us all the information you can obtain on the subject." The inspector then spoke to the superintendents, saying, "If you go to a certain part of the country, you will find there a number of designing men who intend to overturn the Government. You are to watch them, and to give me an account of their proceedings.' What did the superintendent do? He was known to the persons in the district; he could not go into the political societies or debating clubs, and so he employed his agents. And then back came those reporters, and he (Mr. Wakley) would say, that those persons were the real spies, and that such means of obtaining information created the very mischief it was intended to prevent. The real spy, thinking he might get a little money by it, incited others to certain acts; and when he had got his dupes into his net, he went back to the superintendent, who stated it to the inspector, and the inspector to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State then sent down his police to apprehend those men who were betrayed by the very parties whom the Government had employed. Was it not alleged at the time of the Thistlewood conspiracy, that Oliver and Edmonds were parties concerned in getting up that conspiracy? He believed it originated in that manner; and he must say, that if the Government were to employ official persons in that way, the means they employed were not the best, and that it would be dangerous to society. The employment of the inspectors in such duty was not consistent with propriety, nor would it be justified by the public. Mr. Brotherton agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury, that no character could be more odious than that of a political spy, but he thought that no grounds had been laid for applying that name to the inspectors of factories for the manner in which they had acted under the instructions given to them by the Government. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Oldham pressed his motion to a division, he should certainly vote against him. Mr. Muntz did not rise to take part in this debate because he was the representative of one of those large constituencies to which the hon. Member for Maidstone had referred, but to request his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham to withdraw his motion. He agreed with the hon. Member for Salford in thinking that Government must have information. If he (Mr. Muntz) were in the Government, he would take care to have information from all quarters of everything that was passing. Some years ago, when he took a more prominent part in political agitation, he was aware that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) knew perfectly everything that was done; and he thought that the right hon. Baronet was right to get that information. No man could feel greater indignation than he did at such spies as were employed in 1817, but he did not think that the present Government had employed any agents of that kind. He trusted that his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw the motion. Mr. Ewart thought it most unfortunate that the inspectors and superintendents of factories should have been employed upon a service which was calculated to make them odious in the estimation of the people, and thereby greatly to impair the efficacy of their services in the employment which legitimately belonged to them. Mr. Slaney said, the Government ought to obtain information as to the state of the working classes. That could not be denied. Well then, to whom were they to apply? The hon. Gentleman would not be satisfied if they sought it from the local magistracy or from the clergy. The object was to obtain a knowledge of the distress which was alleged to prevail amongst the working classes, and he thought the best agents that could be obtained at present had been employed, although perhaps a better channel through which to get information might have been provided. He recommended the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. The House divided on the question that the Order of the Day be read: -Ayes 113; Noes 11: Majority 102. List of the AYES. Acland, Sir T. D. Easthope, J. Estcourt, T. Ferguson, Sir R. A. Gordon, hon. Captain Hobhouse, rt.hn.SirJ. Hoskins, K. Hughes, W. B. Hurt, F. Hutt, W. Ingestrie, Viscount James, W. Jones, Captain Labouchere, rt. hn.H. Macaulay, rt, hn.T.B. O'Ferrall, R. M. Palmerston, Viscount Peel, rt. hn. Sir R. Rawdon, Col. J. D. Rice, E. R. Roche, W. Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A TELLERS. Melgund, Viscount Mildmay, P. St. J. Miles, W. Morpeth, Viscount Morris, D. Muntz, G. F. Muskett, G. A. Norreys, Sir D. J. Paget, F. Mr. Hume said, that in a former discussion on this bill, he had objected to the number of the poor-law assistant commissioners; and as the noble Lord had assured him that they would be dispensed with, he was inclined to go on with the bill. Mr. W. Attwood moved that the House do now adjourn. Mr. Grimsditch said, that he felt a strong objection to the commission being continued, and there was a vast number of his constituents who disliked the laws which emanated, not from the House of Commons, but from the Poor-law Commissioners at Somerset-House. As the noble Lord had abandoned his bill for the amendment of the Poor-law Act, he hoped he would consent to fix the third reading of the present bill for some early day next week. Viscount Morpeth said, that the hon. Gentleman had raised an objection against proceeding with the present measure, because Government had not gone on with the Poor-law Amendment Act; but the hon. Member would surely admit, when he considered the business which had hitherto occupied the House, that it would be impossible to carry such a measure through Parliament this Session. It being acknowledged, then, that it was necessary to continue the powers at present entrusted to the Poor-law Commissioners, he hoped there would be no further objection made to proceeding with the bill. Mr. Wakley thought it was time that business should make some progress in that House, and though he had no doubt of the sincerity of hon. Gentlemen in their opposition to this bill, he would yet like to know what they would gain by a delay of two or three weeks. