said, in rising to move for a new writ for the town of' Southampton, he was induced to do so in consequence of the many applications he received on the subject. He trusted that the result of the Bribery Bill now beware the House would be to put an end to that corrupt practice; at least, no person could be more anxious for that result than he. He did not ask for the issuing of that writ as a favour, but as a matter of justice. It would he perfectly right to sus- pend the writ if the House had before it any legislative measure for disfranchising the borough, but as no hon. Member had given any notice of motion with a view to that object, he thought the House could not refuse to issue the writ.

said, looking to the circumstance that the committee had expressed no opinion as to whether the writ should issue or not; considering, also, the fact that there was then a bill pending in that House against bribery and treating, which was to have a retrospective effect; looking to the fact that the chief object of the 320 persons, whose petition he had presented to the House, was, that the writ should not issue until some legislative enactment had been passed for the purpose of preventing treating and bribery; and understanding from the right hon. Baronet that he pledged himself, as far as Government influence could avail, that the measure should pass through both the Houses of Parliament, he would withdraw his opposition to the writ for Southampton, and he hoped that the candidates. whether Liberal or Conservative, would conduct themselves better than they had done on former occasions.

The hon. Gentleman must recollect what it was that I stated the other night, viz., that I had hitherto supported the bill, and that I would never be a party, either directly or indirectly, to the defeating a measure which I had supported. I could not undertake to promise that the bill should pass through the other House of Parliament. The bill met with the general concurrence of her Majesty's Government, and I have no doubt will receive their general support; but of course I cannot answer for any bill passing in another place, or for any alteration that may be made in it.

said, although it was impossible war the right hon. Baronet to pledge himself that no amendments should be made in the details of the bill, he thought it was important that the House should know whether it was intended to give the Government support to the retrospective clause in the bill. He wished to know whether to that clause the right hon. Baronet could hold out any hope of the other House giving its assent.

Perhaps it is hardly necessary for me lo qualify the statement that the bill would receive Government support. There is no new offence of bribery created by this bill, excepting with respect to head-money. I apprehend that, under the existing law, if a vacancy take place, and any candidate should treat, he would lose his seat. I recommend to the noble Lord who framed the bill, that elections after the 1st of July should be subject to the operation of this bill; that was to say, supposing there would be an allegation of bribery with respect to any election which might take place to-morrow, then I think the new tribunal should have power to investigate that case as though it had occurred before the passing of the act, and that any election which took place in future should be subject to the provisions of that act. I can give the same assurances with respect to this bill as with respect to any other bill which received Government support and no more.

rose to put a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman would no doubt recollect having had an interview with certain Members of a society interesting itself in the improvement of this city. They expressed a strong desire that her Majesty's Government would undertake a more general and better understood system of metropolitan improvement than those isolated jobs which were now from time to time perpetrated, so that whatever was hereafter determined upon should be done with reference to one comprehensive design. The deputation also called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the circumstance, that the original plans for making new lines of communication from Piccadilly to Long-acre, and from Waterloo-bridge to the north of London, had been most unwisely departed from. The right hon. Baronet, without giving any pledge as to the course he would take, expressed a general concurrence in the sentiments of the deputation. I have this evening presented to the House several petitions, numerously and most respectably signed, from the inhabitants of those streets through which, or contiguous to which, the new lines of communication are to pass, praying that the original plans may be adhered to; and I understand that similar petitions have been presented in another place by a noble Earl, a Member of her Majesty's Government, the President of the Board of Trade. The questions that I wish to ask the right hon. Baronet are—1st, if he can hold out to the petitioners any hope of their prayer being complied with; secondly, he wished to know whether her Majesty's Government had taken any steps to obtain the means of laying down a well-considered and comprehensive plan of improvement, which should embrace the health, the convenience, and the decoration of the metropolis?

said, the question of the noble Cord involved two considerations; first, whether it were not desirable to have some tribunal that should judge of the plans for the improvement of the metropolis, and to provide better regulations connected with the health of the inhabitants. Having himself been a Member of a committee connected with the subject, he did not think a committee was the best tribunal to decide such a question. Of such a committee the metropolitan Members usually formed a part, and he thought a better tribunal would be one totally unconnected with those local interests by which the Members of the different places must be affected. For his own part he thought there could not be a better application of public money than in these great public improvements. With respect to the other improvements, all he could say was, that formerly the proposed width of the new streets was sixty feet; since then, however, it had been proposed to make them only fifty-two feet. That proposition had been sanctioned by the late Government and Parliament; and such being the case, he could not venture to set aside such an arrangement.

said, he wished to put certain questions to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, relative to the very remarkable evidence given by an approver, of the name of Hagan, at the last assizes for Armagh. It appeared from a report which appeared in a public newspaper, that the approver stated that he went about administering unlawful oaths, and making Ribbonmen by the hundred, with the knowledge of the police and certain magistrates. The report stated:—

" The first I spoke to about Ribbonism, after I was 'necked,' was constable Johnston, and I told him to go for the Provost of Sligo, which he did. When I had conferred with that gentleman, I was let out on heavy bail. After that I attended meetings, made passwords, Ribbonmen, and all that. I made Ribbonmen by the hundreds. The police knew that was the business I went on. I was out' from September till February. I did not expect to be wanted by the police till about Patrick's Day—till the assizes time. When I returned, I told them about the meetings. By the word 'them,' I mean Mr. Fawcett, Provost of Sligo, and the magistrates. While I was out of gaol, I concocted about sixty-six Ribbon papers, and scattered them about as well as I could. The magistrates knew all this. During the time I wrote several letters to people, and got answers. I took the oath of the society once, twice, thrice, four times—aye, fourteen times—I had no further to go, or I would have sworn more. I am this moment breaking them all. 1 get my support from the Government. My conscience stretches sometimes. During the six months I was out I was as busy as ever at the ' old trade.'"

Now he believed that to be a correct report, and he now wished to ask the noble Lord opposite whether he believed the report of the evidence of the approver to be correct—whether he had seen any report of the trial, on the authenticity of which he could rely—whether he believed that Hagan stated he had been employed by the police in the way mentioned in his evidence— whether the magistrates were aware that the approver, after he had first given his evidence before them, went among the people administering illegal oaths to them; and, finally whether the Government had been officially informed of the course of proceeding adopted by the magistrates?

was not then able satisfactorily to answer the questions of the right hon. Gentleman. He knew nothing more of the facts of the case than appeared in the public prints. He was aware that an approver of the name of Hagan had been in confinement for some time, and that he had made communications which had led to the apprehension of certain individuals. He was not aware that the approver had been employed by the police or the magistrates to administer unlawful oaths, after he had given his evidence. He believed that crimes arising out of secret societies could be proceeded against only upon the evidence of an approver; but at the same time he should express his conviction, that the employment of an approver in the way stated (if the report were correct) was certainly objectionable. He must repeat, however, that his only knowledge of the circumstances of the trial was derived from a perusal of the newspaper to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He would write and obtain more accurate information on the subject which he should be ready to communicate to the House.

rose to move, pursuant to notice,

"That the petitions of Peter Murray M'Douall, and of the chairman of a meeting of inhabitants of Deptford (presented 29th July), complaining of his arrest, and of the conduct of the Metropolitan Police in preventing a public meeting of the inhabitants of Deptford, on the 26th day of July last, be referred to a select committee, and that the said committee do report their opinion thereupon to the House."

