an admiring country.—The committee divided, and the
numbers were—for the amendment, 252; against it,
323; majority for government, 71.

On Tuesday, May 3, Mr. Locke KING once more
moved for leave to bring in his Bill for giving the
County Franchise to £10 Voters.—Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE
seconded the motion.—Lord John Russell represented
that it would be inconvenient to proceed with this bill,
which related to a portion of a large subject which
would have to come under the consideration of the
legislature. After some observations by Mr. HUME,
Sir De Lacy EVANS, and Mr. HADFIELD, Mr. Locke
KING withdrew his motion.

Sir J. SHELLEY called attention to the proceedings of
the Chatham Election Commiltee, and to its resolution,
that it had been proved that one Greathead, an elector,
had been bribed by a post–office situation obtained for
his son by Sir F. Smith, and moved that the Attorney–
General should be directed to prosecute Sir Frederick
Smith for bribery.—Sir F. THESIGER, at great length,
defended Sir F. Smith, urging that no case of real
bribery had been made out, and that Sir F. Smith had
already been sufficiently punished in having lain under
suspicion, and having lost his seat in parliament. He
contended that this was not a case calling aloud for the
interposition of the house.—After some observations by
Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. BRAMSTON, Mr. PELLATT, Mr.
NEWDEGATE, Mr. W. J. FOX, and other members, Sir
J. SHELLEY expressed his surprise that no member of
the government had condescended to rise.—Lord J.
RUSSELL had not thought this a case in which the
opinion of the government should sway the course of the
house. He had received an opinion of the law officers
of the crown to the eflect that there were grounds for a
prosecution, though they would not answer for a
conviction. He animadverted upon the conduct of the
committee (members of which had spoken against the
motion), and said they either ought not to have
concurred in such a report as they had made, or ought to
have concurred in recommending a prosecution. The
house was placed in a most difficult position. Under
the circumstances the house might, perhaps, in
accordance with the desire of the committee, refrain
from prosecution, but in that case he must abstain from
supporting any further prosecutions.—Mr. S. WORTLEY
said that this prosecution would be received out of
doors as a mere vindictive proceeding, and did not
think that with the evidence before them a conviction
was possible, unless Sir F. Smith's examination were
used, a course which would be contrary to all English
judicial habits.—The SOLICITOR–GENERAL said that
the opinion of the law officers had been carefully
guarded, and he warned the house against sitting in
judgment on their own committee.—Mr. H. DRUMMOND,
in a strain of sarcasm, ridiculed the idea of the House
of Commons proceeding against Sir F. Smith. When
the house, he said, was urged to institute a criminal
proceeding against a meritorious officer and a member
of their own body—when they were all called upon to
take up stones against Sir F. Smith, he should like to
enquire where was the man who could say "I am
without sin!"—After some observations by Mr. HUME,
Mr. RICH, Mr. MUNTZ, and Sir T. D. ACLAND, the
motion was rejected by 188 against 78.

On Wednesday, May 4, Mr. HADFIELD having moved
the second reading of the Probate of Wills and Grants
of Administration Bill, a. short discussion arose as to the
expediency of proceeding with the bill, the solicitor–
general having announced that a bill was in preparation,
embracing the whole testamentary jurisdiction, which
would be introduced by the government after the
commissioners had made their report.—Lord John RUSSELL
did not think it would be right to reject this bill, though
only a partial measure, at its present stage, before the
house saw the government plan, which might be modified
by the report of the commissioners. He should not,
therefore, object to the second reading, it being fully
understood that it was not intended at present to go
seriously into committee upon the bill.—Ultimately, the
bill was read a second time.

Sir H. HALFORD, in moving the second reading of the
Payment of Wages Bill, explained its object, which was,
he said, to bring within the scope of the existing law,
certain practices contrary to its spirit, and which by an
unfortunate construction of its letter, had been exempted
from its operation.—Mr. WHALLEY, Mr. CHEETHAM, Mr.
MUNTZ, and Mr. HEYWORTH, spoke more or less adversely
to the bill, and Colonel BLAIR in its favour. Upon a
division, the amendment was carried by 186 against 125;
so the bill was lost.

The third reading of the Combination of Workmen
Bill was opposed by the SOLICITOR–GENERAL, who said
the bill was not what it was represented to be—a
declaratory law; and moved to defer the third reading for
six months.—Mr. G. M. BUTT likewise opposed the bill,
as unnecessary.—Mr. DRUMMOND, who had charge of
the bill, said this was really only an explanatory act, in
order to set at rest a question respecting which there was
a conflict of opinion.—Lord PALMERSTON insisted that
it was not merely an explanatory law, but went to repeal
a portion of the 6th of George IV.—Mr. M. CHAMBERS,
in support of the bill, contended that there was a conflict
of opinion between two judges, and that, whether
declaratory or not, the bill settled the construction of the law.
—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE complained that the opposition
should have been reserved until the last stage of the
bill, which he defended. After some further discussion,
the house adjourned.

On Thursday, May 5, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE inquired
whether it was the intention of the government to
proceed with the Information against Mr. Hale, the
Manufacturer of the Patent War–rocket. He prefaced
bis question with some playful animadversions upon
what he termed an absurd and ridiculous state prosecution,
upon political grounds, under an old fire–work act,
and inveighed against it as an unworthy course for the
British government to take, which he endeavoured,
apparently, to trace to a desire to gratify foreign powers.
—Lord PALMERSTON replied in a jocular strain, which
produced much laughter; but his defence was
substantially this. He had never disguised the grounds
upon which he thought it his duty to institute a
prosecution. It was not because a man had 57 lb. of
gunpowder in his possession, or was making rockets for
an ordinary purpose; but when he (Lord Palmerston)
was informed that here was a great collection of war–
like materials, accumulating in an out–of–the–way place,
under circumstances of secresy, and connected with
other circumstances which tended to show that there
was a purpose, the object of which was beyond the
limits of this country, and not the ordinary and legitimate
interests of commerce, he felt it his duty to inquire
whether these proceedings were or were not contrary to
law. Lord Palmerston added that, being informed that
they were contrary to law, he should have forfeited his
duty if he had taken no step to put a stop to it. In
doing this, he had consulted the honour and dignity of
this country. He had, however, no hesitation in saying
that the government had no desire to press hardly upon
Mr. Hale, and that the evidence they had did not bear
out or justify proceedings against any other persons,
British or foreign. Upon general principles, he held it
to be objectionable for the government to abandon
a proceeding once commenced against an individual;
and the objection would be much stronger in this case.
He was, therefore, advised that the proceedings against
Mr. Hale should not be stopped until the judgment of
a competent court had been obtained on the law of the
case.—Lord D. STUART denounced the statements made
with the view of implicating M. Kossuth in this
proceeding, as upon Lord Palmerston's tardy declaration,
baseless fabrications and unfounded calumnies.—Mr.
BRIGHT inquired whether policemen had been employed
to watch M. Kossuth's house; if so, whether it was
done with the authority of the Home Office, and
whether the expense was defrayed by the government,
or out of the metropolitan rates, or by the
Austrian Government or the Austrian Embassy?—Lord
PALMERSTON replied that the expense of our police
was borne by this country, and that it was their duty,
if they had reason to think that persons were engaged
in proceedings contrary to law, to inform the government;
but that he had given no special directions to
them regarding M. Kossuth.—Mr. Cobden asked
whether there had been any communications between
the Home Office and the police with reference to any