:111th'e the party altogether to abandon the action, and thus prove etlletual, oc, he ,Ed not, it irrevocably pledged the House to proceed at once is vindication of their privileges.

Mr. O'CoNsELL said, the question now arose, whether Mr. Polack's letter was genuine. If it were, then Mr. Shaw out of his own head had found out a client, and threatened au action against their printer. That was, in his opinion, a contempt of the I louse. whether the action was justifiable or not. He hoped they would postpone the subject to the next day, for the purpose of seeing whether Mr. Shaw's letter was genuine.

Lord lIowicx said, it was quite immaterial whether the letter were genuine or not, as in either case the resolution ought to pass ; for an action had certainly been brought against their printer.

The resolution was carried, by 120 to

PORT Et: U ESE SLAVE-TRADE.

The Earl of 3Iisero, on Thursday, moved the second reading of the bill for the suppression of the Portuguese Slave-trade. Ile contended that the inability and indisposition of the Portuguese Government to suppress the trill-He in slaves, extensively carried on by its subjects, ren- dered it necessary for Great Britain to enforce the fulfilment of treaties between this country and Portugal.

The Dui-:e of WELL: Nti.roN sail, that the measures hitherto taken by this country to suppress the sieve-trade had greatly aggravated the evils of that trade. There was im tloalit that Portugal was under strict engagements to jobs with Great Britain in putting a stop to it, and that her Majesty's Government would be justified in taking measures to Cont- pc' Portugal to perform her engagements ; but that was the duty of the Executive. The old constitutional mode of proceeding was the best. The Government should take upon itself the duty of entbrcing treaties, and not come to Parliament for such acts as this. What would be the consequence of passing this law ?—A quarrel to the death with this country's ancient ally, Portugal. The recital of treaties in the preamble of the bill stated one side of the case only, and Parliament was asked to condenm Portugal without hearing her reply. There were provisions in this bill, too, which would lead to the mutest serious consequences. He alluded especially to that which directed her Majesty's vessels of war to search and detain the vessels of any other comas', under certain circumstances. He recommended Lord Melbourne to bring down a message from the Crown, lay the whole case before Parliament, and then he might call upon the House to support him in measures to pro- cure the fulfilment of treaties with Portugal.

Lord MELBOURNE said, the entire case was already before the House; and it was not denied that Portugal bad broken her engagements. Neither was it pretended that this country ought not to compel per- formance of them. The object of the measure was allowed to be good, but the mode of proceeding was opposed. The Duke of Wellington, however, did not seem clearly to understand what the bill would effect— The object of it was only to empower her Majesty to take certain steps if she thought fit. She was not by the bill bound to take those steps. There- fore, after the passing of this act, she would he as well able to proportion her measures to the necessities of the emie ae if she had had merely to act as a. belligerent by her prerogative. Every mode of treaty would be op, a to her tinder this bill, just ;us much as in the other case, except that the decided and irrevocable step would not have been taken—no declaration of war would have been made. And when the noble duke exclaimed against the injustice to Por- tugal of such a war, he was not aware, perhaps, that Portugal had had due notice of the intention of her Majesty's Government ; she had a complete know- ledge of what was intended to be done, and it was impossible for her with any justice to complain of the course pursued.

He felt convinced that if this bill were passed, the powers it gave the Government would be sufficient to procure the desired results ; but its rejection, on the other hand, would render Portugal more obstinate in resistance to measures for the suppression of the slave-trade. He felt most strongly, that if this bill were thrown out, a serious blow would have been struck on the influence of this country, and on the cause of Slave Emancipation.

The Duke of WELLINGTON restated some of his objections to the bill.

The Earl of DEVON did not think it expedient or fhir to legislate in that House against the subjects of another country, because the Crown of that country had neglected to carry out a particular treaty. He especially objected to the clause which authorized the search of vessels of all countries : it was unjust and unconstitutional.

Lord Mtrcro said, it happened that the House of Commons had agreed to those enactments which Lord Devon pronounced unconstitu- tional. Reject this bill, and it would only remain for the House to throw its shield over Portugal in her pursuit of this iniquitous traffic.

The Lords divided—

For the second reading Against it 38 Majority 6 So the bill 's lost.

In the IIiuse of Commons, on the same evening, Dr. LUSHINGTON gave Judie:- of a motion for a Committee to inspect the journals of the House of Lords, to ascertain the proceedings of that House on the Por- tuguese Slave -trade Bill, and report the result of their inquiries to the Commons.

MISCELLANEOUS.

THE CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS TRIAL BILL was read a third time by the Lent; on Tuesday, and passed ; after a speech by Lord LYND- HURST, explanatory of the defects of the existing mode of trying dis- puted elections to the House of Commons, and of the remedies the measure would provide.

