POOR-LAW COMMISSION.] On the Order of the Day being moved for the bringing up the Report on the Poor-law Commission Bill, Mr. Wakley begged to ask the hon. Member for Sheffield whether he was prepared to state to the House the name and address of the Poor-law guardian with whom he said in his speech the night before he had held a conversation in which his (Mr. Wakley's) name had been introduced. Mr. Ward was not prepared to do so. He gave his word to the House that the conversation was as he had stated it. It took place six months ago, and it was very improbable that the Gentleman would give permission to have his name mentioned. Mr. Wakley had no objection to the course taken by the hon. Member, if the House thought fit that Members should state conversations which they had held with parties, those conversations involving calumnies of the most atrocious kind against other Members of the House. If this was to be permitted, he was content to yield to such a species of warfare. If he was to be attacked by unfair weapons, and the use of them was considered quite correct, lawful, and parliamentary, he presumed he would be admitted to defend himself with weapons of a sin.ilar description. The hon. Member for Sheffield, in stating, the conversation last night, admitted that the language was not respectful with regard to him (Mr. Wakley). Now he (Mr. Wakley) considered the matter of so much importance that, with out entertaining any enmity or hostility to the hon. Member-as he trusted he should always be enabled to conduct himself without entertaining such feelings towards a political opponent-he should feel it his duty to sift the matter to the bottom. He felt it due to the character of the House to do so. It was a matter of safety and security with regard to hon. Members. If conversations of the kind he referred to were to be related in that House by persons under no responsibility he should like to know what was the protection for individual character. The hon. Gentleman objected to give the name and address of the guardian with whom the conversation occurred. He begged to know whether the hon. Member would state the name of the union to which that guardian belonged. He would undertake to go to that board, or to write to every Member of it, to ask whether he was the person or not. And if it should so happen that every Member denied having held such a conversation, then they should know in whose honourable and courageous mind the calumnious insinuation originated. by Mr. Ward rose, but was interrupted The Speaker, who said he felt it necessary to call the attention of the House, to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury. The rule of the House was, that when an hon. Member stated, in his place in the House, anything which had occur. red to him, such a statement was considered to be made upon the honour of the hon. Member. Such a statement was not to be questioned either in the House or out of it. Therefore he had to call the hon. Member for Finsbury to order for making allusion to steps to be taken to question a statement made to the House in the manner referred to. Mr. Ward, with the utmost deference to the observations of the Speaker, hoped he might be permitted to say that there was nothing in the conversation he had repeated which could be called a calumny. There was nothing calumnious in the expression of an opinion, on the part of a member of a board of guardians who had seen the warm and violent speeches made by the hon. Member for Finsbury upon the Poor-law-that he felt great horror at having the interpretation of the new Poorlaw left to boards of guardians, when they might have a Wakley at every board, putting his own interpretation on those principles, and forcing others to adopt it by raising an outcry against them if they did not, and denouncing them for inhumanity. Such a person was perfectly entitled to hold such an opinion, and express horror at such a prospect, and there was nothing in it to affect the hon. Member's Parliamentary conduct, or to prevent his discharging his duties in the House in any manner he thought proper. He disclaimed the idea of any calumny, in the matter. But he was connected with three boards of guardians, and after what had fallen from the hon. Member, he was less disposed than ever to give him the name of the person referred to. Mr. Wakley was disposed to bow implicitly to the decision of the chair. The hon. Member opposite disclaimed the idea of calumny, but the hon. Member had not quoted all the words he made use of last night. The Speaker said, the hon. Member was again out of order. According to the strict rule of the House, he could not refer to a former debate. Mr. Wakley: Then I do not know how HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, September 30, 1841. MINUTES.] Bills. Read first time :-Expiring Laws.