Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

4 articles on this Page

Advertising

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. o

--------IMPE R Li L PAaL Tvd..lIE…

News
Cite
Share

IMPE R Li L PAaL Tvd..lIE N T. 1&J. HOUSE OF LORDS.—WEDNESDAY, pcb. 1L Their Lordships did not assemble this afternoon. HOUSE OF LOItDS-TnuRsr>AY, Feb. 13. After the presentation of several petitions, Lord BROUGHAM, at the request of the Earl of Ripon, consented to the postponement of his motion on Negro Apprenticeship and the Slave Trade until lues- day next. The Earl of RIPON intimated his in.tention of post- poning the second reading of the Sodor and Mann bill until Thursday next. Lord IlitOUGII-IAI presented a number of petitions in favour of the Ballot and an extension of the stilFrage. Also several petitions in favour of the entire abolition of Negro Apprenticeship. The Learned Lord likewise presented two petitions from I?rig1¡ton and London, praying for a remission of the sentence passed on the Glasgow cotton-spinners. With reference to the last petitions, the Nobte Lord said, that in consequence of a defence which had been undertaken in another place, it became nocei3 kry for him to move for the production of a copy of the indictoncnt first issued against the cotton- spinners, of the interlocutor pronounced by the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, of the second indict- ment, of the dates of the first, arrest, of the liberation, second arrest, trial, and conviction of the same persons, and for the copy of the verdict and ultimate sentence of the Court of Justiciary. These papers, he thought, I would fully show whether he had or had not been cor- rect in the statements he had made. Viscount MELBOURNE thought there could he no objection to the production of these papers, as they merely were of a legal character. He objected h owever to the Learned Lord's forming any inference from their nreduction or non-production, as to whether or not the Law Officers of Scotland had neglected their duty. At 'he same time he could not hut regret that the Learned Lord had taken the view of the subject he appeared to entertain, as the condemnation of the Law Officers of tho Crown was neither more or less than a great encourage- ment to Associations such as that the verdict and sen- tence of the Scotch Courts had, he trusted, entirKy put down. Lord BROUGHAM replied, that neither the opinion ,)f the Noble Lord, or of any other person, should pre- vent him from: doing that which he conceived to be his duty. The Duke of WELLINGTON, believing that there was no grievance in any country equal to that which the existing systcm of Combination had upon the Working Classes, earnestly entreated Ministers to take such mea- sures as would effectually p-it them down, and expressed his gratification at finding that a Committee of the Com- mons was appointed to inquire into the subject. BANKING COPARTNERSHIP HILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of this bill, and stated in brief terms that it was rendered necessary by a late decision of the Court of Exchequer, which prevented any Joint Stock Company from making any rccovcry of a debt, of otherwise, if a Clergyman happened to be shareholder of any such Company. Lord DEN MAN thought it absolutely necessary that the bill should pass; and although he was greatly op- posed to .ex post facto laws, he did think that the persons who set up the defence in the Excliaqner ought to be orought under the operation of this bill when passed into a law. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, although he saw that the bill must be passed, he regretted that any necessity existed for the passing of an ex post facto enactment.— The bill wa, then read a second time, and the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—THURSDAY. The LORD ADVOCATE reported that the Rox- burgh Election Committee had that morning received a letter from Mr Jas. Duff, the Member for Banffshire, stating the indisposition of that Hon. Member, and that 'he Committee had accordingly adjourned till to-morrow. The House was immensely crowded this evening. The following Members were sworn to serve upon the Committte :—Mr Be-.ves, irr Dashwood, Mr Aglionby, thi lIon. T. Dundas. Mr Milnes, Lord Russell, Sir 11 Campbell, Sir R. Phillips, Mr J. Parker, Mr Houstoun, and Ifr Alston. The Lord Advocate presented a petition from Leitli in favour of the Ballot. Petitions were also presented from Bristol, Stamford, Perth, Wakefield, Lincoln, Guild- lord, Kilkenny, York, Gloucester, various places in Perthshire, Maidstone, Bury, Southwark, Chelmsford, Colchester, Braintree, Carnarvon, Ipswich, Glasgo.v, vaiiou; places in Ireland, &c. Some of these petitions also prayed for Universal Suffrage and shorter Par- liaments. Mr M'Cann, a surgeon, was then called in, and de- posed that Mr Duff was too ill to attend to his duties upon the Roxburgh Election Commute; and