In calling the attention of the House and tine Government to this subject, he thought he should be enabled to prove that a serious violation of the liberty of the subject had been committed by the metropolitan police, sanctioned by the magistrates, and that the doctrine of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in regard to the power of constables in preventing public meetings, was contrary to the law of the country. He believed, also, that in asking the House to consent to the motion, he should be able to show that there was sufficient precedent for the inquiry. It appeared that the public had been invited to hear a lecture, to be delivered by Mr. G. Thompson, in a dissenting chapel at Deptford. The meeting took place. Dr. M'Douall arrived, and found chat a chairman had not been appointed, and he retired to a neighbouring house. When he returned, he found that some disturbance had taken place, in consequence of a gentleman in the gallery having made some objection relative to the appointment of a chairman, and expressed his wish that there should be a free discussion. It appeared that the persons connected with the chapel had sent for the police, who arrived; but, as had been stated by one of the witnesses, instead of allaying they had increased the disturbance. Dr. M'Douall, it appeared, had sent a message to the proprietors of the chapel, desiring to know if the presence of himself and his friends would be objected to, and whether the discussion was to be an open one. Dr. M'Douall said, " If I do come, I think I can put an end to the disturbance." When he arrived, however, the disturbance was over, the lecture had concluded, and it was then proposed to adjourn to a place called the Broadway, where the inhabitants of Deptford were in the habit of meeting. To that place Dr. M'Douall and another person connected with the proprietor of the chapel went. He stated this to show that no objection had been taken to the conduct of Dr. M'Douall in the chapel. Now, in the Broadway there was a pump, and he believed that there was nothing unconstitutional in mounting a pump to address the people. Dr. M'Douall had addressed the meeting for about a quarter of an hour, when he was interrupted by a party of the police. He was arguing, at the time the police interfered, in favour of free discussion. He was stating that a hearing should be given to every man, whether archbishop or chimney-sweeper, landlord or labourer, shopkeeper or scavenger. When asked by the magistrate as to the language used by Dr. M'Douall, the policeman (Mallalieu) said he heard him use the words—

" The tyrant aristocracy of the country, who are trampling on the rights of the poor."

That was perfectly consistent with the account given by Dr. M'Douall himself. Dr. M'Douall stated that Mallalieu, the policeman, said to him,

"Come down, or I will knock you down; you are holding an unlawful and illegal meeting, and using exciting language."

asked him by what authority he was interrupting a meeting which was assembled peaceably, and would disperse peaceably. Mallalieu said.

" I hold no conversation with you;—you must come down;"

And he was then pulled down by two policemen, and desired to leave the place. It should be recollected that at this time Dr. M'Douall was under recognizances of 500l., in consequence of an indictment for sedition two or three years ago, and that he was little likely, therefore, to say or do anything to excite a breach of the peace. The inspector, when he offered to disperse the meeting, told him to go away, pointing out to him the way he should go. Dr. M'Douall,—

" That is not my way; my way is towards London, and that is the way to Greenwich."

Upon which he was arrested by the police, and taken to the station-house. What was the treatment which he experienced there? In the first place, good bail was offered and refused. One of the bail offered was a trustee of the chapel, and the other a Corn-law lecturer, who were the parties, if any, that had been injured by the proceedings of the Chartists. But the reply was

"If you will lay me down 1,000 guineas I won't let him go,"

And giving as a reason, that the town was excited. The gentlemen offered to take him three or four miles out of town in their own carriage, but nothing would satisfy the policeman, and Dr. M'Douall was left all night, and until eleven o'clock on Wednesday in the station-house, which had in it an offensive privy, an unglazed window, and which was full of vermin. Here he was denied the use of bedding; his property was taken from him, and all communication with his friends was refused. No common felon, no murderer, no miscreant, could possibly have been treated worse than this individual, who was attending, as he was prepared to show the House, a meeting lawfully assembled. Dr. M'Douall requested that he might be allowed to communicate with his friends previously to appearing before the magistrates, in order to prepare evidence that the meeting was not unlawful, but he was told that no interview would be allowed, except in the presence of a policeman. Was it fitting that those policemen, who were to be his accusers, should know what was to be his line of defence? The next day he was called before the magistrates, and who appeared as witnesses against him? Why, these very policemen; not a single inhabitant of Deptford came forward to state that there had been anything like a breach of the peace. There was no person but the policemen to uphold such a statement, who were interested in procuring a conviction. If any breach of the peace was committed, it was on the part of the police, and no one else. Now what, he would ask, had been the conduct of the inspector when before the magistrate? In his opinion it had been most improper and indecent. He had called the parties who surrounded Dr. M'Douall " the scum of the parish." Had the magistrate rebuked this Mallalieu? The report said,

"Mr. Jeremy:—Oh, Mr. Mallalieu, you should not make use of such language. Dr. M'Douall: Did you fear that scum, as you call it? Mr. Mallalieu: Am I to answer that questions? This may go on all day."

Here the magistrate called the policeman to order, and said,

" Then it must go on all day, or for several days;—the line of cross-examination seems to be a fair one."

The evidence went on thus:—

" Cross-examination. During the course of the evening, hail was offered. I refused it. The person who offered bail offered to escort you a considerable way home. I refused it on my own responsibility. I said that, in the excited state of the town, I could not discharge you. There was no damage done to property or person in Deptford, that I know of, last night. Two persons offered bail. I should have taken it under ordinary circumstances. One said he offered it from respect to your principles, and another because lie thought you a well-meaning man. Bail was first offered about ten o'clock."

As soon as the examination of the policeman was concluded, Dr. M'Douall said :—

"I will summon twenty witnesses to prove that there was no riot, nor the apprehension of a riot" but the magistrate replied, "You may call 2,000 people, if you will."

So it appeared evidence could not affect the magistrate, who expressed his Opinion that Dr. M'Douall had created a disturbance in the chapel, and then bound the accused over, himself in 50l., and two sureties in 25l. each. After that Dr. M'Douall asked Mallalieu for a copy of the charge, which was refused. Dr. M'Douall then applied to Mr. Jeremy, who said he might have a copy, and told Dr. M'Douall to say that he (Mr. Jeremy) had ordered it. Dr. M'Douall then returned to Mallalieu, who said, " I don't care what the magistrate says," and still refused a copy of the charge, and Dr. M'Douall had been unable to obtain it, so he had not been able to insert it in his petition. The inhabitants of Deptford met the following evening to the number of 4,000, and agreed to the petition, complaining that the constitution had been violated. Now he did not hesitate to say that such an act as this would not have been perpetrated in the worst days of Sidmouth and of Castlereagh, and that previous to the passing of the six Acts there bad not been so flagrant a violation of the liberty of the subject as had been committed at this Deptford meeting. He maintained it was riot law, nor any thing like law, and he had the authority of the most eminent lawyers to support him in that view. What was the law as laid down by Mr. Justice Bailey at the trial of Mr. Hunt at York?—

"On the subject of unlawful assemblies " (said Mr. Justice Bailey) " he would quote what Mr. Sergeant Hawkins (perhaps the best writer on the question) slated, as necessarily constituting an unlawful assembly. He said, any meeting whatever of a great number of people, with such circumstances of terror as cannot but endanger the public peace, and raise fears and jealousies among the King's subjects, seems properly to be called an unlawful assembly; where, for instance, those great numbers having some grievance to complain of, met armed together for the purpose of discussing the best way of ridding themselves of that grievance; because, under these circumstances, no one can say what may be the event of such a meeting.' Mr. Sergeant Hawkins's opinion then was, that a greet number of people meeting under such circumstances as cannot but endanger the public peace, and raise fears and jealousies among the king's subjects, was an unlawful assembly.' Hem (Mr. Justice Bailey), therefore, hail no difficulty in stating that in all cases of unlawful assembly, they were to look to the purpose for which the people met, the manner in which they came, and the means which they were using to effect their proposed object."

He wanted to know whether there was anything illegal in the meeting of the inhabitants of Deptford; anything illegal in the object for which they met; anything illegal in the meeting itself? Unless this could be shown, it. would be impossible to justify the conduct of the police. If the doctrine of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) with respect to the interference of constables were right, he wanted lo know what was the use of the Six Acts? If the constables really had the power which the right hon. Baronet wished to give them, what was the use of the Seditious Meetings Bill— a Bill which the right hon. Baronet, to his honour and credit opposed in 1819? What was Lord Sidmouth excuse for that bill ! On introducing it to the consideration of the House, Lord Sidmouth said:—

" He could not better describe the evil which it was the object of the bill to prevent, than by referring to the words of its preamble, which staled that in divers parts of this kingdom, assemblies of large numbers of persons collected from various parishes and districts, under the pretest of deliberating upon public grievances, and of agreeing on petitions, complaints, remonstrances, declarations, resolutions, addresses, upon the subject thereof, have of late been held, in disturbance of the public peace, to the great terror and danger of his Majesty's loyal and peaceable subjects, and in a manner manifestly tending to produce confusion and calamities in the nation.' Assuming, therefore, the danger, they would have to inquire what regulations were necessary, and whether the provisions of this bill were capable of answering the end proposed. Those who had inquired into the state of the existing laws on this subject, were satisfied that there were many dangerous features in the meetings referred to, for which no remedy could at present be found. The existing law did not prescribe any mode of giving notice or superintendence by magistrates. It in no way regulated the manner of attending meetings. It did not prohibit going to meetings in military array, or carrying to them weapons. It did not prevent simultaneous meetings, nor the continuance of meetings by adjournment. Its did not prevent assembling with flags and banners If seditious or treasonable language were spoken, it did not, besides empowering a magistrate to order the person offending into custody, also enable him, in case of resistance, to declare the meeting illegal; it did not provide against a great abuse, the evil effects of which had been extensively experienced, namely, that when the inhabitants of a particular town or district were summoned to a meeting, so many strangers attended, that the majority of the meeting did not consist of such inhabitants. Neither did it provide against the most pernicious practice of itinerant orators attending public meetings, and collecting vast multitudes to hear their harangues. Now their Lordships would find that all these great evils, for which the existing law had no remedy, were provided against by this bill."

