On this page

• Departments (2)
  • 
  • 
• Text (5)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    THE NORTHERN STAR. April 25, 1846.

  • 

    Imperial ^arltanmit*

  • 

    I HOUSE OF COMMONS—Mosdat, Af-ru. 20. ' ...

  • 

    unii l'viiitv-i\ * oyl)ODGAI .J)POl»YAN, ot*l« . Groat 'Viml ill street, Llaynuirlart, n\ the Oit-j of Wustmiustev ,-wt tlie

  • 

    -c, in the s.%me Street ami Parish, tor ...

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    The Northern Star. April 25, 1846.

    THE NORTHERN STAR . April 25 , 1846 .

    Imperial ^Arltanmit*

    Imperial _^ arltanmit *

    I House Of Commons—Mosdat, Af-Ru. 20. ' ...

    I HOUSE OF COMMONS—Mosdat , Af-ru . 20 . ' The S p eaker took the chair at four o ' clock , but tthi there not being forty members present , the house iik stood adjournea . HOUSE OF _LORDS—Tei-siut , _Apbh 21 . ' Lord Brougham presented a petition against the ( CI Charitable Trusts Bill , but stated that he did not reo concur in its prayer . The petitioners seemed to be sal alarmed at the idea of the bill passing . lie thonght , lh ( however , that there need be no alarm at that or any ( Ot other bill passing which their lordships might agree Ito to . They sent them down , he hardly knew where , Ifo . for there seemed an utter incapacity to do business "ir in another place . ( Laughter . ) Their lordships did

    itl their business , but elsewhere they seemed never to tl think of it . ( Renewed laughter . } , The Earl of _Dimiousie moved thc postponement of a all proceedings on railway bills till the 27 th instant , a and gave notice that he should call the attention ot ti the house on Thursday next to a separate order , app plicab ' c to the bills so postponed . The motion was put and agreed to . Thesamenoble lord then laid on the table the end _dence take before the Gauge Commissioners , and the 1 house adjourned .

    HOUSE OF COMMONS-Tuesdat , April 21 The _Speakeb took the chair at four o ' clock .

    NEW MEMBERS . Lara Milton and Mr . Rich took their seats as niem-1 bere for Malton and Richmond . A considerable portion of the early sitting was oc-C cupied with questions on various subjects , and the s answers thereto , onthepartof _theminiaters . Among t these was the following : —

    "PROTECTION OF LIFE" IN ENGLAND . Mr . C . Powell wished to put a question . De had j seen in a Sheffield paper an account ofthe construe " - 1 tion of an infernal machine , intended to intimidate i tiie master-manufacturers , which the paper in qnesi tion described as causing the peaceable inhabitants ' ofthe town the greatest consternation and terror . He should be glad to ask whether , if such a state-: ment were well-founded , her _Majesty ' s government , which always did equal justice to England and to Ireland , would not introduce " a bill for the better protection of life in that part of the United Kingdom called England . " ( Hear , hear , and laughter . )

    Sir J . _GBAHAJtsaid he had reeeived no account of the circumstance to which the hon . member had alluded . One of the hon . members for Sheffield had jnstentered the house , and perhaps the question had better be pnt to him . Mr . 0 . Powell . —Then I understand the government refused to answer the second part of the question : they will only " protect life" in Ireland . Lord G . Bestisck comp lained of a false return as to Memel and Canada timber—and Mr . C . Buller of delays in the presentations of returns which were ordered bv the house . Sir R . Peel threw the blame of the one on the Custom House authorities , and Sir J . Graham on the remissness of Irish officials .

    POOR LAW COMMISSION . Public business was commenced by Mr . Christie , who moved for copies of all correspondence , between W . Day , Esq ., late Assistant-Commissioner of Poor Laws , and the Poor Law Commissioners and the Secretary forthe Home Department , relative to his involuntary resignation , of his Assistant Poor Law Commissionership , and of all minutes relative to Mr . Day ' s resignation , and to the appointment of Colonel Wade as his successor . He founded his motion upon the conduct ofthe Poor Law Commissioners towards Mr . Day , who had been appointed an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner in 1835 , and had discharged the duties of his office for eight years with great credit to

    himself and _satisfaction to his superiors . In August , 1 S 43 _, Mr . Day whilst exercising his functions in South . Wales , had the misfortune to break his leg , and was laid up for five weeks by that accident . He had almost forgotten its occurrence , when , in January , ISii , he received a letter from one of the Poor Law Commissioners , regretting that the state of his bodily health would not allow him to make the necessary exertions for the discharge of his duty , and suggesting the propriety of his resignation . Mr . Christie then gave a history of the manv unsuccessful remonstrances which Mr . Day made against the painful injustice thus inflicted on an old servant of the public , and called the attention of the house to the fact that the only

    answer which the Poor Law Commissioners gave to them , was by ringing changes on their own sense of public duty , and on the exigencies of the public service . After applying to Sir J . Graham who told him that it was intended to reduce the number of Assistant Commissioners , he was surprised by the appointment of another in his place , and was at length compelled to resign . Mr . Christie said it was immaterial to him whether the case of Mr . Day was referred to the same committee as the case of ilr . Parker or not ; for his belief was , that with these two cases before the house , and with some other facts , sueh as the Rochdale case , which were at present under its cognizance , it would be impossible for the house to vote the salaries of the Poor Law Commissioners again without a previous inquiry into

    their mode of administering the Poor Law . Sir J . Gbaium had no intention of opposiug the present motion . On a former occasion ha had endeavoured to show that it would not be possible for the Loot Law Commissioners to discharge their duty properly if they had not unfettered power to appoint and to change their Assistant Commissioners . He was willing to produce all the papers for which Mr . Christie asked , and to submit them to the committee on the Andover Union . He protested that in hit conduct towards Mr . Day , he had not been guided by any liking or disliking . His only object had been to promote the public service at a time of public danger , by the appointment of the most efficient person to an office of great public importance . The motion was then agreed to .