on the :notion of the Lord Advocate, the Hon. Member was excused from further attendance on the Committee. The following Members were sworn to serve upon the Bristol Election Committee —Mr Ball, Mr T. D'Eyn- court, Mr W. Curry, Mr E. Stanley, Mr Gibson Craig, ,I r (-. Wilhraham, Ilr It. Etwall, Mr Brodie, Mr C. Wood, Sir C. Coote, and Mr T. Marsland. The petitions respecting the ballot were then pro- ceeded with. They were, among other places, from Hertford, St. Alban's, Kilkenny (four). Highgate, Car- narvon, AVemyss. Kilmarnock, Cornwall, Helston, Not-- wich, Canterbury, Cupar Fife, County of Haddington, Oldham, Oxfordshire, &c. In answer to a question from Lord Ebrington, Mr S. lUCE said it was his intention to bring in a Bill in to the British Claimants for compensa- tion upon the Spanish Government arising out of the PCliin:HI! ar war. THE BALLOT. r r GROT E the;! rose to move, according to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill for taking the election of Members of Parliament by Ballot. The Hon Member observed that h could scarcely flatter himself that he ■ hoaid advance much new argument on the subject in addition to what had been urged on former occasions. He mai".r iinad that the whole of our representative system in all its maih features was paralysed by abuse, by bribery, by nomination, and by intimidation. He then cited the speeches of. several candidates of all parties at the late election, complaining of intimidation, to sho v the prevalence of the evil, for which, as n, other rem. dy was proposed, he thought it indi,- pensable to try Ih" Ballot. Such an experiment, he said, could not fairly be considered as breaking in upon the principle of the Reform Bill, because at principle had, ia the progress of the measure through Parliament, been so materially changed fr.nn its original liberality as to require some comp msation to the popular cause- a necessity which the late elections had increased. Knowledge, according to Lord Bacon, being power, and the present object hin to tnko away tha pmrer of the Aristocracy over the votes of their dependents, the plainest course was to take away the knowledge of those votes. Under the Ballot spontaneous promises would s ill be k reluetant ones coald not he asked. To ask a reluctant promise was in his judgment as culpable as to tamper with a juror or a witness. The method he proposed would purge the representative system of all its abuses, would sweep away all interested hindrances would e:,a.!i.1te corruption, Mid Jnt a1 end t.) the out- rages too i/ten art -.ins; from political effervescence. By adopting th Ballot, the House would build the remedy on a rock that no artifices could damage, or disturb, and .vith that impression he would cease not to call for the Ballot I, ii he succeeded. He had full confidence in his countrymen that they would not suffer the freedom of election to perish from want of a proper guarantee i lie IJ on. Memb r concluded a long and extremely temperate address amidst loud cheers. Mr WARD seconded the motion. He enlarged at great length upon the intimidation practised under the the present system, more especially towards the f50 tenants at will, and called upon Sir Robert Peel, as a statesman pledged against all proved abuses, to support this remedy, or furnish one of his own. He disputed toe validity of an argument of the Right Hon. Baionet, that if the electors were to vote in secret, the system of secret voting must be equally expedient for the clected; and he disputed it on this distinction, that the electors have a right of their o.vn, the elected a trust for others. He laid it do .vn.^broadly and unqualifiedly, that the electors throughout the kingdom were entitled to the benefit of Ballot voting, because they have a right to protection in the enjoyment of their property and the elective lie maintained, was a property ,and not a trust. Ileth-n adverted to the Noble Lord's (John Russell) declaration against the Ballot, as having strongly increased the public feeling of its necessity, and reminded the House of the speeches in its favonr which had been made by Sir John Hobhouse, Air P. Thomson, Sir Hussey Vivian, and Sir Henry Parnell From these gentlemen, and others who had pledged their opinions, the people expected a plain answer on this question, aye or no; and if a Government opposi- tion to it should be attempted, he must tell Ministers that, irom that moment, a new combination of parties would arise. Mr SIDNEY HERBERT opposed the motion. He admitted that intimidation was an evil, but there were species of intimidation which no legislative act would reach. The Hon. mover and seconder had shown that a remedy was wanted, but not that theirs was a remedy which would succeed. Intimidation would not be dimi- nished and as to bribery, it would be positively in- creased, because, as there would be no pay unless the oorruptor were returned, very many would willingly in- vest their