Debates anb Vrortebinn5 in parliament.

COMMERCIAL AND POPULAR DISTRESS.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. SCIIOLEFIELD brought forward the resolution of which he had given notice. The general distress, he said, had begun to affect the home as well as the foreign trade : while competitors undersold the English manufacturers in the markets abroad, so much money was required to buy food, at the present high price of corn, that very little remained to buy clothes with. But it was not only upon the poorer classes that distress bad fallen, the shopkeeper and the master-manufacturer felt it almost as severely. Mr. Scholefield read some letters which he had received from his constitu- ents at Birmingham in illustration of the subject. The first related to the class of employers- " The condition of the inhabitants of Birmingham is more deplorable than ever. Cruel mortgagees are disposing of property on which they have ad- vanced money for less than one-third of its value; or rather, I should say, they are purchasing buildings at that rate. In consequence of trade being so bad, and levies and taxes so high, mortgagers have not been able to be punctual in the payment in interest : their property has been advertised to be sold, and no sale being practicable, a legal process has been gone through, and the property been transferred from the legitimate owner to the mortgagee; and this has been the case lately in a great many instances. • • Trade is daily getting worse. Whilst the number of bankrupts is less, the number of insol- vents is greater in all the manufacturing districts, and the poor debtors are crying ' make room; the prison is too small for us.' This was actually the case in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, when the Commissioners held a Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors : and those miserable men have been sent forth into the world penniless; and nothing but an alteration can pre- vent their coming to the workhouse. Although it was so recently emptied of its inmates, there is a fresh succession of unfortunate debtors, many of whom have lived respectably, and contributed largely to the payment of taxes and poor-rates, to the benefit of the community, but who are now about to perish in obscurity. • • * Tradesmen, with very few exceptions, are in jeopardy every hour. They apply to the pawnbrokers in vain, for these have granted loans till they have no money to lend ; and the consequence is, all the heads of families are in ill health, and medicine is of no avail.'

Another extract referred to the working-classes-

" Workmen, with large families, are receiving from 6s. to Ils. per week, and would be able, if they could work full time,..to earn from 15s. to 30s. per week. How those poor families live and pay rent, can only be answered by the poor creatures themselves. I know they are obliged to crowd together in dwellings not fit for hogs to live in. I know places called chambers wherein different families of both sexes and of all ages, are compelled to pass the night at the same time. Is not this enough to make Chartists ? is not this enough to demoralize the people?" Another— "A list of one week's pledges at one shop, containing 65 pledges, out of which only two exceeded 3s. each. Upwards of 30 pledges are gowns, shifts, women's petticoats, and children's frocks ; the rest are shawls, men's waistcoats and jackets, a bed-cover, a pillow, a wedding-ring, and other small articles; the whole averaging only Is. 9d each in value. -Birmingham contains 94 pawn- brokers; and if each has 65 pledges per week, the weekly number in the town of small pledges, not exceeding 3s. each, exceeds 6,000."

Mr. Scholefield alluded to the change which has taken place in the public feeling towards the great parties in the state— He would remind the House of an entire new state of things with regard to the conduct of persons constituting public meetings. They too had their motions of "no confidence" in either party. They disliked both Whig and Tory equally, but would prefer voting for the Tories now, and would doubtless duly reject them when their own proper time came. At a recent meeting at Birmingham, a resolution was passed not to vote for the abolition of the Corn- laws. The majority preferred a very different measure : they considered the Corn-law question delusive, and would be satisfied with nothing leas than 'Universal Suffrage. Exactly similar was the result of a meeting at Sheffield, at which the "no confidence" in either party was the prevailing feeling.