Such were the grounds upon which Lord Sidmouth defended the Seditious Meetings Bill in 1819. According to the doctrine of the present day, any constable or police-officer might go to any meeting and disperse it according to his will and pleasure, knowing that his conduct would be supported by the magistrates, and the magistrates, in their turn, would be supported by the Home Department. That was the new doctrine of the present day. Rather than that such a doctrine should continue to obtain, he said it would be better to revive the Seditious Meetings Bill. Anything in the shape of a definite and positive jaw would be better than that the sacred right of the people should be left at the discretion of such inferior officers as parish constables or officers of police. He had stated that he could give precedents war the inquiry which he proposed in this instance to institute. He might mention two—first, the inquiry granted by Lord Althorp into the conduct of the police at the meeting in Coldbathfields, on the 11th of July, 1833, when one or two policemen were killed; and, secondly, the inquiry granted upon the motion of Mr. Cobbett into the conduct of the police, who were charged with having acted as spies. In the first instance it was said that no disturbance would have taken place if it had not been for the interference of the police themselves. The dispersion of the meeting at Coldbathfields created a very strong sensation at the time, and many petitions were presented praying for inquiry. What did Lord Althorp do? Why he came down to the House and moved, himself, for a select committee to inquire into the conduct of the police in dispersing the meeting. The right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) being at that time First Lord of the Admiralty, agreed to the inquiry so proposed by Cord Althorp, and the only individual who objected to the appointment of the committee was the right hon. Baronet the Member for Kent (Sir Edward Knatchbull). What was Lord Althorp's answer to the right hon. Baronet's objection? Lord Althorp said—

" He believed the police force had conducted themselves with propriety since their establishment."

But he said—

" I apprehend that every man who knows what the constitution of that force is, must admit that it is a power in the hands of the Government which ought to be watched closely. It is upon this ground, and knowing that a strong sensation (as Mr. Hume asserted) exists in the public mind upon this subject, that we think it right that the public should have the satisfaction of an inquiry before a committee of this House."

So the committee was appointed, and thus he had afforded a direct precedent for the inquiry he proposed to institute in the present instance. He hoped he should not be told, as he was the other night, that any inquiry into the matter would be an interference with the prerogative of the Crown. He maintained that these petitioners had very great reason to complain. They had submitted their complaint in a very respectful and becoming language, and it now became the duty of the House to institute the inquiry which was prayed for. He believed that every one of the allegations set forth in the petitions could be proved to the very letter. If the committee were granted, respectable persons would come forward and state that nothing could be more monstrous, tyrannical, and oppressive than the conduct of the police, whilst nothing could be more peaceable than the conduct of the people who were assembled. The right hon. Baronet might think that the law would support him in the license he extended to policemen and constables, but he did not believe that such was the law. He believed that the right hon. Baronet was encouraging the constabulary to exceed their legitimate power. Under all the circumstances he hoped he had made out a primâ facie case for inquiry, and that the House would support him in the motion which he begged to offer to its adoption.

I am sorry that it will be necessary for me to detain the House for a short time, whilst I state the grounds upon which I shall resist the motion just proposed. Relying upon the information which I have received from Mr. Jeremy, the magistrate before whom the case was heard, I shall confine myself strictly to a statement of facts. The most important point to bring under the attention of the House is the character of the meeting itself. The hon. Member for Finsbury has repeatedly called it a peaceable meeting. I will state what are the facts of the case with respect to the meeting in the chapel, which was the origin of the assembly, and of which the subsequent meeting in the Broadway was only a continuance. I held in my hand the original summons for the meeting, in which it is described as a meeting to be held in the dissenting chapel at Deptford, for the purpose of hearing a lecture by an Anti-Corn-law delegate against the Corn-laws. The clergyman of the chapel, and the trustees, were parties to that summons; and it appeared that they had invited a person named Thompson, one of the paid lecturers of the Anti-Corn-law league, to attend on the occasion, and deliver a lecture. I have not one word to say with respect to the known respectability of the clergyman and trustees; although I may entertain an opinion of my own, that it is unfortunate that a chapel should be selected as the place of meeting for such a purpose as that set forth in the summons under which the assembly was convened. I am not disposed, however, to lay any stress upon that point. Almost immediately after the meeting commenced, the influx of persons became very great. As I have stated, the original in. tention of the meeting was that it should be an Anti-Corn-law meeting. However, a large influx of strangers partaking of the opinions of the Chartists, took place, and immediately upon their arrival at the chapel the utmost confusion arose. A wish was expressed by the Chartists that the clergyman and trustees who occupied the platform should not be allowed to preside, and that a labouring man should be placed in the chair. I am told that a scene of the utmost violence and confusion instantly arose; that a rush was made to the platform to displace the clergyman and the trustees; that Dr. M'Douall took part with the Chartists, and endeavoured to obtain a hearing; that the tumult which ensued baffled all description; that the men shouted with rage, the women fainted with alarm; that in the midst of this uproar one of the trustees escaped from the chapel, and sought the aid of the police; that the moment the police appeared there was a shout from one of the rival parties in the chapel to attack the police, to beat them, to serve them as they had lately been served at Kentish town; that a struggle ensued which lasted for some minutes; that the chapel was eventually cleared; that Dr. M'Douall (and this is an important part of the case), finding the chapel no longer tenable, declared that he would have a meeting in the open air; that he immediately set forth for that purpose; that a large multitude followed him (constituting a continuance of the riotous meeting in the chapel); that the utmost tumult and confusion prevailed throughout the whole of the procession, until at length the doctor reached the public rostrum of Deptford, the parish pump, from the summit of which he addressed the throng; that the excitement at this moment was extreme, and the alarm of the inhabitants very great; that the crowd occupied not only the Broadway, but the whole of the public road and footpath, causing a complete obstruction; that the evening was far advanced; that darkness was rapidly approaching; that the meeting was tumultuous, and the language held by the doctor extremely violent. Under these circumstances, it appeared to the superintendent of the police to be indispensable that the meeting should be dispersed. He accordingly entreated Dr. M'Douall to discontinue his speech, in order that the multitude might quietly disperse. Dr. M'Douall refused to cease addressing the people. The superintendent told him, that if he persevered, it would be his duty to compel him to desist. Upon hearing this, the doctor consented to come down, and an offer was made to him by the superintendent to make a clear passage through the multitude for him, if he would go home. This Dr. M'Douall positively refused to do, and then it was that the police took him into custody. He was no sooner arrested, than a violent attempt was made to rescue Jim.' Threatening language was held to the police, blows were exchanged, and three or four other persons were arrested. Under these circumstances, Dr. M'Douall was conveyed to the station-house. It is quite true, that the offer made by a friend to bail him, was refused by the superintendent. Dr. M'Douall, in his petition to that House, 'complainer of the unpleasantries to which he was subjected in his confinement. It appeared, however, that a distinct offer was made to have other accommodation provided for him. Anything that he could reasonably require in the way of accommodation was offered to him; but he positively refused to have anything beyond what the station-house afforded. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) has stated what had taken place when Dr. M'Douall was brought up for hearing before the magistrate; and the hon. Gentlemen relied principally upon the fact, that none but policemen were heard to substantiate the charge against the doctor. I will not trouble the House further upon that point than to read what actually took place before the magistrate. The hon. Gentleman stated, that there had been a difficulty in ascertaining what the charge was, upon which Dr. M'Douall was taken into custody. The charge was in these terms:—

" Dr. M'Douall was charged with causing a great number of disorderly persons to assemble in the public place called the Broadway, in the parish of St. Paul's, Deptford, and addressing them in language of a violent and inflammatory nature, tending to cause a further breach of the peace "