money in a seat who would have declined to spend the sarn2 sum upon an uncertainty. There was a trustiiicaeli elector to be faithfully discharged; if the vote were a mere property, unaccompanied with trust, if the elective franchise he property (as stated by the Hon. Member for St. Alban's), it might undoubtedly be fairly bought and sold like any other property. The efect of the Ballot would be to create a regular system for the violation of duty hy perpetual falsehood. Mr CAVENDISH opposed the motion on account of the utter inefficiency of the Ballot, and expressed a hope that Ministers would suggest some other remedy. Mr JAMES argued in favour of the motion, and ad- verted to the time when Mr Ilicardo, Mr Hume, and himself were almo3t the only Members who openly sup- ported vote by Ballot. He should give his cordial assent to the motion. Lord SANDON opposed the motion and ridiculed the doctrine of the lIon. Member for St. Alban's, that the elective franchise was property. "This doctrine," ob- served the Noble Lord, that the elective franchise is property, is a very different doctrine from that pro- mulgated by the supporters of the Heform Bill, at the time when that measure was introduced. Then, we were assured that the electors under the old system were to lose nothing by a change that was about to deprive them of a privilege which they had exercised from time im- memorial. The old electors we were told were to lose nothing, because the elective franchise was not a pro- perty, but a trust for the general benefit. The claim of vested rights which was advanced on behalf of the old electors was then laughed at by the vcry same gentle .-Ii now tell us that the elective franchise is a pro- perty." Sir E. L. BULWER supported the motion, and maintained it to be better that a man should lie to his landlord by breaking his promise, than lie to his countr by voting against his conscience. The man," said the Hon. Member, "who should, under the Ballot system, he guilty of deceit, in order to escape intimidation would be only guilty of falsehood towards one indivi dual, whereas the man who under the present system of open voting has rccource to dcccit, violates a great pub- lic duty. The latter is beyond comparison the greatei (,fTe-,i(ler of the t,.vo." He (Mr Bulwer) had been sus- pected of wishing for office, but h" disclaimed that wish thus publicly, in order that he nrght not be misunder- stood in now speaking plainly to the leader of the Government. Ile. would ask the Noble Lord (John Russell) whether Ministers could go on much longer, accepting the support of the Radicals, yet proscribing their opinions, enjoying the sweets of office themselves, and yet discouraging those who in every town in England were keeping up the struggle for their cause ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the evil, though serious, had been much exaggerated. It the people had submitted to such wholesome intimidation as the Hon Member for London apprehended, the inference would be that the spirit of liberty was extinct in such a nation, and that no mechanical device would restore it. The admission that under the Ballot deceit was inevitable and the accompanying attempt to justify that deceit, gave him a strong repugnance to the proposal. He thought electors, like Members and like Ministers should exercise their functions under the public eye and he was glad that those who denied the franchise to be a trust had not alarmed the country by setting up that doctrine at the time of the Reform Bill, when the light of voting was taken away from so many boroughs. upon the very ground that the franchise was not a pro- perty in the inllividnal, bnt a trust for the public. The concession of the Ballot would lead to further changes. The non-electors, when they should find themselves excluded from the view of what the electors were doing at the poll, would insist on the extension of the fran- chise to tbemselvss. Not a few of the leading advocates of the Ballot had already avowed ulterior objects,—for example, Lord Brougham and Mr Warburton, the latter of whom professed to value the Ballot chiefly as a step to an extension of the suffrage—a vague phrase, which might mean anything. To bestow the Ballot system upon the existing constituencies would, his Lordship observed, be to render the electors irresponsible at once to those above and those below them. He thought that intimidation did affect a proportion of the voters, but lie considered it to be a very small proportion still he was not disposed to resist the opinion that the evil was one of very considerable magnitude and he warned the wealthy landlords of the kingdom either to abandon coercion and intimidation, or to be prepared for the con- sequences. "Though I," said the Noble Lord, "may take no part in the proceeding, ii those who have power in the country, instead of compulsion, do not resort to conciliation, they may find this question gaining