He concluded by moving a resolution,

" That the extreme suffering of the industrious classes, from want of em- ployment, low wages, and high prices of provisions, renders it the imperative duty of Parliament to devise means for the alleviation of the great misery which now pervades all the manufacturing districts of the country." Mr. Wuaaams seconded the motion, and dwelt upon the increase of manufactures abroad : it would be impossible for the people of this country to contend against foreign manufacturers unless they were re- lieved. Most of the historians of the time attributed the first French Revolution to the undue pressure of taxation, because the aristocracy relieved themselves at the expense of those who were much worse able to sustain the burden. The present state of taxation in this country was much the same : of the fifty-two millions raised by taxes, not far from the whole was obtained from the middling and industrious classes. In corn alone the people paid to the landowners a much larger amount of tax than the aristocracy contributed to the state.

Mr. MINDLET rose to bring forward an amendment. The existing distress, he said, imperatively demanded immediate interposition ; and to show the practical bearing of the question, he mentioned, that since the late debate a property which had cost 120,0001. had been sold for 20,000/. Referring to Mr. Cobbett's remarks on unequal taxation in the Stamp-duties, in 1833, he complained that the evil remained unre- medied, in all its grossness, to this day : three-fourths of the stamp- duty was raised upon bills of less amount than 1001. He gave a prac- tical example of the fact that the poor man's shilling will not go as far as the rich man's— In order to understand practically how the case stood, be had employed a respectable grocer to give him a statement of the various articles he was iu the habit of supplying to the poor and to the rich. He had taken the instance of a widow with two children, who supported herself by taking in washing; and he found that she bought weekly, tea, sugar, coffee, &c. to the amount of Is. 7id, out of which sum the duty upon the several commodities was no less than 84d. On the other hand, the purchases of the rich man came to 16s. 94., out of which Government received 3s. Sid. Thus, from the shilling of the poor woman was deducted 51td. for duty, while from the shilling of the rich rim* 21d. was deducted.

Mr. Ilindley then enlarged upon the mischievous effect of the Corn- laws, and urged the repeal of the Poor-laws ; claiming more explicit declarations from Sir Robert Peel on both those subjects. He concluded by moving as an addition to Mr. Scholefield's resolution, "that it is the opinion of this House that the present system of taxation and the Corn- laws are peculiarly unjust to the middle and lower classes of the com- munity."

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT had no objection to support Mr. Scholefield's motion ; but he complained of honourable gentlemen coming down to the House and making statements of a general nature involving strong insinuations against the upper classes of society. Landlords were sup- posed to be the blood-suckers of the poor : such insinuations ought not to be thrown out, because they were unfounded, and because no part of the conduct of the upper classes had given room for them. Sir Francis could not assent to the proposition that the existing distress was owing to the system of taxation, or that that system operated unjustly on any class in the country— With regard to the Corn-law monopoly, as it was most erroneously called, it was a remarkable circumstance, that since the existing laws bad been in operation, more corn had been imported than bad been introduced into this country during a corresponding pesiod antecedent to their introduction. It was a delusion to suppose that their repeal would produce the slightest benefits to the people of this country ; and it was equally monstrous to ascribe the distresses of the people to their influence. The landed interest was the only substantial interest in the country. It was like the tortoise at the bottom of the world, and was the sole reason why England was wealthier than any other nation. The question now was not a corn question, but one of administration. Ministers being put to their last shift, now took advantage of the popular errors as regarded the corn-trade, and exclaimed against the agriculturists as monopolists. He denied that this was a bread-tax : it was not paid by the consumer. (Ironical cheers.) The man who brought it to the market from abroad had to pay the duty before he could bring it into the market. (Re- newed cheers.)

If the principles of free trade were to be adopted, it should be after a careful revision of the whole commercial interests of the coun- try. He for one did not think that, in a great manufacturing country like this, any tax ought to be laid on the raw material : on the other hand, he did not think the Corn-laws were any great protection to the landed interest.