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe) said, that the testimony of the police was not to be relied upon. I admit, that I do not place so much reliance upon the testimony of Mallalieu, who is responsible for refusing to bail the doctor. [The right hon. Baronet then read the whole of the evidence given before the magistrate, including that of the policemen and of a watchmaker, who, he contended, was a perfectly impartial witness of the whole proceedings. From this evidence, it appeared, that the meeting was of a very tumultuous and disorderly character, creating a great deal of excitement and alarm in the minds of the inhabitants, and a total obstruction of the highway.] Under these circumstances, I think it was the duty of the constables to disperse the meeting before it became dark, and that they did not exercise an unsound discretion in so doing. With respect to the character of Dr. M'Douall, it is true, as the hon. Gentleman has intimated, that this is not the first time, that he has been present at riotous and unlawful meetings. It appears, that in August, 1839, he was tried at Chester, for raising a tumultuous meeting, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In the present instance, it would seem that Dr. M'Douall did not complain of the manner in which he was treated by the magistrate. On the contrary, he expressed his thanks to Mr. Jeremy for the manner in which he had disposed of the case. The hon. Gentleman would lead the House to infer that some novel course has been taken in respect to this Dr. M'Douall. But I state distinctly that no new power has been given to the constables. The law in that respect has not been changed or altered by the present Government. No orders of any kind have been given to the constables of the police force different from those under which that body has acted from the first moment of its establishment. If any illegal act be committed by any one of the constables, redress is open to the party injured. But it is not the part of the House of Commons to interfere in such cases. The House of Commons may alter the law when it appears necessary to do so; but it is no part of its duty, no part of its proper function, to interfere in the administration of the law. am not, by any means, prepared to say, that great and peculiar circumstances might not arise in which it would become the duty of that House, as the grand inquest of the nation, to institute inquiry; but I maintain, that there is nothing in the present case that would warrant such an interference. There is, no analogy between the present case and that of the disturbance at Cold Bath-fields, in 1833, and the much more serious mob at Manchester, in 1819. The hon. Gentleman said, that the power exercised by the, police ought to be closely watched. I do not deny it; I admit, that, a power such as that entrusted to the police ought to be closely watched. The discussion in which the House is engaged is a proof that their conduct is scrutinized with a jealous eye. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into the abstract question of the right of constables to interfere. I admit, that that right must be wholly dependant upon time and circumstance. It is, I believe, quite impossible to lay down any general rules with respect to the right of constables to interfere, that could be applicable in all cases. I am bound to state, that as far as I have observed, that power has always been exercised by the constables of police with the utmost caution. It is no doubt highly expedient, that precautionary measures should be adopted as to any meeting likely to prove dangerous, but, at the same time, I think cases might arise in which there might be no time for these precautionary measures, and in which the constable would be justified in summarily interfering. I will not, however, discuss these extreme points. I hope the majority of the House will concur with me, in resisting the inquiry, because I am satisfied, that upon the whole, the parties have been treated not only with justice, but with leniency.

said, that it was quite a mistake to suppose that his hon. Friend, the Member war Finsbury, directed his motion against Mr. Jeremy—it was of the police, and not of Mr. Jeremy, that he complained. The police were the paid servants of the public, and the House ought to take care that the police did nothing in violation of the law. In the present case an outrage had been committed against Dr. M'Douall, without a particle of provocation. The decision of the magistrate was in his favour—the only thing that Mr. Jeremy did was to demand security for his good behaviour, and this was only done in order to screen the police. But the case assumed a more serious aspect when they viewed it as a denial of the right to petition, and they bought not to forget that two great revolutions had been caused in this country by the attempt to put down that right. It was said that there was great excitement at the meeting, but was this any reason for saying that it was dangerous? He thought it clearly a case of illegal arrest, and an inquiry was called for, in order to satisfy the people.

expected to hear one of the law-officers of the Crown state his opinion on the present question, because a more unsatisfactory opinion could not be given than that which had been given by the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Not long since the right hon. Baronet laid it down as the law, that a constable had the power of dispersing a meeting, and now he told them that when the constable did disperse a meeting, the party aggrieved had his remedy by au action at law. This, however, was so difficult a remedy that, to give the subject no other, was little less than subjecting him to an irresponsible and arbitrary government. With regard to the meeting in question, he did not think that the obstruction of a highway was sufficient to establish a meeting as illegal. He never heard of a public meeting which did not obstruct some highway or thoroughfare, and it was monstrous to suppose that the tact of its doing so was to be considered as a reason why a constable should interfere and put it down. This was indeed going back to the days of Tory ism, and if such a doctrine were passed over unchecked and unreproved, they would no doubt have the right hon. Gentleman opposite very soon proposing the revival of the Six Acts. There was nothing in the language used at the meeting tending to a breach of the peace; and although he did not call for an expression of opinion on the part of the House, he certainly did hope that, an inquiry would be granted.

said, that he did not object to the attention of the House being called Ito questions like the present, nor should he ever complain that the House of Commons had been resorted to for the purpose of making known the grievances of the people, and so far, therefore, as that was the object of the present motion, he would not object to it but he objected to the motion if it was brought forward for the purpose of inquiry. With regard to the meeting which took place, he understood, that it had been called for the purpose of hearing Mr. Thompson deliver a lecture against the Corn-laws. It seemed that some disturbance arose, and that one of the trustees sent for the police to clear the chapel, and that then the meeting adjourned to the open air. Now, he would ask whether there was any appearance of legality in that open air meeting? Could any one say, that it was a meeting constitu- tionally assembled for petitioning Parliament? He thought the police were justified, in strict law, in going up to the person who caused the obstruction in the highway, and in desiring him to desist. But, supposing the meeting to be legal, and supposing the arrest of Dr. M'Douall to be illegal, what, he would ask, was his remedy? If Dr. M'Douall had any ground of complaint, his remedy clearly was to have recourse to the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman opposite, wished for some expression of opinion on the part of the House and of the Government; but this might be anticipating the verdict of a jury —for aught they knew, writs may have been served, and actions commenced, and while there was, any probability of this being the case, it would be highly injudicious to express any opinion upon the subject. It would not be right—it would scarcely be constitutional—nay, he thought it would even be mischievous—if the House should interfere in the present stage of the case; and as there was no tumultuous violence at the meeting in question, no loss of life, nothing that called for the peculiar interference of that House, he thought the law ought to be left to take its course in the present instance.

thought, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that Government had given no opinion upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had the whole police under his control, had stated, he thought the police on the present occasion had exercised a wise discretion. The Secretary for the Home Department had, therefore, sanctioned the conduct of the police, and had expressed his approbation of their conduct in his place in the House of Commons. An hon. Member opposite, (Mr. Russell) had told them the other night, that what was innovation to-day was precedent to-morrow, and the next day law. Now he was afraid that, on the next day, they would have the law of the right hon. Gentleman; and this was the reason why he attached so much importance to the present case. It ought to be remembered, that this was not the case of Dr. M'Douall— it was no complaint against Mr. Jeremy—it was the case of a number of individuals who had held a public meeting in the town of Deptford, and who had been dispersed by a constable, a superintendent of police, acting on his own authority. The other day, when the Staffordshire case was before the House, they were told that though the constable may have been wrong, yet that there was the verdict of a jury to justify him, and they were told, that they could not disturb that verdict, because by doing so they would be casting reflections, not only on the jury, but on the judge who delivered the charge. But hero there was no verdict of a jury—here there was no decision of a chairman in favour of a constable. On the contrary, there was a decision the other way, the magistrates having declared that there was no evidence to show, that the meeting was unlawful. [The Attorney-general was understood to dissent.] The Attorney-general shook his head, but he did not think there was much in that. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, had distinctly admitted, that Mr. Jeremy had declared that there was not sufficient evidence to bring Dr. M'Douall to trial. He relied on the decision of the magistrate; let the right hon. Baronet rely on the constable whose conduct he had approved, and who he said, had exercised a wise discretion. He was only sorry, that the example of the constable had not been followed by the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared, that Dr. M'Douall was brought to the station-house, and that the person who offered to bail him was the trustee of the chapel, the individual who is stated to have called in the police to clear the chapel. [Sir J. Graham: No, it was another trustee.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman, to support his case, relied on the trustee who called for the police, he, to support his case, would rely on the trustee who offered bail. Then, with regard to bail. Was it a matter of discretion on the part of the police to refuse bail? It was refused. Well, Dr. M'Douall asked for a copy of the charge. He appealed to the magistrate. What did the magistrate say? He said Dr. M'Douall was entitled to it. Did he get it? No. The police was applied to for a copy in conformity with the direction of the magistrate, but the superintendent of the police said he did not care for the magistrate. It was not to the magistrate, it was to the Home Department the policeman very naturally looked. The right hon. Baronet had said that the second meeting in the Broadway was a continuation of the first. How did he make it out? There was no riot at the first meeting. Parties had assembled together for a legal purpose. Some affray took place amongst them. What ensued? The parties were required to disperse; and they did so. Dr. M'Douall went out of the meeting arm-in-arm with one of the trustees of the chapel, and he then told the people that a discussion should take place out of doors. No riot took place; there was no confusion; but simply an obstruction of the thoroughfare. But was a man to be seized by a policeman because of an obstruction of the public way by reason of a multitude having assembled together? It did not appear that the police exerted any effort to secure a passage through the crowd for the public. That was not done; but because, as the policeman alleged, certain seditious language was used, he took upon himself to disperse the meeting, and to take Dr. M'Douall into custody. Had a constable a right to disperse a public meeting? If a riot had occurred, or if the Riot Act had been read, he admitted that the constable would then have had a right to interfere; but with what caution had the Legislature proceeded in this matter. The 1st George 1st, chap. 50, enacted that the Riot Act should be read by a justice of the peace, and the meeting proclaimed to be dissolved: and then, if the people continued together after a certain time, the power of the constable arose. But the inchoate right existed only in the magistrate. Similar precaution had been taken in other acts of the Legislature the Training Act, for instance. Parliament had always been jealous of confiding to a constable a power that might be so abused. Under all the circumstances, he was surprised that any inquiry should in this instance be refused. The right hon. Baronet had said, " Leave the man to the law;" but he did not leave him to the law: he approved of the constable's conduct. By doing this, the right hon. Baronet gave excitement to the police to repeal these acts. If this were an isolated case, he should not care much about it. But the doctrine which had been broached at the Home Office was what he dreaded, for it was such as might lead to the most vicious and dangerous consequences.

