upon him all the odium of calling the in- sixty or seventy houses for parties so dividual to the Bar. He had thought it ejected, who had thought fit to show his duty to call the attention of the House themselves independent electors, and the to the subject, more for the sake of the cost of these was, he believed, between House itself, than to gratify any vindictive 12,000l. and 13,000l. He had stood five feeling by which he might be supposed to contested elections there, and spent bebe actuated. He had no knowledge of tween 30,000l. and 40,000l., besides what the writer, and had never seen him, that was necessary for election petitions. He he was aware of; but what had fallen had said also, that beyond the legal exfrom the right hon. Baronet almost com- penses, the surplus of 30,000l. or 40,000l. pelled him to persevere in his motion. must have been laid out in Hertford for The speech of the right hon. Baronet purposes which were not legal-no doubt was, in point of fact, a justification of in treating: but he had never said-he the libel. In that light it had been re- had never confessed then, nor did he now, ceived by many near him, and so it would that he had been otherwise a party to it; be read by the public to-morrow. He and he could assert most conscientiously, wa surprised that the right hon. Baronet that he could not name, nor put his should attempt to justify the libel, even finger upon one individual who had though the Standard was the organ of been bribed with part of the money; the powerful party of which the right hon. all he knew was that he had to pay it. Baronet was the head; he might say, The same thing had happened to others. that it was almost the only remaining No man had a right to state that he (Mr. organ of that party, and it would, there- T. Duncombe) had been guilty of perfore, be very ungrateful if the right hon. sonal bribery, much less that he had been Baronet had not stood up for it on the guilty of subornation of perjury, which present occasion. It was, therefore, na- the organ of the Tory party had imputed tural for him to say, that this innocent to him, and which the right hon. Baronet editor had never libelled any body, but had had said arose from some confusion. How merely confused what had been said on a could this be? The paper specified the former occasion. According to the right time-it says that the confession was hon. Baronet, the editor of the Standard made last night; how, then, could there had confounded a former confession sup- be any confusion? What had passed at posed to have been made by him (Mr. T. Hertford? At the election after the passing Duncombe), and the case referred to, was, of the Reform Act there had been no exthat of Hertford. He was glad that the penditure of money on his part beyond right hon. Baronet had given him an op- what was necessary for the legal charges, portunity of explaining what he did say while on the other side it was admitted on the occasion alluded to. It was on the that there had been a large outlay; some motion of the hon. Member for Bath, for 13,000l. or 14,000l. had been expended a committee on compromises, and what by Lord Salisbury for the purpose of dehad he (Mr. T. Duncombe) then stated? feating him, and his Lordship succeeded. That those who were to be on the com- On petition, however, he had unseated mttee ought to go into the inquiry with the two Members, Lord Mahon and Lord clan hands, and that no Member who had Ingestre, and a bill had been introduced been directly or indirectly concerned in to disfranchise the borough. The House bribery, corruption or intimidation ought of Lords, however, threw it out, and the to sit upon it. He added then, as he writ was suspended for three or four years. added now, that certainly he must be He had lost Hertford because he did not excluded, because he could not conscien- bribe, and the sitting Members subsetiously say, that he had not directly or quently lost their seats because they indirectly been concerned in bribery. Be- did bribe. He had afterwards been refore the Reform Act, he had left between warded by the honour of being returned 30,000l. and 40,000l. behind him at for the borough of Finsbury; the MarHertford. A considerable portion of this quess of Salisbury, his antagonist, who money had been expended in protecting admitted that he had spent so much poor voters who had been ejected from money to defeat him, had been rewarded their tenancies by the Marquess of Salis- too-he had received the Garter, and the bury, the present Lord-Lieuenant of Mid-county of Middlesex had the happiness to dlesex. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) had built call him Lord-lieutenant. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) was Member for Finsbury, and the Marquess of Salisbury Lordlieutenant of Middlesex, with the garter round his knee. That was the whole history; and did it for a moment justify the libel in the Standard, even if the confusion speculated upon by the right hon. Baronet had really occurred? If he had confounded the cases, let the editor state it at the bar-let the House hear him; he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had no vindictive feelings to gratify, and if the writer could in any way explain the libel he should be perfectly satisfied. That it could not be explained he was quite sure, and it would turn out to be what he had charged it, a false atrocious and malignant calumny. He did not bring the case forward merely as an humble individual, but as a Member of the House, and for the sake of the honour and dignity of the House, it was not fit to allow the offender to escape unpunished, merely