Mr. LABOUCITERE said, that Sir Francis, while remembering his agricultural constituents of Wiltshire, seemed unable to forget that he had been Member for Westminster ; and so he gave one-half of his speech to the county and the other to the city—a sentence to each alternately. Mr. Labouchere could not at all concur in his view that the question of the Corn-laws was one of no practical importance ; but he agreed with him that the principles of free trade, if applied at at all, should be applied universally— That was precisely the principle which Government had attempted to adopt when they brought forward the three great questions of corn, sugar, and timber. Their propositions bad not, however, been brought forward in the manner or for the objects attributed to them by the honourable baronet. They had been brought forward only after the most mature deliberation; and Minis- ters had been actuated solely by an earnest determination to do justice to the community at large and to the trading interests, while at the same time they would not neglect the protected interests. Those measures bad not been pro- posed until after repeated deputations from the trading and manufacturing interests ; and had they been carried, more important measures would have passed, and measures more for the real advantage of the country than any that had been passed in ten years of mere party struggle for office. With regard to the motion, Mr. Labouchere fully agreed with Mr. Scholefield that great distress did exist ; but he put it to him whether it was wise or expedient to press such a motion at the present advanced period of the session, and in the present state of the House—whether it was really doingjustice to the subject to bring it forward when so many Members were absent, and when the decision of the House would not carry that weight which it ought to carry ? Another objection which he had, however, was to the affirmation of abstract general principles unconnected with some practical measure.

Mr. BAINES supported the motion, and entered into a statistical state- ment; when he was interrupted by Sir STRATFORD CANNING ; who ob- served that the subject was too important to be discussed in so thin a House, and he moved that the House be counted. Only twenty-four Members being present, the House adjourned.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Earl of ABERDEEN, in present- ing a petition from the seven suspended ministers of Strathbogie, said that they had been already for some time suspended from their functions by a decree of the General Assembly ; they bad lately been deposed ; and they now called upon the House to interfere in their behalf and prevent that sentence from being carried into effect. It was to be remembered that they had been deposed simply because they had obeyed the law ; and although Lord Melbourne had promised to support and uphold the law, the enormous expense of defending their rights brought rain upon individuals, even if in the end those rights should be established. The question had becomes public one ; and he agreed with the petitioners in thinking that the Government was bound to come forward and protect them.

Viscount MELBOURNE, although he deeply regretted the state of the Scotch Church, and especially the circumstances of the petitioners, could not admit that Government was liable to the charge of remissness, or that any thing effectual could have been done by their interference-

" It is tree that the Government and the Parliament might have finished the matter by deciding in favour of one party or the other : we might have decided in favour of the General Assembly, and might have admitted that they were entitled to all those powers which they now persist in claiming; or we might have decided in favour of the Court of Session, and declared that they were altogether right, and the General Assembly altogether wrong : we might have done this, it is true, by an Act of Parliament ; but still I think that course would have been an unwise, an imprudent, and a dangerous course, for it would have led to an intermeddling with the whole constitution of the Church of Scotland. My noble friend has said that these reverend gentlemen have suffered—are suffering for their obedience to the law of the land. It is perfectly true that this is the cause of their suffering; but we are bound to consider the nature of this question. The General Assembly claim powers which me denied by the Court of Session ; and whichever may be right and whichever may be wrong, we find that a very considerable minority of the Judges of t1. Court were of the same opinion as the General Assembly. So this is, at any rate, not a common case of suffering under the law. There is a great doubt— great difficulty as to the constitution of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities.

Six of the Judges, and some of them who are of the highest legal attainments, hold that the Civil Court exceeded its powers, and that the ecclesiastical authority had been improperly invaded."

Lord Melbourne found a precedent for non-interference- " My noble friend says that the tyranny and domination of the Church of Scotland remind him of the Church of Rome : we all know that the Presby- terian Church is equal to the Church of Rome in presumption any day. Many instances may be produced to that effect. But if I were to liken the present dispute in Scotland to any former one, I would take the contest m the time of James the First between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts in this country. That contest led to much that was unseemly—to much that was unfitting. It frequently pressed heavily on parties and indi- viduals : but, if I remember rightly, it was not finished by Parliamentary in- terference. It was allowed to work itself out by the conflict of the autho- rities themselves ; and I have no doubt that this will do the same."

