The Sun. — London, England, 1859-03-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS--(YEsTERDAT). The Lorin CHANCELLOR. took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. The Bishop of OXFORD presented petitions from Derby and other places praying that church-rates might not be abolished without an equivalent.. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition praying that Dissenters might not be excluded from the ad ministration of trust funds of grammar schools. The noble and learned lord said taken he hoped and trusted that measures would speedily be to allay the uneasiness caused by the decision of the Lords Justices on the subject. A brief conversation ensued, in which Lord Campbell, Lord 'Wensleydale, and Lord Cranworth took part ; the latter noble lord said if the decision of the Lords Justices was correct, then legislation was absolutely necessary on the subject. VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS BILL. Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this bill. The noble and learned lord having stated the pre sent state of the law on the subject, said he thought it ex ceedingly unjust that a warrant should be obtained upon an ex parte statement upon which any person might be put upon his trial without the slightest notice. Persons might also be indicted for conspiracy on the most frivolous grounds. By his bill it was enacted that no person could prefer a bill of :indictment for either perjury, conspiracy, or obtaining money by false pretences until an investigation had taken place before a magistrate. In the event of the magistrate refusing to commit, he proposed that the person bringing the accusation should be empowered, after having obtained the sanction of the Attorney or Solicitor-General to apply to one of the judges of the superior courts, who might order an indictment to be presented before the grand jury. Lord WENSLEYDALE opposed the bill. He con sidered it both highly objectionable and unconstitutional. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he differed entirely with his noble friend who had just sat down. He ap proved in every respect of the bill, which he hardly thought went far enough. The length to which vexa tious indictments had reached loudly called for a strong remedy. He could mention various instances—one was the case of Mr. Mellish, another that of a French Ca nadian, who was indicted for keeping a gaming house, and on the strength of an indictment was kept in prison six months, but was afterwards relieved by an order from the Court of Queen's Bench, and on an inquiry being made into the circumstances of the case, it was discovered that the names of the parties on the back of the bill were altogether unknown to the unfortunate person, so he had no remedy fo r the grievous injury he had suffered. If the bill of the noble lord had been in force at the time no such unjust proceeding would have been instituted. Lord CRANWORTH concurred with his noble and learned friend that the examination before the magistrate was quite sufficient in the metropolitan districts without the intervention of the grand jury , but he was not prepared to say that the grand jury was not necessary in distant parts of the country, where the magistrates were not always per sons of legal education and legal knowledge, and where the examinations were not always carried on with the same publicity as in the metropolis. Lord BROUGHAM considered that if a public prosecu tor formed part of our criminal system, the grand jury would not only be unnecessary but mischievous. After a few words from Lord WENSLEYDALE and Lord CAMPBELL, the bill was read a second time. The house then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Sunderland Dock (No. 2) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. LIVERPOOL DOCKS, &c., BILL. Mr. HORSFALL moved the second reading of this bill. Mr. HEADLAM said that the object of the bill was to make the merchants and shipowners pay a tax for the bene fit of the rate-payers of Liverpool. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. EWART thought that the bill should be read a second time, and that anyopposition to it should be reserved until they were called on to decide on the details in com mittee. Mr. SAMUELSON supported the second reading of the bill. Sir J. GRAHAM said that this subject had been in vestigated before a select committee, and it had been decided by Lord Tenterden that the trustees of dock property had no right to be rated, because they had no beneficial occupation in property of this description. It was proposed to introduce a bill to invert the law on this subject, and he thought that until the gene ral question was decided they should not concede a special exemption to these docks. He trusted, therefore, that the bill would be withdrawn. • Sir S. NORTHCOTE agreed with the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) and hoped that the bill would not be pressed. Mr. FENTON supported the second reading. Mr. TURNER, in seconding the amendment, said the object of the bill was to make shipowners pay one-third of the rates of Liverpool, and that it should never have been introduced. After a few words from Mr. HORSFALL, Mr. W. BROWN supported the amendment. The motion for the second reading was negatived withoni a division. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented fromdifferent dissenting congre gations, praying for the admission of dissenters to the trus teeship of endowed schools and other charitable foundations; for the adoption of vote by ballot ; in favour of officials in provincial post-offices being placed in respect to superannua tion on the same footing as those engaged in the London post-office ; in favour of Parliamentary Reform ; for the unconditional abolition of chureh rates ; praying that beershops and publichouses should be placed under the control of the magistrates ; (by Mr. Bright) from Jamaica, praying that the inhabitants might not be taxed to pay for the cost of the introduction of Coolies into the island, in order to compete with native labour, &c. NEW WRITS. On the motion of Sir W. JOLLIFFE, the following writs were ordered :—For Bury St. Edmunds, in the room of the Earl Jermyn, called to the Upper House ; for North Wilt • shire, in the room of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, who had ac cepted the office of one of her Majesty's Principal Secre taries of State ; for the Western Division of Sussex, in room of the Earl of M arch, who had accepted office at the Poor Law Board ; for the Northern Division of Lincolnshire, in the room of Lord Lovaine, who has accepted office under Government ; and for Tewkesbury, vacant by Mr. Lygon having accepted office as one of the Lords of the Admiralty. ANNUITY TAX IN SCOTLAND. Mr. BLACK asked the Lord Advocate if he was prepared to bring in a bill to relieve the towns of Scotland now sub ject to the annuity t ax f or p a y men t o f the stipends of the ministers of the Established Church. If he would provide the same relief for Scotland as the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposed to give to England in the case of church rates, viz., " that when the rate had been imposed the collector should take round certain papers, one of which should contain a form wherein a per son may simply declare that he conscientiously objected to the payment of this rate ; and whoever made that declara tion should be exempted and from that time free from the obligation of paying the charge, and should consequently take no part in vestry meetings until he consented to pay some rate ?" The LORD ADVOCATE said that he had already answered one part of the question, and stated that while the subject was under the consideration of Government they were not prepared to bring in any bill at present; and with reference to the second part of the question, he was not pre pared to introduce any measure in reference to the matter alluded to. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. Mr. C. CLIFFORD asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to a case brought before the bench of magistrates in Hampshire, concerning the torture of a fox, and whether in his opinion it would not be advisable to extend the provi sions of'the Act 12 and 13 Vic. c. 92, by making penal the torturing of other animals besides domestic animals. Mr. HARDY said that his attention had been drawn to the subj ec t, b u t it was not at present intended to bring in any bill on this subject. CONSULAR OFFICIALS IN JAPAN. Mr. M. MILNES asked her Majesty's Government whether, for the future, persons appointed to consular offices in Japan ,would be submitted to the ordinary exa mination by th e Ci v il S erv i ce C omm i ss i o ners, or to a spe cial training similar to that now in practice in the consular establishment in China ? And, when they would be prepared to lay on the . table of the house the revised scale of con sular salaries recommended by the committee of last year ? Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that a special training was adopted for those about to be appointed to the offices in question. They were instructed in Japanese and Dutch, but not in Chinese. MR. WALPOLE AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Mr. WALPOLE, who occupied a seat on the third bench on tho Ministerial side of the house, then rose amidst consi derable cheering, and said—Mr. Speaker, before you pro ceed to the business of the evening, I trust I shall be allowed for the first time in my life in this house, to ask your indul gence for a few moments while I make some explanations of the reasons which have induced me to retire from the office which I held in her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) The house will have observed that yesterday evening I for bore taking my usual place, because I thought it would be more convenient to my colleagues —my former colleagues —that they should not have any personal matter mixed up with the important measure which my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce. I am not certain whether I should not have forborne taking my seat again in this house until my successor was actually appointed; but as I find that some misconceptions have arisen, and have been circulated, with reference to the rea sons which led to my resignation of office, I am sure the house will not think I am taking an undue opportu fI in mentioning the circumstances that led to that resignation. (Cheers.) In doing so I must date back, if you wai per !nit me, for one year. It is just a year sinc e I was asked by My noble friend at the head of the Governm ent to join him in one of the most arduous and difficult tasks which any Minister could have to perform—namely, to con duct, avowedly in a minority in this house, the adminis tration of the affairs of this great country. (Hear, hear.) I wrote to him to say that upon private and upon public grounds I rather wished to decline. The private grounds I need not mention, and none but the public grounds will I advert to,.except that which has occasioned my resignation —viz., a doubt whether