because the right hon. Baronet had supposed him guilty of a confusion that could never have arisen in his mind. Sir R. Peel was exceedingly sorry that the hon. Member should have imagined that he meant in any way to justify the imputations upon him in the paragraph in question; he lamented also that the line of politics taken by the paper should have induced the hon. Member to think that he (Sir R. Peel) was on that account disposed to treat the matter lightly. The course he advised was, that which, he assured the hon. Member he would himself have taken. If he were disposed to take steps against those who cast calumnious imputations upon him, not a day would pass without some matter of the kind for the consideration of the House. At the same time, he admitted that the motion of the hon. Member was consistent with order and precedent, and if the hon. Member felt that his character was concerned in pressing for the appearance of the party at the bar, the hon. Member was certainly entitled to that remedy. He had thought that the object of the hon. Member was to elicit testimony from those who had heard the debate that nothing had fallen from him warranting the imputation that he had confessed himself guilty of subornation of perjury. He (Sir R. Peel) had been present, and had listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Finsbury and of the hon. Member on his right hand, but he had not heard a single word to countenance the charge of subornation of perjury. What more ample or complete vindication could be desired? This he had said before, and he had also said, that it was a material circumstance in ascertaining the animus of the libeller, to ascertain what was the report of the hon. Member's speech given in the same paper; the animus must partly depend upon the nature of the report, which might or might not have misled the party. When he spoke of confusion, he did not refer to the case of Hertford, but to a vague recollection of what the hon. Member had said regarding Pontefract, and he had since found it reported that he had told the House" that he had spent 4,000l. at Pontefract, and he had no hesitation in adding that he had spent it in gross bribery." So far from vindicating the charge of subornation of perjury, either at Nottingham or elsewhere, he would again repeat, that not a word had fallen from the hon. Member that could in the remotest manner justify the libel. Had the case been his own, he should think that any farther proceeding would not be requisite to vindicate his character. If, however, the hon. Member was of a different opinion, he was perfectly at liberty to take the course he proposed. He (Sir R. Peel) claimed no indulgence for the paper, on account of any line in politics it took, and was only giving advice he should himself be most ready to take. In a case of this kind, the really responsible person was the individual who had endited, not the party who had printed, the paragraph, and if the hon. Member felt disposed to press that the printer be called to the bar, he was entitled to do so, but he (Sir R. Peel) doubted whether anything would be gained by it. It seemed to him that the hon. Member's character was sufficiently vindicated, and that it was not necessary to call upon the House to interfere. Mr. T. Duncombe considered the explanation of the right hon. Baronet satisfactory, and as the noble Member for London concurred in the opinion, that no farther proceeding should be taken, he threw upon them the responsibility. The right hon. Baronet had now explicitly stated, that there was no justification for the libel in any thing that had been said. on a former night, and upon that statement he was willing to withdraw his motion. Motion withdrawn. CORONERS.] On the question that the Coroners' Bill be re-committed. Mr. Pakington moved, that it be recommitted that day six months. Sir J. Graham was bound to state, that he should vote in favour of this bill going into committee. He attached great importance to the last clause of this bill, and thought that the objections to it could. only be properly discussed in committee. The House divided on the question, that the word "now" stand part of the question. Ayes 134; Noes 41; Majority 33. The House in committee. On Clause 2, Coroner to receive 25s. for each inquest, and 1s. 6d. per mile for travelling expenses. Mr. Barneby objected to any alteration in the remuneration of coroners, and moved an amendment embodying his objection. Mr. Hume seconded the amendment. It appeared that the increase of fees was only contemplated in consequence of the representations of the coroners themselves; but believing the amount already paid to be fully adequate, he thought that the House ought not to add to the burden on the various counties on such representations. that the word "sixpence" stand part of the clause, in order to give the coroners 1s. 6d. per mile. Ayes 40; Noes 28;Majority 12. Clause to stand part of the bill. On clause 3, coroners to be paid for attendance at assizes, and for adjourned sittings. Mr. Barneby proposed to omit the words which gave payment to coroners, when attending courts of justice in the ordinary routine of their business. Mr. Wakley thought that coroners were unnecessarily and improperly called upon to attend at Quarter Sessions and Assizes. If they had properly conducted an inquest, their documents ought to speak for themselves. The committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. Ayes 33; Noes 42;-Majority 9. Clause rejected. On the 4th clause, qualification of deputy coroner, Mr. Hume proposed, that in case of a deputy acting, he should receive threefourths