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would withdraw their opposition to the present measure. Mr. W. Attwood would persist in his amendment, as the bill had not been Order of the Day and Committee of brought on at a time of the evening when Supply postponed. the House could properly discuss it. POOR-LAW COMMISSION.] Lord John Russell moved the third reading of this adjournment:-Ayes 10; Noes 71: Ma TELLERS. Attwood, W. List of the NOES. Ferguson, Sir R. A. Gordon, hon. Capt. Hindley, C. Hobhouse, rt.hn.SirJ. Hobhouse, T. B. Hodgson, R. Morpeth, Viscount Rawdon, Col, J. D. Mr. Kelly could not give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he desired. The Attorney-General said, he was not aware whether his hon. and learned Friend had shown the bill to the Solicitor-general for Ireland, or the bill that was in preparation for Scotland to the Lord Advocate. He did not see there was the remotest chance of these bills becoming law during the present Session, and unless the principle could be carried into effect in all parts of the United Kingdom it would. be objectionable to press it at present. He would add, that the form in which the English bill was drawn had been found extremely inconvenient. He would advise his hon. and learned Friend not to persist in his bill. Mr. Ewart supported the motion, and adverted to the cases of measures brought in by Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir Robert Peel that were made to apply to Ireland, although it was desirable that similar laws Troubridge, Sir E. T. should have been introduced for that coun Somers, J. P. Steuart, R. Stock, Dr. Style, Sir C. Tufnell, H. Vigors, N. A. Warburton, H. Hope, hon. C. Horsman, E. Hoskins, K. Ward, II. G. Hughes, W. B. Williams, W. Hume, J. Wilshere, W. try. It was, therefore, in his opinion, the duty of the House to make a contemporaneous change in the law with regard to that country in the present instance. Mr. Kelly said, that he should always look at any suggestion from the Members of Government with distrust after this; for he had been asked by her Majesty's Attorney-general to prepare a bill for Ireland, and now that he had done so the Government opposed it. Mr. Pigot hoped that the bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to introduce was not exactly in the same form Mr. Fielden moved the adjournment of with that which he had introduced for the debate, Debate adjourned. ABOLITION OF THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH (IRELAND).] Mr. Kelly moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the punishment of death in certain cases in Ireland. The bill was exactly to the same extent as the bill that had been introduced for England. Mr. Fox Maule said, that great inconvenience had arisen from the form in which the bill for England had been drawn. The amendments could not be discussed on the enacting clauses, but had to be taken on the preamble. Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman could assure him that no such inconvenience would arise in the form of the present bill, he should be disposed to withhold his assent from it. Turnpike Acts Continuance. Read a third time:Newgate Gaol (Dublin); Caledonian Canal; West India Relief. POTATO SUGAR.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a Committee of the whole House, moved a resolution, that the excise duty now payable on sugar made from beet-root be charged on sugar manufactured from any materials whatever. The reason why this measure was proposed at so late a period of the Session was, that until very recently he had no idea that such a one would be required. The House had placed a duty on beet-root sugar, but the moment that was taxed the ingenuity of parties set them to work to get it from potatoes and other substances. The present bill would meet every possible case, for it included sugar extracted from any material whatever. [An hon. Member It has been lately manufactured from old rags.] From old rags ? I have heard of its being made from rice, but I never till now heard of old rags as materials from which to get it. Resolution agreed to. : CALEDONIAN CANAL.] Sir J. Graham said, he would take that opportunity of making a few remarks on the subject of a bill which he found had been read a third time and passed since the sitting of the House that day-he alluded to the Caledonian Canal. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members opposite, that when the Order of the Day for the third reading of that bill was called on on a former evening, he and his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) objected, on account of the lateness of the hour, and at the same time he intimated his intention of objecting to parts of the bill, and of moving an amendment. It was therefore postponed to this day; but he was not a little surprised, on coming down to the House at half-past twelve o'clock, to find that the bill had been already read a third time and passed. It was well known that the Caledonian Canal had already cost the country a very large outlay, and certainly far beyond the benefit which the country derived from it, and it still required a considerable outlay and great care and attention to prevent it from overflowing or breaking down some of the embankments, by which parts of the adjoining country ensue. Formerly all the sums applied to keeping up this canal were by estimate, which was laid on the table of that House, and thus the House had a proper control over the whole expenditure. But by the bill which had that morning been hurried through its last stage, the whole of this control had been taken away, and by the third clause of the bill the whole management of the canal was placed in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, under the control of the Treasury, so that any sum which the Commissioners might think necessary, and which might be sanctioned by the Treasury, would be voted, and Parliament have no control over it. It was his intention, if