    POST-OFFICE MISMANAGEMENT ! Mr . T . Dcscombb then rose to move for a select committee to enquire into the allegations ofthe petition of Mr . Jonathan Duncan , on the mal-administration of affairs in the General Post-Office . If the Government intended to accede to tbis motion also , he ( Mr . T . Duncombe ) need not occupy the time of the house ; but , if otherwise , he trusted that if he made out a case for enquiry , the house would support the motion . ( Hear , hear . ) In no public department was investigation more important than in thc case of the Post-office , if abuses could be substantiated . Last session he had moved for an inquiry into a portion ofthe present complaints , particularly with regard to the payment of the officers by fees , but it

    was felt to be _tos late in the session . The house oug ht now to _asree to an enquiry , if even irrespective of the public interests , it had any regard to its own honour , and not wish its orders to be treated with contempt . ( Hear , hear . ) There was no public department in this country , the admin stration of which furnished greater cause , or jnster grounds of dissatisfaction than the General Post-office ; complaints were made , not only outside the walls but within them , and to a most alarming and discreditable extent . The public complained of the delay in the delivery of letters , and he would undertake to prove that they would be delivered in London an hour and half earlier very morning , but for certain mal-practices , ( hear , hear . ); and within the walls

    the letter-carriers and sub-sorters were greatly dissatisfied , not only because ofthe manner in which they were remunerated , but on account of the manner in which they were treated by some of their superior officers . If a subordinate made any complaint , it had no chance of reaching the Postmaster-General fairly , because ft had to go through a channel in which it was misrepresented , if not stopped altogether ; so much so , that the men were afraid to make any complaint whatever . ( Hear , hear . ) The petition proceeded from Mr . Duncan of 13 , Chesrerplace _, Kenningtou , proprietor of the Sentinel newspaper ; he was a gentleman well known to many hon . members as one who would not make allegations which he was not fully prepared to prove ; and

    he ( Mr . T . Duncombe ) had taken great trouble in examining the statements therein made , and he believed they could be all established by evidence . ( Hear , hear . ) The hon . member thea entered into several details , to show that if there were not great _mal-administration in the Post-office , the letters would be delivered an hour and half sooner in every part ofthe metropolis . lie also stated that the letter-carriers complained not only of the scale of their remuneration , but also o ihe mode in which they were treated by their superiors . He then entered into a history ofthe manner in which the information for Kelly ' s Postrofiicc Directory was obtained by the letter carriers at the public expence for the benefit of a private individual , and sti gmatised it as a

    gross job , whicli converted the Post-office into a lucrative printing-office , and filled its subordinate officers with discontent and dissatisfaction . He believed tbatnehher the Secretary nor the Postmaster-General were aware of all the circumstances under which that publication was got up . Letters requesting subscriptions for Kelly ' s Directory had been delivered by the letter carriers without stamps , at the priucipal houses in the metropolis , and that was so direct an allegation of fraud upon the revenue that the house was bound to inquire into the truth of it . He had moved last session for a return of the profits

    derived from the printing of this Directory , which wa * hawked about from door to door by the letter carriers for Mr . Kelly ' s benefit ; and the return made was , that the profits did not exceed 1 . 2001 a-year . Now , if this committee were granted , he would prove that the profits of that publication _^ got ud , as he had described , at the public expense ' enabled Mr . Kelly to put 12 , 090 / . to 15 , 000 / . into his pocket yearly . If he was asked what was his re . medy for the state of things which prevailed in the Post-office , and into which he now asked the house to inquire , he would say , that a good deal might be done by doing away with the whole system of fees ,

    I House Of Commons—Mosdat, Af-Ru. 20. ' ...

    esoecially wilh regard to the early delivery . ( Hear , hear . ) The system was this , . that a letter _- carrier be « an in the office , say at 20 a . a-week ; he was then advanced to 23 s ., and after continuing for ja length of time at this remuneration , he w _« re . f _^ . _^ f *{ . his income being left to be made up by the receipt of fees on the earl / delivery . This was _J _> < _" _¦ _£ _" _* unjust system , and he would do away with it _altogether , and consolidate the _general post and the district post departments together . Nothing was more absurd than that a letter which came twenty _mdes from London should be placed on the early post and delivered by a man with a red coat , while another letter , merely because it came only 12 miles , should be delivered at another hour by a man in a blue

    coat . Why should there not be only one department for the delivery of letters ? and why should not all letters be delivered at the earliest or at any hour at which the writers might choose to send them ? ( Hear . ) Let all letters be equally delivered , and give the men a fair remuneration on a graduated scale of salary according to their services . Let the letter-carrier be promoted to the sub-sorter ' s situation when a vacancy occurred , instead of putting in new men as subsorters , who did not understand the duties . The whole system , indeed , might be p laced on a much better footing . If a committee were appointed , he would have practical men among the sub-sorters examined on the points to which he had advertedsensible , practical men , well acquainted with these

    matters , but whose knowledge had never been made available , a few of the superior officers continually standing between them and the Postmaster-General . ( Hear . ) That early delivery oug ht to be done away with . A public institution ought to be for the equal benefit of all . No man , because he paid more than another , ought to have his letters sooner . ( Hear . ) That was not the principle on which a Post-office should be established . To illustrate the nature of tha early delivery , he would take the case of Chancery-lane , occupied chiefly by lawyers , many of whom submitted , like idiots , to the extortion which prevailed under the system . A man who resided at No . I on the third floor paid the extortionate fee , whilst a man on the first or second floor did not submit to

    it . The letter-carrier in going his round passed the doors of these two , hut delivered the letters to the person on the third floor , and wentup Chancery-lane , delivering in the same way the letters of those only who paid the fee , aud passing the doors of all others . He then came back to the bottom of Chancery-lane and commenced therewith his late-delivery letters to those who did not submit to the extortion . Now , he ( Mr . Duncombe ) maintained that they had no right to ask tbe letter-carrier , according to his oath , to delay the delivery of a letter an instant because one man gave him more than other . ( Hear , hear . ) The system was persisted in for the sole purpose of keeping up the wages of those men who were put on a reduced salary after a certain term of service , and

    who sot what was called the favoured work . ( Hear . ) He did not see how , consistently with the public good and with their own honour , they could refuse him this inquiry . ( Hear . ) He repeated , that the Post-office department was most justly complained of by the public at large ; that great maladministration existed in it , and should be removed . He said also that great tyranny and oppression was exercised towards a meritorious body of servants in that department , and that they were in a state of discontent that might some day or other be most disastrous to the commercial interests of this country ; for he should like to know what would be the state of that

    city if these parties struck their work—such things . having already been contemplated by them ? For what puipose should government stifle this inquiry if it were not to perpetuate these evils , and this gross job ef the Directory , which he had said before was the bane of that establishment , and ought to be done away with ? lie believed that a committee of that house impartially selected would place the establishment on a footing satisfactory not only to the public , but to all parties concerned therein . The hon . gentleman then moved the appointment of a committee to inquire into the allegations in Mr . Duncan ' s petition as to maladministration in the affairs of the Post-office .

