Debates an Vuntaings in iparifatnent.

INCOME-TAX BILL, The Commons resumed in Committee, on Monday, the consideration of the Income-tax Bill in detail. Clause 2 was agreed to ; with the ex- ception, that, instead of limiting the duty on fractional parts of a pound to one halfpenny as the minimum, one penny was taken as the limit. Clause 3 was affirmed : it places the duties levied by the present act under the management of the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes. The' next clause empowers Commissioners of Land-tax in district meetings to appoint Commissioners for the general purposes of the present act, from among their own body, or in default of persons so qualified, other fit and proper persons from the district or from an ad- joining district. Mr. Hums wished the appointments under this bill to be made by Government; but Sir ROBERT PEEL repeated, that if tax-payers objected to going before the local authorities, they would have the option of going before Commissioners appointed by the Government. In reply to MY. BENJAMIN WOOD, Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he thought he could not accede to the clause which Mr. Wood had placed on the Notice-paper to prevent persons being charged more than their real ont, /Income ; but he would take care that he should have a full _ ,topportnnity to, bring his proposal before the House, in case Government ejiould finallytdecide against adopting it. .All the sudseading clauses up to 59 were then agreed to. Of these, the fifth is unimportant. Clauses 6 to 16 provide for the appointment of other Commissioners to act with the Land-tax Commissioners, members of the London Corporation, and of the other great corporate bodies in London, and Magistrates and Justices of the Peace in certain towns ; for the filling up of vacancies; for the acting of the Land-tax Commissioners in case others refuse or are unable to act r and they de- fine the qualifications of Commissioners. clauses 17 to 23 empower the General Commissioners to appoint

Additional Commissioners to exercise their powers, or to appoint two more of their own body to act either as Additional or General Commis- sioners: the Additional Commissioners may be subdivided into District Committees in distinct parishes, wards, or places, and they are to act separately in the execution of the act; and newly-appointed Commis- sioners are empowered to assess or levy arrears of duties for former years.

By clauses 24 to 35 the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, with Assistant Commissioners appointed by the Treasury, are authorized to appoint Assistant Commissioners for Special Purposes ; whose functions are to consist in assessing duties under Schedule A and Schedule C, and on foreign dividends, and in ascertaining exemptions under the act. Similar powers are given to the Governor and Directors of the Bank of England, of the South Sea Company, the Directors of the East India Company, the Commissioners for the collection of the National Debt, Commissioners appointed by the principal officers of the public departments, Commissioners appointed by the House of Commons, officers of corporations, and in certain eases Commissioners appointed by the Treasury ; who are to assess and levy duties on stipends, &C. severally within their control. These Commissioners, if willing, may continue to act from year to year : they are to be exempt from parish- offices and juries. Clauses 36 to 38 provide for the appointment of subordinates, and the oaths and obligations under which the officers of the act are to serve.

Clause 39 regulates the liability eif temporary absentees and temporary

residents. Clause 40 fixes bodies corporate and societies corporate or not corporate, for the amount of their income ; and subsequent clauses take in several descriptions of income not already enumerated. Clause 46 prescribes rules for the administration of oaths, the issue of sum- monses and notices the delivery to the Assessor of statements, lists of lodgers, &c. ; imposing vicarious liabilities in respect of these lists on trustees, agents, and corporation-officers, penalties for neglect of compliance. Clause 60 prescribes rules for estimating and ascertaining the in-

comes liable to duty in Schedule A. By one of these rules, public build- ings and offices belonging to colleges or university halls not occupied by

persons paying rent, and sums expended in the repair halls, buildings, public buildings of any hospital, public school or almshouse, not occu- pied by any officer or master whose income shall amount to 1504 and same spent in repairs of those buildings, are exempt from the tax. Mr. TURNER wished to exempt public institutions for scientific pur- poses; Mr. GEORGE WILLIAM WOOD mechanics institutions ; MY. HAWES proprietary schools; Mr. LABOUCHERE all buildings for the education of the humbler classes. None of these propositions were en- tertained except the last, which Mr. GOITLBURN promised to reconsider. Clauses up to 86 were then agreed to with little discussion. They contain some further rules for assessing duties under Schedules A and B, for the delivery of assessments and returns to the Commissioners, and for the verification of assessments and their rectification by the Commissioners. Clause 80 enables the Commissioners to order the value of lands to be ascertained by actual valuation. Clauses 82 to 85 allow relief to be granted to owners and occupiers for losses by flood or tempest. Clause 86 enacts that the first assessments under Sche- dules A and B shall remain in force for three years ; with power, how- ever, to correct any original error. Clause 87 provides rules for assessing and charging duties under Schedule C. On this clause Mr. HUME moved an amendment, to exempt from the tax any portion of any annuity or dividend payable half-yearly or yearly, which shall have accrued before the 5th day of April. But the amendment was rejected, by 159 to 84.

Mr. Fox Mainz moved an amendment to extend certain exemptions for repairs allowed in chapels of the Established Church to Dissenting places of worship ; but the rule itself was postponed for further consi- deration.

Mr. F. T. BARING moved another amendment to exempt annuities,

dividends, or shares held by foreigners not resident in Great Britain ; qouting the opinion of several eminent Ministers in favour of such ex- emption. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the motion ; which was supported by Mr. LABOUCHERE, as the particular impost constituted a very bad example in a great creditor-country. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox exempted foreign stock- holders from political motives ; but he did not see the distinction be- tween property held in the funds and mortgages or railroad property ; and if the foreign fundholder felt aggrieved, the recent rise of 4 per cent in English funds gave him an opportunity of relieving himself. Eventually, the amendment was rejected, by 203 to 40; and the House resumed.

