port a bill which was essential for the present and support the bill, he would not maintenance of peace, and the protection | allow him to be run down in his absence, of life and property? Colonel Salwey admitted the necessity of a police in all large towns, but then that police ought to be a constitutional force, and he did not think the police sought to be established by this bill would be constitutional. The military would be glad to be relieved from a most painful duty, and which was repugnant to their feelings; but any police force that was established ought to be established under the entire control of the parties who required it. Mr. C. Buller had never heard more unfounded imputations than those which had been thrown out against the opponents of this bill. It had been argued by the noble Lord and the other supporters of this bill, that its opponents were adverse to the establishment of an efficient police-that they were the friends of riot and disturbance-and that they wished to see the people killed by the soldiers. Even the hon. Member for Salford had joined in those imputations, and said that the opponents of the bill were actuated by factious motives. Now, he certainly did not generally agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but in this case he certainly did, because he agreed with them in their desire to see the public peace preserved by the old constitutional forms. Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought, no doubt, that that object could be accomplished by means of the old police commissioners. He did not acquiesce in that course, because he thought the police of Manchester and Birmingham should be by an insinuation that he was for supporting arbitrary and unconstitutional power. He had opposed these bills from the very outset. He thought the Government were treading on dangerous ground. That opinion might be erroneous; but nothing could be more unfair than for the sup. porters of the bill to attribute factious motives to its opponents; and should it happen that by a kind of miraculous interference, and aid from hon. Gentlemen opposite, he should be exceedingly glad if they should by their united efforts succeed in throwing out this measure. He asked the House, and he asked the Government if it were decent, at this period of the Session, when so many Gentlemen of opposite political feeling joined in eprecating this bill as hostile to the best interests and liberties of the country, to persist in pressing this measure without a more deliberate appeal to the opinion of Parliament. Mr. Briscoe said, that the bill was not of a permanent nature. The noble Lord had distinctly stated that it was to continue only till the disputes relative to the validity of the charter was settled by the Court of Queen's Bench. He had no intention of attributing motives to hon. Members, but certainly their conduct wore the appearance of faction, and seemed to proceed from a desire to embarrass the Government. But he believed that the good sense of the people of England would induce them to view the matter differently, and that the result would tend much to strengthen the position of the Govern under the control of their respective town-ment. He trusted that the bill would be councils, freely chosen by the inhabitants. But then he joined hon. Gentlemen opposite in resisting this bill, which placed the police of those towns in the hands of persons to be appointed by a central government. The noble Lord had said, that the course proposed to be adopted by this bill was suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. All that the right hon. Baronet had said was, that under the particular circumstances of the case, he should wish that principle to be applied to Birmingham, and he had not said when he gave that inch he wished the noble Lord to take an ell, and go on applying this centralized sytem of police to the whole country. If the right hon. Baronet did not think it worth while to be carried by a considerable majority. The Government were entitled to the gratitude and confidence of the country, for having introduced it solely from a desire to promote the peace and prosperity of Manchester. Mr. Kemble felt considerable difficulty in making up his mind as to the course he should adopt in regard to this bill. He should object to a bill of this nature, if he did not conceive it was required by the necessity of the case. But he could not agree in thinking that, because there had been no such riots and outrages committed in Manchester as had taken place in Birmingham, they should, therefore, wait till they had actually happened, instead of taking means to prevent their occurrence. It appeared to him that if the House did not pass this bill, it would incur an immense hazard, and he should vote for it. Mr. Hume, before the House divided, wished to state very shortly the grounds on which he should give his vote. He had opposed the Birmingham Police Bill, because it was against the wishes of the town-council of Birmingham. He should now state the reasons why, on this occasion, he should take a different course. The magistrates and corporation of Manchester were a popular body. The bill is supported by the whole of that corporation. While the whole town-council of Birmingham were against the Police Bill for that town, the whole town-council of Manchester were to a man in favour of this bill. As regarded the petition which had been presented by the noble Lord opposite, the fact was, that out of a population of 280,000, that petition had been got up almost entirely by Conservatives; and as the mayor and every one of his colleagues, freely chosen by a large majority of the inhabitants, were in favour of this bill, he could not refuse to give them his vote and sanction. He certainly wished to see the police in every town in the hands of its corporation; but when he found every one of the Manchester town-council saying they wished for this bill, as a temporary means of preserving the peace of the community-and particularly when he referred to what had so lately taken place, with a view of inducing the people to leave their work at the factories - he thought the House was called upon to support the measure, because, by supporting the bill, they were, in fact, supporting the corporation. Mr. T. Duncombe said, the House was placed in a situation of difficulty between the speeches of the hon. Members for Westbury and Kilkenny. But he looked to the petition as emanating from men of all parties, signed by 7,200 rate-payers, composed of men of all shades of politics, Tories, and Radicals, and Whigs, if such things could be found in Manchester. The noble Lord laboured under a most extravagant delusion in supposing that the opponents of this bill were indifferent