thought the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the nature of the Riot Act. He seemed to be of opinion that in order to disperse a meeting the Riot Act must be first read by a ma- gistrate. Now, that was not so. The object of reading the Riot Act was to constitute the act of the people continuing assembled after the proclamation made by the magistrate a felony. But according to law, if a constable saw persons assembled together, and acting in a manner which he believed would lead to a breach of the peace, he was at liberty, upon his own responsibility, to disperse them. It was not, however, necessary for him to enter into a discussion of this question. The only thing the House had to consider was, whether upon the facts of this case, any ground had been made out for the House to grant a committee of inquiry. Observe, two concessions had been made. It had been admitted by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that what took place within the chapel was sufficient to authorize the police to clear the chapel and disperse the people; and every one who had spoken admitted that no blame attached to Mr. Jeremy, the magistrate. Let it be recollected that Mr. Jeremy did not discharge Dr. M'Douall. What Mr. Jeremy in effect said was, that Dr. M' Douall had been guilty of a breach of the peace, or at least of conduct that was censurable, but not of that description which authorized him to commit him to take his trial; but, although he would not commit him, yet he would not discharge him, unless he entered into his own recognizance to keep the peace for a certain time. The meeting out of doors was a continuation of the meeting within the chapel; and he submitted to the House that the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury ought not to be acceded to. It was tantamount to asking the House to pass a vote of censure not only upon the police, but upon the magistrate who called upon the party to give bail. He hoped the House would, by a large majority, negative the motion.

said, it really appeared to him that those who had objected to this motion had given very good reasons why the House should agree to it, especially the Attorney-general, because he had stated that he did not at all object to matters of this sort being brought under the consideration of the House. But then the hon. and learned Gentleman was against any result, he was against any inquiry. What was the character of the present discussion? Here were statements made on the one side, I tending to show great impropriety of con- duct on the part of the police; and here. were statements made on the other side, denying many points in those statements, and alleging that the conduct of the police was wise and discreet. If there could e any cue in which an inquiry could enable them to arrive at the truth, amidst such conflicting stetements, and to ascertain the true from the false, he thought this was the case. He, therefore, thought the premises laid down by the Attorney-general led to a very different conclusion to what that hon. and learned Gentleman had come to. If it were proper that such matters should be discussed in the House of Commons, surely it was proper that the House should be enabled to come to some conclusion as to the facts brought before them. It appeared to him, therefore, that very good grounds had been laid for the committee now moved for. It seemed, fro the statements made on both sides, that the conduct of the police was not very wise or discreet. It had not been alleged, either by the Attorney-general or the Solicitor-general, that the second meeting was an illegal one. He had understood the Attorney-general to say that he would not undertake to declare whether a meeting which led to an obstruction of a thoroughfare might or might not be an illegal meeting. Well, then, if it was not illegal, upon what ground was Dr. M'Douall apprehended? It must have been in consequence of something he said, which in its nature was actionable. But when he was brought before the magistrate, the magistrate did not put him upon his trial for anything done by him illegally, but he bound him over to keep the peace. He confessed that, as far as he understood the case, he was not disposed to go so far as some hon. Members had done in approving of the conduct of the magistrate; for it appeared to him very questionable whether Mr. Jeremy, who, having found nothing objectionable in the meeting, or in the conduct of Dr. M'Douall to render him liable to a prosecution, was justified in holding that party to bail to keep the peace. To him, therefore, it appeared that this matter involved a principle of some importance—the principle, namely, of determining to what de-free, and in what cases, constables were justified in interfering with the proceedings of a public meeting, and arresting individuals who were taking a part in those proceedings. He was of opinion that in the present instance the constable had exceeded his proper line of duty. He might be wrong, but he thought, especially at this moment, when Parliament was about to separate, and when public meetings would no doubt soon take place in the country, and when constables might be induced, from a mistaken sense of their duty, to interfere with the proceedings of the people, he thought that this was a proper opportunity to institute an inquiry to ascertain to what extent the constable had in this case interfered, in order that the fact might be established, not according to ex parte information, but by hearing the evidence on both sides. But this inquiry he did not conceive would necessarily imply a censure either upon the police or the magistrate. When the real facts were known, should any ground of complaint appear against the conduct of the police, then the Government might be able to take steps to prevent similar interference on the part of the police in future. He, therefore, thought the circumstances perfectly warranted the motion for a committee of inquiry.

Sir, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under whose superintendence the metropolitan police force generally acts, has intimated to the House that, in his opinion, there is no ground for his interference, upon the subject which the hon. Member for Finsbury has brought before it in this motion. And, Sir, supposing this House, without information before it, was dissatisfied with the judgment of my right hon. Friend, and there was no other alternative to adopt, no other mode afforded of conducting the inquiry asked for, than by the intervention of a committee of the House of Commons, then, in such case, there might be some plausible ground for this investigation. But are there no means of determining whether this constable has acted in a proper manner or not? Is the decision of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, final upon this subject? The hon. Member for Finsbury is not the only person who may institute proceedings against this person; but, at a very moderate cost, you may compel the legal tribunals of the country to give a solemn judgment on the case. An action for false imprisonment may be brought against him, or an action may be brought against the magistrate for his refusal to take bail in the matter; and, as I have already said, for a very moderate sum, you may have the opinion, upon the ease, of the regular legal tribunals of the country. And which would be likely to be the most satisfactory decision of the two—the decision of a court of law, or that of a committee of the House of Commons? Suppose the committee were to say the constable acted illegally. That could not be accepted as any legal rule upon the subject. Whereas a court of law, hearing both sides on their oath, which the House of Commons cannot do, could pronounce a decision which, I should imagine, would be more satisfactory than any one which we can here deliver. Which decision, I ask, do you think would be the more satisfactory to the country at large? And why not, then, adopt this mode of inquiry into the case—why not take this step for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conduct of this constable has been correct or not? Sir, I, for my part, deprecate the principle of the House of Commons being called upon to exercise the judicial function; and I cannot help thinking, that this House will suffer materially, by being placed in the position of having to decide upon these points of law. I should be the last man in the world to encourage constables to transgress the law, or to bring it into discredit with the country, by a constantly annoying enforcement of its provisions, even, perhaps, where right might be on their side. But let us remember the peculiar position in which these men are placed, and let us forbear from deterring them from the honest and conscientious discharge of their duties, by our censures upon their conduct, and by our immediate and hasty inquiries into it. To take such an inquiry out of the hands of the regular tribunals of the country into our own, does imply a primâ facie case against them. Take the case of the men referred to in this motion, and if, in consequence of their non-interference on the occasion in question, more serious disturbances had occurred, and loss of life had taken place, what would you have said then? What judgment would you have formed then? It appears that, owing to the conduct of one of these constables, whose acts are chiefly impugned, at all events no riot took place, and no one was injured. Suppose the contrary bad been the case, what would then have been said? Why, you would then have set to work to collect together all the facts of the case, and you would have found, perhaps, that there had been a conflict, in which Corn-law repealers were engaged on one side, and Chartists on the other. But there were seats broken, it appears, in this scuffle. Why, we have temper enough in this House, at times. And suppose we were to tear up the seats here, would there be a doubt as to the nature of the contest, or the propriety of interference? Many men take different views of the nature of a scuffle; and the right hon. and learned Member war Cork, I believe, in speaking of the Irish rebellion, said there was a " hurry" in 1798, and somebody else once spoke of the " dispute" in Connaught. Men, as I have said, take different views of scuffles and squabbles; but, at all events, it appears that, in the present instance, the seats of the chapel are torn up, and the meeting, which the religious solemnity of the place did not prevent from taking the turn I have mentioned, was adjourned, at half-past eight o'clock in the evening, when it was already dark, to the open air. With respect lo the power exercised by the police, I acknowledge that it is a discretionary power, which they must exercise on their own responsibility. But, in this case, when a constable hears such cries as these, " Serve out the police," " Bludgeon the police," and so forth, it appears that he says to himself, " If a serious riot ensue, and lives shall be lost, the blame will be severely visited upon me, if I do not interfere to prevent it." He does so; he takes the person in question up, and he goes, in the ordinary way, before a magistrate. Under such circumstances, all I say is, that if you are dissatisfied with the result of those proceedings, it is now open for you to go beware a court of law with your case—the tribunal, in short, to which the decision, in such matters, ought properly to be left.