    Mr . Willuus believed Mr . Duncan to be a gentleman incapable * of making any statement to that house or elsewhere which he did not thoroughly believe to be consistent with truth ; the charges brought forward on that _occasion were such as the house could not refuse to _isquire into unless they were prepared to proclaim to the country that thc publie servants were justified in committing frauds on the public property . Here was a charge distinctly made , that the public property was used for the private-interest of individuals , who had been named ; and such a charge could not Li disregarded , especially when made on the authority of a gentleman who was in every respect entitled to confidence . He believed there was no department connected with the government that more required looking into than the Postoffice . There was a time when the Post-office was

    an example of correctness and order , but that time was gone by . To refuse the inquiry , would be offering a premium to public servants to act net only with dishonesty , but also with a total disregard to the performance of their public duties . He seconded the motion with much pleasure , and he hoped that the government would offer no objection to thc inquiry . Mr . Cardwell insisted that there was not , on the part of the Treasury or the Postmaster-General , the slightest desire to screen from detection , exposure , and punishment , any such mal-practices as Mr . Duncombe had just denounced , provided that proof was tendered of their existence . There was no occasion to bring forward such charges in the House of Commons , as the Treasury and the Postmaster-General were at all times ready to receive memorials complaining of such mal-practices , and to investigate into their truth . Mr . Dc . vco . mbe . —They would never get there .

    Mr . Cirdwkll continued . —lie ( Mr . Cardwell ) reeeived day after day scores of memorials in the public _department in which he had the honour to serve ; and he should not dare to stand up in that house and vindicate his conduct , if it could be truly said that memorials plainly drawn up and properly expressed , containing charges of mal-practices , were treated with disrespect in that department . He would say , that if the hon . member could truly make such statement he would have a good case , not merely for a committee of inquiry , but for severe reprobation upon the public servants , who could make no answer in that house , when any one brought forward so grave a charge . ( Hear , hear . ) The hon . gentleman then defended Mr . Kelly from the charges which Mr .

    Duncombe had preferred against him , and in the course of that defence gave a history ol the Postojfiee Directory , and of the mode in which it had been originally purchased , and subsequentl y got up by that gentleman . The information which it contained was official , collected by official persons for official purposes , and must be collected for the Post-office , even if Mr . Kelly ' s Directory had no existence . The profits which Mr . Kelly derived from that publication were not more than that fair remuneration whicli a man had a right to expect from the employment of his capital and the exercise of his industry , and were correctly stated in the return before the house . As any alleged abuses connected with the Post-office might be redressed by the Treasury , he objected to the appointment of a committee .

    Mr . Movfatt did not think that the hon . member who had just sit down and answered the able argument of his hon . friend the member for Finsbury . The hon . gentleman said that no complaint had been made either to the heads of the department or to the Treasury , but he would remind the hon . member that the inferior officers had felt a degree of hesitation incoming before their superiors ; but if a committee of the house was appointed , the parties complaining would come before . them and state their grievances with full confidence that they would have more justice done them than they expected at the hands of their superiors . Inquiry would also have the effect of exposing abuses in the system of the Post-office , and of leading to a judicious reform . That system was both slow and slovenly . Letters which might , under proper management , * be delivered at nine o clock in the morning , were not delivered until half-past ten .

    Mr . _Protherob supported the motion for a committee of inquiry . Mr . Bhotheriox complained of thc manner in which the appointment of letter-carriers in large provincial towii 8 was made . There had been sent down to Manchester , from Buckinghamshire , a number of agricultural labourers , as letter carriers—men who could hardly read or write , and who were so unacquainted with the localities of Manchester , that they had even now the greatest difficulty of making out the different streets to which it was their duty to carry letters . Mr . Christie was by no means satisfied with the speech of Mr . Cardwell . He had denied " upon authority" the statements of Mr . Duncombe , but he had not stated upon what authority . It might be that the authority on which all these denials were given , was only the authority of the parties inculpated .

    Mr . F . Bari . no opposed the motion : there was nothing either in the petition of Mr . Duncan or in the complaints of the public to warrant an inquiry into the administration ofthe Post-office . At the same time he doubted whether it was advisable to carry on the Post-office Directory for the benefit o f an individual by means of the officers of the public . Mr . Wakelt said , that during thc debate he had been speculating as to how the cx-offieial members on that side of the house would vote , and he found he was right in his conjecture , that not one of them would agree to the motion of his hon . colleague .

    Whenever the public servants were attacked , the ins and outs always agreed . Perhaps they antici pated that inquiry might extend to their own period oi * office , or they might contemplate the probability of returning to power , and in either case _itmhiktprove inconvenient . Thc statement of the honorable gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury , in answer to his hon . colleague , was absurd , if it was meant to be a refutation of the charges brought forward . If this house was not to enter into inquiry when such allegations were made , their functions as the inquest of the nation were at an end . If the house was satisfied with such a reply as that of the hon . gentleman ,

    I House Of Commons—Mosdat, Af-Ru. 20. ' ...

    they would relinquish their duty as protectors ot the interests of the people . He dissociated the , allegations in the petition from the general conduct of the Post-office . He received hundreds of letters , and he knew that the duties of that department were most laborious , and were moat wonderfully executed . It could not be denied that it was a mo 3 t astonishing institution , and every one must be struck with the wonderful manner in which its functions were performed . An inquiry , however , was needed to sift the allegations contained in Mr . Duncan ' s petition . The Chakcsllor of ihe Exchequer reiterated the statement of Mr . Cardwell as to the readiness of the

    Treasury to examine into charges of malversation preferred against any officers of the departments in connection with it . He defended the administration ofthe Post-office from the censures cast upon it , and asserted that if a committee were granted on such vague allegations as the present , the time of the house would be wasted upon inquiries which could lead to no practical result . After a few words from Mr . B . Escoti , as to thc intelligence 3 hown by Mr . Bokenham , the superior officer of Mr . Kelly , when examined by the previous Committee of enquiry into Post-office matters .