strength from year to year, until at length that which I consider a great evil ii forced upon the Government." Rice, of Dover, supported the motion as did Mr Hall, Lord Worsley. Captain Pechell, Mr ElUce, and Mr Slaney and it was opposed by several Members who usually give their support to Ministers. Much dis- turbance prevailed throughout the house. When any Radical declaimed for the Ballot, the Conservatives were impatient and noisy when any Whig opposed it, the Radicals were equally tumultuous. Sir R. PL L at length rose, and order was restored. He intimated that the Hon. Member for St. Alhan's, who had blamed him for not having come forward in the debate, would have been fortunate, after his speech of the night, if the crime of silence had been predicable of him. He maintained that it was h. fallacy to assert that the elective franchise did not involve a trust, and pointed out the gross inconsistency of the men who clamour for publicity in all other things, and yet insist on securing secrecy to voters at elections. The ballot- box, h said, was at best but a mechanieal effort applied to the production of great moral results. He denied the connection of the desired results with (he means by which it was proposed to attain them and he called upon the House to bear in mind, that whatever effects mechanical skill was fitted to produce, might be counter- acted by the dishonest application of an equal amount 0" mhallied skill. Who could be certain that me- chanical means would not, under the Ballot system, be empto:ie,fto falsify the expression of public opinion > Who could be certain that, under the Ballot system, the Sheriffs or their subordinates might not produce what- ever results were desired by the Government to which they were attached Such things were of everv-dav occurrence in France; and when challenged they were not denied, but justified, on the ground that all other Governments had recourse to the meens of maintaining tneir power. — He concurred in most of the opinions ex- pressed by the Noble Lord (John Russell,) whose course he thought a manly one, in meeting this motion with a direct negative and therefore, though not bound to take part in this debate, he would not shrink from ex- pressing his concurrence. He decidedly objected to vote hy Ballot; it had failed ia other countries, in Switzer- land. in France, and in America, and he warned the House, that as the Ballot was an encroachment on the Reform Bill, so in three or four years other proposals would arise to encroach upon the concession of the Ballot. Mr C. BULLER remarked that the speech of the Rt. HOIl. Bart, presented no real novelty beyond boldness of assertion, in which, as regarded the effects of the liallot in Switzerland, France, and America, he had exceeded all precedent. He spoke of the chivalry of the Right Hon. Bart, in sharing responsibility with the Noble Lord (John Russell,) and rushing to his rescue but he called upon the Noble Lord to consider whether his popularity, which had sustained a heavy blow on the first day of the Session, would not, by opposing the motion, undergo a still farther diminution. Mr Gil DTE replied, and the House divided, when there appeared For the motion 193 Against it >315 Majority against the motion 117 The further consideration of the Controverted Ejection Bill was postponed until the 6th of MarchA and the House rose at half past one. "M'I:'I:#' ,I." HOUSE OF LORDS—Fnm vv, Feb. lOtli. Lord BROUGHAM presented several petitions in favour of the Ballot, observing that though the question had be(,' had been defeated elsewhere, there was a growing desire on the part of the people for it. Lord WHARN \LIFFE reminded their Lordships that when that final" measure, the Reform Bill, was before them, it was resisted by many Peers, on the ground that the carrying of it would "only prepare the way for demands of the Ballot, an extension of the suffrage, &c.—fi. 'prophecy which now seemed likely to be fully as well as speedily realized. Lord BROUGHAM stated the terms of the Address and Resolutions regarding Negro Slavery and the Slave Trade which he intended to move on Tuesday next. Viscount MELBOURNE, in answer to the Earl of Aberdeen, said that the subject of Religious Education, a regarded Scotland, and as arising out of the several reports thereon, was under the consideration of Govern- ment but that nothing had been decided. The Banking (Clerical) Co-partnership Bill went through committee,after which their Lordships adjourned until Monday. ##.