Debates anb Vroceebings at Vatliament.

REFORH or THE EQUITY COURTS.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of his bill to reform the administration of justice by the Courts of Equity. He stated for the information and satisfaction of the House, that the bill had met with the all but unanimous concurrence and approbation of the legal profession. It was unnecessary to produce evidence of a fact universally admitted, that the power ttf the Court of Chancery was inadequate to discharge the duties which devolved upon it. Numerous bills had been introduced to increase the power of the Court. Some had been very extensive in their objects ; but that which he offered was limited in design, and would not preclude the adoption of a more extensive measure. For himself personally, he could say that neither this bill nor any other would add to or decrease the amount of his labours. No change whatever could afford him any relief. His time must be fully occupied, unless their Lordships could add some hours to the twenty-four. The business of the Court of Chancery land been enormously increased since the time when the great Lord Hard- wicke had presided in it. Lord Hardwicke received the seals in 1756, but no regular account of the causes decided was kept till 1759— He would call the attention of the House to the average number of the causes which had been brought before the Court in different periods. The average number of causes during five years ending 1764, was 383; ditto 1794, 461; ditto 1804, 501 ; ditto 1805, 562 ; and this was an important period, it being immediately before the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor. A consider- able increase was occasioned by the appointment of such an officer; for in the five years ending l824, the last number which he had mentioned, 562, was raised to 959 causes. In the years ending 1839, the last average which had been taken, the number was increased to 1,248 causes. Now, these averages proved that the number of causes in the time of Lord Hardwicke were more than doubled at the time when the Vice-Chancellor's Court was appointed. There was a great increase at that time, but the business had been much in- creased subsequently ; and that showed that they were not to look merely at the business which was now in the Court of Chancery, but they were bound to take into consideration the probable, the almost certain increase which would take place under the improved system.

He explained the causes of the delay which occurred in the Court of Chancery ; an evil, he admitted, of the greatest magnitude— Every cause of any importance had to be worked up twice. The case stands tbr hearing. It works its way up, and the decree is passed. It is ne- cessary to have the report of the Master. Then the case is twain set down, and again has to be worked up for the decree. So your Lordslips see that every case of any importance whatever works its way up twice. At the pre- sent moment, in the Vice-Chancellor's Court the working Reese up takes three years ; and the real time in each case, consequently, is six years. And this is an evil on which all the talents of counsel can have no effect. The evil arose from the absence of power in the Court to exercise its jurisdiction' and it was one of the first magnitude. They were bound to apply some remedy. There was no wonder that persons did not come into that Court ; they wire willing to abandon their interests and to compromise their rights—they would, in fact, do any thing rather than come into the Court."

The establishment of railroads, among other causes, had prodigiously increased the business of the Court of Chancery— Railroads ran for hundreds of miles through the centre of the country ; and each railroad he might safely say, in some way or other, affected the interests of thousands of individuals. The interference of the Court of Chancery, it was true, had kept them within bounds ; and it had also prevented individuals from taking too great advantage of the necessities of the different companies in car- rying out their undertakings. So, he might say, every different variety of speculation in which the public engaged was quite sure to find its way into the Wirt of Chancery. But this was not the only cause of the increase. Their ,Lordships knew what the Court of Chancery was, There were few of their

adequa:elFt:

Lordships who, as the owners of large property, had not had some ex • „ in that Court ; and surely they must admit that it was essential to the iPnetn" of the community at large, and to the due administration of justice, that 'efreu.st. Bible the Court of Chancery should be put in a state to enable it perform its duties.

The arrear of business was very great ; additional strength was re, quired to dispose of it ; and to that point he wished to direct Lordships' attention, as it was the main object of the bill he proposed read a second time. That bill provided for the removal of Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer to the Court of Chat' eery, by which the business of the Court of Chancery Would be in, creased by one-twelfth ; for the creation of two new Judges, to j)", called Vice-Chancellors and another Master in Chancery ; and for tht appointment of the Master of the Rolls to the office of Vice-Presideei of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He believed that the funds under the management of the Court of Chancery were so ample that the changes be proposed could be effected without any additiou2 charge to the public.

Lord LYNDHURST seconded the motion for the second reading of a bill intended to remove a great and intolerable evil, which was indeed an opprobrium to the country. But lie would not pledge himself to sanction in Committee all the provisions of the Lord Chancellor's hill Crave considerations, matters of vast importance, were involved in die. question now brought before the House— The bill involved three subjects,—first, means were to be taken for morilth2 the arrears in this court ; next, it was to abolish the equitable jurisdiction

'

the Court of Exchequer ; and third, there was to be a provision with respect to the Judicial Committee. His noble and learned friend thought that two Jud,11 would be necessary; that was a matter which required inquiry, and was a srib• ject for grave consideration. Ilis noble and learned friend (Lord Brougham} who had succeeded him, hail, by almost incredible exertion, wiped off the arrears of appeals for many years. His noble and learned friend deserved the duds of the country for his extraordinary exertions. Thus, then, there was no arrest of appeals. There wits, too, no growing arrear of causes. He thought, thee, that one additional Judge, a man of activity and knowledge of his profession' would, in a year and a half, wipe off the whole of the arrears. There were now five or six hundred causes in arrear ; and he remembered that the late Master of the lolls disposed of seven hundred in one season. It was not from any want of intelligence or industry on the part of the noble and learned Judge that suitors would not go to his court, but because there really Was not room for them. Lord Cottenham had himself alluded to the fact that in the Court of Exchequer there was no arrear of business. Every cause entered there was heard and disposed of in the course of a few days. Now, if suitors wished for a prompt decision, why did they not go to the Court of Exchequer? Be doubted whether the speculation of his noble and learned friend was well founded; and, at all events, it might be provided for when the occasion arrived. The noble and learned lord proposed to abolish the Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer. This WaS a point of very great importance, which it would be proper for their Lordships to consider in Committee. 'When he sat 011 the 'Woolsack, lie was not over-courageous on the score of his Equity jurisdiction; but at the same time, he brought in a bill for the alteration and itamovement of Equity practice, part of the provisions of which went to abolish the Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer. How 11'11S this proposition met by Lord Eldon, who had presided for nearly a quarter of a century over the Court of Chancery? That noble and learned individual came down to the House and opposed it with the greatest earnestness. It was also opposed by Lord Redesdale, a nobleman of great knowledge, talent, and experience in this branch ' of law. But thisproposition was opposed not only by these two great equity lights, but by the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, whose extent of knowledge and experience was well known and admitted. With so great weight of authority against his proposition, he on that occasion felt it his duty to renounce the attempt. lie did not mean to enter upon the question whether those noble and learned individuals were right and he was wrung ; hut, with the knowledge of these facts before them, he thought their Lordships, when they went into Committee on the hill, would feel themselves bound to consider

this question with great care, attention, and caution. The object of this bill

was to give additional force to the Court of Chancery ; but it might be found

that it would not necessarily tend to that object to abolish the Equity juris-

diction of the Court of Exchequer. It was said that the equitable jurisdiction encumbered the Common Law jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, and that the Common Law jurisdiction would work much better if there were no other. Now there was this singular fact, that there was more business entered

on the Common Law side of the Exchequer than the other. There was a great arrear in both the other courts, but there was no arrear of any description

in the Common Law side of the Exchequer. All the business of the Common Law side was disposed of to the satisthetion of the suitors and the public; the Equity business was transacted besides. lie submitted to their Lordship these considerations that they might judge, when they came into Committee, slather there was mason for abolishing the Equity jurisdiction of the Exchequer.