Ten: COPIHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL was thrown out on the motion for the second reading, made by Lord IlitoronAar. Lord LvernstuRree was the chief opponent of the bill ; and he did not object to the principle, but the details of this measure, which he was ready to "consider" next session, when more time for discussion might be allowed. The Lords divided : for the second reading, 2S ; against it, 39.

THE INLAND WAREHOUSING BILL, supported by the Marquis of

LANSDOWNE T,ord MELBOURNE, Opposed by Lord ASHBURTON and Lord BeounnAse was rejected on Tuesday, on the motion for the second reading. The numbers were 48 to him (wane: LORD ItItort.liAM'S M,yrioN. A. conversation took place on 'lixs lay, respecting Lord Broagliam's motion on Lord Nor- manby's administration of justice in Ireland. Lord BnovelEASI ex- plained, th,t lie never intended to create the impression, that under any cireunis,;owes lie Should put off his motion to next session : he only meant, that if the subject were imt fully discussed this session, it might be resumed im tit, next. He adhered to his resolution of bringing forward the question :next Tuesday. The Murquis of NORMAN1tY, Lord MEL- BOURNE, Lora I 1.1TI11:11Tt tx, and Lord W teliLOW, complained that more time was ne(•e;sary to mater the immense quantity of evidence. Lord BRouoirAsi was certain lent the time given was sufficient ; but how- ever. his motion might he agreed to without any reference at all to the evidence. Lord Losamsrmautv hoped that Lord Brougham would not be turned away front his present determination.

BANN OE IRELAND. The Commons being in Committee, on Thurs- day, on the " Bank of Ireland Acts," Mr. SPRING RICE'S resolution were read a second time, without a division. Mr. RICE moved for leave to bring in a bill founded on the resolutions. The motion was opposed by Mr. O'CONNELL, but carried, by 68 to 16.

A DMIRALTY COrtuTS BELL. The Committee on this measure, by a vote of 80 to 35, fixed the salary of the Judge of the Admiralty Court at 4,0001. a year. It appeared that Sir John Nichol had given his opi- nion that 3,000/. a year was sufficient ; and Sir Robert Peel said, that had he been in office, he should have proposed 3,0001. a year, on Sir John Nieholl's authority : but if the question were then to be decided, he would vote for 4,tiou1., for in his own opinion the larger sum was not too much. Mr. WAKLEY said— The countinuance ot' this reckless course was chiefly owing to the right ho- nourably gentlemna the Menther for Tantworth taking the Government under Lis prot eetiom Ile ltt lit ed the right honourable gentleman had suite inten- tion of leaving town. Ile should by sorry to lose his talents in the house, butt Ito really thought that the Radicals and the tipposition could tight the battle against the Government much better without the right honourable baronet. (Laughter.) He hoped, therefore, the right honourable gentleman would expedite his de- parture. (Cwitinned lauglacr.) Vi hat had he now done ? lie came down prepactd to vote for 4,000/., but lie heard important information which threw new light on the question. He heard the opinion of Sic John Nicholl in fa- vour of :1,1)00/., which he tionessed lie would have adopted if he had been in office ; anti yet he supported the proposition of 4,000/., apparently for no pur- pose but to save the Ministry.

Sir Romer PE El, said, though be had not the slightest confidence in Government, yet, when they proposed measures deserving support, be would vote with them rather than unite in a factious opposition with Radicals to embarrass the Ministry.

Subs....ciently, the Committee, by a majority of 61 to 51, rejected a proviso, moved by Mr. 11E 31E, to prevent Judges of the Admiralty Court from sitting in future P.Irliaments. Oilier divisions took place on minor points, and the Houk resumed.

COLL ■:uT LoN ov Poo asii.vr .s. Lord JoHN RUSSELL, on Wednesday, moved the second reaching of the lull to enable Guardians of the Poor to collect poor-rates more effectively than under the present law. Mr. GRI3IsDITcit moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. THOMAS/1-NcoMisE seconded the amendment ; which Mr. R. PALmEu, Mr. G. PA LNE Mr. Hums:, Mr. HoDuEs, Colonel Wool), Mr. EJELDEN, and Mr. HINDLEy supported. Sir ROBERT PEEL, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Lord WonsLEv, and Sir T. .FilEMANTLE, spoke in favour of the bill. Sir ROBERT PEEL Said- It seemed to him that many honourable Members were shrinking fromth

maintenance and support of the Poor-law Bill. He had supported that t4

in the first instance, and when it was going on smoothly honourable gentiet, ttohoe Prin opposite attempted to take the whole credit of it to themselves. He sarott of Kent been charged with raising a cry against the poor-law for the purpose 04 comPris flueneing the elections. raising when he was complimented at the last electe4 lotte having opposed it, he rejected that compliment, and stated that he hahlli arid Cot

ginallv supported the bill, and that though he was aware individual coed The

hardstip had been created by it, yet lie should still support it, in the hope k Tuesda the permanent end of the bill would be to elevate the character of the woritil, Charlo classes. If honourable gentlemen were no longer fond of the Poor-law 4 At a let them come forward manfully and declare so; but lie could not consents in and

reject a measure to protect parties by law in the performance of the thk On which were by law imposed on them.

attend,

Bill read a second time, by 88 to 29 ; and Committee fixed fol Buckle Monday.