## HOUSE OF COMMONS—FIIIDAY. Many petitions were presented, but in so hurried and confused a manner, and amid so much noise, that the places whence they came, or the objects of them, could seldom be heard in the gallery. Mr GROTE had a petition to present from Merthyr Tidvil, signed by nearly 3,800 individuals. The peti- tioners prayed for universal suffrage, the abolition of the property qualification, Vote by Ballot, short Parliaments, and an elective House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member had not received the petition till that morning, otherwise he would have presented it yes- terday. Lord DUNGANNON objected to the petition being received. The petitioners prayed for an elective House of Lordst which he conceived was irregular. He moved that the petition be read. Tlie petition was accordingly read at the table by the clerk of the House, but in so low a tone of voice as to be totally inaudible in the gallery, Lord DUNGANNON put. it to the chair whether such a petition could be laid on the table. The petitior9 prayed that the House of Lords might be made elective* and the acceptance of the petition oul(I be an iinpropct interference with the other House of Parliament. The SPE AKER did not think that in strictness the petition could be refused. The House had allowed a discussion to take place last session in regard to reform9 in the House of Lords, and that discussion having been permitted, he did not think the petition could consis- tently be refused. Mr O'CONNELL reminded the Lord that tlio Irish Peers had been made elective. ']'lie N-olle l'O'd was an interested person, and ought to have been the last person to start the objection he raised, as but for the union he would have been an hereditary Peer of Ireland. Lord DUNGANNON said. t "0 years ago a petition had been offered praying for the exclusion of the bishop* rom the House of Lords. To that petition he had called the attention of the Chair, and the nibht lIon. Gentleman ha, decided that it ought not to be received. He felt it his duty to recall that circumstance to the re' collection ol the Right Hon. the Speaker, as he thought the first decision ought to decide the fate of the present petition. The SPEAKER had no recollection of the cireum- staftce to which the Noble Lord had alluded. He had dmpK stated his own impression in regard to the matter, and it was for the House to decide whether the petition ought or ought not to be received. •>Ii RICLsaid no one cj T t be more opposed to the prayer of the petition tkul he was, but he could see no objection to its being received. Suppose a petition were presented to the House of Lords, praying for a reform of the House of Commons, or to exclude any person from the house who was perfectly qualified to sit there, and who was duly elected, he did not think such a prayer should cause the rejection of the petition- He was of opinion, that however much the prayer of the petition might be at variance with the views of Hon. Members, still, as there was nothing disrespectful i'1 the language, it ought to be allowed to be laid upon tha table. Sir R. INGLIS said, if the prayer had been, not for an elective House of Peers,hut for an elective SOyerelJI, would the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, he would ask, contend that the petition ought to be re- ceived ? He (Sir R. Inglis) could not believe he would- If the House were to tolerate petitions in which parties demanded an elective House of Lords, he saw 110 reasort why others should not be presented asking for an elec- tive Sovereign. Mr O'CON NELL had not alluded to England. JIii. remarks had had reference solely to Ireland, when- the Peers were elective, and where, but for the nioT1, the Noble Lord who had raised the objectioa woul.! have an hereditary seat in an Irish House of Lords- An Hon. Member, whose name we were unable to learn, said it was but wasting the time of the House to discuss the matter further, as the Chair had already de. cided that the petition ought to be received. Mr GRO TE observed, that from what had been on the other side of the House, it might be suppose^ that this was the first petition with a prayer having reference to the constitution of the House of Lords- which had ever been offered in that House. Such" however was by no means the case, as many petitions had been presented. Lord DUNGANNON.—That is no reason for persist- ing in an improper course. Mr GROTE contended that the former practice ought to rule the present case. Lord DUNGANNON said he would not press the matter to a division. He felt that he had done hi* duty in calling the attention of the House to it. H begged, however, to enter his solemn protest against the* reception of the petition. (Hear.) The petition was then laid on the table. Sir R. P EEL, after presenting a petition .un rbtJ subject, asked whether it was the intention of he Go- vernment to submit any proposition to the Hixise rela- tive to Church accommodation in Scotland, founded upon the report of the Commissioners '? Mr S. RICE said the subject was under the superln- tendence of the Secretary of State for the Home Ve- partment. That Noble Lord would no doubt give an answer if the Right Hon. Bart, would put the question- when he was in his place. Sir R. P EE L expressed a hope that some would shortly be submitted to the House on tliU im- portant subject. The third