Government, however, were still determined to enforce the law. Lord Melbourne had no doubt that the Lord-Advocate had done all that belonged to him. The Earl of HADDINGTON condemned Lord Melbourne's studied Evasion of giving an opinion. He had said, at the commencement of the present session, that he would maintain the law of the land. How had he done so ?—by leaving the question entirely unsettled for a long time, and then at last saying that the question was a very difficult one. The Assembly had been guilty of the grossest violence.

The Marquis of NORMANBY said, that consultations had been held with the Lord-Advocate, and the course pursued had been in accord- ance with his wishes.

The Marquis of BREADALBANE combated the assumption that the reverend petitioners were in the right ; and, with the Duke of ARGYLL, deprecated interference until the courts of law had come to a decision on the merits of the whole question. Lord BROUGHAM could not imagine any thing more fatal to a settle- ment of this—he would not call it a controversy, a dispute, or a conflict, but this notoriously and avowedly illegal proceeding—any thing more decidedly tending towards a breach of the law than Lord Melbourne's speech; though he acquitted Government of all intention of the kind. But he did hope that directions would be given to the Crown lawyers to relieve innocent parties who had submitted to the law from the costs and risks caused by the oppression of wrong-doers who refuse to obey it. The Earl of BELHAVEN said, that the only way that appeared to him by which the question could be settled was, by trying the question upon a presentation in consequence of the deposition of these individuals. The Earl of ABERDEEN declared that proposal was preposterous— The decision of that House had been pronounced, and it had not settled the question. They had decreed that a particular person should be taken on trial ; and the General Assembly had refused that trial. They did not only this, but they ordered another person to be presented to the living. What signified it then what the court below or that House decided as to whether a living was vacant or not, if there was a body that assumed to itself an authority to get rid of the decision of Parliament altogether ?

Lord Aberdeen knew that the opinions of noble lords opposite were in entire accordance with his own : he thought it too bad that they should shuffle with the question as they did. The subject dropped shortly after.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BILL.

The House went into Committee on this bill on Monday. The Marquis of WESTMEATH moved an amendment to exclude the crime of rape from the operation of the bill; and the Earl of WINCHILSEA afterwards moved to omit altogether the clause relating to the subject. The clause was opposed by the Earl of MOUNTCASHELL, the Earl of WICKLOW, and Lord WYNFORD ; and supported by the Marquis of NORMANDY, Lord ABINGER, Lord BROUGHAM, the Loan CHANCELLOR, and the Earl of HADDINGTON. It was affirmed, by 42 to 38. The bill was then reported.

When the third reading was moved on Thursday, the discussion• on the disputed clause was revived by the Earl of HADDINGTON ; who moved an amendment, the effect of which was to retain the capital punishment for the crime in question when more than one person was guilty of participation.

The Marquis of NORMANDY again opposed the alteration of the clause. He instanced a case, accompanied by circumstances of revolting cruelty, in which three men had been acquitted at Gloucester against all evidence, to show how the extreme punishment deterred juries from convicting : the Jury in this case asked the Judge whether, if they brought in a verdict of " Guilty," the sentence would be carried into effect ? and the Judge declining to answer, they acquitted all the pri- soners.

Lord Aintroza believed that the Judges wished the extreme penalty to be retained in such aggravated cases as those contemplated by the Earl of Haddington.

Lord Daistaa did not think that the number of persons implicated could be taken to define the degree of crime— Ile approved of the alteration of the law, because he did not like that such cases should come before a jury, as they now did, in the alternative " Do you choose to commit perjury, or commit what you believe to be murder ?" Juries now felt horror at the idea of depriving individuals, however guilty, of life. It was that feeling which induced the Jury at Gloucester, as stated by his noble friend, to return the extraordinary verdict of " Not Guilty."

He would inquire as to the opinion really entertained by the Judges.

Lord LYNDHURST suggested that the debate should be adjourned, in order that the amendment should be further considered : and after some more rather desultory conversation, the suggestion was adopted; the Duke of WELLINGTON remarking, that the only motion which seemed to lead to a decision was, " that the debate be adjourned," for all other questions seemed to be left open.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS.