He demurred also to the proposition of taking the Master of the Rolls from his own court to make him Vice-President of the Judicial Com- mittee of the Peers— There was no individual whom from his learning, intelligence, industry, and independent spirit, it would be more proper to intake president of that tribunal than his noble and learned friend the Master of the lolls. But such a step would be attended with great inconvenience. His noble and learned friend would be taken away from his court, which Was now a most regular and com- plete Equity court. It had a judge sitting from day to (lay, hearing ceases with great patience, and a regular bar; nod he %roulette most um, illing to in- troduce into that court inconveniences which had been so often complained of in the Court of Chancery. lie heard it repeat ed, both in that and the other House of Parliament, that the greatest inconvenience resulted from the Chan- cellor being taken away from his court to preside in their Lordships' House: causes were delayed, or partly heard, and postponed, leading to great inconve- nience of the suitors, great uncertainty in justice, and great uncertamty 10 the attendance of the bar. Everybody felt these inCORYCIDelICCS and the ditheulty of applying a remedy. But what were they now going to do ? To introduce the very same inconveniences into the Rolls Court. Nay, the very ground on which it was proposed to abolish the Equity jurisdiction of the Exchequer,. was that it was only half a court ; and yet the bill proposed to reduce the Rolls Court to the same condition—to the same state of incapacity which was the ground for extinguishing the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer. He submitted these considerations, which were perhaps more suitable for Com- mittee, with the greatest respect for his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.

IIe had no hesitation, however, in supporting the motion for the second reading— The great principle of the bill was, that there being a great arrear of causes in the Court of Chancery to be disposed of; not of to-day, or of yesterday, but existing for ages, for a hundred years—he could trace it back tar fifty years— that this great and crying grievance must be gut rid of. The main principle of the bill WAS to appoint additional Judges for the purpose of getting rid of that grievance. The other parts of the bill were subsidiary. He therefore thought that the bill ought to be read a second time.; leaving himself free and unbiassed to consider with respect to the number of the Judges, the abolition of the iquty jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, and the amendment of the con- stitution of the Committee of Privy Council. Lord ARINGER was also prepared to vote for the second reading ; but be believed that the abolition of the Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer would be injurious to the classes who now went into that Court in the expectation of quicker decisions than they could obtain in the Court of' Chancery— A ease has occurred before him in which one executor filed a bill against another in order to bring the estate of the testator into court. Another bill WAS filed antecedently in the Court of Chancery ; he could not, therefore, hear the motion. One of the arguments used to prevail with him was, that if the patties went into Chancery it would be five years before they got a decision, irhereas, if he entertained the suit, it might be decided in as many hours. Of course he could not listen to such an argtunent as a judge, but it would show their Lordships that to abolish the Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Ex- chequer would be to take away a refuge from a certain large class of suitors. Causes were designated " detained in the Chancery ;" and he recollected an instance which illustrated the ease. A party sued his father-in-law for a breach of promise to settle 300/. a year on him at his marriage. The father- in-law defended himself by saying, he had settled three Chancery suits on the plaintiff, which were well worth 300!. a year, if properly managed, but that the eonen-law had been so extravagant as to get them all disposed of in three or fouryears. Though the proposed change would he a great relief to him, lie could not see any advantage in it. All the effects that could be expected from it would be secured by equalizing the costs of the Exchequer to those of the Court of Clumeeq, (which could be done simply by a single law,) and cor- recting some existing defects.

Lord LANGDALE had felt great satisfaction when he heard that Lord Lyndhurst intended to support the motion for reading the bill a second time; but lie was much disappointed by Lord Lyndhurst's speech, in which many objections were stated for the consideration of the Com- mittee. There were some provisions which related to himself, and lie wished to give his reasons for consenting to the bill— Ms noble and learned friend on the Woolsack asked him whether he would support this measure ; and considering it carefully, as well as regarding the demands of the public service, whilst he cast aside all personal considerations, became to the determination that it was right to accede to it. Though lie bad no small addition to his labour (rain the time that the Master of the Rolls sat only twelve or sixteen hours a week, there still was no transfer of a Judge which could be made more convenient to suitors than that of the Master of the Rolls. Whatever judicature was established, the proper performance of its duties materially depended on the bar that attended it. Now if the Master of the Rolls was appointed to this new situation, lie would in all probability carry the bar which at present frequented his court to the Privy Council—an advan- tage which could be secured by no other change of the Judges. These were some of the reasons which induced him to support this bill; which he thought calculated to secure the public benefit, though it was not personally agreeable to him, fur it carried him from his UIVIk court—the sphere of his duty, and, he might add, of his alfectiou. Bill read a second time.

THE OP1173t WAR.

Earl STANHOPE, on Tuesday, moved the following resolution- " Tbat an humble address be presented to her Majesty, to express to her Majesty the deep concern of this House in learning that an interruption has occurred in the friendly relations and commercial intercourse which had so long subsisted with the Chinese empire ; and to represent to her Majesty that these calamities have, in the opinion of this House, been occasioned by British sub- ,peels basing persevered in bringing opium to China, in direct and known vio- lation of the laws of that empire ; and to request that her Majesty will be gra- ciously pleased to take immediate measures for the prevention of such proceed- ings, which are so dishonourable to the character and so detrimental to the in- terests of her subjects ; and to assure her Majesty, that if any additional powers should be found requisite for the purpose, this House will readily concur in granting them to her Majesty." Lord Stanhope spoke at length in support of his motion. He con- tended, that throughout the entire quarrel between the English and Chinese, the Chinese had been in the right ; and lie was by no means confident as to the result of the contemplated invasion of China— Ile feared we were invited to the invasion of the Chinese empire by the sup- position that they were weak in military power and unprepared for defence. Whether such was or was not the case, could only be made known by the result of the war, and by that Almighty Being from whom no secrets were concealed; but he could not believe, until facts proved the contrary, that a nation of un- bounded population, animated by the purest patriotism, and au enthusiastic attachment to the laws and institutions under which they had so long enjoyed prosperity and peace—a people confessedly prei,minently distinguished above all others for their intelligence and sagacity—would succumb if such au attack were made on them. We might commit nets of piracy and murder; our pro- gress might be marked by lire and blood ; but such a war, abhorrent in the sight of God and man, would be sure to draw down the vengeance of Heaven on our heads. lie had endeavoured to show that the opium traffic was the sole cause of the war which might have arisen, most dishonourable and diseraceful as it was, and detrimental to all the interests of this country ; and that it was an infraction on the rights of independent states, which, whether great or small, Whether powerful or weak, were entitled to protection. He had endeavoured to show some of the consequences which bad flowed flout the conduct of the Government ; and he entreated their Lordships to vote an address, the object of which was for ever to prevent the continuance of this traffic, and thus esta- blish the only firm and secure footing on which our commercial intercourse Can rest.