POPULAR MEETINGS AND ELECTIONS. Sir CHARLES GREY Mori the following resolution- " That leave be given to bring in a bill for establishing throughout Nei Tht annual meetings of the people in their parishes, and for securing to the me after

trious classes a regular influence in the election of Members of Parliament," the '1 Sir Charles Grey defended himself at length from the imputationd count acting on revolutionary principles ; but gave only a very brief espy to an the E tainn The show and t Islan the t been the 1 his h 120 time with of ti little thei

grog

nor its Mr. four to I sta eat

nation of his plan— He proposed, if the parochial meetings should he foiled to act in a Wahl and orderly manner, they should be allowed to elect annually one person, (Ai him by any name they might choose—foreman for instance; and that them sons so elected should base the right of voting in the election of every Men, her of Parliament that took place within their county. This would eall iss action, in England, about, he should think, 15,000; or, if Ireland and Scalia were added, about 30,000. And this, whatever might be thought of it, mull be no trifling boon. The persons thus elected would in most instances h active and intelligent men, and would exerthe a very considerable influences the election of the Members of that House. He thought that this propos tion, in comparison with household suffrage, would be a citations measure, Mr. IlustE would support any measure for extending the influenced the people in the Legislature ; but much regretted that Sir Chatiti Grey had not entered into a fuller explanation of the mode in whin the plan he proposed might be carried into operation.

Motion negatived without a division.

THE SHANNON BILL. Mr. ELLts complained on Monday, that Ili; bill had been read a third time and passed at two o'clock on the previets Saturday, although there was an understanding that no opposed hid should pass at unseasonable hours, and he had especially told tit Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should oppose the passing of Oh bill. Besides, he had been promised papers on this subject. The hill had been smuggled through the House, and he wished to know such an unworthy course had been taken ?

Mr. SPRING RICE said he would not take the slightest notice of Mt. Ellis's remarks. He would pass by his vituperation in perfect silence He had never promised to lay on the table the papers Mr. Ellis alluded to— On the contrary, he had told him quite the reverse ; he had told him that letter from General Burgoyne would be put into his hands, but it was improper to lay either it or the other papers on the table of the House. So far as is garded the bill, distinct notice had been given; and it was distinctly understod that the bill was to pass the third reading that night. Mr. Ellis, therefore, had himself to thank for what had occurred, because, if he had been in hit place, what he complained of would not have happened.

Mr. ELLis said, that the rule was that when measures were opposed, Members opposing them were to be informed when such measures were to be passed. Why, then, was this bill passed at two o'clock in the morning, without notice being given to him ?

Sir EDWARD SUDDEN said, that bills of equal importance had been passed in the same way. For instance, the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill had been passed at one o'clock in the morning ; without any notice being given to him, who had announced his intention to oppose parts of the measure.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL knew that it was only a quarter past eleven when the order of the day for the third reading of that bill was read, Sir ROBERT PEEL was present one night at one o'clock, when an un- derstanding was come to, which he thought an equitable one, and one which ought not to have been departed from without due notice. The understanding was, that his side of the House were not to offer any op• position to the progress of bills which were not contested, and that, on the other hand, the Government should not at a late hour press forward any bill in respect of which notice of opposition had been given. Lord JOHN IlussEnt, was aware that the practice of forwarding bills at unseasonable hours was not so prevalent now as formerly. He thought it rather too much, when due notice was given, that such bills as the Shannon Bill should not be forwarded as they had been.

TOTNES ELECTION. On Tuesday, Mr. BLousr took the oaths and his seat as Member for Totnes. Sir GI:olio]: CLERK, who entered the House soon after this form had been gone through, said that it had been usual at the commencement of each session to make an order, that when two gentlemen were returned as having an equal number of votes, both should withdraw until the House should decide to which of the two the seat belonged. It happened, however, that this sessional order had not been renewed, and thence some difficulty alight arise ; but he should next clay call the attention of the House to the question. On Wednesday, Sir GEORGE CLERK said he had ascertained, that al.- though since 1834 the sessional order had riot been printed and distri- buted with the Votes, owing probably to a mistake of the printer, he found, nevertheless, that last year and this year, the sessional order was entered upon the journals, and therefore it was only necessary to most that the order be read. The Clerk then read the order. IPSWICH ELECTION. A petition from Mr. Gibson against Sir Thomas Cochrane's return for Ipswich, was presented on Monday. To be taken into consideration on Thursday the 22d of August.