    Mr . T . Duscoube replied that he had never said that Mr . Bokenham was not a most intelligent witness . On the contrary , he desired to have him , and those other gentlemen who had been below tho bar , and . between whom and the government a running communication had been kept up all the evening , examined even now at the bar , because he believed they could prove his case . He denied that this was a mere squabble between the Directory and a newspaper editor , but it involved a great and important public question . He distinctly charged wilfully False returns to have been made to that house , and he believed every allegation in the petition could be proved by witnesses from the Post-office itself . He had done his duty by calling the attention of the house to the petition , and he now left it to the house to decide whether or not a select committee should be appointed to inquire into the allegations which it contained . The house then divided—

    -For tbe motion 49 Against it 92 Majority against'themotion ... 43

    IRISH RAILWAY BILLS . Mr . W . S . O'Brien brought forward the motion of which he gave notice— " That with a view to diminish the inconvenience and expense now incurred in carrying through Parliament bills for the construction of railways iu Ireland , it is expedient that in thc case of Irish Railway Bills all such inquiries as are now conducted in London by committees , in both Houses of Parliament , should , after the termination of the present session , take place in Ireland . " His plan for carrying out his resolution was as follows . The Speaker at the end of every session was to have power to appoint a commission to examine all Irish Railroad Bills . The commission was to consist of

    five persons—an eminent lawyer , a _i-ivil engineer , a military engineer , a mercantile roan of high station and character , and an intelligent country gentleman . The commission should have power to decide on the policy as well as on the facts involved in each bill , subject , of course , to an appeal to that house . He left , however , to the government , in case it should accede to bis resolution , full power of carrying it into effect by another plan . He had thrown out his own ideas ; but he would not gay that another plan lc 33 objectionable mig ht not be devised . In case the government gave him its support on this resolution , he should move that the same principle be also applied to all private bills coming from Ireland . Mr . F . French seconded the resolution .

    Sir R . Pbbl observed , that from the number of motions which had gone off that evening , it was quite evident that the house was not prepared / or the present very important motion . It certainly was a matter not unworthy of consideration whether in case of railroads , and other important works , we might not institute certain preliminary inquiries on the spot ; but if preliminary inquiries were to be instituted on tho spot , the . other distant parts of thc empire , as well as Ireland , ought to have the benefit of them . There must always be a strong objection , on the part of the house , to give up its legislative

    power , and to transfer to five individuals the right of dealing with all the landed property of Ireland , Besides , Mr . S . O'Brien had not stated what he would d <> with the joint power of tlie House , of Lords . He hoped that Mr . S . O'Brien would withdraw his motion ; for it was quite impossible that the house could now assent to it . All that he could assent to was thc propriety of consideration whether some preliminary inquiry might not be made on the spot with the expediency of local public works , by some body acting under the authority and control of the House of Commons ; but the power of legislation must not be taken away from the two houses of Parliament .

    After a brief discussion , in which Mr . C . Powell , Mr . Wakley , Lord C . Hamilton , Colonel Conolly , Mr . M . O'Connell , Mr . Williams , Mr . Frewen , Mr . E . B . Roche , the Chancellor of the Exchequer , Colonel Rawdon , and Mr . D . Browne joined , the house divided , when there appeared—For the resolution 25 Againstit ,........ „ ,.... 69 Majority against it 44 The other orders of the day were then disposed of , and the house adjourned . HOUSE OF _COMMONS—Wedkbsdat , April 22 . The Speaker took the chair at twelve o ' clock .

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL . Oh the motion of Sir J . _Gbabam , the house went into committee for the further consideration ofthe report of this bill . Mr . T . Duncombe said that great alarm existed in all parts of the country on the subject of some of the enactments of this bill , there was no doubt that if some of the present defects of the bill were not corrected , they would have the effect of ruining many very valuable Friendly Societies . Ho particularly objected to that part of the bill by which parties who had invested their money in Friendly Societies were not allowed to transfer it when about to leave the society . He could mention a case which occurred some short time ago , where parties were about to quit the country and to go and settle in Russia ; and the consequence was , they lost the advantage of their investments . This was a hard case , and if its

    principle were carried out in similar cases , it would , as he had said , be the ruin of many valuable societies . Sir J . Graham said , that the bill was introduced for the purpose of extending the effect of the judgment given by Mr . Justice Wightman , and it would not interfere with any Friendly Society already in existence ; on the contrary , some of its objects were to extend and improve the facilities for the formation of such _societies . With respect to the power o the transfer of shares and investments , he apprehended that the hon . member did not state thc Jaw exactly on the subject . Those societies whose members had now the right of transferring their shares or investments would continue to hold that right without being interfered with by this bill , but he did not wish , nor was the bill intended , to give a right to an indiscriminate sale of shares in those Friendly Societies .

    Mr . Ruthkotoiid thought that parties who had made investments in those societies ought to be allowed to withdraw them on retiring from them . Sir J . Graham said , that the right of indiscriminate transfer , unless it was guarded and limited , ink lit lead to great abuse . Now , he would take the case of men associating for a " strike" not to work under a particular rate of wages . That might be lawfully done sincethe alterations ™ the combination laws , but the power of transfer to which tho hon . member referred might be carried farther , and Friendly

    and other Benefit Societies might soon he converted into " Strike Associations , " and the funds intended for other purposes mi ght be applied to enable men to hold out against their former employers . This would be an abuse which would ruin many societies . Mr . _Ruihebpoiid would be willing to limit the amount of individual investments in such societies to- £ 20 , or any other sum that would be sufficiently low to prevent their being converted to the uses ol " Strike Associations , " but he would not deprive the investor of the power of withdrawing his investments when about to retire from the society . The _AtiornbvGkskbal

    - said , that thc principle of the clause to which they wore then referring , waa the formation of a fund from which on certain conditions the members of the society could get supolied with clothes , or fuel , or other aids , without the aid of charitable donations . If the principle of indiscriminate transfer were adopted , there mi ght not be any means of preventing others becoming members who would bo opposed to the original promoters of thc society . lie did not say that the member ofa Friendly Society , as the law now stood , might not withdraw his investments when he pleased , subject to certain rules agreed to by the society itself . lie had not seen the rules of any society in which this was not admitted .

    Mr . T , Duncombe said that his object was not to give an indiscriminate right of transfer . He would limit it to some party being a member of the society , which would obviate some of the objections raised against it ; but he believed that the principal ground of the right hon . baronet's objection was to put down what lie called " strike associations ; " but there , he ( Mr . Duncombe ) contended , existed no good ground for feeling any alarm on that point . The alterations which the right hon . gentleman proposed to make , in not allowing persons having shares in these societies to transfer them to members of their own lamilies , would in his opinion work a great injustice in many instances .