Lord MELROr RNE entered into a history of the opium-trade, to show that for a length of time it was openly sanctioned by the Chinese au- thorities, and till very lately had been effectually though not avowedly encouraged by them. Ile then defended the conduct of Captain Elliot ; and maintained that he bad acted with sagacity, prudence, propriety, firmness, and resolution. He denied Hutt Captain Elliot could have put down the opium-trade, or that it was his duty to have done so if he Could; for whilst he admitted that British subjects ought to obey the laws of the countries to which they traded, he could not agree that the British Government was called upon to enforce those laws. He did feel some concern that time Government of this country should be in some me degree identified with the propagation of' opium, and he wished the trade were placed on a different footing ; but he could not pledge him- self to discountenance the culture or supply of opium, or pat down a traffic which, being favoured by buyer and seller, had acquired immense strength and had wieldy-spread ramifications. He must therefore op- pose the motion. The Duke of WELLINGTON felt strongly the inconvenience of the House interfering in questions of this description ; and he therefore should advise their Lordships to vote the " previous question." lie would not be responsible, :Hid he would not advise the House to he responsible, for this war. Neither he nor they had sufficient information to entitle them to interfere with the measures of Government on this question- " Whatever nifty have been the iminediate cause of the war, I see very clearly that it cannot he opium. I Want to see what has been the imtnediato cause of this war ; :ma then I want to see the 1114111S of carrying it on, and the resourees for it, before 1 venture to give an opinion on the sub- ject. And I entreat of your Lordships to give no opinion on the subject—. to give no opinion wilatt'Ver on the one site or the other, until at least yoir know a little more of the real intentions and objects of her Majesty's Go- vernment. Then, when you have that information, your Lordships can take that course whieli yeti think proper ; end I hope it will be to give to her Majesty's Government that support ,vhicit a t 'tot e:tonent oaght to rcceu • if the war be a jiot and net:es:nay one. In the time, it is best fu.' your Lordships: to iv lilt coming to any more eanclasion. I a, the more anxious upon this subject, because I nitist -y that I have its for a length of time read ten account such as that of the proceedings at Canton, upon the surrender of this opium, and even after the Commissioner had take:, upon himself to surrender all the opium in the don of her NIftje,dr.-: subjects, whether belonging or consigned to them by others. And, first, after the arrangement le!i teem made for the delivery of this opium up to the Mb- cers of the Chi: e.e: Government at Canton, 1 de,lare I never iu toy life haVt! Well, On the part of the authorities of any eolith}, such him:loge as has been written to Captain Elliot by the officers of the Chine, Government. The noble Earl has talked ttf the provocation giV. n to the Chinese Government by the language of British suljects: I see pretty good pro, "cation to all nations. given in the same way ; but I have never seen s g. otleman, pretending to re- present another government, treated in sin It a man ,,•r :old in such terms as Captain Elliot has been treated and addressed by 11w itt horities of the Chinese Government stationed at Canton. I say this as an Englislunan whole's passed fifty years of his life in the honourable service of his country, that l cannot; bear to see a servant of the British Government his d ity on his statimt at Canton, and that he should be treated in a neemer and addressed in lan- guage such; as should not be used to the mealiest climbed in ;my country in the world. He was charged with attempting to deceive ; he was charged witht every meanness—with every kind of low conduct that could lie imputed to any man. And what was the conduct observed tow:trils him ? lie was deprived of provisions—all means of procuring subsist nc. mere denied him—almost fits common necessaries and decencies of life riaer based to him ; and this was done to inhabitants of Canton, living under the pat etion of the C'hihese verinnent."

He was prepared to maintain that Captain 1151 done Lis duty, He did right in refusing to give up British subjects to be dealt with ac- cording to the Chinese laws-

" lie did what othiers, I trustorould have tine; and his e,,ndoet is entitled to great credit, for he showvd great firmites": in resid ;di that .leinand, I say that it would have liven most unjust if lie lied given up m.•11 to be dealt with according to the laws of China, for the putting to 11,'1111 a Chinese, when he was ettn,inced, upon inquiry, that no clirrge of guilt could be made out against them. Then there was another circuited :nice in which Captitin Elliot acted as became him. I allude particularly to his refusal to give up 3Ir. Dent. It was declared that the opium-trade was not to lie contintted—that it was ;or illegal trade, arid that dealing in opium should not be sulfured. It was sup- posed that 3Ev. Dint had been a perst.0 v,ry :math concerned in that trade— that he had ursine a large fortune, as I believe maily have. illicit trade. And Captain laliut was blamed, when it was sought to have Mr. Dent given up, because lie, her Majesty's representative in tbat country—he, the Chief Superintendent of trade in that country—should have stepped fbrward and said, " I won't allow this gentleman to be given over to the Chinese Govern- ment, and to be tried as the Chinese Government may direct," I should, toy Lords, be ashamed of the name of Englishman if there could be found one in her Majesty's service capable of acting otlierwig: than this gentleman did.. under such circumstances. It was his duty to protect Mr. Dent, even t,., the spilling of the but drop of his blood. Ile had no right to give up ?Ir. Dent, who was living midair the protection of the British Government. It was his duty to protect 'etr. Dent ; and for his doing that, I do most highly approve of his conduct. I say that it would have been unpin...4W for him to have done so; it would have been a total dereliction of Ids duty to give up Mr. Dent to be destroyed by the Chinese. I should he ashamed of the very nante of a:, Englishman if' he had thine so."

He had never approved of the system on which the British trade with China had been placed after the control of it was taken from the East, India Company ; and he considered that it was a great error not to put a considerable naval ibree at the disposal of the Queea's representative at Canton.