THE PEOPLE'S PL-ririosr.

This petition was "presented" by Mr. Tnomas Dumont:BE, on Mon- day ; being piled up for that purpose in many folds, beside the table, which it overtopped. The House agreed to print it with the Votes. [The Petition was in type, for insertion at full length ; but the printer has been obliged to leave it out in making up the pages, by the pressure of newer and temporary matter. Besides demanding the enactment of the usual " six points," it declares the weight of the Na- tional Debt too great to be borne ; and hints at abolition of all "monopo- lies," including those of paper-money, machinery, land, religion, the public press, and railway-travelling.]

In recalling attention to the petition, on Tuesday, Mr. Taomas Dos- cosms thanked the House for the kind and respectful manner in which it had been received. The petition, he observed, had nearly three and a half millions of signatures; and, making every allowance for the sig- natures of females and youths, he was prepared to prove that there were above one and a half millions of families of the industrious classes sub- scribers to that petition. He had gathered in conversation with Mem- bers what were likely to be the objections to its prayer ; and one was, the doubt as to there being any precedent— But in 1785, the promoters of the Lancashire petition against the duties on cotton stuffs were heard at the bar; in 1789, persons who took a strong interest in the Slave-trade were heard at the bar, and afterwards referred to a Select Committee; in 1812, on the motion of Lord Brougham, and with the concur- rence of Lord Stanley, Mr. Bose, Mr. Baring, (Lord Ashburton,) and Lord Castlereagh, witnesses were heard against the Orders in Council. Unquestion- ably, the petition which he DOW presented, proceeding from every part of the empire, was equally deserving of attention. "They will not only prove to you that a state of great distress exists in this country, but they will also prove, if not to the satisfaction of every man in this House, at least to the conviction of every unprejudiced mind, that those grievances arise from the neglect and misrepresentation of their interests within these walls. The; will also state to you what they believe to be the remedy for the evils of which they complain. It will not be for you to decide tonight upon the merits of the remedy they may suggest ; that will be for your consideration after having heard their statements. After you shall have heard their arguments, then it will be my duty to propose what I conceive would remedy and correct the abuses and mismanagement under which this country is now labouring."

He traced the history of Constitutional Reform in the country for the last fifty or sixty years— Many call the Chartists wild and visionary ; but several eminent men of both Houses have advocated the same principles. When Major Cartwright advocated Reform in 1777, it was called "Radical Reform " ; and at that time the people almost repudiated the name of" Radical" as a stigma. In 1798, the Whigs took up the cause of Reform and they were then called " Re- formers " : but those who were originally called Radicals, and afterwards Reformers, are now called "Chartists"; the Chartists are the Radicals of former days.

He doubted if the House were aware of the state of the public mind or the country. The petition had received its number of signa- tures in the course of the last three or four months ; the persons in- terested in it are enrolled in about six hundred National Associations in England and Scotland; about 100,000 subscribe a penny weekly to keep up the agitation ; and between fifty and sixty thousand of those have pledged themselves to continue the subscription as long as they receive one shilling of wages, and until they are heard within the walls of the House by their representatives. The distress under which they suffer swells the cry ; and while that distress was recognized in the delusive promises of a Queen's Speech, without the offer of a remedy, it could not be expected but that they should make their way into that House and endeavour to do something for themselves. He had had, he dared say, five hundred communications on the subject ; and of those be read a few, describing the destitute state of numbers in Sheffield, Wolverhampton, Burnley, the Vale of Leven, Edinburgh, and other places, and the zeal and cooperation of numbers in the agitation for legislative changes from which they expect relief. In Burnley, the people were so famished that some disinterred a dead cow and used it for food. Would it be possible for such a state of things to continue? Surely Sir Robert Peel did not expect his Income-tax and Tariff to cure it? Nor could he mean to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and put down the Chartists by force. He appealed to the conduct of the Chartists themselves, to the procession which bore the petition, and to the terms of the last address issued by the National Convention, (which he read,) to show that the Chartists do not contemplate violence. The House might think their arguments visionary and absurd, but they could not refuse to hear them ; while by doing so they would gain some portion of a thing which they mach needed—the confidence, affection, and gratitude of the great body of the nation. Mr. Duncombe moved, "That the petitioners who signed the National Petition be heard at the bar of this House, by themselves, their counsel, or agents, in support of the allegations in their petition."

Mr. LEADER seconded the motion ; declaring it mere blindness to doubt the sincerity of the petitioners, or the increasing numbers in which they came before the House,—although Lord Campbell had said, after the prosecutions of the Chartists, that "Chartism had been put down." To Mr. Duncombe's list of precedents Mr. Leader added Mr. Roebuck's having been permitted to plead at the bar for the Lower Canadians.

Sir JANES GRAHAM said that nothing was further from his intention than to turn the paragraphs of the petition into ridicule— Unfortunately, the foundation of the petition was generally admitted : the distress was great; the number of petitioners complaining of that distress was large ; and their statements were, in many particulars, founded in fact. It was not, therefore, a question of fact to be investigated, but a question of policy to be adopted; it was not a question of fact to be inquired into, but a question of political remedy to be decided on by the House; and as he could not con- ceive a course more likely to be disastrous than to excite hopes which were certain to be disappointed, and to hold out expectations which those who con- sented to the inquiry were aware would be fallacious, he must oppose the pre- sent motion.