to the loss of human life. He never heard any one in that House say that the loss of life was unimportant. He declared freely that it was the duty of the Ministry and of the House, to preserve the peace and VOL. L. {n} protect property, but that might be done without violating the dearly-cherished rights of the people. These bills violated the sacred principle of local and selfgovernment, and he asked hon. Members to reject it on principle, without any reference to party politics. The people ought to have the control of their money, whether it was expended for the relief of the poor, or for the preservation of the peace. If a contrary principle should once be adopted, it would not stop either at Birmingham or Manchester, but would be extended throughout the country, whenever the miserable fears of the ministry of the day should induce them to make such a proposition. Sir R. Price was surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard. A few days since he exclaimed against the Government for having the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and now he very readily votes with them himself. He thought the House would assume a fearful resposibility in rejecting the measure, which he believed to be both necessary and constitutional, and which he earnestly entreated the House not to be so foolish as to throw out. Sir C. Grey: According to the old constitutional law of the country, the police were held to be appointed by the Crown. Everybody knew that the old constabulary force was appointed by the magistrates, and the magistrates held their commissions from the Crown. That was the general principle; but there were exceptions, as in the case of town councils having charters with a ne intromittant clause. Those gentlemen who argued that this bill was unconstitutional, were bound to show that the town of Manches. ter came under that class of exception. The validity of the charter was disputed, and it seemed doubtful if there were any elective body in those towns to choose or manage a police. What course, then, could the Government adopt more in accordance with the ancient theory and practice of the constitution, than that of appointing a police force, pending those disputes, under the direct authority of the Crown? He should cordially vote for the bill. Mr. Fielden considered the bill entirely a party measure, brought forward for the purpose of giving strength to the charter. The passing of it would only kindle dissatisfaction into a flame. If the K Cochrane, Sir T. J. Darby, G. Duncombe, T. Ellis, J. Fielden, J. Finch, F. Hector, C. J. Holmes, W. Lincoln, Earl of Lowther, J. H. Polhill, F. Salwey, Colonel Williams, W. TELLERS. Somerset, Lord G Grimsditch, T. House in Committee. On clause 1, Mr. Hindley moved that the words "her Majesty" be omitted, and the words "town-council" inserted in their place. The Committee divided on the clause as it stood:-Ayes 65; Noes 10: Majority 55. Hoskins, K. Hume, J. Hutton, R. Inglis, Sir R. H. Kemble, H. Labouchere, rt.hon.II. Lincoln, Earl of Philips, M. Price, Sir R. Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Rich, H. Rolfe, Sir R. M. Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A. Smith, R. V. Somerset, Lord G. Yates, J. A. TELLERS. Baring, F. T. Parker, J. List of the NOES. Aglionby, A. H. Ewart, W. Hector, C. J. Salwey, Colonel Clause agreed to. Thornely, T. Vigors, N. A. Williams, W. TELLERS. Hindley, C. Duncombe, T. Bill went through the Committee. THE BOLTON POLICE BILL Wwent through Committee. LIGHTING THE HOUSE.] Sir F. Trench rose to bring forward his motion: "To call the attention of the House to the experiments submitted to the Bude Light Committee, and to move, that the lustres be furnished with candles, short threes to the pound, instead of long threes, which give no more light than six to the pound, and which, therefore, defeat the intention of making a fair comparison between the power of the wax light and Bude light." The hon. and gallant Officer said, he was aware of the ridicule which attached Thomas Freemantle, from Edinburgh, for the Extension of the Church Establishment; and from the Nottingham Board of Guardians, against the Poor-law Commission Continuance Bill.-By the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from Bosmere, Claydon, Ramsgate, and Yeovil, against the Sale of Beer Bill. to the subject, but his object was to add to the comfort of the House, and to obtain fair play for the wax lights, in competition with the Bude light. He wished fair play for the gentleman's light, against the philosopher's light. Nothing could be more unfair than the proceedings of the committee. He admitted that the Bude light was magnificent, but it was utterly unfit to be used in that House. It might answer in a new House, but it could not be adopted in the present House without great danger, and he was astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have lent himself to the wild proceedings of the committee. Among other suggestions, it had been proposed that the House should be furnished with calico curtains calico covers for the seating-and it was recommended, as the means of adding still more to the effect, that the Members | University of Oxford, would state what should be attired in calico garments. The additional sixty candles added to the lustres, were of an inferior quality, so that they gave no more light than formerly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in the chair, would recollect a letter which he had the honour to address to him on this subject, in which he proposed that the lustres should be furnished with short threes instead of long threes. He wished to have the comparison tested fairly, and although he was aware of the contempt with which such a matter must be viewed, vet, as it had been originally put into his hands, he felt called upon to go through with it, and only asked for a fair comparison between the power of the wax light, and the Bude light. Sir R. Inglis thought the House greatly indebted to his hon. and gallant Friend for the trouble he had taken in the matter, and for the improvements he had introduced in the lighting of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the hon. Member should leave the matter in the hands of those who was responsible for lighting the House. Motion withdrawn. ---------- HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time:-King's Inn, Dub lin; Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland). -Read a third time:-Patents for Inventions. Petitions presented. By Mr. O'Connell, from Waterford, and National Trades' Union (Ireland), against the Bank of Ireland Bill; and from Linen Manufacturers of Belfast, and Carrickfergus, for the Amendment of the Law relative to the Linen Manufacture (Ireland).