Lord LVTTELTON could not look upon the war except with feelings of the deepest regret-- Ile could not sympathize with the feelings of exultation with which suite persons talked of pr; est:tiding this most righteous quarrel to a righteous end. He feared that nothing deserving the name of triumph wettild result front it; though lie trusted that the issue milt place our commercial relation; with China on a titir and just footing with r:- vet bo le to is and to the Chinese Government. With great reluetanee lie must vote against the motion of the noble earl.

Lord COLCHESTER did not think this country weeild be justified in going to war to obtain remuneration for the (Title). eei ee.1, after the repeated warnings of the Chinese Government that the opium-tratlie was illegal, and still less to obtain territory. in China.

Lord ELIA:emotion:TT hoped that the result of the expedition, be to put the commerce with l'hina on a better footing ; but anyiit- tempt to put down the traffic in opium would end in making it piratical instead of contraband.

Lord Ai-net-fermis; saw that, meter the circuinsm ..es in which the country was now placed, there was no alternative- !':ere must be a demonstration of forge ; but he could not help feeliee., 711 't there were also circumstances which prevented him fret,: gd:: g I contest with

satisfaction or confidence. lie !hoped, Nowt • eething might he done by reason and negotiation ; and he 1 t; it no attempt had

bmi.onreneeLle to open a fair discussion w 1.* before resorting to Some of their papers were equal to any I. t Europeans could produce. They were a much more understanding peop1e, and a much more understand- ing government, than was generally supposed; and he thought that if proper pains and care were taken, the whole matter might be brought to an amicable adjustment. It ivies impossible that it people who reasoned no ;irately should not be open to reason. Ile WAS the more eratittent in his belief that reason and negotiation could :;:tt fail to lead to heath:jai results, when he recollected the success which atttuded various missions from this country to Chime. Those missions bad been attended with considerable success, and he saw no reason why similar experiments should not again be tried. The Chinese were a sensible and well-judging people : lie confessed that, looking at their papers, he could not help thinking so; and the first thing needful was to convince them that we desired nothing more than to carry on trade peaceably and in good faith. At these objects he thought the Queen's Government should aim; endeavouring at the same time, as far as possible, to remedy the ill effects re- sulting. from past mismanagement,—fbr example, the extreme mismanagement of leaving a British officer -for so long a time without any system of arrange- ment or decision, the people under him and the Chinese Government with whom he had to deal being both equally ignorant of the nature and extent of the authority with which he was clothed or thepurposes for which he was sent out. Ho quite agreed with those who thought that a naval force ought to make its appearance on the coasts of (7hina; he thought that the Chinese Government should he overawed by its presence ; nevertheless he could not help complaining that Parliament knew so little on this subject ; they knew that a great armament was goini, out, but that was ill—they knew nothing of the number or the nature of the'force. Again to revert to the subject of nego- tiations, he must be permitted to say, that they ought to be had recourse to, notwithstanding all that might already have taken place ; and he thought that such negotiation should by all means he preceded or accompanied by a direct communication from the Queen to the Emperor of China. It was likewise his opinion that negotiations for such a purpose ought not to lie taken from the quartereleck, but rather from amongst those who could practice the vomiter its mode as well as the Artiter in re.

Lord STANHOPE briefly replied; and the "previous question" was carried without 11 division.

In the House of Commons, on the same evening, Mr. GEORGE PALMER postponed his motion against the war, to the 28th instant ; but on Thursday he informed the House, that he should not bring it on at all, as, in consequence of the delay which had occurred, it could not have the intended effect of preventing hostilities. (Cheers and laughter from the Ministerial benches.) IRISH CORPORATION REeomit.

Lord KENYON, on Thursday, moved that counsel be called in and heard at the bar against the Irish Municipal Bill. The motion was agreed to, on the understanding that counsel should confine their ob- servations to the details, and not attack the principle of the bill.

Sir Charles Wetherell, Mr. Butt, and another counsel, then appeared at the bar ; and Sir Charles proceeded to address their Lordships on behalf of the Corporation of Dublin. They claimed the same privilege which had been extended to the Corporation of London—that of ex- emption from the operation of a new municipal act. They wished to preserve their privileges entire, and were alarmed by the innovation threatened by the bill. Sir Charles went into a minute dissection of the bill, to show that its operation in Dublin would be to throw the civic government, and the control of property worth 30,000/. a year, into the hands of persons of no property or consideration. At the conclusion of Sir Charles Wetherell's speech, which occupied several hours, the House rose, as it was agreed that Mr. Butt should be heard the day after.

THE LUDLOW WRIT.

In the Horse of Commons, on Monday, the Earl of DAULINCITON rose to move that a writ be issued " 11w electing a burgess to serve iu this present Parliament for the borough of Ludlow."

Mr. E. J. STANLEY hoped that Lord DARLINGTON, considering Lord John Russell's absence from the House, would postpone his motion to Thursday. Mr. Warburton had consented to put off a motion of which Ile had given notice, relative to the Cambridge election, on that account.

Lord DARLINGTON thought flint if Lord John Russell had -wished the motion to be postponed, he would bare said so on Friday, when notice of motion was giveu.

Mr. STANLEY was understood to say, that lie made the request of postponement in compliance with Lord John Russell's express desire.

Lord DARLINGTON felt it his ditty to persevere. No sufficient reason had been adduced for withholding the writ for Ludlow ; and he moved that a 110W writ be issued.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN seconded the motion.

Mr. WAntiuterox moved an amendment, that the motion be adjourned to Thursday, in order that Lord John Russell might take part in the discussion.

Mr. WAKLEY seconded the amendment. A more flagitious case of bribery as well as treating had never been proved ; and the character

of the House was lost unless it repudiated such proceedings. It was necessary to withhold from the electors of Ludlow the opportunity of selling the rights of' their countrymen.

Sir ROBERT PEEL considered the suspension of the writ to be a dan- gerous precedent. No notice had been given of an intention to suspend the writ, and no reason assigned except Lord John Russell's absence. Under that special circumstance, lie doubted the wisdom of suspending the writ. Establish the precedent, and the majority would soon use it to prevent the issue of writs for places where they expected elections unfavourable to their party.

Lord PALMERSTON pressed for the postponement simply on the ground that Lord John Russell might he present to take part in the discussion.

Mr. WYNN held that no sufficient reason had been alleged why the House should defer the performance of its duty to the electors of Ludlow.

The House divided, and rejected Mr. Warburton's amendment, by a vote of 226 to 215.

The motion, that a new writ be issued, having been again put,

Mr. WAKLEY descanted on the infamous practices which had been proved against the electors of Ludlow ; who desired nothing more than an opportunity of selling their votes again— He himself was the representative of 224,900 persons, and his election had cost him only a very small sum ; and lac must say that it was too much to have his vote night after night upset by those who could be guilty of such practices as had been proved bethre the Ludlow Committee. He was prepared to go any length in opposing the motion before the House; and if he was supported by only twenty Members, he would take advantage of every means which the forms of the House allowed to defeat it.