Mr. MACAULAY began by assuring the House that the absence of himself and others of the late Ministers on the night of Mr. Sharman Crawford's motion was purely accidental : he had been indisposed. He besought the House, if he should be betrayed into the use of any ex- pressions not entirely consistent with a calm view of the question, to attribute it to the warmth with which he viewed the subject generally, and to no want of kindness towards the petitioners. He could not con- sent to hear them at the bar, as if the House had not fully made up their minds to resist what was asked ; for he could not but see that the petitioners demanded the Charter. To some parts of the Charter, in- deed, he was not opposed—as the vote by ballot, the absence of a pro- perty qualification for Members ; and though he could not support an- nual Parliaments, he would have them shortened. But to the essence of the Charter, Universal Suffrage—suffrage, without any qualification at all, he was determinately opposed; and nothing short of that would have the smallest effect in diminishing the agitation which prevails— Universal suffrage would be fatal to all the purposes for which government exists, for which aristocracies exist; and it is incompatible with the very essence of civilization. Civilization rests on security of property : without that, the finest soil in the world, or the moral or intellectual institutions of any country would have no power to prevent its sinking into a state of barbarism ; but on the other hand, while property is secure, it is impossible to prevent any Country from advancing in prosperity ; and he never could intrust the supreme government of the country to any class which would, to amoral certainty, be in- duced to commit great and systematic inroads on the security of property: He assumed that that would be the result of the motion : and he drew his infer- ence from the very words of the petition, which say—" Your petitioners com- plain that they are enormously taxed to pay the interest of what is called the National Debt—a debt amounting at present to 800 millions of pounds—being only a portion of the enormous amount expended in cruel and expensive wars for the suppression of all liberty, by men not authorized by the people and who, consequently, had an right to tax posterity for the outrages committed by them upon mankind." Ulm was really to understand that as an indication of the opinion of the petitioners, it is an expression of an opinion that a natiomil bankruptcy would be just and politic. He made no distinction in the right of the fundholder to his dividend and of the landowner to his rent, and the tie. titioners made none ; but they lumped them together with all monopolies: they " respectfully mention the existing monopolies of the suffrage, of paper-money, of machinery, of land, of the public press, of religion, of.the means of travelling and transit, and ahost of other evils too numerous to mention, all arising from class-legislation." Could any thing be meant but a general confiscation—of land, of the funds, of railways, and machinery ?

He did not wonder at such views in uneducated men, impelled by distress to seek relief; but if education would mend those defects, would it not be as well to wait till education had exerted its influence? But grant the power of so sweeping a confiscation of property, and what must be the effect?—

" No experience enables us to guess at it. All I can say is, that it seems to me to be something more horrid than can be imagined. A great community of human beings—a vast people would be called into existence in a new position; there would be a depression, if not an utter stoppage of trade, and of all those vast engagements of the country by which our people were supported; and how is it possible to doubt that famine and pestilence would come before long to wind up the effects of such a system ? The best thing which I can expect, and which I think every one must see as the result is, that in some of the desperate struggles which must take place in such a state of things, some strong military despot must arise, and give some sort of protection, some se- curity to the property which may remain. • But if you flatter yourselves that, after such an occurrence, you would ever see again those institutions under which you have lived, you deceive yourselves : you would never see them again, and you would never deserve to see them."

Mr. ROEBUCK said he had seen the substance of Mr. Macaulay's speech before, in an article of the Edinburgh Review. Mr. Macaulay denied the grounds upon which the petitioners made their claim ; but on what grounds is the House of Commons itself constituted?— He was prepared to maintain that the same principle, if carried out, would bring together the whole body of the people to confer on public affairs in that place. There was a natural desire in every man to profit by another's labour: the object of government was to prevent that desire from breaking out into action. In a state of nature, if a man was strong, he obtained that which he desired. As men advanced, they met together and formed societies. In this country the people had hit upon the principle of deputation to a few to do that which in former times was done in the market-place by the whole body of the people. The House of Commans then sat there to prevent the desire that each man has of profiting by another's labour from coming into action : they were put over the people to watch for them ; but then, that being the case, who was to watch them—to watch the watchers? That could only be done with effect by making the House of Commons responsible to the people ; and the charge against the House of Commons on the part of the people was, that they delegated to a small section the power of enforcing this responsibi- lity, and that that small section had joined with the House of Commons to oppress the remainder of the people ; and that they did oppress the remainder of the people. The right honourable gentleman, holding the petition in his hands, had said that the petitioners made a demand for the establishment of a minimum of wages: if this were so, then he asked honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House whether they did not make a demand of ex- actly the same principle in the Corn-laws? It might be had political economy to demand a fixed minimum of wages, but it was a political economy taught by the landlords, who sought a minimum of prices. What class so interested in the security of property as the labouring class ? though Mr. Macaulay feared that to concede political privileges to them would make the country one scene of anarchy, bloodshed, and rapine— Mr. Roebuck, however, would say, do not judge the people of England by the language of the fierce, the malignant, and cowardly demagogue who had written the document on the table. He could name the individual, if the reptile were not beneath his contempt. But he called upon the House not to form their opinions from the language of that individual, but to judge of the conduct of that large class whose conduct had been borne witness to by a gentleman opposite—who had borne so patiently their long sufferings, and the daily op- pression to which they had been subjected : from this conduct of their he would beg the House to judge their countrymen, and not from the hasty word- ing of the idle and foolish document on the table. And if he were right, why anticipate the anarchy describe by the right honourable gentleman If the people entertained the opinions imputed to them, could any physical force at this moment in the country keep them down ? If three millions should rise up as a man to insist upon what they considered their just demands, what army could you raise that could succeed in keeping them quiet ? But what was it that produced this feeling on the part of the peqple?—it was a conviction OR their parts of the benefits which would arise to themselves from peace and obe- dience to the laws. Or let him put the evils of an aristocratic government against the evils assumed by Mr. Ma,a Oily : when the country is distressed— when the Government and the people asked for a reduction in the price of food—the exclusive and aristocratic body that form the majority in that as- sembly did every thing they could to keep up the price of provisions : was there no spirit of rapine in that ? But if the franchise were accorded to the working-classes, was it to be assumed that the wealthy and the well-informed would be excluded from that House ? No people of the earth, possessing a representative assembly, would consent to be governed except by what had been termed the thinking and leisure class ; and of those the wealthy must form the bulk.