of the fees and allowances to which the coroner would be entitled, in case the coroner himself had attended. The committee divided on the question, that the proposed words be inserted. Ayes 51; Noes 63;-Majority 12. Mr. Roebuck moved that the Chairman report progress. The committee divided. Ayes 61; After some further conversation, Mr. Wakley thought, that if this amendment was agreed to, it would introduce economy without reason. He did not believe, that there was any class of officers so badly paid as coroners, and this was well known to all who were acquainted with their duties. The existing fees were fixed ninety years ago, and propositions for increasing them had passed this House no fewer than six times, but had been subsequently lost. In order to perform the duties of his office, he was compelled to keep four horses, and two carriages, the amount of mileage which he received was less than 100l. per annum. He maintained, that the existing remuneration to coroners, considering their painful do now adjourn. and arduous duties, was inadequate, and that they were entitled to receive an ade-adjournment. quate amount of remuneration. jority 28. The committee divided on the question, that the word fees stand part of the clause. Ayes 41; Noes 34;-Majority 7. The committee again divided on the question, that the words twenty-five, to give the coroner a fee of 25s. stand part of the clause. Ayes 34; Noes 32;-Majority 2. The committee divided on the question, COMMONS INCLOSURE (No. 2) BILL.] Order for committing this Bill read. Lord Worsley moved that the order be discharged with a view of referring the bill to a select committee. Mr. Brotherton moved that the House The House divided on the question of Order discharged. On the question, that the bill be referred to a select committee. Mr. H. Berkeley moved that the House do adjourn. The House again divided. Ayes 11; Noes 35;-Majority 24. Question that the bill be referred to a select committee again put. Mr. Craven Berkeley moved that the debate be now adjourned. Lord Worsley said, that as it seemed to be the wish of the House, he would not object further to the adjournment of the debate. Debate adjourned till Monday. House adjourned at a quarter to two. [We publish none of the lists of these numerous divisions, conceiving that the public interest attached to them is of comparatively limited scope.] HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] BILLS. sion (No. 2). Public.-2 Slave Trade Suppres Reported.-Limitation of Actions (Ireland). 3 and passed:-Canada Corn; Apprehension of Offenders (America); Apprehension of Offenders (France). upwards of 1,100,000 in forty years, and of more than 300,000 since the inquiry of the ecclesiatical commission; and it could hardly be questioned that about the time when the proposed measure could take effect the population of the diocese of Chester would be upwards of 3,000,000, and of the proposed diocese of Manchester 2,117,000. It would be, in his opinion, however, most unwise to attempt to stave off this evil at the expense of North Wales, inflicting a severe injury on one portion of the Church without any efficient remedy for the evil in another. Surely those who took any enlarged view upon the subject must, when they recollected that at the time of the Reformation there were only 5,000,000 of inhabitants in this country, and that now there were 16,000,000, see the ne Private.-1a Earl of Shrewsbury's Estate; Argyllshire cessity for introducing some new principle, Roads. 2. Lough Foyle Drainage; Monkland and Kirkintilloch Reported.-Oxnam's Estate (No. 2); Liverpool Watering; Waterworks. 3a and passed:-Milnes's Free School; Maryport and Carlisle Railway; Eglwys-rhos Inclosure; Salmon Fish eries. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Salisbury, from several places, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.-By the Archbishop of Dublin, Colony.-From several individuals, against the Charitable Pawn Offices Bill.-From Sarum for the Estab from New Zealand, against sending Convicts to that lishment of a Bishopric at Manchester. some expansive power into the Church, to enable it to accommodate itself to the changes going on around it-to discharge with renewed efficiency its duties, and fulfil effectively its sacred trust. With respect to some of the schemes that had been suggested with this object, one was the institution of suffragan bishops; and another, the elevating all existing bishops into archbishoprics, and the establishment of new episcopal jurisdictions. He would assent to neither of these propositions. Certainly the former of them was the INCREASE OF BISHOPS.] The Bishop ancient mode of remedying the deficienof Salisbury, after presenting petitions cies in episcopal superintendence; there against the proposed union of the sees of were suffragan bishops (to go to no more St. Asaph and Bangor, wished to call the remote antiquity) at the time of the Reattention of their Lordships to the subject formation, and there existed a statute, the with the view of projecting some mode of 26th of Henry 8th, for their provision; providing for a bishopric of Manchester but they were only the deputies of the without doing away with one of those bishop, they had no original jurisdictionWelsh sees. It was utterly unnecessary they could only assist the bishops in subto go into statistical details for the pur- ordinate and strictly ministerial functions; pose of proving the pressing necessity for and if instituted at this time in populous the new bishopric. It could not be un- parishes, although they could take part of known, that although at the primary the duties of