He moved that the House "do now adjourn," 11-4-t1;70-u seconded the motion, and implored the House not agi anivai to open the floodgates of corruption. Lord PaiseEnsrost suggested to his "honourable friend," m Wakley, that it might not be advisable to persist in his motion; though he considered the refusal to accede to the request for the poSt• ponement of the writ as by no means in accordance with the is courtesy of Parliament.

Mr. HORSMAN would support the motion for postponement. The House ought not to grant a new writ without further inquiry, or some expression of its disapprobation of the practices at Ludlow.

Lord SANDON denied that general, extensive, and systematic bribery, such as could alone justify the suspension of the writ, had been proved against the Ludlow constituency.

Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, on the other hand, contended, that the evi. deuce, which he had read twenty minutes ago, disclosed a most infs. mous system of bribery.

Mr. HUME was for an adjournment. Treating on an extensive scale had been proved before a Committee, which might be termed Sir fie. best Peel's child.

Sir Roemer PEEL wished the House to recollect how strenuously gentlemen opposite had resisted a motion to postpone the issue of a writ for Perthshire, where a vacancy was caused by Lord Mansfield's death ; how earnestly they had contended that a vacancy should be supplied as soon as a vacancy occurred. How long did they mean to suspend this writ ? Till Thursday next ? (Cries of " Hea_,r, heart") Well, he had got that admission ; but he denied that the House was justified in suspending a writ in consequence of the absence of any man. The fact was, that gentlemen opposite were carried away by party excitement— The House having practically decided for the issuing of the writ, they were about to endeavour to defeat that decision. Sec to what an extent they might be carried by the principle on which they now proposed to act. Were the people of England, then, to hold their rights entirely by sufferance of a majority of that House ? But a minority too could prevent the issuing of a writ. a minority might disregard the inherent and constitutional rights of constitu- ents, and by repented adjournments deprive the people of their franchise. This was a most important and an entirely new precedent which they were about to establish. If they were about to sanction the principle that treating ought to disfranchise the borough, that was also new. If the noble lord the Minister for the Colonies could propose any specific measure on the subject of treating, which was not liable to reasonable objection, no man would lie more ready than he to give his strong support to such a measure. No measure would be of more use to both parties—to the honourable men of both parties—than that by which treating would be effectually defined. At present he thought that they were all in jeopardy, and it was absolutely necessary that it be defined, Ile would consent to any reasonable law for the suppression of bribery sad the abolition—or rather, the proper definition—of treating. He knew the extreme difficulty of legislating upon this subject ; but it was quite a distinct one from the constitutional question with which they had now to deal. For ten days past there had been no desire manifested to disfranchise this borough; and was it because the noble lord was not in his place that they were to sus. pond this writ fbr three clays? lie could not regard the proceeding in any other than an exceedingly dangerous light. The reasons in favour of the immediate issuing of the writ greatly counterbalanced any objection which could be urged against that course.

Mr. Hawes and Mr. PRIME supported, Mr. BARING WALL and Mr. VILLIERS STUART opposed the adjournment.

A division took place— Fur the adjournment 123

Against it 189 Majority 66 The main question having been again put, Mr. CiLintEs Boma:a moved a resolution- " That the Speaker be directed to insert an advertisement in the public papers, stating that the vacant seat for the borough of Ludlow is for sale, and that all persons desirous of bidding for the same do make their tenders to him before Monday next, and that payment must be made in money or in public securities, and not in beer or spirituous liquors." (Laughter, and cries of " Oh ")

The SPEAKER, before putting that question, suggested that Mr. Buller should consider the effect its appearance on the journals of the House would have upon public opinion.

Mr. Hiram thought a direction ought not to be given to the Speaker which the Speaker could not follow.

Mr. BULLER said, that if his motion were informal, he must with- draw it.

Mr. HonsmAN moved that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. Holmes took the opportunity of giving a flat contradiction to that part of the evidence which implicated him in illegal practices at Ludlow. He should bring the matter before another tribunal, where the perjuries against him would be investigated.

Another division—

For the adjournment 96 Against it 156 Majority 60

Mr. HORSHAM then moved that a Select Committee he appointed to

inquire into the bribery and intimidation practised at Ludlow. Motion rejected, by 148 to 91. The next motion, by Mr. HAwEs, that the "debate be adjourned? was negatived by 145 to 76.

Mr. HUME then moved the adjournment. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, lie knew perfectly well that in a contest of this description the minority must succeed. But he wished to let Members opposite understand, that he and his friends could also evince determination ; and he gave distinct notice, that until this motion were disposed of, no other public business should he suffered to proceed! Proceedings of this nature were exceedingly painful, and the worst of all occupations in which the House of Commons could engage. He suggested, that with regard to public business the House should virtually adjourn to Thursday. Mr. HUME submitted that Sir Robert Peel ought not to take so unreasonable a course. MT. THOMAS DUNCOMBE thought it would not please the country to ham, that because the House would not sanction bribery and treating, the Opposition had resolved to obstruct all public business. Colonel SHITHORPE asked what the country would think of' the in- terest Ministers took in this question? There was the Treasury bench—such a Treasury bench !—quite empty. Where was the Fo- reign Secretary ? Where were the other Secretaries and officers of Government ? He had no doubt where they were, but they were not in their place&

The House then adjourned.

On Tuesday, Lord DARLINGTON renewed his motion for the issue of the writ; and the opposition, manifested on the previous night was spin offered. After some conversation between Mr. EDWARD JouN STANLEY and Lord DARLINGTON, on the question whether Mr. Stanley had requested a postponement in Lord John Russell's name or not,—a point which Was not determined by the conversation,—Mr. Honsmaet repeated his motion of the previous day for the appointment of a Committee of in- quiry into the practices at Ludlow. The amendment was supported by Lord PALMERSTON ; but rejected, by 216 to 180. MT. WA,RBURTON moved the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. CHARLES WOOD deprecated the rcuewal of the contest of the previous night. He saw no ground for delaying the issue of the writ, or for further inquiry— It was perfectly true the Member for Cockermouth had stated that there WAS a Cale for further inquiry, but such did not appear to be the opinion of the Committee itself. Not only had the Committee not made any report of the kind, but the very statement of the honourable Member himself showed that they had thought proper to stop further inquiry on the part of the coun- sel; which, in his mind, afforded a proof that the Committee thought it a case which did not require any further investigation. The Committee them- selves had carried the inquiry beyond the ordinary extent—beyond the point affecting the seat of the sitting Member ; they had carried it to the very point of treating and bribery. He should, therefore, like to know to what extent these motions were to be repeated ? The course was one whirl' be must say did no great credit to the character of the House. The strong presumption always was in favour of the issuing the writ ; and lie did not think that in this MR any ground had been shown for suspending it beyond the absence of the noble lord the Secretary thr the Colonies, which the house did not deem sufficient.