Lord Flusters EGERTON, believing the petitioners to be sincere, found that three millions of persons had signed what Mr. Roebuck had called a trashy and contemptible petition ; and he concurred in Mr. Macaulay's reasons against taking that trashy and contemptible document into con- sideration. Mr. HAWES could not concede power to masses of men blindly led by the very men for whom Mr. Roebuck had expressed such merited contempt. Mr. HUME reasserted some of the allegations in the petition as undeniable; and said that the best mode of avoiding revolution was to listen to the well-founded complaints of the people.

Mr. WARLEY observed, that it had been expected that the newly- enfranchised boroughs would return some very troublesome men ; but, assuredly, they never would be annoyed with men of extreme opinions if they took their leaf of Reform out of Mr. H.iwes's book. He had expected, on a question so interesting to the working-class, that it would have been hailed with rounds of Kentish fire and other manifestations of sympathy from Members on the Ministerial side who had so often denounced the Whigs for harshness towards the poorer classes. The motion ought to be granted, if it were only that the House might have an opportunity of discovering that the people were not such sanguinary monsters as Mr. Macaulay had painted them. Lord Joust RUSSELL could not abandon his duty in coming there to express at once his respect for the petitioners and his abhorrence of their doctrines. Let the House reflect what might be the consequences of an inquiry in which all the institutions of the country should come into question—whit would he thought of them while they were delibe- rating whether faith should be kept with the public creditor, property

in land preserved, or other institutions maintained inviolate. It would be the signal for a general panic, and for the transfer of capital to other countries. He denied, however, that Mr. Macaulay had made accusa- tions against the people : he had only described the purport of the pe- tition, which Mr. Roebuck said was trumpery, and drawn up by a ma-

lignant and cowardly demagogue. It was true, as Mr. Roebuck said, that instead of regulating their affairs by a public assemblage in the market-place, the people now delegate their power to others—

It was quite true; that was a great and an admirable invention : but then, it was one that would subject the people to this inconvenience, that if the people should make a choice of those who might deceive them—if they put themselves into the hands of those who might be deserving of the epithets ap- plied to the author of this petition—if the people gave to such persons the powers of legislation—then they would be without a remedy ; then they might see carried into effect those attacks on property which they were disposed to respect; then they might find destroyed institutions that they themselves might approve of; and then that very respect for the law, that very quality

which the honourable and learned gentleman had so truly and so justly praised in the people of England, that ready and constant obedience to the law might be one of the means to their injury; for if they placed themselves in the bands of designing men—of men whose object was plunder—and if grasping leaders obtained the powers of legislation—that very quality for which they had been

praised, that willing obedience to the law, might be one of the means of carry- ing into effect that confusion which they feared; and the ruin of the people themselves must be utterly effected. He felt confident that if all the adult males in a place were assembled, and were made to understand that the present public creditors had obtained their claim upon the country for a lawful consi- deration they would repudiate the project of applying the sponge to the Public Debt ; but be was not so sure that those who had induced them to sign this petition might not mislead them to choose representatives who would call such an act one for the public good. The improved representation of modern times made it necessary that they should be the more careful as to those in whose hands they might place the power of electing Members of Parliament. He did not understand the "indefeasible and unalienable right" to vote for a Member of Parliament. Why should every adult be entitled to elect a Member of Parliament any more than to sit on a Jury ? It was a question of policy. Though generally wealth might be consi- dered in elections under universal suffrage, yet he saw no security against a popular ferment in the case of a general election. The con- stitution was too precious to be put to such a hazard. It might be safer in the United States, where no monarchy exists, where every officer of the state is elected, where there is no established church, where there are no great masses of property collected in few hands; but in this country, the many ;institutions which hold society together would be held up as prizes to the people in times of distress. The de- mand would be best met by a direct negative.

Sir ROBERT PEEL was quite prepared to resist the motion for the bearing, on the ground of his opposition to the Charter, as he did not mean to awaken hope without just grounds—

The honourable gentleman said that the motion did not pledge them to any thing; but this petition was nothing more or less than an impeachment of the constitution and of the whole frame of our society. The petition said it was wrong to maintain an Established Church ; and, after many other statements, declared as a postscript that the people of Ireland were entitled to a repeal of the Union. How could he be justified in listening to such demands, or what

could be the practical result of bearing four or five speeches at the bar on such topics ? Were the speeches to be made at the bar of the House to be replied to ? Supposing that they failed in producing their effect, was the demand then to be that he should enter into an inquiry with respect to every allegation which might be brought forward ? should he admit that inquiry, or refuse it ? The petition had been characterized as not representing the sentiments of those who signed it—as a document at variance with the judgments, with the good sense of the three millions and a half of petitioners; and as a document which had been imposed upon them by a "cowardly and malignant demagogue," whom the honourable Member in question knew, and from his personal know- ledge was entitled to speak of with disrespect. He knew not to whom the honourable gentleman alluded—he would take the description from the honour- able gentleman. And should he permit the author of the petition—the man described in such terms—the man who had so perverted to his own evil pur- poses the minds of the intelligent, the industrious, the labouring classes of -England—should he admit that man to the bar of the House—and he of course would be the man who would come forward to defend the allegations of the petition—should not he be countenancing gross delusion if he permitted him, the author of the petition which put forth an hundred points, the acquiescence in each of which would be an evil to the interests of the petitioners? Was such a person one whom he should admit to the bar of the House to establish the rights of the labouring classes of England ?