    The Solicitok-Gexebal said , the questions winch arose upon this part of the bill were two , ' —first , whether any shares or interest in the funds of these societies were transferable or not ; and secondly , whether any interest or any funds to which any particular member should be entitled ought to he confined exclusively to himself , or his family ; or whether , under the provisions of this bill , power should be given for any one else to participate in thc benefit of those funds . With respect to the first point , it would be exceedingly mischievous if any doubt were suffered

    I House Of Commons—Mosdat, Af-Ru. 20. ' ...

    to exist whether any such interest ' were transferable : and to hold by . law , or to provide by enactment , that they could be transferred , would be to open the door to speculation and gambling among those classes of society where the practice of that vice was most pernicious . The provisions of this bill therefore were to prevent any doubt upon the point , by providing against the possibility of those interests being transferred . Upon the second point , it was nn entire misapprehension to suppose that as the law now existed , or as he trusted it would stand when this bill was passed , there was , or could bo , the slightest difficulty on the part of any contributor to those societies , on a charge of residence or _circumstancos in life rendering it necessary for him to withdraw altogether from the

    institution to which he belonged , in obtaining without diminution , his share ofthe funds , and app lying it as he thought proper . By the rules of many existing societies it was expressly provided for ; but the provisions of this bill would make tho law certain upon the point , by allowing the withdrawal by any person of his share of the funds under certain circumstances . Mr . RuTJiKm > onD suggested a separate clause , in the nature of a proviso , to the eftect that nothing should prevent the adoption or enforcement of a rule or regulation by wliich members retiring should receive their former contributions . . . Sir J . Graham said , the rnles of friendly societies generally contained a clause of this description , and it wa 3 for the interest of thc working classes that they should . For instance , if a man who had been contributing to a society should leave London to

    reside in the country , he ought to have possession of the accumulated fruits of his industry . If there was any doubt about it he would undertake , on bringing up the report , to insert a clause carrying out the views of the hon . member , with the understanding that the person retiring was alone to be entitled to receive his former contributions . On clause 4 being read , which makes it compulsory upon societies before enrolment to obtain not only a certificate of their legality from the Attorney-General , but also tho assent of the Home Secretary . Mr .. T . _Duncomue said , it would be putting societies to a great deal of unnecessary trouble , expense , and annoyance to compel them to obtain the assent of the Home Secretary , after the Attorney-General had certified their legality . He . therefore proposed that the words " Secretary of State , be left out .

    Sir J . Graham admitted , that the Home Secretary and thc Attorney-General 'had already ample employment , and that no additional duties but such as were absolutely necessary ' . ought to be imposed on them . There was , however , a creat objection to a too strict definition , by which societies with laudable and important objects mig ht be excluded . After defining the objects for which societies might be established , it was thought advisable that power should be given for the enrolment of societies ( the consent of the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary heing first obtained ) which were not entitled to enrolment under previous clauses . . The clau » e , as amended , was then ordered to stand part of the bill . On clause 3 ,

    Mr . T . Duncombe asked , if the provisions of the bill were to apply retrospectively to those friendl y societies which were already in existence and had been certified ? If that was to be thu case , the measure would have a most injurious effect upon many of those institut ons . Sir J . Graham said , the bill would leave all existing certified societies in the same position as at present . They would still continue liable , as they now were , to challenge in a court of law , if any question as to their legality arose . Mr . Hawes said , the bill would leave the great difficulty affecting the existing societies untouched , if it did not settle the question as to their legality . The question was not determined by the judgment of Mr . Justice Wightman in the South Shields case , for he ( Mr . Hawes ) had in his possession the opinion ofthe learned Attorney-General in direct opposition to Mr . Justice Wightman ' _s decision .

    Sir J . Graham said it was an unusual and unprecedented proceeding to bring forward in that House an opinion given by counsel on a case not before the House , and upon an ex parte statement , against the solemn decision of so eminent a judge as Mr . Justice Wightman , pronounced , after hearing the-case fully argued . He ( Sir J . Graham ) could be no party , directly or indirectly , to any attempt to reverse such a decision by a declaratory law , nor could he ask the House to do so . That judgement had not been reversed by any judicial authority : it had not been appealed against ; and neither directly nor indirectly ought it to be retractively interfered with . It bad been considered expedient that a legal remedy should not be precluded against societies in thc same position as that with regard to which Mr . Justice Wightman was called upon to decide ; and this hill was , therefore , only a prospective measure . All

    societies existing before the passing of this bill would stand upon the same legal footing as if such a measure had not been adopted ; but in case of doubt being entertained by any of those societies as to thc legal foundation on which they stood , they might , under the fifth paragraph of the first clause , apply for a niw constitution , if their objects were certified to be legal by the Attorney-General . Mr . T . Duncombe observed , that out of thc 4 , 000 friendly societies in existence , they would not be able to find 200 that were not in the same peril as the South Shields Society . His object was that these 4 , 000 societies wliich had their rules enrolled by the barrister , Mr . Tidd Pratt , should be considered legal societies from this moment , and with this view he should propose as an amendment to insert the words " or enrolled" after the word " established , " in the third clause .

    After a short conversation the amendment was withdrawn . Mr . T . Duncombe then observed that the clause , as it stood at present , declared to be within thc beneficial provisions of the Friendly Societies Act " any friendly society established before the passing or this act for any purpose which is _hei'cinbefore specified , or for any lega ) purpose to be certified and allowed by the Secretary of State , " to . He would more , as an amendment , that the word " or" be inserted after " act , " his object being to disjoin the first part of the clause from any qualifying words , so that a 11 friendly societies at present established should be legalized . This had been his object in introducing the present

    bill . Sir J . Graham objected to this being done without a preliminary injury into the objects of the societies thus td be legalized by so sweeping a provision . This amendment would change the tenor of the bill altogether . Mr . T . Duncombe was quite willing to limit himself to enrolled societies , and these must already have been allowed and certified by Mr . Tidd Pratt , the registrar ; who was to have such extensive powors under the proposed bill , that his decision might surely be thus acted on by the house , Societies already declared illegal by a court of justice would be excluded by a subsequent part of the clause .

    The Attorney-General objected to legislating in the dark about the nature of the societies to be legalized . Lord J . Manners thought , that if it was implied that societies might have been allowed by Mr . Tidd Pratt which were illegal , that gentleman ought to lay down and state his rules of procedure . Sir J . Graham considered this a bill to lay down for Mr . Tidd Pratt ' s guidance what should be legal objects . In doubtful cases he might have formerly allowed some rules to pass which it might hot be expedient retrospectively to _legalize . After some conversation the committee divided ; the numbers were : — For the amendment 1 Againstit 93 Majority —86 After a trifling verbal amendment had been made , Mr . Dukcomke said he had certain words which he

    wished to add to thoclause . There were certain societies established for the relief of the members connected with them , and their families , but they were not enrolled in consequence of being included under what were called " Corresponding Societies , " having district branches in _various parts of the country . One of these , the Odd Follows' Society , had upwards of 400 , 000 members in England and Scotland , and they wished tohavethepowerof enrolment , but could not do so on account of having branch societies , what he proposed , therefore , was to add to the clause the words , "that existing benefit societies ,

    _generally known under the name of Odd fellows'Societies , Forresters , Rtfchahites , Old Friends , and other societies malting provision for assistance at death , allowance in sickness , endowments and provision for old age , and for the maintenance of their wives and children , and noini nees shall , after the passing of this act . be eligible for enrol , ment . " There were members of that house connected with the society of Odd Fellows . He did not know whether the hon . member for _Birminjham ( Mr . Spooner ) was or not , but he beliered his colleague was , and lie hoped he should have his support to this proposal .