replied. The right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had quoted reports in opposition to the facts of the case. [Sir James Graham said, that the report he quoted from, was taken on oath before the magistrate.] There were several reports. There were reports published by the newspapers. He should like to ask from what source Mr. Jeremy derived his report? Did he keep a reporter? The right hon. Baronet, at the head of her Majesty's Government, also appeared to rely upon Mr. Jeremy's report; but he would maintain that the greater portion of what Mr. Jeremy had stated (of course, he derived it from others), was a gross misrepresentation of the facts. [" Oh, oh ! "] It was no use their saying oh, oh. Grant him a committee, and he would undertake to prove it. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had adopted the view of his right hon. Colleague, that the meeting in the chapel, and the meeting in the Broadway, were a continuation of the same meeting, and that, as a disturbance had occurred in the chapel, where seats were torn up, and pews broken down, the meeting in the Broadway partaking of the same character. Now, grant him a committee, and he would prove that no seats were torn up, nor any pews broken down. There was the evidence of Mr. John Wade, who was called against Dr. M'Douall. What did he say? He said:

" I am a builder and shopkeeper, living in Deptford. I am a trustee of the Independent chapel. I drew up the hand-bill produced, and it was published by my direction, in concurrence with the Rev. J. Pullen, the minister. It was not for any discussion that meeting was called. Its purpose was to excite sympathy for the distressed, but not for an immediate subscription. A subscription had been forwarded before the Queen's letter came out. It was to hear a lecture on the distress of the country. The chapel was pretty full at seven o'clock, when I entered it. There was a little disturbance at the commencement of the meeting. Some persons who were strangers, wished to speak and enter into a discussion, which was contrary to the object of the meeting. The person announced as lecturer did not come, but another person was asked to supply the vacancy. The disturbance passed off, and Mr. Taylor proceeded with his lecture, and having concluded it, sat down. There was a little disturbance, and the minister of the chapel dissolved the meeting. There were about one thousand persons present."

The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney-general) seemed to think that the police cleared the chapel. No such thing. The minister and Mr. Taylor dissolved the meeting, because the object for which the meeting had been called had been fulfilled. Mr. Wade went on to say:—

" After the minister had dissolved the meeting, the place was cleared. The people walked out without any disturbance. The meeting separated peaceably. There were police there. I think they were sent for by my brother. I understood from him that some persons had attempted to get possession of the platform at the beginning of the meeting, and that they had been sent for in consequence. I saw the police remonstrate with some persons who were disturbing the meeting, and endeavouring to get upon the platform. I saw Dr. M'Douall there. He was not invited. He was one of the audience. I saw nothing improper in his conduct. The Rev. Mr. Pullen dissolved the meeting by saying, ' I dissolve this meeting.' "

This witness was cross-examined by Dr. M'Douall, and he stated this:—

" I stood beside you on the platform. I saw nothing improper in your conduct whatever. I heard you say that a discussion should take place out of doors. I did not hear the chairman propose any adjournment. There was no right to adjourn the meeting. The meeting had not the power to elect a chairman. No resolution was proposed. It was an invitation for the ministers and trustees to come and hear a lecture. I know nothing about the meeting on the Broadway. I could not gather, from your gestures, that you were likely to create a breach of the peace. Mr. Taylor was invited by me. Mr. M'Douall, Mr. Taylor, and myself, walked away arm-in-arm."

This was the evidence of one of the witnesses brought by the police against Dr. M'Douall, and yet the right hon. Baronet was endeavouring to prove that Dr. M'Douall had created a breach of the peace in the chapel. The right hon Baronet had somixed up the meeting in the chapel and at the Broadway, that nobody could tell what part of the proceedings he was talking about. Grant him a committee, and he would prove, that the statements of Mallalieu were false. When he came to Mr. M'Douall, that gentleman said, " If you say that this is an illegal meeting, and if you will allow me to say so to the people, I will immediately disperse them. ' The answer was, " No, come down." Mr. M'Douall came down from the pump, and he was then desired to go home, and was directed towards Deptford. Mr. M'Douall said, " No, that is not my way, I Want to go to London." What followed? He was immediately taken into custody, and conducted to the station-house. What took place at the station-house had already been stated. Mr. Jeremy's report said that Mr. M'Douall had every accommodation in the station-house. Was that true? No. Mr. M'Douall asked for a pillow and some covering, but it was refused, and he remained in the cell on the bare boards. That was not the way in which Mr. M'Douall should have been treated for such an offence. He would not say that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was inconsistent in refusing this inquiry; but certainly he did think, that the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, and the noble Lord sitting near him (Lord Stanley), both of whom were once the Colleagues of the authors of the Reform Bill, were acting in opposition to the principle which their former alliances espoused. It was the principle of Toryism to refuse all inquiry; therefore the right hon. Baronet, at the head of her Majesty's Government, was perfectly consistent in doing so on this occasion. But he knew, and his right hon. and noble Colleagues knew, that they had a bad case, and what had been reported to them, and which had been stated by the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the House, he would, if they would grant him a committee, prove to be false. The police was, as Lord Althorp had once said, a formidable power to be placed at the disposal of the Government. They were armed and trained, and were, in fact, equal to soldiers. It was said, that if these things were not prevented, blood would be shed. He told them that blood would be shed. If these things were done, the people would not consent. Let hon. Members read the petition.

"Your petitioners are all of opinion, that as the meeting was peacefully assembled, so it would have peacefully dispersed, had it not been for the unjustifiable violence of the police, to which, if your honourable House affords no remedy, your petitioners do not feel bound to submit."