In moving the second reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill, on Tuesday, the Lord CHANCELLOR stated the purpose of the measure— The object of the bill was to secure to the poor the benefit of property that had been devoted to their assistance ; and that object was attempted to be effected in two ways. There was at present a great and unnecessary expense upon the transfer of charitable property to new trustees,—a proceeding of con- tinual occurrence, from the necessity of executing a deed for the convey- ance of the property. The object of the enactment of the present bill was, that whenever new trustees were appointed, the act for that purpose should ipso facto vest the charitable property in the persons so appointed. There was another object still more pressing, and which arose from a defect in the Muni.. cipal Corporations Act. In that act, provision was made for transferring the property of charities from the corporate bodies, or persons holding under them. The old trustees were to retain possession till the 1st of August 1836 ; but the Act directed, that after that period, the Lord Chancellor, or the Commissioners of the Great Seal, should make such order as might be thought fit for the ad- ministration of the trusts of these estates. But there was nothing in the act to enable the Court of Chancery to vest the property of charities in the new trustees. Conveyancers bad been greatly puzzled to decide what had become of the legal estate in these charities ; some contending that it reverted to the Crown, others that it went to the heir-at-law of the original founder; and the only fact clearly ascertained was, that the property was not accessible for the purposes of the trust. Many persons holding these properties had un- doubtedly paid their rents, but others had set the new trustees at defiance; and as there was no legal power to compel payment, the objects of the trusts were defeated. The present bill proposed that the legal estate and interest in the property of which persons should be appointed trustees, should, by virtue of the act, be legally vested in them. Lord LYNDHURST objected to proceeding with the bill at so late a peaiod of the session, when its discussion was impossible. A great number of the trustees of charities which the bill would affect were Dissenters from the Church of England ; yet a great deal of the property to which this bill would make them administrators consisted of estates which were originally granted for purposes connected with the Church of England. In fact, in a great many Instances this property consisted of advowsons which this measure would absolutely place at the dispo- sition of Dissenters : in the city of Bristol alone, three advowsons in the Church would be placed within the gift of Dissenters, as members of trusts. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months ; by which time, he observed, the House would again be as- sembled.

Lord BROUGHAM could not see much force in Lord Lyndhurst's ob- jection : as it is, many such livings are in the gift of Dissenters ; and when they are in the gift of rate-payers, they are at the disposal of Jews.

The Earl of WARWICK and Lord WHARNCLIFFE supported the amendment. The second reading of the bill was negatived, by 52 to 36.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BELL.

This bill passed the various stages in the House of Lords in silence, until its committal on Thursday ; when Lord BROUGHAM took several technical and verbal objections to its construction. The first clause, which obliged persons to give evidence of bribery that had come to their knowledge, was so worded as to include counsel and attornies. The provision of indemnity for witnesses might also be extended to all the parties implicated in the commission of bribery. Lord Anrstoast said that the bill seemed to have originated in haste, as if its authors scarcely expected it to pass. He moved that it be committed that day three months ; but did not press his motion, on the understanding that all the clauses but the fourth should be expunged. The bill then passed the Committee ; only the fourth clause being retained.