    The _Attomiky-Gemerai . observed , that they had already agreed to provisions whicli would include generally all the societies that ought to be embraced within the scope of the act , but the object of the provision brought forward by the lion , membor was todctino and specify certaiu societies , of tho establishment of which he had no knowledge at all . It appeared to him that the proviso was altogether unnecessary . If these societies were legal , and within the terms comprehended under the former provisions of the act , there was no _OGcasion to specify them . If , on the other hand , they were not within the terms of the former provisions , and were not established for a legal purpose , then the hon . member was

    attempting to introduce a proviso which would include societies whieh ouglitnotbe included , and which had been already virtually rejected by the house when it refused Uie insertion of the word ' all . " In short , if these societies were illegal , the house could not sanction their existence , and if they were legal , they were already provided for iu the other provisions of the bill . As to benefit societies having branches , he thought it was desirable to protect societies so constituted , and accordingly he was prepared to give his assent to the proviso whieh the hon . member for Hertford intended to move . He thought that that proviso would answer tlio object of the hon . gentleman . M Di'scouee , seeing it was the intention of the go-

    I House Of Commons—Mosdat, Af-Ru. 20. ' ...

    vernment to agree to the clause to bo proposed by the hon . _murnber for Hertford , would not- pre 98 . his amendment . Tho amendment was then , by leave , withdrawn , and tho clause was agreed to .

    COUNTY ELECTIONS BILL . Mr . _"Gtriiit-STONB then moved the second reading of this hill , of which the object ii to limit the time for taking the poll in . counties-to one day , as is now the casein boroughs . He vindicated the change on the ground that it would lead to a great saving of expense . Lord _WonstEV _, Mr . _Bhiout , and Mr . B . _Escott sup . portvd the princip le of the measure , as being calculated to promoto iucieased purity at elections , by curtailing the period of their continuance . Coloiwl T . Wood moved , "That the bill be read that

    day six months . " The amendment was supported by Mr . _tfewdegate , who apprehended from the contemplated change a terrible aceeission of strength to the _Anti-Corn Law League at any future general election . Mr . B . _Denison , Sir J . Graham , and Lord G . Bentinck took the same course from a fear that the county constituencies would be curtailed of their present proportions if less time were allowed them to record their votes . Colonel _Sibthorp avowed himself hostile to the bill in consequence of its tendency to check the circulation of money at an election .

    Upon a division , the bill was lost , there "being for the second reading 32 , and against it 55 . The Rail-ray Deposits' Bill , and the Commons Enclosure Bill were read a third time and passed . The house then adjourned .

    HOUSE OF LORDS-Thubsdat , Anil 23

    RAILWAYS . The Earl of Dalhousie brought forward the government measure for enabling Railway Companies that had not obtained a corporate character to wind up their affairs and dissolve . The machinery by which this object' is to be effected having been detailed by the noblo earl at considerable length , ho proceeded to observe , that as the bill would necessarily occupy some time in its progress through Parliament , and as it was not intended to adopt the recommendation , 80 strong ly urged by the best authorities in commercial and mercantile affairs , of stopping all thc Railway Bills in progress , —the further proposition of the government was that a sessional order

    should be agreed to ; to the effect that no bill should be read a third time unless evidence was _given , that a meeting of the stockholders of the com pany had been held , that that meeting consisted of the representatives of one-third of the stock of the company , and that three-fifths of that meeting voted in person or by proxy , desired that the bill should pass . He admitted that the course now recommended by the government was an unusual one , but it was one he thought called for b y the unprecedented circumstances oi the case . A short discussion ensued , in which Lords Brougham , Wieklow , Eglintoun , Clanricarde , and others took part , the bill was read a first time , and the house adjourned .

    HOUSE OF _COMMONS-TiroRSBAT , April 23

    RAILWAY LEGISLATION . Sir R . Pbel moved the following resolutions : — I . That this house will not read a third time any bit " to empower any company ( whether intended to be incorporated by such bill , or already incorporated by act of Parliament ) to construct a railway , unless threa clear days before the third reading there shall have been deposited at the Private _Bill-officc , there to be open to the inspection of all parties , a certificate signed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned , and comprising the particulars hereinafter expressed , and stating the following _factB , vis .: —1 . That a copy of the bill was submitted to thu consideration of a meeting of the scripholders ofthe company , or ( in case of a company alreadyincorporated ) of the _shareholders or stockholders of the

    company , specially called for that purpose , 2 , That such meeting was called by advertisements , inserted once In each of two consecutive weeks in thc London Gazette { it thc railway be an English or Scotch railway ) , or in the London and the Dublin Gazettes ( if the railway be an Irish railway ) , and in each case in at least three London daily newspapers , and not less than three times in each such paper , in each of such two consecutive weeks . 3 . In the ca ? e of tho company being intended to be incorporated by the bill — that such meeting was constituted of persons producing thereat scrip of the company representing not less than one-third part of the whole capital proposed to be raised by the company under tbe bill ( such scrip having been actually issued , or the _depoaits in respect thereof having been paid

    before the 31 st of March in the prosent year ) . _i . In the case of the company being already incorporated—that such meeting was held , except so far as is herein otherwise provided , according : to tbe constitution of the company , and was constituted of shareholders or stockholders thereof competent to vote at the ordinary meetings ef the company , and representing either personally or as proxies not le 6 S than one-third part of the whole capital or stock of tho company . 5 . That at such meeting tho bill was approved of by persons producing thereat scrip equal to at least three-fifths of the total amount of scrip produced at the meeting ; or . in the case of a company already incorporated , by three-fifths at least ofthe meeting , the votes being given and computed _according to the constitution of the company .

    "II . That for the purposes of this order it shall be eompetent for the chairman of any meeting called in pursuance thereof , in the event of the above prescribed quorum of scrip , shares , or stock ( as tho case may be ) not being represented at such meeting , to cause the votes of the pi rxons constituting the said meeting , _approving or not approving of tho bill , to be taken and recorded , and then to adjourn the same to some day , hour , and place , to be declared by the chairman , such day not being less than three days , and not more than one week from the original day of meeting , and such day , hour , and place being , in the meantime , advertised twice in each of three London daily newspapers ; and at such adjourned meeting it shall also be competent to the chairman thereof to cause to be taken and recorded the votes of such of the persons constituting the same as have not voted at the original meeting ; and the total amount of votes given ut the orig inal and adjourned meeting shall be received as if given at one and the same meeting _.