What was it gave to the law that influence over the people which Mr. Roebuck described?— It was a conviction on the part of the people that it was just. Did they believe that if the people of England were in that condition in which the peti- tion asserted they lived—did they believe that if the spirit of the country was justly described in that memorial, which stated that "your honourable House has enacted laws contrary to the expressed wishes of the people, and by uncon- stitutional means enforced obedience to them, thereby creating an unbearable

despotism on the one hand and degrading slavery on the other "—if such, he said, was a just representation of the feelings of the people with respect to the law of England, would that people acknowledge that tacit influence of the law which gave to the decrepit constable the power which he now possessed ? Did the House imagine that the high-spirited people of England would have that

respect for the law which they now exhibited, if they did not believe that the law was such as guaranteed the rights of property, and preserved the blessing of liberty—as a law for the poor man as well as for the rich ?

Mr. Wakley had contrasted English people with foreign nations, and said that none were more patient, more intelligent, or more high-

spirited : but what had formed that national character, if not those laws and institutions whose impeachment the petition now demanded? And on the other hand, how could he believe that high character of the petitioners, if they had agreed to such a petition as Mr. Roebuck had described ? Ile agreed with Lord John Russell, that if the people had been deluded in this instance, they might be deluded again, when they had acquired that power which others might abuse. He believed uni- versal suffrage to be incompatible with the maintenance of a mixed enonarchy, under which the people had obtained, for one hundred and fifty years, more of peaceful happiness, more of true liberty, than the people of any other country possess, not excepting the United States of America—excepting, indeed, no country whatever ; and he would not risk the loss of blessings which they would never find in any rash or precipitate changes, backed by arguments however plausible.

Mr. DUNCOMBE briefly replied ; declaring that he would not have presented the petition if he believed it to have the objects imputed to it : it is a gross misrepresentation to say that the people seek a sweeping confiscation of property. He intimated that the petition had not been drawn up by the person whom Mr. Roebuck called " a malignant and cowardly demagogue" : it was drawn up by M`Dougal, Williams, and John Campbell. He quoted a declaration by the English to the Scotch Chartists, to show that they did not abide by the literal terms of the petition : all that the great body of the working-classes want is, to be heard at' the bar of the House : after that, it would be for him or some other Member to suggest a remedy for the evils to which they deposed.

On a division, the numbers were—for the motion, 49 ; against it, 287 ; majority against hearing the petitioners at the bar, 236.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Lord BROUGHAM moved, on Monday, that the House of Lords should send a message to the other House of Parliament to ask for reports of three Election Committees which had just been laid before that House. He had thought it proper to delay the motion of which he had given notice last session, for a Committee to consider the Bribery-laws, while those inquiries were carried on. Some progress, however, had now been made ; three Committees had reported: it was declared that in Ipswich bribery had prevailed; and it was recommended that Sudbury should be disfranchised, on account of the grossness of the bribery, and of its universality. It would be well for the House of Lords to consider the subject early, before the overwhelming pressure of business towards the close of the session. In 1834, a bill was sent up from the other House, which provided that on a single vote in each house, followed by a joint address to the Crown, a borough might be disfranchised ; so that all the great boroughs of England might have been disfranchised by a single vote of the majority on the side of the party in power. With Lord Ellenborough's and the Duke of Welling- ton's concurrence, he introduced clauses to amend that bill ; but the amended bill was postponed by the Commons, on the ground that it was a totally new measure. By the amended bill, election petitions would have been submitted to a tribunal composed of seven Commoners and five Peers as a Jury, with one of the Judges of England, not a Member of either House, presiding ; and an appeal lay to the Judges in Westminster Hall. To some such tribunal would Parliament even- tually be obliged to resort. Since that, the concurrence of the Lords had been asked in two other bills to regulate the proceedings of Elec- tion Committees ; and undoubtedly the law had been much improved ; but it was incumbent on the House to ascertain its working. He re- ferred to the Votes and Proceedings of the Commons to show that working- " By the latter bill, six Members were appointed to form a Committee of selection ; these six Members were to choose, in the first place, a panel of Chair- men ; and in the next place, to choose in each particular instance six Members to form a Committee; which six Members, sitting under one of the Chairmen, were to dispose of the merits of an election petition. This is, in short, the measure that we agreed to, and from which, I think, we had a right to expect great improvement in the former election practice. The manner in which the House of Commons in its wisdom thought fit to act under this bill is as fol- lows. It has of late years been the practice of the House of Commons to print, as part of their Votes, the names of all Members who vote in each division. From this practice there necessarily follows a classification of Members; for, if you find on those Votes the same Members always voting together, you natur- ally conclude there is some diversity, whereby they may he classed in an order of arrangement. When you see that the same Members are always recorded as voting for the measures propounded by the Government of the day, and that other Members as invariably vote against the measures propounded by the Government of the day, it is not without foundation that an opinion gets abroad that there is such a thing as party, and that party considerations influ- ence the votes of that House. Now I find that the Speaker, called upon to name those six Members as a Committee of selection, chooses three Members who are always found ranged among those who support the Government, and three Members who arc as invariably found ranged among those who vote against the Government : and to leave no doubt that it is with that view that the arrangement is made, the names on this Committee of selection are placed alternately; the first is a Government Member, the second an Opposition Member, the third a Government Member, the fourth an Opposition Member, the fifth a Government Member, and the sixth an Opposition Member. This Committee of elisors, as our ancestors would have designated them, are then. called on to elect six Members to form the Election Committee ; and in this they proceed on the same principle on which their own selection was made. Fifteen Committees have already been chosen, and I find that each consists of three Ministerial and three Opposition Members, also chosen alternately ; the first a Ministerial, the second an Opposition Member, the third again a Ministerial Member, and so on : and, that no doubt may remain—to prevent even the possibility of a doubt, for what purpose, and with what view the choice is made, twelve Chairmen are selected, not alternately indeed, but on the same principle as the Committees themselves, namely, six Ministerial and six Opposition Members are chosen as Chairmen. The consequence of all this is, that each Committee is composed of four Members of the one party and three of the other party ; and you have thus a court of justice of the highest order, a court of judicature appointed to consider questions of the highest im- portance—questions compared with which ninety-nine cases in a hundred, nay, nine hundred and ninety-nine cases in every thousand of those disposed of by our judges and juries by the common law of the land, sink into utter insignifi- cance, whether we consider the gravity of the stake or the vehemence excited by party-spirit—a court of judicature, with four judges belonging to one party and three to the other, all solemnly sworn well and truly, upon their solemn oaths, to try the merits of the petition before them ! 1 cannot help re- garding this as a most insulting course. What is it more or less than to say that they suspect that those men act, not according to their oaths, but accord- ing to considerations of party ? There must be suspicion, for nothing less can account for such a system of choice."