Mr. Hunts was surprised that Mr. Wood should have taken a view of the case opposed to that which he believed every other Member on his side of the House had adopted. Ile regretted the necessity of pursu- ing an extraordinary course, but the circumstances of the case were extraordinary.

Mr. WAist.Ev said, that next week Members would denounce bribery and practices similar to those at Ludlow when charged against Irish electors; and in so doing they would be guilty of the most gross and palpable hypocrisy.

Lord CASTLEREAGH called Mr. \Vakley to order.

The SPEAKER hoped Mr. Wakley would retract his observations. It vas irregular to impute improper motives.

Mr. WAKLEY explained, that all lie meant to say was that Members opposite were supporting those who practised bribery.

Lord MORPETH thought the postponement asked for ought in fairness and courtesy to have been granted ; but, having been in a minority on a motion for adjournment, he did feel himself at liberty to back any other motion for a similar purpose.

Motion for adjournment rejected, by 188 to 140.

Mr. Hawes repeated the motion for adjournment ; which was acceded to, on the understanding that the writ should not be moved or any pub- lic business done before Thursday.

On Thursday, Lord DARLINGTON again moved the issue of the writ ; and took the opportunity of disclaiming the intention of acting dis- courteously to Lord John Russell in the course lie had thought it his duty to pursue.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL entirely acquitted Lord Darlington of any dis- courtesy. Had Lord Darlington disregarded a direct request to post. pone his motion, Lord John would not have presumed to think such re- fusal discourteous, inasmuch as it might have been consistent with the noble lord's public duty. lie thought, however, that the I Louse ought not to have been called upon to decide a question of so melt import- ance without more time for consideration than Lord Darlington was willing to allow. With respect to the proceedings brought to li_h:t by the inquiries of the Ludlow Committee, he must say that Ile thought neither party could claim exemption from the disgrace attached to them ; but that party would suffer most in public estimation which should treat the corrupt practices at Ludlow as a light matter, or en- deavour to slur them over without further notice. 1 lo, however, felt satisfied that both parties in the blouse would be ready to adopt a mea- sure to prevent bribery and treating. Ile did not mean to oppose Lord Darlington's motion for the issue of the writ, though he thought there was sufficient ground tier suspending it ; but because, looking to whin had taken place at the last general election, and what was notorious with respect to other boroughs, he had resolved to propose a general measure for the purpose of preventing bribery and treating. Ileibre explaining the provisions of the measure he intended to introduee, he wished to make some observations on the corruption which had pre- vailed at both the Ludlow and Cambridge elections— It appeared by the evidence befbre these Committees, that there had been Parties bribed directly by the gift of money, and that there bad bean most, no- torious cases of treating in both the boroughs. Indeed, although he had looked Into many eases of this description—although in former times he had had to deal with several cases in which there was more direct evidence of bribery among a great number of electors, in which in certaiii cases the great majority of electors were proved to have received curtain sums or ninu,,y, acid cult hum the evidence in those eases went more directly to the disfranchisement of the borough and theyunislimeut of inilividualsyet he must sow, curs more dis- gusting, or showing a more profligate state of the constituent body or showing more degrading practices ou the part even of those who stood in the highest situations with regard to the elections, down to the lowest—he must say lie never had seen in any evidence taken before any Committee. It was not, therefore, on account of the lightness of these cases, or that either of them was to be considered as venial, that they ought to refrain front taking such mea- sures with respect to these cases as the instances of bribery might possibly re- quire. And let him observe, before he went further in stating what he pro- posed, that he thought these cases of treating—prised-hilted treating—of opening a great number of public.-houses, and allowing persons to go to those houses for any period of time, and to drink to any extent, provided only they were sup- porters of a certain eaudidate—to ask no question as to expense, and thus, as it were, to drug the electors into voting for a partieular candidate—was not only bribery, but one of the most offensive and disgusting states of bribery. It had, certainly, this distinction—and it was a distinction which was favourable to taking means for preventing these ps.et ices—that there were more means of dis- covering treating than there were of discovering bribery. The law, however, for punishing the oiteuee of treating, was very de- fective. At present, treating after the " teste" of the writ and before . the declaration of the poll was bribery ; but lie proposed that treating at any time before the election. with a view to the election, and for one month after, should be considered bribery when proved before an Election Committee,—for he did not mean to make treating the same as bribery in a court of law. There was a defect in the law as regarded bribery, which he proposed to remedy—

The effect of the words of the statute was, that there norst be either a gift before the election, or, if there was a gift afterwards, then it must be in pur- suance of some promise or engagement made befbre the election which induced the voter to give his vote. This, as he conceived, was the cause of very great evasion ; for there were cases in wiiielt the world was convinced, and in which the voters were aware that they were to receive a sum of money—even the exact amount—without any prior contract or promise. To remedy this, he kiroposed that all gifts of money. either leetbre or after the election, for voting, or for having voted, or Mr abstaining from voting, should be bribery; and he would declare void the vote given by any person giving or offering, or asking for or taking, any bribe.

On another point of importance, to which lie would next direct at- tion, he had been acen-,tosied, in former days, to consult a gentleman of the greatest experience in Parliamentary law--3lr. Wynn ; and he hoped that the House would have the benefit of 3Ir. Wynn's assistance. Ile referred to the indemnity of witnesses— As the law lien -amid, if a witness was called before a Committee and asked a question, he could not be required to give an answer if by that answer he should be obliged to criminate hion,e11. By these means. the geiieral inquisi- torial power of the Home was greatly limited. The Ilouse had passed several particular acts to indemnify witinsses who should give evidence before Commit- tees ofaets of bribery. Ile believed that the last of those acts was to indem- nify the witnesses who should give evidence of bribery before the Committee on the St:dford election. Ile prope:.ed to have a general measure, providing an indeomity to parties who shoald give ell:tenet: of bribery, amt then to comps] the: e witnesses to :niswer upon oath all que,tions relating to those corrupt pray tires, so that they mi,:ht be (es:indite:I before the Committee.

Ile also intended to enlarge the powers given by the Grenville Act to Election Committees, so as to enable them to inve igate charges of cor- ruption against a constituency, tineigh not immediately connected with the sitting Members ; and to make special reports to the House on the state of the constituency.