he had arrived before the bill was passed, to have proposed a proviso to the third clause, to the effect, that no sum should be expended by the Commissioners on the canal until an estimate of the amount, and of its intended application, had been laid before the House. That, however, he regretted to find, was now out of his power, as the bill had passed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was happy to be able to give his right hon. Friend an answer which he hoped would be considered satisfactory; but let him. first remark, that the tone of the right hon. Baronet in his remarks was as if he considered that the bill had been smuggled through the House. Nothing of the kind, however, was intended, and as to the proviso which the right hon. Baronet had intended to move, he would find on looking at the bill that he had been spared the trouble, for a clause precisely to the same effect had been introduced into the bill. [Sir J. Graham: When?] In the Committee. So that the control of Parliament over the expenditure, which the right hon. Baronet was anxious to secure, had been already provided for. Sir J. Graham said, he had wished that the bill should be postponed for the purpose of moving the amendment he had named. He was not aware of the introduction of the proviso, and was glad to find that it had been added. Subject at an end. POSTAGE DUTIES.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the postage duties, said the House would recollect, that last year, when the new system of Parliament, it was apprehended that there would be considerable difficulty in carrying the measure into full effect, and, in order as much as possible to obviate this difficulty, great powers were intrusted to the Treasury, and therefore the whole responsibility of regulating the foreign, the inland, and the colonial postage, had devolved upon that board, and the authority under which these postages were now levied rested solely upon a Treasury order. The continuance of these powers in the Treasury he conceived to be open to great objection. No part of the taxation of the country should be carried on under a mere Treasury order, and he therefore proposed to ask for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose of doing that by Act of Parliament which at present was done by the warrant of a public board. It was still proposed to leave some power in the hands of the Treasury with reference to foreign postages, as there were negotiations on foot the object of which was to secure an equality in the rates. He need hardly add upon that point, that no concession would be made by her Majesty's Government without obtaining an equivalent. Leave given. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, July 20, 1840. MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time :-Parliamentary Boroughs; Friendly Societies; Assessed Taxes Composition; Newgate Gaol (Dublin); Usury Laws.-Read a second time:-East India Mutiny.-Read a third time:Convicted Infants' Education. Petitions presented. By the Bishop of Lichfield, from Rugby, against Sunday Trading on Canals. By the Marquess of Westminster, from Rate-payers in Chester, to be heard by Counsel against the Weaver Churches Bill. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).] On the order of the day for the third reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, Viscount Duncannon wished to state to their Lordships that arrangements had been made for bringing in two other bills concerning the two disputed points-the compensation clauses and the boundary clauses. He had, therefore, to propose that the further consideration of this bill be postponed to Monday. Ireland lately on the subject of the Poorlaws and this subject generally, could never consent to this measure passing while such great powers of taxation were given to the corporations to be established under it. He saw that this subject had been lately under consideration in reference to the Scotch corporations, and so far from the taxation under Scotch corporations being unlimited, it was limited to 3d. in the pound in cases in which the corporation had no charges to incur for paving, lighting, or watching; and in cases where it had, it was on no account to exceed 1s. in the pound. He could not. at all see why the powers of taxation should not be equally limited in the Irish corporations. Their Lordships knew to a certainty, that in Dublin there were taxes levied for all these and other services; that, in fact, the corporation of Dublin would have no expense to incur for any purpose whatever as a corporation, and that it would not be asked to interfere in reference to those expenses. Under these circumstances, it was ridiculous to give the corporation a power of levying large taxes on the inhabitants. He must say not-content to this bill, if it did not contain some clauses of limitation of the same nature as those contained in the Scotch Act of Parliament. Viscount Duncannon would endeavour to accommodate the principles of the proposed bills to the suggestions of the noble Duke. As there would be great difficulty in fixing the amount of the limitation, he would not commit himself as to that point on the present occasion. Lord Lyndhurst wished to have a com. plete understanding as to the compensation and boundary clauses; and begged to refer the noble Viscount to the amendments which had been proposed and printed on the first bill on this subject which had been laid on their Lordships' table, as expressing the wishes of those with whom he acted. As far as related to the boundary question, if the noble Viscount would compare the provisions contained in the Grand Jury Cess Bill with the amendments alluded to, he would find that they did not exactly correspond. He hoped, also, that they might expect a clause of compensation, in substance the same as that contained in the amend The Duke of Wellington hoped the noble Viscount would state his reasons for the alterations he now proposed, so that they might be known before the next dis-ments. cussion of the bill came on. He, for one, Viscount Duncannon said, that the |