What were the results of a tribunal so constituted?—

" In how many cases has the decision been according to, and in how many cases has it been contrary to, the party politics of the majority ? There have been ten cases of contested elections, which have led to the unseating of the sitting Members. I know it is an opinion in Westminster Hall, that if a case is to be tried by a prejudiced judge, it is better that it should be tried by one judge than by seven. As the case now stands, the party that has an &dyer- fiery in the Chairman knows that that adversary is backed by three other political adversaries ; whereas, if that Chairman sat alone, he would be likely to feel a heavier degree of responsibility, and would be more likely to give the case a full and impartial hearing. I throw out this merely as an opinion en- tertained at Westminster Hall; and come now to the question I have asked, as to the result of these selections. There have been ten Committees on con- tested elections that have ended in unseating the bitting Members and in seating the petitioners. I apply again to the test of the Votes of the House of Commons to ascertain in how many cases the decision has been according and in how many cases the decision has been contrary to the politics of the majority. in nine cases out of ten has the decision been according to the politics of the majority. I have no doubt that in all those cases the Commit- tees came to a conscientious judgment ; but I would ask any man who calmly considers the structure of those courts of justice—the manner in which each of them is studiously formed with a view to the party-affections of the judges— the fact that the judges are themselves parties to the actions they have to try, and that in nine cases out of ten the decisions have been according to the party views of the majority—I would ask those who have calmly reflected on the recorded votes of the House of Commons, whether the decisions to which these Committees have come can do othernise than create, I will not say a doubt, but at least some hesitation as to the perfect purity of the tribunals."

There is not even the check on the Committee of publicly declaring the reasons of their judgment. The system, he had uo doubt, was one which could not last. It was said that the House of Commons would not surrender their jurisdiction ; but the Grenville Act of 1770 took the jurisdiction away from the House to intrust it to a separate tribunal, though still composed of Members of the House. Ile concluded with moving, "That a message be sent to the House of Commons to request a communication of the evidence taken before the Sudbury, the Ipswich, and the Great Marlow Election Committees."

The Loan CHANCELLOR intimated that there would be a difficulty in procuring the desired documents.

Viscount CANTERBURY, concurring in much of what Lord Brougham had said, still thought that the only reply to the message would be, that the House of Commons would send an answer by messengers of their own ; but that they would never find time to send it. He believed that, in consequence of the prevalence of the baneful practice of bribery, persons were beginning to look upon it as a sort of equitable juggle, in which the successful party was guilty of no im- morality : but it was of the utmost importance that, in their attempts to put a stop to this evil practice, they should carry the Commons cor- dially along with them ; and he should deeply regret the taking of any step which would have a tendency to excite a feeling of jealousy in the House of Commons.

In deference to these objections, Lord Bnoucuan withdrew his motion.

BOROUGH Macisritacy.

Mr. Hiarr presented a petition, on Thursday, from Hull, complaining of the manner in which Magistrates had been appointed ; and he moved for copies of circulars issued by the Secretary of State between the months of August and December last, to Town-Clerks and Magis- trates' Clerks, requesting information as to the state of the Magistracy in the several towns ; this motion being merely the form of raising a debate on the general question. He reviewed the state of affairs before the present Ministers came into office— Up to 1835, the Municipalities of England, almost without exception, pos- sessed the right of electing their own Magistrates; a right which they inhe- rited from the earliest founders of those institutions. That right Lord Grey's Government preserved in the bill for reforming Municipal Corporations in Scotland. Lord Melbourne's bill for Municipal Reform in England and Wales contained an equivalent provision ; but in one of the angry quarrels which occurred at that time with the other House, it was struck out there. Lord John Russell acquiesced in that mutilation of the hill, rather than lose the measure altogether: but he said that he did not think that any Minister would be found who would withhold from the Corporations their right ; and that as long as he held the seals of the Home Office, he should feel it his duty to adhere to the ancient practice of the land, and not to appoint any Magistrates until he had consulted the Town•Councils. On that understanding the bill passed. Thus, in 1833, was a right, which had just been confirmed in Scotland, wrested from the people of England. Lord John Russell had acted up to his declaration : and he was followed by Lord Normanby.