-By Sir CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.] Lord J. Russell moved the Order of the Day for a committee on the Church Discipline Bill. It was undoubtedly, he said, the wish of her Majesty's Government to have passed some legislative measure on this subject during the present Session. But as the bill had undergone very extensive alterations since its first introduction into the other House of Parliament, and as it was desirable that the matter should be fully and deliberately considered, he did not think it would be possible to proceed further with it at present. He should be glad, however, that the hon. Baronet, the Member for the amendments he thought it necessary, or intended to move, in the event of the House going into committee on the bill. Sir R. Inglis: When this bill was before the House a few days since, he distinctly stated that he would give no opinion on its merits either for or against. It had been, indeed, brought early into the other House of Parliament, but in the committee mittee of that House its provisions had been materially altered: and, since that alteration, there had been no time to circulate the bill in the country. A great majority of those whose social condition would be essentially affected by the measure, were, accordingly, wholly ignorant of its provisions as it had been sent down from the other House, and it would, therefore, be most unjust to the great body of the clergy to press the bill forward this Session. He should not, however, be tempted to enter into any premature discussion. All that he asked was, that sufficient time should be given to the parties whose interests would be affected by this bill to make themselves properly acquainted with its provisions, the same as would be given to others-to soap-boilers, for instance, or any other class of the community. He merely wished that the clergy should receive the same protection and the same opportunity of obtaining information, as would be given to other parties whose interests might be affected by the provisions of any particular bill. He thought it most objectionable to submit the offences of the clergy in all cases to a lay tribunal, and to the judgment of persons not only not in communion with the Church, but perhaps directly opposed to its doctrines and government. That was dealing out a measure of injustice to the clergy, from which all other classes of the community were exempt. He did not wish to screen the clergy from investigation into their conduct. He only wished that the tribunal by which their offences were to be judged, should be bound to them by some known common sympathy, and not be composed of persons holding convictions opposed to the Church. It would be more in accordance with the principles of corrcet ecclesiastical discipline that in offencesnot in crime-because, in regard to crime, the clergy, were, of course, subject to the same tribunals as the laity-but, in what might be called offences simply and purely ecclesiastical, it would be much more correct and just that the correction of them should be confided to ecclesiastical persons, and to the bishop above all. Committee on the bill put off for that day three months. RURAL CONSTABULARY.] Lord J. Russell moved the third reading of the Country and Constables District Bill. Bill read a third time. Several clauses by way of rider were added. Lord G. Somerset observed, that he _thought the clauses from 1 to 6 did not, with sufficient clearness and force, enjoin the high constable to carry the orders which he might receive, into full operation. He admitted that this objection was rather technical than substantial. Another objection to a matter of detail which struck his mind was this, that the constables under the bill would wholly supersede the parochial constables. Though he did not think parochial constables the best possible force, he still thought it desirable that the power of summoning them should continue to exist, in order that they might be made available in the absence of the police constables. With respect to the rules and regulations, he fully concurred in the expediency of leaving the Home-office in possession of complete executive powers; at the same time, it was only right that the magistrates in the several counties should be permitted to express to the Home Secretary the view which they took of those regulations before Government should finally adopt them. On these points he wished to understand what course the noble Lord intended to pursue. Lord J. Russell did not think the provisions of the bill, particularly as regarded the rules to be made by the Secretary of State, were liable to the objections which had been urged by the noble Lord. At the same time, he was ready to admit that the suggestions of the noble Lord deserved consideration, and he should therefore consent to postpone further proceedings until to-morrow (this day), with the view of affording an opportunity to his learned Friend the Solicitor-general of rendering the measure as perfect as possible, by availing himself of the various suggestions which had been made. Further proceedings with the bill postponed. "The townland of Coonogue, in the county of Carlow, was let about seventy years ago to one tenant: it consists of between 200 and 300 acres of very poor mountain land. The lessee made several sublettings and divisions of it, and at the time the lease expired, about October, 1837, this townland was found cut up into nearly forty farms, or rather wretched holdings, occupied by mere paupers. These under-tenants had been recognised by Lord Courtown or his agents, and they were given distinctly to understand, that they could not be suffered to continue on the lands when the lease expired. From October, 1837, until the beginning of June in the present year, they were allowed to occupy. Every indulgence and allowance was made to them to provide for themselves elsewhere, and then selection was made by which twelve families out of about thirty (not 220, as stated by Mr. O'Connell) were to continue at least for some time longer on the lands, and the remainder were to be removed. A very ample allowance being made to them for future provision, they all professed themselves, with one exception, fully. satisfied with this arrangement; but on the sheriff going to the lands in June, an immense mob assembled, the tenants refused to give possession; the proceedings of the mob were violent in the extreme, and the sub-sheriff was deterred from executing the habere. Some local circumstances prevented the sheriff making a second attempt until the 7th instant, when he did so with a large force, and the possession was taken without opposition, although great numbers of people were assembled; and so strongly were the neighbouring |