confirmation, consecration, institution of dioceses and parishes their &c., the whole care of the diocese would size was proportioned to the extent of the lie on the principal bishops, with this furpopulation, the stream had since then so ther aggravation of a great existing evilaltered that districts once scantily inha- the diminishing the intercourse, at present bited had now become the seats of densely-unfortunately too small, between the crowded populations. The increase of bishops and the clergy. The division of the population in two counties of the diocese great dioceses was the true remedy for the evil; and his endeavour was to try to persuade their Lordships to take means for carrying the measure into immediate effect. He thought the evil so pressing that they ought to take instant steps for creating of Chester had been as follows: 1801. Chester...... 191,000 Lancaster .... 672,700 1841. 395,600 1,667,800 So that there had been an increase of the new bishopric, and not wait until one | Parliament and the Crown was with rebecame vacant. The recent increase of spect to our colonial fellow-subjects; first, the number of judges from twelve to fif- when they abolished the slave-trade, and teen seemed to him an analogous case. next, when they abolished slavery as a That addition to the ancient number was status, or condition, in our own colonies. justified on the ground of necessity; he In both these instances it was in vain to thought the same necessity now existed deny that the course of our legislation for making a correspondent addition to the ran counter to the interests of the colonial number of bishops. The only real diffi- communities of the empire. When Parculty which stood in the way was that liament put down the slave-trade, it abopointed out by a right rev. Prelate the lished at once a most lucrative branch of other night, viz., the seat in their Lord- commerce, speculative, adventurous, haships' House. Inasmuch as it appeared zardous, beyond all doubt, but still affordto be agreed upon all hands, that however ing such large gains to those who chose to just it might be in principle, still it was embark in it, that he believed he might not desirable to increase the number of say with perfect confidence, that there bishops having seats in that House, he never was any branch of British mercanconceived that it would be better for tile industry so eagerly plunged into, and their Lordships to adopt the suggestion of so fondly and pertinaciously clung to, as a right rev. Prelate, not then present, and the African slave-trade. It was the nature make it the law, that the junior bishops, of mankind, and of mercantile speculawhatever see they might be appointed to, tion, that the very risk enhanced the deshould not have seats in that House until light of the gain which those who won a vacancy occurred; that they should rise the prizes in the lottery were sure to to that honour by seniority, and so there make, that gain being so enormous, that would be no increase to the number now it was calculated if one voyage out of five in the House. He trusted that between or six succeeded, all the rest being mere the present time and the next Session of failures, that fifth or sixth part of the stake Parliament her Majesty's Government played for, made the fortune of all those would give their earliest attention to the engaged in it. The resolution of Parliasubject, as it was one of vital import- ment on this subject was founded, no ance. He moved that the petitions do lie doubt, on justice, humanity, and sound on the Table. policy, but, undoubtedly, also, it was detrimental to a large class of the traders of this country. So, again, when slavery was abolished in 1833, so satisfied were they that in taking away all property in slaves, as it was impiously and profanely called by those who assumed the right of holding property in the persons of their fellow-creatures, and in declaring by law, that they would no longer permit any man to hold such property-so undeniable was it, that they confessed it to be so by the compensation they gave for it, that a very great loss was instantly and inevitably incurred by the slave-holders-that a sum of 20,000,000l. sterling was generously, but not more generously than justly, given by Parliament for the purpose of compensation. That was a large sum for this country to give, but justice compelled him to add, that it was not an extravagant sum for the planters. might be very large for us, regard being had to the pressure of our burdens, and the condition of the country, but although the sacrifice made was such as to redound to the eternal honour of the people, their Petitions laid on the Table. SLAVE-TRADE SUPPRESSION.] Lord Brougham rose to bring before their Lordships the important subject of which he had given notice. He now found himself placed in the by no means painful predicament of urging on their Lordships measures of justice, humanity, and sound policy, which, notwithstanding, were only to be carried by the sacrifice of the particular interests of large classes of their fellow-subjects. It did so happen, that if every principle of justice and humanity urged the adoption of this measure, for the more effectual prevention of the traffic in slaves, and of the employment of British subjects and capital in supporting slavery, our own fellow-subjects in the colonies had a mere pecuniary interest as direct in favour of the measure he now proposed, as the interest which the friends of humanity and justice took in the measure, on more extensive views, could be. He wished shortly to remind their Lordships of what the peculiar position of the It |