Sir James Graham has followed a different course— During the last eight months, four hundred Magistrates have been appointed. For what ? because the number was insufficient ? or because justice had hem improperly administered ? Lord Lyndhurst, when this question was mooted lately in the Upper House, had admitted that the Town-Councils recom- mended too many Liberal Magistrates to suit the purposes of the present Government, and that it was necessary to restore the balance, and to snake a large number of Conservative Magistrates, in order to secure to the party the power of licensing public-houses—a power to be used for electioneering purposes. It was reported that a deputation waited on Sir James Graham from the Conservative Association of Devonport, and while they were dilating on the special merits of some Conservative candidates for the Magistracy, Sir James exclaimed, "Never mind about particulars : how many will it take to swamp them ?" [Sir James Graham here said that he had not the slightest recollection of the circumstance.] Mr. Ilutt did not quarrel with his appoint- ment of any individual. In Gateshead there were six Magistrates, one being a

Conservative; six Conservatives were added to the list, giving the town as

Many Magistrates as Policemen. Now the Town-Council had recommended to Lord John Russell a list exclusively of Liberals; but Lord John said that must not be, and the result was that a gentleman of the Tory party was admitted. He believed Sir James Graham bad placed on the bench exclusively members of one party, for party and political purposes; a proceeding which could hardly be paralleled in our history since the days of Charles the Second.

It should be remembered that these municipal tribunes are practically the only counts open to the poor ; and is it right that they should be political? It had now been declared that the nomination of the Town- Councils was to be set aside, and that every succeeding Secretary of State was to appoint as many Magistrates as suited his political pur- poses. Mr. Hutt finished by calling upon Sir Robert Peel to interpose in proceedings little calculated to reflect credit on his Administration.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, after sneering at Mr. Hutt for the warmth of

Ids manner when he had just left the calm of that judicial tribunal the Southampton Election Committee, and the evasive nature of his motion in not calling for a vote of the House on the conduct of Government, avowed that he alone was responsible for the appointments. It might, he observed, be desirable to have Magistrates free from political bias ; but to expect that in Magistrates chosen by the rate-payers, were ab- surd. He agreed, however, that persons exercising authority in the

limited communities of boroughs should not be tainted with the cha- racter of partisans ; but Mr. Hutt himself said that he had no complaint to make against the individuals appointed. Upon a full discussion of the Municipal Reform Bill, the nomination by Town-Councils was re- jected, and the absolute power of nomination was vested in the Crown and its responsible advisers. He had great doubts whether Lord John Russell was right in frustrating that intention of the Legislature, and giving the power back to the Town-Councils. But Lord John had not even abided by his own rule— In Bridport, he set aside the recommendation of the Town-Council, who proposed a mixed Commission of the Peace, and appointed five Liberals and one Conservative. lie disregarded the repeated recommendation to appoint one particular gentleman in Hastings. In Bristol, a Town-Council number- ing twenty-five Conservatives, and twenty-four Liberals, he recommended twelve Magistrates on each side ; but Lord John appointed twelve Whig- Radicals and only six Conservatives. The list sub hitted by the Poole Town- Council was altogether rejected, and of seven Magistrates appointed only one was Conservative. The late Government had not scrupled to appoint brewer* and practising attornies; appointments which Sir James had endeavoured to avoid. Lord John's selection of Conservative Magistrates was curious : some- times they were persons who had told him distinctly they would not act, at. other times they were too infirm to act, or they were not qualified. In Nor- wich, for instance, six additional Magistrates were appointed in 1837—three Whigs in the prime of life, two aged and one paralytic Conservatives ; the numbers already in the Commission being ten Whigs and three Conservatives.

Sir James explained the nature of the recent change : and went over a long list of towns in which Lord John Russell had appointed Ma- gistrates, showing an immtnse preponderance of Whig-Radicals.

The gross result was, that out of 1,026 Magistrates, hut excluding from that number 57 Magistrates in thirteen places where Sir James had made no change, there were 743 Whig-Radicals and 226 Couservatives. lie had in- creased the gross number to 1,435 ; thinking it better to restore the balance by that process, than by removing any one on account of enmity to the present Government. The balance of parties had, however, in very few cases been inverted, and on the whole the majority remained with the Whig-Radicals ; the numbers now being—Whig-Radicals, 745; Conservatives, 629. The ap- pointments had been made on information derived from the highest quarters. How did the late Government derive their information ? Sir James read a letter from Mr. James Coppock, the Parliamentary agent, to " J. Bowles, Esq., Windsor," asking information as to the profession, trade, and polities of five gentlemen, all Liberals, and all of them afterwards appointed to the Magistracy.

Sir James challenged investigation into his appointments ; observing that none of his Magistrates had as yet been convicted of high treason— it was not he who had appointed Mr. John Frost.

Several Members eagerly entered into explanations of the state of matters in towns with which they were connected in some way ; the Opposition Members defending the late Government and attacking the present, and the Ministerial Members doing the reverse.