    III . That such certificate shall also comprise , in a tabular form , the following particulars : —1 , The day , time and place of the meeting , and of the adjeurned meeting , if any ) . 2 . The dates of _insertion ofthe advertisements for tho meeting , and the names of tbe newspapers in which they were inserted . 3 . The names and addresses of tho persons producing scrip at the meeting ; or , in the case of a company already incorporated , the names and addresses of the shareholders , or stockholder ; , present at the meeting . -1 . The denoting numbers , and the amount ofthe scrip respectively produced by the persons s * producing the same at the meeting ; or , in the ease of a company _alrwady incorporated , the respective amounts of shares or stock held or represented by the

    shareholders or stockholders attending the meeting . 5 . The fact of the approval or non-approval of the bill ( ns the case may be ) by the several persons producing scrip at the meeting , or by the several shareholders or stock _, holders attending the meeting . 6 . The total amount of scrip produced at such meeting , and the amount thereof produced by the persons approving of the bill ; or , in the case of a company already incorporated , the total amount of shares or stock represented , either in persou or by proxy , at the meeting , and the amount thereof so represented by person * approriug ofthe bill . 7 . The total amount of the capital _proposed to be raised by the company under the bill ; or , in the case ofa company already incorporated , the total amount of the capital or stock ot such company .

    IV . That such certificate shall be signed by the chairman of the meeting and by one of the solicitors of the company ; and the authenticity of such certificate shall b .- verified by the signature of the Parliamentary agent depositing the same . ile enforced thc propriety of Parliament adopting these resolutions by a reference to the unwholesome extent to which railway speculation had attained , and whicli was causing the greatest inconvenience to the monetary system of the country . Private

    individuals also wero sustaining sonous injury and vexation from the uncertainty of the law ; and these two inconveniences combined to render it _highly desirable that the present moment should be _seked for making some legislative reform . A lengthy debate followed , in wliich a great number of the lending members expressed their opinions on the proposed resolutions . These were generally favourable , but at the same time blame was thrown upon the government for not having interfered sooner . Sir G . Clerk seconded the motion .

    Lord G . Bkntinck charged the government with having largely contributed to the encouragement of that railway speculation which was now so generally reprobated ; it had not only diminished the rate of deposit required for the prosecution of such projects , but the head of it had actually himself become the hero of the silver trowel and ofthe mahogany wheelbarrow , when he broke the first sod oi * the Trent Valley Railway . Mr . _Carowell defended the conduct of government in reference to their transactions ; they were no further censurable than there was demerit in giving a stimulus to trade , aud thereby easing the money market .

    Mr . T . Duncombe observed that the governtv . ent might be responsible for uot having proposed these resolutions earlier ; but that it certainly was not responsible for any encouragement given to the railway mania . He thought that these resslutions came too late , and did not go far enough ; and therefore , after they were carried , he would submit to the consideration of the house another resolution , which , if adopted , would show the composition of these provisional committees and the objects for which their projects had been got up . Ue should propose that

    it be an instruction to the committee on every private bill originated in that house , relating to anv railway , to institute a preliminary inquiry as to the person ' s , the time , and the means b y which the enterprise was got up . No honourable committee would object to such an inquiry ; but all your bubble schemes would dissolve into thin air before it , and would be no more heard of . He theu read the following resolution *—" That it be an instruction to the committee on every private bill ori ginated in this house relating to anv rail . way , before proceeding with the merits of such Vdl _' to re-

    I House Of Commons—Mosdat, Af-Ru. 20. ' ...

    _quire to be produced before them ,. and verified by ibfl promoters , without tha appearance of counsel , —1 , * copy of the original return made for the purposes of provisional registration , with the names of the promoters as then registered . " In explanation he had to state that any man might go and get any scheme , how absurd soever , provisionally registered ou paying £ 5 . InUoveni ber and September last every man who dreamed almost of a railway got it registered . It would generall y be found that most of the parties who registered were only solicitors or surveyors . " 2 . The names , residences , anil descriptions of the preient and past provisional directors treasurers , solicitors , secretary , and other officers , if any , " No provisional directors could object to having their names p / aced before the committee appointed to consider their own bill . " 3 . The present and proposed

    amount of the capital of the company . 4 . The number of shares and the amount of each share . 5 . The number of shares actually allotted with the names , residences , and descriptions of the original allottees , and the number of shares allotted to each . " At present the house compelled the _production of such information in the case of oertain bills . " 6 . The amount of subscriptions paid by such original allottees . 7 . The amount of shares retained by or for the provisional committee . 8 . The amount of subscriptions actually paid up by such provisional committee and the number of shares now held by th « m . "

    In introducing these resolutions , ho dwelt at soma length upon the ad eaptemdum devices which had ben resorted to for the purposes of entrapping contributors to various bubble schemes . The elergy , Mr . Duncombe complained , had lent , to & frightful extent , their spiritual influence , to vamp up various illusory schemes , and the laity , led by the example of their ghostly guides , had fallen into the snare . After a smart and sarcastical speech from Mr . D ' Israeli , and a desultory discussion in which several members joined , the government resolutions were adopted , as were those proponed hy Mr . Duncombe with some verbal amendments .

    HOUSE OF LORDS-Fridat , April 24 . Lord _Campbell moved the second reading of the Deodands Abolition and the Death by Accidents Compensation Bills , observing that he had been told that the railway interest in the House of Commons was so great , that there was no chance ofthe bills passing that house . He trusted , however , that the hon . membei-s connected with railways would feel disposed to do justice to their fei ' _ow-creatures . Lord Littleton and Lord Brougham supported thebills which were then read a second time . The bills on the table were then advanced a stage , and their Lordships adjourned .