He told them plainly, that these doings would some day tend to create a disturbance, and if blood should be shed, every drop would be upon the heads of those who held the doctrines that night broached, and who came down to support this gross violation of the people's rights.

had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not proceed with this bill. He had presented several petitions against it, and he trusted that the parties interested would be allowed till next Session to get rid of their stock in hand, and to invent some means for avoiding these vexatious and inquisitorial powers. The bill was introduced to prevent adulteration, and yet no adulteration could make tobacco more deleterious than it was. At least this he would say, that the proposed vexatious and inquisitorial process would not gain the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view, The parties most interested complained of the persecution to which they would be subject from the Excise officers, and they especially complained of the time at which the bill was brought in. It was not till the 23rd of June that it was heard of, and the trade was taken by surprise. The hon. Member moved that the bill be committed that day three months.

said, that the question was simply one of revenue. The measure had not been introduced except upon mature consideration, and after inquiries upon the subject had been made in the trade. He had received many communications from the trade, and the result was strongly in favours of the measure which was proposed. The adulteration of tobacco had long prevailed, and was Much increasing, and the consequence of continuing the existing system would be only still further to increase the evil which now prevailed, and this was a strong reason why the question should be no longer postponed.

reminded the House that the Measure Bow under discussion was one which had been abandoned by the late Government. The power of carrying out the measure by establishing an inspection and analysis on the spot had been reported by the commissioners who had inquired into the subject to be impracticable. The new System would, besides, require an enormous increase in the Excise establishment, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had better make a merit of a necessity, and withdraw the bill. He doubted whether it would be possible to prevent adulteration, and he begged to point out that, unless the dealer was placed under the same degree of surveillance as the manufacturer, the seat of the adulteration would only be transferred from the latter to the former individual.

admitted that the London trade was in favour of the old system, but he had received communications from the country districts, and from large towns in various parts of the kingdom, making representations favourable to this measure.

moved the further consideration of the report of the Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing (No. 2) Bill.

was aware that to oppose a motion for a recommitment of a bill like the present at that perion of the Session was equivalent to getting rid of it for the present year, but if, in the present instance, this should be the case, he would take the responsibility and consequences on himself. He trusted that he should be able to convince the right hon. Baronet St the head of the Government that it would be advisable to postpone this measure until next Session. He would remind the House that was not the bill of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, who now had the charge of it. but it was the bill of the Bishop of London, and he certainly should treat the measure with all the respect due to that right rev. Prelate, knowing as he did his talents and business-like habits. He believed that the bill passed through the House of Lords without discussion; at least, he could find no record of any thing of the kind in the ordinary channels of information. The bill also might have passed through that House probably without observation, had it not attracted the attention of the Speaker or some other competent authority, who pointed out that a measure of the kind could not originate in the other House. To remedy this the right hon. Member for Dorchester introduced this bill with the view of getting rid of the difficulty in point of warm. This bill had passed through two or three of its stages, when his attention was attracted to it in consequence of the interest which he took in the subject of Church-leases, and he had intimated his intention to object to the further progress of the bill in its present form. The right hon. Gentleman had postponed the measure from day to day, and he had to thank the right hon. Baronet for his courtesy in consulting his convenience on the subject. The House would remember that the subject of Church-leases was one that excited a great deal of attention. In 1837, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that there should be a new arrangement of Church-leases, with the view of making provision to get rid of the question of Church-rates. The resolution which was proposed on the subject was carried by such a very small majority that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was induced to submit the question to a committee to inquire into the entire subject. The committee was appointed, and after a certain period, which was devoted to the careful investigation of the subject, it made a report, and laid on the Table the evidence which it had taken, and which extended to a very considerable length. The report of the committee concluded with five resolutions, or rather recommendations, which he would read to the House. The committee recommended.

"1. The abolition of the injurious system of fines upon leases for lives, and also upon leases for terms.

" 2. The substitution of a fee simple, for a leasehold, tenure, throughout the property of the Church.

" 3. An act to provide for the conversion of Church leasehold into fee-simple, commonly called enfranchisement.

" 4. The customary confidence of renewal by the lessee to be considered according to local circumstances, by the authorities established under this act, in the principles of enfranchisement laid down by them.

" 5. The interests of the Church, present as well as future, to be provided for by a combined system of money payments and corn rent-charges."

These recommendations could very easily be understood, and the obvious purport of them was, that if by the improved management of Church-leases suggested any surplus should arise, it should be devoted to such purposes as might be deemed calculated to promote the public interest and the interest of the Church. The House would recollect that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed an amendment to the resolution that any surplus that should arise should be devoted to the payment of Church-rates, to the following effect:—with the view of applying such amount to the gradual diminution of the evils which flow from the deficiency in the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence by ministers of the Established Church. This amendment was negatived by a majority of 295 to 267. This state of things showed that the large party now in power considered that all sums derived from such improvements as were contemplated under the improved management should be devoted to strictly Church purposes. His reason for now proposing the re-commitment of this bill was, that it did not fulfil the intentions of the proposition made as an amendment by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1837. In the first place he would allude to the ecclesiastical corporation sole. These had already been dealt with by the 6th and 7th William 4th. That act referred to the constitution of ecclesiastical corporations sole, such as bishoprics. It was settled, by the first section of the act, that certain sums should be paid out of the revenue of the several bishoprics, to the ecclesiastical commissioners, and that the remainder should be appropriated to the bishop of each diocese. The act implied, that each bishop should be allowed a certain amount, not exceeding a fixed sum; and that the remainder of the revenue of each bishopric should not exceed a certain sum. The act, however, did not make provision for the future constitution of the revenue of the several bishoprics, or for such improvements that might be made in them as were contemplated by this bill. Another bill to which he wished to allude, referred to the ecclesiastical corporations aggregate—such, for instance, as deans, and canons, and prebends. This act referring to canons and prebends—namely, the 2nd and 3rd of Victoria, provided, that the revenues of all such offices should be invested under the commissioners, and provision was also made for the abolition of several such offices, and for the apportioning the revenue of the remainder. The surplus revenue so provided also was to be devoted to the augmentation of small livings. He did not see, however, under these acts, how a future increase of incomes, derived either under corporations sole or aggregate, could be invested in the hands of the commissioners. There was no allusion made in either of these acts. as to dealing with such an increase of income as was contemplated under this act, therefore the commissioners could have no possible control over it. The bill would enable corporations sole and aggregate to grant leases for ninety-nine years; and, under its operations, both bishops, as well as canons and prebendaries, would receive a much larger sum than was contemplated by the act of 3rd and 4th Victoria. In the first section it was provided, that ecclesiastical and spiritual corporations should be empowered to grant building leases; and after the general enactment came a remarkable provision, which referred to the surrender of existing leases, as if this was a mere matter of bargain between the existing lessor and lessee. In the fifth clause there was a confirmation of this provision; and in the ninth clause, there was a much stronger confirmation of it, and of any bargain that might be made between the lessor and the lessee. Was it not clear, then, that the existing lessee would be greatly benefitted, and that a portion of the revenue of these ecclesiastical corporations would be devoted to other purposes than those proposed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in his amendment to the resolution of Lord Monteagle in 1837? There were some other clauses in the bill which he should feel called upon to comment on if the House allowed the bill to be re-committed. He would also shew, that it was just possible that some corporations sole would be dealing with lessees with the view of only bettering themselves for the present time, without looking to the ultimate interests of the Church. On this point, he would refer to a striking case which had been referred to by his noble Friend, the Member for the city of London, and the truth of which he believed had never been denied. His noble Friend said:—

" I will refer only to one case, and that probably, may receive an explanation. The case occurred in 1765, when the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral of St. Paul's conveyed away certain church property in the manor of Finsbury. It appears, that the Corporation of Condon being desirous to acquire certain property in Finsbury, obtained the sanction of Parliament, and, in consequence, a lease of sixteen years was cancelled, with the consent of the Bishop of Condon, into a lease for ninety-nine years, the moiety of income of the property to go to the corporation, the other moiety to Dr. Wilson for life, and at his death two-thirds to go to his heirs; the consequence of which was, that only one-sixth went to the church, and the other five-sixths to the city and Dr. Wilson's heirs. Thus, it appears, that five-sixths of the estate were alienated, and only one-sixth left to the church."