Reverting to the particular case of Ludlow, Lord John adduced many precedents to show, that if no severe measures were taken against the delinquents of that borough, it was not because the Home wanted the power of punishment. Writs had beeli suspended ; persons guilty of bribery had h, en sent to the Tower, or committed to the custody of the Sergemit-ats Arms ; sit I the seat had keen taken from the returned Member and given to the ono next on the poll. This, however, was an objectionable proceeding, sod his bill proposed nothing of the kind. Lord John concluded his speeeli villi a qitotation from 3Ir. (.isborne's Inq trier, iello the Male:: ry. .1 pvi! ):;:;cquences to society of

bribery and debauchery e: •es ; the ex pre.e,ion of his opinion that public feeling would e. . anee eorrtnolun ; and that with re- spect to Ludlow uspeei,,!! , Po', wmd mv.• ',IL; influence to pre-

vent practices snot I, seise ,:.stroy the ens,inition of the coun- try and render the thy of the t, :tit rept:Fed in them. Ile should take an early opportunity of bringing this subject again under time notice of the I louse.

Lord DAnmserroN said there was se part of the peoeesed measure in which he was not ready to concur.

lfr. Ils w was lleterinios 1 n• Isere In his motion far a commit- tee of inquiry into the practice .o Lis floc:. Jolts It 17ti:'!;1,1, Sai 1, Ii .'.• in firma of issuing the writ would not preelude him freni aft'. ards eitpeorting Mr. 1 fawee's motion for inquiry. Mr. II A tele: read isessiges from the evidence given berme the Ludlow Committee, to show the extent of the bribery, and then made his motion as cull amendment on Lord Darlington's.

Mr. lien si seconded the amendment 1 ;premed his astonishment at the course Lord John linssell 11...1 1..1.• a with respect to Ludlow-- The noble lord se, mined to hps that p:00.:. :Tioion would s..diae to correct usages; but how was p.iiilie opiniea to he :e .t. up al them, when

the Muse of C.: matom.--the rept., otative L. of Ile tim i:;:t—doclined to inquire into such facts :.; 111 11,:` It1 look upon the bribery and treating there proved con.1,.....t1 ecoial offences? Lord John was :Mom to propose: a measure %%hid: he conc. ivell wool:: remedy the elelec as far a; the fi!:,11.1• was eonevrued. 'Tatmein-car might or inight not

be effective lilt. ; but he e. tealn!y thuugbt, ILA. until that measure passed into a law, both this writ and lime twit for Cal:M idge ought to be eus-

rended.

Sir Ito isines Pixs did not antici sate much ady.te: age from an inquiry by a Select Committee. who hail nut the power to witnesses on oath, it would not be so effeetied as that which hmi already been con- ducted, with sa much industry end impartiality. liy the Election Com-

mitles, who possessed the ;miser of isliiiinisteri»g oaths to the wit- nesses. That Committee bad not thought I. roper to suggest a suspen- sion ol. the writ, or any ulterior proceedings ; and theretiire he thought the I !moo ought not to liesitste in issuing the writ. Treating had been proved ; bus :I; the law now stands, treating is no ground of disfran- chisemeiit. It may be made a ground of disfranchisement, but the House ought nut to establish a new prim.; i,10 and ye it a retrospective application. So much for Ludlow. New as In the general question :

he was ready to aid Lord John it his ...tempt to find a remedy against bribery and treating. here were, however, some great diffi- culties in the way of suppressing the practice of treating ; which as- sumed a different and contrary complexion according to the animus of the parties- In some instances treating might be perfectly innocent, both in its motives

and its consequences, or in others it might be quite as corrupt. For instance, for a candidate, even after the "teste" of the writ, to invite ten or a dozen electors with whom be hail been in habits of confidential intercourse, for the purpose of discussing the pew:poets of the election and his own chances of suc- cess—would any one be prepared to say that such a course would not be per- fectly innocent on his part:' On the other hand, to open indiscriminately public-houses, and to invite every elector of a partieular party to enter those houses, and indulge, even to the extent of habitual drunkenness—would any one deny that this description of entertainment was au offence of a widely dif- ferent character? What he was afraid of was, that the suggestion of the noble lord would not attain the object which he bad in view. The noble lord pro- pewit that no treating whatever should be allowed during a month after the election. This, he was afraid, would not attain the object. Nothing would be more easy than for the candidates to give notice, that at the end of a month there would be a most liberal system of treating on each side. The noble lord had another provision, fur he also made all treating. prior to the election subject to the same consequences as bribery. This would include any treating that might have taken place in the borough since the last election—even during six years or six years and a half. What he was afraid of was, that the House, by attempting too much, might run the risk of losing the whole. If they at- tempted to do too much, they would run the risk of confounding innocent with guilty acts; the attempt also to contravene what wa-, the habit of a country— and the habit of this country was generally one of hospitality—would insure the defeat of the object. it would it,t intee,ttary iu tote thin prvontidon that the inibit of treating, being extinguished among the and agents, did not arise among zealous and powerful friends. For 1114:Ince, suppose eight or ten wealthy friends of a particular candidate, seeing that treating at elections had Leer the custom of the country for the last hundred v-ear. .t—treating not to the extent of debauchery, but old of innocent hospitality—the noble lord must take care that persons in the situ., tion of those friends did not commit the same offence that was prohibited, on the but of the candidate.;. With regard to bribery, the letter of the law was now sufficiently strict—

Members were deprived of their seats against whom bribery was proved, and

the House could also direct a proseention by the Attorney-General. 'Un- doubtedly the noble lord, by !mans of a Committee, with ponce; analogous to those of an Election Committee, retaining to them still the authority of ad- ministering the oath, and i' hH, the range of its inquiries, tn iv; t effect much ht developing the practict la ilo•ry ; but at the same time, he thought it wouid be found necc,mmr:. t,. ;iee time Committee the power ut adjudicating at once upon the cases or is appearing before them so soon as the fact of bribery haring barn dy them was eidablished, before entering upon the que.tion of whether out the praot leo or bribery had been general in the borough. Pe:cause it mi meld be rather hard upon a candidate who came before the Committee to prey., partieudir kids agaiost the sitting Member, to put him to the expense of a protracted inquiry into the general delinquency of the borough, after time spa at or bribery which he came forward to prove had been established to time 1.•mi of the Committee. The only effect of suit; eeting ;eatlieh 1! im ; to cm mist and excessive expense would be, that parties would not collie 1,, bd.., time Cazatuittee at all. The expense and anxiety of these inquiries were 'toile onerous enough already ; lint to tell a party that his private and particular case should not be adjudicated upon until the public question was settled, would be to prevent persons from resort Mg to the tribunal at all. He therefore advised the noble lord so to frame his bill as not to throw any new difficulties in the Is ay of parties seeki mgim,1tdry into the mode in which elections hail been conducted. en time subject ut indemnity to witnesses, he would only say that be thought it quite right to afford such additional securi- ties as were possible. Ile ,,oppo..,1, bowever, that partios n.muld not be allowed to refuse to give evidence on the plea that they would commit themselves. Mr. SANIORD. as chairman of the Ludlow Committee, stated his opi- Dion that the writ ought to hue tier on looking into the cases, he saw 110 precedent for suspending a writ on the ground of treating ; and only one ca,e of bribery- had been proved. Mr. WARBURTON said, that nine cases of bribery had been opened, and the Committee did wrong in !lot pursuing the investigation of them. Lord SAN DON said, tile Committee had pursued the investigation into the alleged cases of bribery even tit'ter Mr. Clive had given up his seat. tie thought it unfair that his side of the House should he taunted with patronizing bribery, when one of time persons proved to have been guilty of bribery and treating v■ as no o!1,er than Mr. Copped:, time immaculate Secretary of the Wilma Asaoci;I:i,m, and the getter-up of fourteen pe- titions to disqualify gentlemen from sitting in that House. Mr. CORING suggested that a commission of inquiry should be sent to Ludlow, and that all persons guilty of bribery should he disfranchised.