- in consequence of the distress which would be brought on by the Corn-laws. The noble Lord begged to call the attention of the noble Duke (of Wellington) to a pamphlet written on the subject of the Corn-laws and their probable effects, by a medical Gentleman, who showed that typhus fever was in most instances generated by an insufficient supply of wholesome food. The Duke of Wellington said, that he had not seen the pamphlet alluded to, but he would say, that if the noble Lord who presented this petition had been in his place earlier, he would have heard, on the presentation of another petition, that there had been recently imported into this country nearly 2,000,000 of quarters of corn, at 1s. per quarter duty, and that, therefore, there could not exist any fear of distress from the want of a sufficient supply. BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION AT THE LATE GENERAL ELECTION.] On the Duties. By Lord Brougham, from Protestent Dissenters motion that the House do adjourn, of Middlewich and Trowbridge, and by Lord Kinnaird, from Abernyte for the Repeal of the Corn-laws. Lord Brougham would take that opportunity of stating the course which he intended to pursue on a subject of great importance, to which he had called the attention of their Lordships on the first THE CORN LAWS.] Lord Brougham presented a petition from Protestant Dissenters of Middlewich against the Corn-day of the Session. He had then stated, laws. The noble Lord in presenting a similar petition from the congregation of the Tabernacle chapel, in Troubridge, complaining (as we understood) of the sliding scale, said, that by the operation of that scale there had been suddenly thrown into the market a quantity of foreign corn, to the amount of from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 of quarters of corn, at 1s. per quarter duty. This made an addition to our domestic stock of corn equal to the consumption of five weeks of the whole population of England and Scotland. Such a sudden importation of so large a quantity of corn could not be made under the fixed duty of 8s. No doubt it came in very favourably to the consumers, though not equally so to the farmers. He was not favourable to the sliding scale, nor to the Corn-laws, as they now stood, but he hoped that this effect of the sliding scale, would receive due attention from those who defended the agricultural interest. Lord Kinnaird, on presenting a petition from Abernyte. for the repeal of the Cornlaws, stated his fears that the country would be disturbed in the winter months, that bribery and corruption had prevailed to a frightful extent at the late general election, and he added that the House could not do a greater service, or more fairly discharge its duty to the country, than by taking the whole subject into its early and serious consideration, with the view of providing some remedy. Since that time he had maturely considered several cases of this bribery and corruption which had been brought under his notice; but, not to detain the house, he had selected, from a vast number of instances, three which were marked by the most odious of those features which, in some degree, were common to them all, and he would say, and would be able to show, from the information which had come before him, that those practices were not confined to one, but were common to each of the three great political parties which now divided the country. The first charge was brought against men who supported the views of the present Government, at that time in opposition, and over against whom he had then the honor to stand. The second case was brought as a charge 1009 Bribery and Corruption against men who supported the late Government-now the opposition, as it was called-in front of which he had now the honor to take his place. [" Hear," and a laugh from Lord Melbourne.] His noble Friend, the noble Viscount lately at the head of the Government, laughed. He was at a loss to know what his noble Friend meant by the interruption. Was his noble Friend annoyed at the term "opposition." Viscount Melbourne begged to say a word in explanation of what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. certainly had marked the term “ He tion," used by his noble and learned Friend, opposibecause he remembered when he was a Member of the other House, that the alluding to a Member as one of the Opposition was held to be irregular, as it was declared by the Speaker to be unparliamentary to state of any Member that he had come into the House pledged to oppose the Government. {SEPT. 29} at the late General Election. 1010 the election, but it had so happened, that by the Reform Bill the " had been reduced to a comparatively small legal" expenses amount. The whole expenses of bringing voters from a great distance, and other expenses attending their transit, had been fore, who was called upon for the expendone away with. The candidate therediture of many thousands must know that the greatest portion of those thousands or, at least, he must know that they were was expended in bribery and corruption, not required as the "legal" expenses of it would put down these nefarious prachis election. If Parliament did its duty, tices, and if it did not, the fault was not in the Reform Bill, but in Parliament, which did not take the necessary steps for instituting inquiry into the subject. He had consulted some of the highest legal and constitutional authorities on the subject, and it was their opinion that such an any degree infringe on the rights and priinquiry by their Lordships would not in vileges of the Commons, provided the measures to be introduced as founded on such inquiry were prospective legislative measures, and did not interfere with individual seats. Now, he would state that his reasons for not instituting such inquiry at the present time were two-fold-first, that in the short time which remained of the present Session there would not be time for it; and the second was, that there were now about eighty election petitions to be decided upon by committees of the House of Commons, and it would not be convenient that an inquiry should be going on in a committee of their Lordships' House, on the same matters on which, in a great degree, election committees of the House of Commons would be sitting. These reathe present Session from moving for the sons would justify him in abstaining for inquiry, but he would do so in the next Session, and he was sure that that