reading of tlie Parliamentary rlc Bill was postpon (I until Monday. Mr SLANEY gave notice that on Thursday next Tie should apply for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law regarding Elections, so as to prevent intimidatioIk on the part of Landlords. Lord DUNGANNON inquired whether it was r1í intention of the Government to propose tny of the time regarding the Commutation of Titls ilu England ? (I Mr S. RICE answered in the negative; but. !ilflSCf,tI that the Treasury had in contemplation a plan to faci- litate the voluntary commutation in England. He- added (in answer to an inquiry from Mr Heath cote) tha* a the Government did not contemplate any plan for tl alteration of the English Tithes Commutation Act- In answer to a question from Lord Vahon, Col. LV ANS said it was his intention in. a few' da>s to bring for.vard a motion with respect to the conduct of the British Legion in Spain, and the contest in country. He intended to have done so before, but had been prevented by the important events in Canada. LAIV BILI,. On the motion that the House should re-solve itself into Committee on this Bill, Mr T' ATTWOOD said that he bad voted against th* because he thought it was inefficient for the object* for which it was intended. Cruel towards the paupc- e I unjust towards the tenants, and a delusion on the people of Ireland. No man was a greater friend to Poor La«* than he was, but he did not consider this Bill provide olbcient laws for the purpose of supplying thP wants of the poor of Ireland. Some gCIJtlerell: hcoj objectetf to Poor Laws for Ireland, on- aCC\"¡i.t of th() great poverty in that country, but he mai^-amed that the poorer Ireland was, the greater the n.O'W-ssity e,(i for Poor Laws and he thought if a j\t and ef^»ent Poor Law were established in IrelaiVv', it would not found so great a burden as some Hon. Mergers gined. He opposed the Bill as unjust and mischievous- It was an attempt to delude the Irish people; and he would take the liberty of suggesti-ng iwo or three nic»- sures which would supersede tbe necessity of any Kill —He would first say th,at the standard of value nia!\u he abolished. His friend hebind him (Mr WarburtoiM laughed, but he was overwise in his ignorance, was always behind the time-(a laugh.) Hi; ficsi obJe "ou'd be to establish a just and honest systjem eiand, in stead of ibat which was now attesH'te^- t wou.d^recoiumeud the introduction of the system tb'1 prevailed in the Islands of Jersey anu Suemsey, "V which the nominal rent was alvvavs iommutable into* produce according to the average of vsars. Let the un- cultivated land of Ireland be atWqmated by Government let tbe bogs of Ireland be drained let land he sold upon seven years' credit to Irish Jib,-r- ers, and they would in time rt-pay the debt. 'Vh':ntl had been done—when a xo.tttd system of currency hall, been c.stah)ished.and the waste land made ^v^il'a-ble fM"* divided into small tenures, and half a m'Jiion located upon them, a just and efficient Ptior Law void", not be felt as a burden. But this could not be done » 'lie base prejudices of the Irish nobilitv and gentry attended to. Act boldly—pay tl>e nobility and ot Ireland the full value, three times the value of t'1 waste lands. Let these preparatory measures be adopt0 •n the first place, and he could assure them that they would establish a Poor Law in Ireland three times generous than the present Poor Law in England, twicc more g< nerous than the old Poor Law—a ^a Law which would weigh as lightly on the country a* feather on tbe back of a giant— (great laughter.) A r years ago he had given bis vote fn favour of a gralilT °t £ 20,000,000 Tor the emancipation of tlir neyro^^ J he ditl not regret that vote, but lie thought that it \voU be much better applied to the relief of the white £ He would not call them neI'oes-(laughter)-bnt orø the white slaves of wretched, infinitely more oppressed than the b'.ac hear, hear.) Now let them give a grant of £ 20,00'i>■ to the Irish. It would be but a small addition to debt, and if they would not give it, let them lend it j the Irish labourers, and he would lay his life they N' ld not lose by it. If the currency were rcctilird relieve a great portion of the distress—if the were reclaimed, it would relieve a further portioj1' Poor Laws were established, it would relieve a still t ther portion—and if £ 20,000,000 were lent to the it would relieve a further portion, and thus est»bil happiness and prosperity in that country—(hear.) The House then went into Committee on the Bit'' 1 Bernal in the chair and the discussion upon 'c'jl0S()f occupied attention nearlv the whole of the remainder the sitting. Several divisions took place- *>n airitI,'t] ments, in all of which the original clauses.were retain^ Having proceedeil from clause 16 to 30 the Ijy. resumed, and tbe other orders of the day being 1uU' disposed of, the House adjourned at. twelve o'clock un Monday. ^li

GREAr COAL MONOPOLY. -