Mr. Honsaux supported inquiry, and read extracts from the Com- mittee's Report.

Mr. Ttio3ms Dt.NcomIE had that morning received a petition from Mr. Bevis, which was to have been presented belbre the debate came on, but as he had not an opportunity of seeing Me. Holmes in the early part of the evening, he had withheld the petition as an act of courtesy to that gentleman, whom it attacked. I In had since shown the petition to Mr. Holmes, who gave him leave to state the substance of it. The petitioner prayed permission to prove by his own and other evidence, that Mr. }blues can cognizant of acts of bribery committed at the Ludlow election. Mr. Dunconthe read extracts from the evidence of Cook the innkeeper at Ludlow, to show the drunkenness and debauchery which occurred at Ludlow. De am not believe the Ludlow and Cam- bridge elections were worse than others, but those cases being brought before them, examples of them ought to be made.

The House divided—

For issuing the writ 1S2 For Mr. It awes's amendment Majority 7S CAMBRIDGE WRIT.

Sir done WAr.sit moved that a new writ be issued for the borough of Cambridge.

Mr. WAtieurrom had intended to move that the votes at the election for Cambridge be taken by way of ballot ; but be was now convinced, that for that purpose a bill would be necessary ; mai he should therefore only move for a Select Committee of inquiry into the extent of the bribery and treating at Cambridge, and that in the meanwhile the writ be suspended. • Mr. 11.4.-wics seconded, and Mr. Hrete supported the amendment ; and division took place—

For issuing the writ 162 For Mr. Warburton's amendment 75 Majority- 87 PRIVILEGE.

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved that John Joseph Stockdok tom Thomas Burton Howard be released from the custody of the Gaoler of Newgate. He would not trouble the House with remarks likely to raise a debate, as he understood his motion would not be opposed, Mr. WARBURTON considered the detention of the prisoners unneeei. sary, as Parliament had put it out of their power to repeat their offence, Mr. Hume would not oppose the motion. It was a night of general gaol-delivery ; and he would include Stockdale and Howard, Ludlow and Cambridge, in one act of grace ; hoping that none of the pawls would be guilty of repeating their offences.

Mr. PlablE saw no reason for departing from the general rule, Which required prisoners of the House to petition for release.

Mr. LABOUCHERE supported the motion, on the grounds stated by Mr. Warburton.

Mr. BAINES wished the clemency of the House to he extended ,to " poor 'I'horogood." (Laughter.)

Mr. Duncombe's motion was carried without a division.

MISCELLANEOUS.

CORN-LAWS. Mr. VILLIERS, on Tuesday, put ore his motion to Tuesday the 26th instant.

NEW Wen. A new writ was ordered for Armagh, in the room of Mr. Sergeant Curry, appointed a Master of the Irish Court of Chancery, DisMtssAL OF MINISTERS, AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Mr, THOMAS DUNCOMBE, on Wednesday, presented a petition from Sheffield agreed to at a public meeting, with sixteen thousand signatures. He stated the substance of the petition amidst cheers and laughter— It contained six different requests, all of them important. The first mu, that the House would address her Majesty to dismiss her present Ministers-- (Load cheers from the Opposithm)—as they were no more worthy of the eon& dence of the th.own or the people than any Government formed during the hat fifty years; and to pray her Majesty to choose a Ministry who would make Universal Suffrage a Cabinet question, lie did not hear honourable gentlemen opposite cheer that request. The second request was, that the time of the House should not be wasted in long speeches, or in party quarrels and costes- thins, as if they only met liar the purpose of levying taxes which bore unduly upon the working classes. '111e next request was, that they would take met. sures to exclude professional lawyers from the Home—as it was their interest to confuse and make obscure the meaning of all law, which greatly contributed to their own profit. Next, that us there were seventy-five volumes containing the statute-laws of this country, which were too much for any man to digest during the course of a long life, they requested the House to cause the laws to cease -to exist upon a given day, prior to which they should cause a new and compendious code of laws to be published, and placed in all courts for the ad- ministration of justice throughout the country, so as to be within the reads and in the knowledge of all. The next request was, that the House should enact a law tar the exclusion of all heirs and descendants of Peers from that House, as they considered that the landed aristocracy were sufficiently repre- sented in the House of Lords ; so that that House might become, as it ought to be, the representative of the people; and that they might no longer receive in return for their taxes only new poor-law bastiles and prisons. And the last request they made was for an act of amnesty for all past political offences.

DISTRESS or AGRICULTURAL LABounims. Mr. i)uNcoalnE next presented two petitions from agricultural labourers at Foothill in Wilt- shire— They stated that their wages were 9s. a week, and that they had on an average five or six children, whom they were totally unable to support. In consequence of the high price of provisions, they were unable to purchase barky and potatoes; the average of the wages being only 2W. per head per day, width was less than the cost of the keep of a dog. The parochial authorities of Fonthill had taken out warrants to (Estrella them fur poor-rates, and they had

i

nothing to give them but time tattered garments on their backs. One of their party had been sent to the House of Correction for being unable to pay 16M.

RELATIONS WITH PERSIA. In reply to questions from Sir STRATFORD CANNING, on Thursday, Lord PALMERSTON stated that no alteration had recently taken place in the relations of England with Persia; that he expected to receive an answer to a communication which would reach Teheran in Marcia last ; that the British Legation was at Er- zeroom, waiting to reopen friendly communications with the Shah of Persia ; that British Consuls were at Erzeroom and Bagdad ; that a third Consul had returned to England ; and that Sir John McNeil was in this country on leave of absence.

TRANSPORTATION. In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, Lord WICKLOW, on behalf of the Archbishop of Dublin, postponed a motion on Transportation, of which the Archbishop had given notice, from Friday to Tuesday next.