inquiry would produce most important informa tion as to the extent of the bribery and corruption to which he had alluded. what places this might be traced; it would was not material to what persons or to be sufficient to show that it did exist, and that it called for some immediate legisla tive remedy. Lord Brougham: Well, this doctrine is new to me. The noble and learned Lord then went on to say, that the third charge of this bribery and corruption was made against a party which did not belong to either of those whom he had named, but acted independently of both. Now, if he were to make known the evidence which had come before him, he would say, that this third party was more lavish of its means of bribery and corruption than either of the others. It might, and perhaps would be said, that this general corruption had arisen from the Reform Bill of 1832. He would not say that it had, though perhaps his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack might claim some credit to himself for the prediction which he had made at that time, that if the Reform Bill passed, it would have the effect of producing greater corruption amongst the constituent body than had ever existed in the worst times of the old system of Parliamentary representation. That was the opinion of nis noble and learned Friend at that time, and no doubt at the present. But let him say, that the tendency of the Reform Bill was just the reverse; and if Parliament had done its duty, the public wld not have heard of such bribery and ruption as he had referred to. What was his ground for saying this? It was well known that candidates at the late general election had expended many thousand pounds, which, of course, the candidates considered to be required only for the "legal" expenses of Motion agreed to. It 1011 Compensation-Explanation. {COMMONS} Mr. Warner's Invention. 1012 HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, September 30, 1841. MINUTES.] New Member. Right hon. H. T. L. Corry, for For Wilton in the room of Viscount Fitzharris, become Earl Malmsebury. Bills. Read a third time. Population Payments; Marlborough's Estate; Riddell's Estate; Clayton's Name. Petitions Presented. By Colonel Verner, from Armagh, to place the Spirit trade on the same footing as in England.-By Sir G. de Larpent, from Inhabitants of Bombay complaining of the Supreme Court there, and praying for redress.-By Mr. Cobden, from Ministers of Baptist Churches in Cheshire, and Lancashire, and from Stock port, Staley Bridge, and Middlewich, and by Mr. Thornely, from Holt, and Edwin Noon, complaining of public distress, and for the Repeal of the Corn-laws. By Mr. Ewart from Baptist Ministers of Cheshire and Lancashire, for the substitution of Affirmation for Oaths, and for making trading in female purity, a punishable offence.-By Sir C. Napier, from Inhabitants of St. Pancras, to redeem the Metropolitan Bridge Tolls.- By the Attorney-General from prisoners for debt, for the Amendment of the law of Debtor and Creditor. COMPENSATION EXPLANATION.] Sir T. Fremantle moved, that a new writ be issued for the borough of Wilton, in the room of Viscount Fitzharris, who has been called to the House of Peers as the Earl of Malmesbury. Sir James Graham begged for the indulgence of the House, which had before been given on a similar occasion, whilst he gave an explanation of a remark of his in a former debate, which had been hurtful to the feelings of a noble Lord. An observation that had fallen from him in the course of the debate on the Administration of Justice (No. 2.) Bill had given great pain to the feelings of a noble Lord, inasmuch as it touched the memory of a departed brother, and as he (Sir James Graham) was a Friend of that Gentleman he felt hurt by the same allusion. Nothing generally could be more accurate than the reports of what passed in that House, and therefore, if the expressions which were reported to have fallen from him were inaccurate, he would take the inaccuracy upon himself rather than impute it to any misrepresentation in the report. The hon. Member for Sheffield had asked, with reference to the compensation to be given to Mr. Scarlett for the loss of an office in the Court of Exchequer, whether that appointment was not of the same character as that given to Mr. W. Brougham who received an appointment to an office in the Court of Chancery in 1832, which the Lord Chancellor intended to abolish at the time of the appointment. The hon. Member for Sheffield said, the cases were strictly analogous; and he rose after that, and contended that there was a striking difference between them. He had stated on the allusion made to the case of Mr. Brougham, that the Lord Chancellor, the author of the Reform of the Court of Chancery, had at the time he made the appointment contemplated the abolition of the office, and therefore, that his brother was not entitled to the compensation. He was reported to have said, "The question arose, was he entitled to compensation?" and that mode of expression would give rise to the opinion that the question of compensation was raised, and that he as a colleague of Lord Brougham, was aware of that being the case. Nothing, however, was further from his intention than to state this, and it was entirely inconsistent with the fact. The question never was raised. Nothing could be more honourable or generous than the conduct of Mr. Brougham. Nothing like pressing for compensation had entered his head, the Lord Chancellor having forewarned him that no such compensation would be given. He hoped the House would pardon him if he had said anything which had been inconsistent in the slightest degree