ELECTION PETITIONS TRIAL BILL.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on the Election Petitions Trial Bill, in the House of Commons, on Monday, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated that its object was to remedy defects in the bill of last session— As they were on the eve of a general election, he thought it right to make the bill as perfect as possible. The present measure specified the grounds of disqualification in Members proposed to serve on Committees. These were certain degrees of relationship, or having voted at the election of the Member whose case should be tried. He proposed to give the Committee the power of excusing any Member who should assign reasons, grounded not on personal convenience but on regard for the impartiality of the tribunal. The act would also provide that the chairman should be liable to the same objections as the other members of the Committee, and that he might state any objections that occurred to him against other members. The principal amendment remaining had reference to the selection of chairmen. At present there was a permanent body of chairmen, from whom persons were selected to preside over certain Com- mittees. It being very difficult to procure the voluntary consent of gentlemen, especially if in the legal profession, to serve as chairmen, he thought it was but right that power should be given sufficient to insure a supply of persons competent to fill the office. He would limit the extent of duties to which a chairman should he liable : the present bill would free any member who should have served once as chairman, and who, on being called upon again to act, should claim the privilege of exemption from the liability to serve again during the same session of Parliament.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER regarded the bill as an improvement on the existing law ; but he thought that the proposed change respecting chairmen would do away with the whole advantages now arising from the Committee of Chairmen ; whilst to make a man permanent chairman for the whole session, which would in some respects be the better plan, would be to impose very onerous duties ; and it would be, perhaps, diffi- cult to find men in a new session of Parliament willing to undertake, or capable of performing them.

Lord Howicx thought that they would be driven at last to adopt the plan of having assistance from professional assessors.

The bill passed in Committee, and was reported.

NEW DESTRUCTIVE POWER FOR WAR.

On Wednesday, Mr. WAKLEY formally asked Lord Ingestre, whether a new invention, described in the Times newspaper of August and Sep- tember last, and in a pamphlet by Mr. Walesby, had been correctly described? The invention was of some enormous destructive power, which had been tried in the grounds of Mr. Boyd, in Essex, in the pre- sence of Sir Robert Peel, Sir George Murray, Sir Henry Hardinge, Sir Francis Burdett, Lord Ingestre, Colonel Garwood, and some other gen- tlemen. According to the description, a boat filled with solid timber, crossed in every direction, and clamped together with eight-inch spike-nails, was scattered in a thousand fragments by something dis- charged at it from a distance. Mr. Wakley thought the House and the country were entitled to some more information on the subject. If such a power were really in existence, it would put an end to war. Viscount 1NGESTRE said that the account of the experiment was per- fectly true. lie thought the invention of the greatest possible moment to the country ; and the same opinion had been expressed by Sir Richard Keats and Sir Thomas Hardy, now no more ; besides officers still living, among whom was Sir George Murray. Sir George had since recom-

mended the Government to inquire further into the matter. In that re- commendation he perfectly concurred. In justice to the inventor, the inquiry should be immediately proceeded with. This gentleman had had to struggle with the utmost pecuniary difficulties : he had expended a fortune in the prosecution of his invention—he had resisted the tempting offers of foreign powers to purchase his secret ; and it was cruel to him, and unjust to the country, that the merits of his discovery had not been long since investigated. Lord Ingestre had warned Lord Melbourne that he might feel it his duty to bring the subject before the House ; and bad the session continued he should probably have done so.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT bore testimony to the extraordinary powers of the invention ; and trusted that so important an engine might be se- cured to the country. Mr. BROTHERTON doubted the wisdom of making such inventions known ; and there the matter dropped.

MISCELLANEOUS.

PRIVATE BILLS. Mr. LABOUCHERE stated, on Monday, that if in the next Parliament he should hold his present situation, he should propose the precedent of the year 1831, when, on the assembling of the new Parliament, resolutions passed both Houses ordering that private bills which had been dropped by the dissolution should be placed in the same situation in which they had stood at the termination of the pre- vious Parliament, without subjecting the parties to additional expense. Lord Duncannon said the same in the House of Lords on Thursday.

FOOD AND WAGES ABROAD. On Thursday, Mr. WODEHOUSE moved an address to the Queen, praying that she would give directions that there be laid before Parliament, through the medium of her ambassadors or diplomatic residents abroad, copies of all regulations established in foreign factories, together with explanations in detail describing the character of the food used therein, and the wages paid, whether in specie or in kind. The motion was agreed to.

CORN-LAWS. On Monday, in the House of Lords, Earl Frrzwrixiast postponed indefinitely his motion on the Morn-laws. As the Duke of Wellington would not be present on Wednesday, and as Friday would be the only open day, he doubted whether he should be able to bring on the question in a substantive form this session.