Now he feared that some such proceedings would take place under this bill. He might be told, that there was some check on improper bargains being made respecting the granting of leases. Now, the check that he found in the bill was, that consent for the validity of a lease must be obtained from the governors of Queen Anne's bounty.

said, that it would perhaps be convenient if he at once stated that he intended to propose that this control should be given, not to the governors of Queen Anne's bounty, but to the ecclesiastical commissioners.

thought, that this was a most important alteration in the bill, and made an important change and improvement in the whole of the provisions of the bill. In saying this, however, he must add that the best mode of arrangement could not be secured by the change proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He believed that the new scheme of arrangement proposed under the act of the 6th and 7th Will. 4th, would come into operation next year, and he must say that the new arrangement proposed under this bill would materially interfere with it. He would only press on the right hon. Baronet to postpone the consideration of this bill until next Session, and he did so in consequence of the circumstances under which they then stood. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford having given notice at the early part of the Session of a motion on the subject of Church Extension, he was induced to abandon his motion within the last fortnight in consequence of the declaration of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, who promised that he would give the subject his consideration, and would communicate his views on the subject at the early part of he net Session. Now, as he was a party to bringing forward the proposition of 1837 for improving Church property with the view to the abolition of Church-rates, and as in the present state of parties and of that House there was no chance of carrying that plan into effect, he was extremely anxious that this increased revenue, or funds derived from the improved management of Church property —he was extremely anxious that all funds so obtained should be devoted in conformity with the proposition of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1837, which he had already read to the House. He did not wish the revenues of bishops, and deans, and chapters, which had been settled by Act of Parliament to be disturbed; and he confessed that he was as anxious as any one to promote the augmentation of small livings, and the erection of churches where necessary. He would recommend that the bill should he postponed until next year, and in the mean time investigations should take place to see whether the increased funds which would be derived under a bill like the present should not be devoted to the promotion of the objects of the resolution of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. [Sir R. Peel: " Such an object would be incompatible with the present bill."] The right hon. Gentleman must excuse him for saying, that if he entertained such an opinion he hardly could have attended to the bill at all. It would be found that no provision had been made for augmentation of revenue that was derivable from an improved mode of management. He felt assured that the right hon. Baronet could get plenty of funds for Church Extension from this source. He was most anxious that the attention of the right hon. Baronet should be called to the report and the evidence before the committee. The calculations on which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer founded his plan appeared on inquiry to be erroneous, and somewhat exaggerated. It appeared, however, after the strictest calculations, that Mr. Finlaison's calculations were perfectly accurate. That gentleman took the valuation of Church property in its wholeat 12,617,443l. The interest at 4 per cent. was 504.698l. The income received for fines by deans and chapters, 260,631l.; thus giving an annual surplus or perpetual annuity of 254,067l. According to the calculation made beware the committee of 1839, it appeared that the value of Church property was 14,186,183l.; interest, 567,447; renewals, 260,631l.; thus giving a surplus of of 306,816l. He invited the attention of the House to this sum of 306,816l., which it was proved might be derived from improved management of Church property. The effect of the bill under the notice of the House would he to part to a considerable degree with that revenue. It was worthy the attention of the Government to consider the question of the postponement of the measure upon that ground, and particularly as the operation of the bill this year was not more necessary than it had been for the last ten or fifteen years. He believed that since the time of Henry 8th, the Church had never been allowed to grant building leases as contemplated by the bill, except by particular acts and in particular cases. The improvement expected in the value of the lands to be leased under the new measure, should not, he contended, be carried on in the mode which the bill proposed; but, under a voluntary scheme between the lessors and lessees, a very large fund might be raised from the improved management of Church property. He urged upon the Government the impropriety of passing this bill during the absence of almost every hon. Member who had taken a part and an interest in the subject. It was a question which, if due time was allowed, might be settled to the mutual satisfaction of all parties; but the public would not be satisfied when called upon for funds for the purpose of Church Extension, did they find that a bill had been passed, the effect of which would be to prevent funds from being raised, which might otherwise be obtained by the judicious management of the property of the Church itself, and which might be applied to its extension and the promotion of its interests. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until this day three months.

said, that it was impossible to listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman without admitting that he had argued the question with great ability and fairness. The subject was in itself a very complicated and a very difficult one. He thought it would be expedient for him on this occasion to follow the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, and forbear from arguing the abstract question of the propriety of the alienation of the increased value to be given under the new system to Church lands, to purposes other than the uses of the Church itself. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that with respect to Church-rates, he should prefer seeing the expected increased amount of value appropriated to defray these rates, rather than assigned to any other use; but for the purposes of argument, he assumed that it was expedient to consider the increased value about to be given with reference to the strict ecclesiastical purpose of the augmenting of livings insufficiently endowed, and for the extension of the operation and utility of the Church. Now he was most anxious that any increased value to be given to Church property by this enactment, should be made available for the purposes contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman, and more especially set forth in the resolutions of the hon. Member for Oxford. He could not lose sight of the purposes of the motion of that hon. Baronet; and he had the strongest possible opinion, that until all legitimate modes of enhancing the value of Church property should be exhausted, the question did not fairly rise that the State should be called on to contribute to the funds of the Church. He was most anxious that all possible means should be made use of for raising money from the property of the Church itself for the promotion of the sacred purposes of the Church; and he believed that there was nothing in the bill before the House inconsistent with that principle; but, on the contrary, that it involved a step, and a considerable one, in what was generally admitted to be the right direction. The right hon. Gentleman had given an accurate description of the origin of the bill. It was introduced into the House of Lords by the Bishop of London, and he had undertaken its management in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the Church-leases committee, but there was nothing in the five recommendations of that committee incompatible with the principles of the bill. It got rid of leases for lives, or at least it held out a strong inducement to substitute leases for ninety-nine years in lieu of leases for lives; and it also abolished fines on renewals. Now, was there anything in these objects inconsistent with the public interests viewed apart from those of the Church? He contended, that he would appeal to any hon. Member on the subject, whether the public had not the greatest interest in the substitution of leases of ninety-nine years, which gave them a certain fixed term, in lieu of renewal for lives? The public had the greatest possible interest in the improvement of Church lands, and he did not see any public interest which militated against the bill; on the contrary, he saw every advantage likely to flow to the public from its adoption. To return to the interests of the Church itself, apart from that of the public, the measure would be most advantageous to the Church, and would give to incumbents the greatest possible interest in improving the value of Church property. In former discussions upon this subject a case had been put—by the hon. Member for Bath, he believed —of the possibility of the operation of the bill, giving an opportunity to an incumbent of a corporation sole to appropriate the augmentation of the value of Church lands prospectively to his use and that of his successors. They were then told, that generally speaking, these incumbents were vicars in large towns; but he felt that it was possible, that from the operation of the bill, that over-endowed cures might be established in the heart of manufacturing towns and in dense populations, from the increased value given to Church lands. He fully felt the force of this argument, and it appeared to him necessary to take prohibitive steps against the occurrence of such a contingency. With that view he had framed a clause, with the consent of the heads of the Church, which he would introduce on the third reading, and which provided, that after the life of the present incumbent, where the population did not exceed 2,000 persons, the income of the incumbent should not exceed 600l. per annum; that where the population was not greater than 1,000 the income should not exceed 500l.; and, in cases where the population was still smaller, that the income should not exceed 300l. He could confidently recommend the bill to the House upon the very principles urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He would always maintain the impropriety of applying Church funds to any other than Church purposes. He thought the bill to be compatible with this purpose, and he would introduce a clause to assimilate the footing on which the chapters stood throughout the country. The bill was intended to place at the disposal of the ecclesiastical commission, the largest possible amount of funds for the endowment of new livings, and for the augmentation of the incomes of the many, which were so shamefully insufficient.

remarked upon the present change which had been made in some of the most objectionable portions of the bill by the alterations introduced. He wished to inquire whether any part of the increased value of Church property would be given by this bill, after the death of the present incumbents, to private parties, whether lay or ecclesiastical?

said, that the whole, without any exception, would be available to the general fund.

believed, that the holders of Church property were perfectly ignorant of what was preparing for them by this bill. He thought a measure affecting property to so great an extent ought not to be carried through at this period of the Session.

would not trouble the House to divide, but would wait to see the bill reprinted with the amendments.

, in the absence of the hon. Member war Liskeard, moved the further consideration of the report on the Bribery at Elections Bill.

thought the proposed clause unnecessary, the existing law being sufficient. The clause merely declared that to be an offence which was already so by common law.

approved of the clause, and thought it would be a very valuable addition to the bill. By the strict law it might be as his hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) said, but it was not so in practice, which did not make treating an offence before the testing of the writ. He had known Members unseated war giving merely a little refreshment to out-voters after the testing of the writ, where no corrupt motive could be shown to have existed. This was an evil on the other side which the clause would remedy.

maintained that the giving refreshments to out-voters was, under any circumstances, objectionable It might be difficult to get rid of the practice, but in principle it was decidedly wrong.

said, as the clause now stood, it would be necessary to prove two things—firstly, that refreshments had been given; and, secondly, that it had been given with a corrupt motive. He thought it would be better to omit the word " corruptly," for to give at all for the purpose of influencing, a voter was to give with a view to corruptly influencing. The word, he thought, only tended to weaken the clause.

said, the object was to put an end to the corrupt practices of keeping open the public-houses, and treating with corrupt motives. He apprehended they did not desire to prevent a Member of Parliament from asking his constituents to dinner, and yet the proposal of the noble Lord would have the effect of unseating any Member for so doing.