with the honourable memory of a departed friend, or anything which should wound the feelings of a nobleman. Subject at an end. MR. WARNER'S INVENTION.] Viscount Ingestrie said, in allusion to a statement which had been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in regard to Mr. Warner's invention, he begged to be permitted to read a letter from Mr. Warner to Lord Melbourne, written on the 8th of May, 1840. His Lordship read the letter, which set forth the readiness of Mr. Warner to refer his invention to one of the Lords of the Admiralty and an engineer officer, and requesting that the inspection should take place in the presence of Lord Ingestrie. He had nothing more to add. This was all that Mr. Warner wished for. Sir C. Napier begged to observe, that in the remarks he made some evenings ago, relative to the imperfect state of the arms in use in the army and navy, he did not mean to include those which were now being issued, which he had the authority of a noble Lord connected with the Ordnance Department for saying had never yet been equalled. He must again ex The writ ordered. 1014 press a hope that the right hon. Baronet | considering, which they gladly would have the Member for Tamworth would take considered. into his consideration the propriety of ap- whatever to the re-appointment of that He would have no objection pointing, upon the first vacancy, a naval committee, in consequence of the manner officer to the Board of Ordnance. in which they discharged the duty with which they had been intrusted, did he not what unsatisfactory. It could only be feel that inquiry in that shape was somecarried on during the sitting of Parliament. The prorogation, or adjournment, of Parliament necessarily terminated the labours FALKLAND ISLANDS.] Captain Fitzroy begged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, what were the reasons for appointing an engineer officer to be governor of the Falkland Islands? Lord Stanley said, that Lieutenant Moody, an engineer officer, had been appointed to the Falkland Islands; but as that appointment had taken place before his accession to office, he could not tell what were the reasons for making it. of the committee. He was, therefore, of opinion that this inquiry, which it appeared to him it was of the greatest importance to continue, might be continued with the greatest advantage, by a commission appointed by the Crown, without reference, in the slightest degree, to FINE ARTS.] party distinctions. And considering that Mr. Hawes wished to the buildings now in progress were for the put a question to the right hon. Baronet. accommodation of the House of Lords as The committee which had sat for the pur- well as Commons, considering that joint pose of seeing how far the fine arts might committees, although not without precebe promoted in connexion with the new dent, were rather cumbrous tribunals, and houses of Parliament had pointed out some that a commission to be appointed by the means of making further inquiry; and he Crown was the most advisable, he conwas anxious to know whether the Govern-ceived that such Members in each House ment had any intention of acting upon the recommendations of that committee, or whether the right hon. Baronet had any information to give to the House upon the subject. Sir R. Peel said, that he had read with the greatest attention the report of the committee referred to by the hon. Member, and the very interesting evidence taken before that committee. He certainly thought that the opportunity afforded for the encouragement of the arts, by the building of the Houses of Parliament ought to be taken advantage of, at least for the purpose of fully investigating, upon mature reflection, whether or not the construction of those Houses might not be made conducive to the encouragement of the higher branches of the arts, It was, doubtless, a subject deserving of the most serious attention. He thought that the committee which had been appointed last Session, had conducted the inquiry, as far as time had permitted, in a very satisfactory manner, and that it would have been most useful to have carried that inquiry further. That, however, the committee were prevented from doing by the close of the Session, although there were many more persons whose opinions they would have been glad to receive, and many points which they had not an opportunity of fully of Parliament as had turned their attention to the question of the fine arts, might be invited to constitute that commission. Another advantage to be derived from the concert with the executive Government appointment of a commission, acting in was, that the inquiry might be made with reference to the progress of the arts in other countries, through the intervention of the Crown, in a much more satisfactory manner than it could be effected by a committee of the House of Commons. Above all, the appointment of a commission would enable the inquiry to be continued during the recess, when the Parliament was thought, upon the whole, the most advisnot sitting; and was, he able and expedient. He was sure the House and the country would hear with great satisfaction, as this commission would in no respect partake of a party or political character, and as also the new building, when completed, would comprise a part of her Majesty's ancient palace of Westminster, that his Royal Highness Prince Albert had willingly consented to become a member of such a commission, and to add to its labours the advantage, not only of his station and character, but also of his knowledge and taste in all matters connected with the promotion of the fine arts. [Mr. Hawes: I hope the commis |