Mr. WAKLEY objected, that Sir James Graham had sought to cure what he described as an evil in the administration of justice, by applying precisely the same vicious principle. According to the pre- cedent which he had set, when the Radicals come into power they will have to do something of importance to counterbalance what has Deem done by the two parties before them. Ile knew that the country is suffering from the appointment of incompetent judges, because political considerations prevail in the appointment of all, from the Lord Chan- cellor to Justices of the Peace.

Sir ROBERT PEEL laughed at the trivial nature of Mr. Hutt's motion ; excusing it on the score of difficulty in framing one which would have suited his purpose: he could not have moved a resolution that the Crown should always abide by the recommendation of Town-Councils, for that would not have suited Lord John Russell ; or that the majority of Judges should not be selected from one political party ; or that, without reference to the Town-Councils or other authorities, men should be chosen for their fitness. To correct misconception, Sir Ro- bert explained, that Government did not defend their appointments on the ground that they were those of political partisans, and that they followed the example set by their predecessors ; but that they found a great preponderance of one party on the bench, and that it was neces- sary for justice and public peace that parties should be more nearly balanced. He went over a long list of places in which the Whig ap- pointments had been made, placing them in a different classification from Sir James Graham's, to show that in inland towns and seaport towns, great boroughs and little boroughs, the Whigs had secured im- mense majorities. He admitted that popular opinion should be con- sulted in political appointments, but denied that it should prevail in judicial appointments.

In a somewhat discursive though not a very long speech, Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that Mr. Frost had been appointed on the recom- mendation of his fellow-townsmen backed by the Lord-Lieutenant of the county. lie called to mind, that when the Whigs came into office, after years and years of Tory rule, the proportion of County Magistrates was not as 755 to 220, but rather as 1,000 to 1 ; yet the Whigs had not appointed some 700 or 800 Liberal County Magistrates to keep up a. balance.

Mr. Hurr having replied, with some asperity towards Sir James Gra- ham, the motion was carried, there being no opposition to it.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

On the Order of the Day for the second reading of this bill on Wednesday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM interposed a statement, that Govern- ment had renewed expectation, on information derived front highly respectable persons acting with the majority in the Church of Scot- land, that such an opportunity of settling the Church question was now afforded, from the temper of 'the parties to which he had referred, as had not at any former period presented itself; and of that opportunity Ministers were most anxious to take advantage. They had resumed a discussion of the question with the parties principally interested in and he did not despair that their communications would lead to a favourable result. He would state very briefly the principles upon which alone Government were disposed to settle the question— They were, first to defend the civil right of the patron, with respect to his right of presentation ; secondly, to defend and to assure the indisputable right of the parishioners who were heritors to make objections to that presentation ; and, thirdly, to maintain what he believed to be the right and authority of the Spiritual Courts to decide on those objections.

Under these circumstances, he asked Mr. Campbell to postpone his measure for a few weeks.

Mr. CAMPBELL agreed, for the reasons stated by Sir James Graham, to postpone the second reading of his bill for six weeks.

Mr. Fox MAULE was surprised at the course taken by Mr. Campbell. As nearly as be could gather from Sir James Graham's words, the Go- vernment measure must be neither more nor less than Lord Aberdeen's bill; on that measure the people and Church of Scotland had already expressed their opinion, and they would never give their sanction to it. He moved that the bill be now read a second time • as it was high time that the principle of the measure should be adopted or rejected, and that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which is about to meet, should know the result.

The motion for postponement was supported by Mr. PLumemE; by Sir Bosnia. PEEL—who said that Government acted on voluntary com- munications from Scotch clergymen on both sides the question ; and by Mr. Holtz and Captain WEBITSS—who knew no instance in which such a request by Government had been refused. Mr. Maule's amendment WBB supported by Mr. COCHRANE, MT. P. M. STEWART, Mr. WALLACE, Mr. Emaczjunior, and Mr. RUTHERFORD. On a division, the numbers were—for the second reading, 48; for the postponement, 131. CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

On the motion of Mr. REDINGTON, it was ordered, on Thursday, that the Speaker do not issue his writ for the election of a Member for Sud- bury before the 11th of June.

On Monday, the following Select Committee was appointed " to in- quire into the practice of this House with regard to the summoning of witnesses to attend Election Committees, and to report whether any and what alteration in the law upon this subject is required—Mr. Soli- citor-General, Lord Granville Somerset, Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Attorney-General, Viscount Mahon, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Pemberton, Sir George Grey, Viscount Howick, Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. David Dundas, Mr. Jervis, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Roebuck.

The Nottingham Committee reported, on Wednesday, that Sir John Cam Hobhouse and Sir George Gerard de Hochepied Larpent were duly elected. [Sir George Larpent, however, has since accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.] For Thetford there had been a double return, of Lord Easton, a Whig, and Sir James Flower, a Tory. The Committee met on Wed- nesday ; a name was struck off Lord Euston's poll ; no further effort was made on his part ; and the Committee at once decided that Sir James Flower was duly elected.

The Southampton Committee resolved yesterday— "That James Bruce, Esq., commonly called Lord Bruce, and Charles Cecil Martyn, Esq., were, by thew agents, guilty of bribery at the last election of burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of Southampton. That James Bruce, Esq., commonly called Lord Bruce, and Charles Cecil Martyn, Esq., were not duly elected burgesses to. serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Southampton. That it had not been proved to the Committee that acts of bribery bad been committed with the knowledge and sanction of the said James Brace, commonly called Lord Bruce, and the said Charles Cecil Martyn."

' The announcement that the Speaker was at prayers interrupted the deliberation of the Committee on the question whether the election was void.