    HOUSE OF COMMONS . —Friday , April 24 . Upon the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate upon the Irish Coercion Bill being read fiomthe chair , Mr . IV . S . O'Brien returned to the subject of Irish distress . He quoted various returns to show the inadequacy of the Government arrangements , fie reproached the English Liberal party in the House of Commons with having afforded a too feeble co-operation to the Irish members in their endeavours to resist the Government measure of coercion . The proposed free-trade concessions he contended were likely to prove less beneficial to Ireland than to England , and , as far as the condition ofthe former country was concerned , a fixed duty upon corn was preferable to total repeal . He

    concluded by invocating Lord G . Bentinck to declare Aw budget for the relief of Irish grievances . Lord G . Bentisck promptly responded to the call of the last speaker , and explained , amid frequent cheers from the Protectionist party , and also from the Irish members , the terms he was disposed to offer for an Irish alliance . He premised that he and his party had no confidence whatever in either the repeal or the suspension of the Corn Law as a panacea for Irish distress . Such a measure could give no temporary relief , while its ultimate tendency must be to ruin ' -very class in Ireland . Lord Essex had recentl y predicted that the repeal of the Com Law would be

    no gain to the class of farmers without skill and capital . But , if ruin seized this valuable class of the Round Frocks of England , what would become of the 558 , 000 Frieze Coats of Ireland ? The entire Irish landed interest must bo swept into the vortex of destruction by tke change ; and such a catastrophe , argued hia lordship , would necessarily convert the Irish aristocracy to Repeal opinions ' . He then announced that , if the Irish party proposed a suspension of the Corn-law , he and his party would give that proposition a steady support . As ' a _subsidory measure he proposed the hitherto much-reprobated scheme of pure eleemosynary aid .

    Mr . Versos Smith called upon government to return the names of the Irish landowners who had received funds from government in order that justice might be rendered to the contributing members of their order . Sir James Graham promised future information , should be furnished parliament upon the subject . Mr . E . B . Roche expressed his concurrence in the opinions of Lord G . Bentick , and hailed in no measured terms his lordship ' s offers . After speeches from Mr . Stafford O'Brien , and Mr Bellew , Mr . D . Browse contended that , in consequence of the _forgetfulness exhibited by the Irish landlords , of the great principle , that property had its duties as well as its rights , it was necessary to extend the principle on the English Poor Laws to Ireland .

    Mr , S . Cuawkobd expressed his delight , that the house was at last becoming a convert to the doctrine wliich he had so long propounded , that it was necessary to tax the landlords of Ireland for the support of the poor . He recommended his friends from Ireland not to protract the discussion on the Coercion Bill longer than was fairly necessary , as the delay which had already taken place in passing the Corn Law had been productive of great embarrassment to the commercial interests ot the country . Mr . _O'CosNEiA was sorry to find that Mr . S . O'Brien was so adverse to the repeal of the Corn Laws ; for ho believed that that measure would be as beneficial to Ireland as it would be to England . What was wanted in Ireland was wages , and agriculture would not give them . He wished the house would set about passing the Corn Law , and would postpone to a distant day all further proceedings on the Coercion Rill .

    Mr . Cobden recalled to the recollection of the house the actual position of the Corn Law question _, that question was already settled by public opinion throughout the empire , and was no longer matter for privatearrangement or stipulation between parties in that house . Lord George Bentiuck seemed to _forget this , " but the people living in towns will govern the country , " added the hon . member , " and they will accept ne such compromise as you have suggested . " in reply to Mr . S . _O'Brik-v ' s question , Sir R . _Pj _* el announced , amid loud cheering , that he unhesitatingly declined any compromise affecting the Corn Bill . A scene now ensued wliich imparted somewhat of piquancy to the debate .

    Mr . LV Israeli replied with some warmth to the speech of Mr . Cobden . That hon . gentleman had treated the house with a definition of what he meant by the people of England , and had theu threatened he country party with its reprobation . They had been told that the people of England were those who lived in towns , and that definition had been loudly cheered and accepted by the First Minister of the Crown . That cheer had struck him as most extraordinary , coming as it did from Sir It . Peel , who had once been so proud of being at the head of the gentlemen of Eng land , admitting also , as it did , the principle that they were to be governed bv the towns . Sir R . Pkel . —I totally deny it .

    Mr . D'Israeli . —If the right hon . baronet means to say that anything I have said is talse , 1 sit down . After a few moments , Mr . _Kewdbgatx rose , and with much solemnity inquired of Sir Robert Peel whether his ( Mr . _Newdi-oate ' s ) ears- had deceived him during the recent confusion . This inquiry was answered affirmatively . Major Macsamara suggested that the time of thc ilouse might bo spared , by some other placo being selected as the rendezvous for explanation . Lord Gkokoe _Be . y

    timck rose to dispel , however , the belligerent tendency of the debate . Mr . 11 . IIixde followed the same courso . Sir Jambs Graham , Mr . Milks , Mr . Stuart Wortley , Mr . Buotuertos , and Air . Oomully , cleared awav whatever remained of bitterness , by bearing witness to Sir Robert Peel ' s complete innocence ot Mr . _D'lsraeli ' s charge . Some civil words interchanged by ths dispiuaiits themselves terminated to the satisfaction of the house what promised at one time to be " a very pretty quarrel . "

    THE ADJOURNED DEBATE Upon the Irish Coercion Bill was then resumed by Mr . J . O Conskll , who defended the proceedings of the Irish members in Parliament as conformable to public opinion throughout Ireland , whatever might be thought of them in this country ,. Government themselves were chiefly responsible fin * the existing Irish disaffection , by having , until very recent times , fostered those very prejudices which now they had so much difficulty in patting down as inimical to the interests of that country , lt wasmonstrous for government to come-to Parliament fos ? increased powers for the suppression of crime whea the powers already given them by law had not been shown to be defective . The hoa . member referred at some length to the system oi' _cjectmcuts now prevalent in Ireland , quoting _s _, variety of documents to illustrate this and other iopics embraced in his speech .

    An explanation relating io the recent conduct of the Marquis ot WatcrfovA towards his tenaate . then ensued . The-debate was then adjourned till Monday .

    Unii L'Viiitv-I\ * Oyl)Odgai .J)Pol»Yan, Ot*L« . Groat 'Viml Ill Street, Llaynuirlart, N\ The Oit-J Of Wustmiustev ,-Wt Tlie

    unii l ' viiitv-i \ _* oyl ) ODGAI . J ) POl » YAN , ot _* l « . Groat 'Viml ill street , Llaynuirlart , n \ the _Oit-j of Wustmiustev _,-wt tlie

    -C, In The S.%Me Street Ami Parish, Tor ...

    _-c , in the s . % me Street ami Parish , tor the I ' m . _pvietiir _, VEAUfiUJS O'CON NOU , Ks <*„ •>»'' _I'uWislnjd by William "Hewitt , of No . IS , Charles-street , B . _vnn _don-street , "Walworth , in the Parish uf St . Mury , flew _ington , in the County uf Surrey , at the Ollice , t \ * o . 16 , Great _WiinlinilUlieet , llaymarket , m _^ tUe . Qity Qi "Westminster i , . .,,., „ ., Saturday , April 2 o , 1816 ,

• Citation
  • Northern Star (1837-1852), April 25, 1846, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns3_25041846/page/8/