I should agree with my colleagues on the reform bill, which I knew they would have to pro pose. My noble friend in the kindest manner—in that kind manner which i s not exceeded by any one—my no b le f r i en d in the kindest manner, and in terms which I will not ven ture to quote, requested me to join him, and stated that the subject of reform was a matter for consideration, to which in no point of detail was the Government then in any re spect pledged. I said in reply t o my noble friend, if there will be nothing dishonourable to you or to myself in retiring front office should I unfortunately not agree with you on the question, I will do my best to assist you. It was upon these terms that I joined the Government of my noble friend—and, regretting that the difference which I then foresaw has arisen, it is in consequence of that diff erence that I am no longer a member of that Government. (Hear) Joining the Ministry on such terms as these, I had to con sider what in all likelihood would be the principle up on which a reform bill would be proposed. I had no need of conjecture. Three times the subject had been introduced into ,---- __d_ this house upon the recommendation of the Crown itself. Three times the house had assented to the consideration of such a question--once in 1852, once in 1856, one 3 at the end of 1857; and, I think, after that had happened, no division having been taken upon the subject, no amen 'ment having been suggested, the consideration of the que , ion of reform was a duty and a necessity on every •ne who took a part in public life. (Hear, hear.) As I ave said, I had no difficulty in conjecturing what I thought the principle of the reform bill would be. My noble friend at the head of the Government in the year 1852 and 1854, enunciated those principles in the clearest possible manner. I will not quote his words on any other part of the subject but on this point, and, in order to set myself right with the house and the country, I hope I may be permitted the use of the words which were then used by my noble friend. (Hear, hear.) On the 31st January, 1854, my noble friend said— " I beg that your lordships will not lose sight of this, that from the earliest periods of the Parliamentary history of this country there have been two great divisions of con stituencies and it is upon due weight being given to each of these two; that the whole balance of the constitution in the House of Commons depends. They are, on the one hand, those who represent the property—landed if you will, but the fixed and immovable property of the country—re presented by the knights of the shire, elected by the free holders and those holding leases of . property ; and, on the other, the burgesses, elected by their fellow -burgesses not representing property, but representing residence and occu pation of premises. That distinction is as old as the earliest period of our history." My noble friend went on to remark that this was the prin ciple recognised in the Reform Bill, and the noble lore opposite has constantly referred to that circumstance, and expressly drawn the distinction- My noble friend at the head of the Government went on to say— " Property was there [in counties] made the basis of representation; number and residence were the basis of representation with regard to boroughs. Ido n o t pretend that this theory is carried out in all its integrity and with all its detail. Theory it is not; it is a practical distinction, most important to be borne in mind if you desire that the House of Commons should be not a mere representation of numbers, but a representation of property and numbers combined one portion of the members representing more di re ctly the interests of property, the other representing more directly and immediately the interests of residence and numbers. Ido trust that the Government, in the measures they are about to introduce, will not attempt to break down this old, well-founded, and most important distinction." These were the words of my noble friend in 1854. I recol lected these words when I joined the Government. At the end of the session we had to consider how the pledge should be redeemed of giving to this country a Reform Bill based upon principles which Conservatives have always advocated, and also with a view of making a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the question. My opinions were perfectly well known to all my colleagues throughout our discussions ; they were known to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer early in September. They were known and re peated, strongly repeated, to my noble friend at the head of the Government towards the close of September. We had , to discuss the matter in November and December following. I never did give up what I believed to be essential to the constitution of the country—namely, the distinction to which I have adverted, and therefore to that part of the measure I could not assent. (Cheers.) But the house is not aware—and, without mentioning any Cabinet secret ) I may inform them—and, in my own justification, I think I ought to inform them—that nothing was settled upon this part of the question until after Christmas, and I was requested to consider the subject as a whole, before I gave my final decision upon any part of it. We were to have met on the 10th of January to consider the question. Other business and other causes prevented its consideration, and it was not until the 25th of January that the question came under deliberation for final adoption or rejection. Previous to that I informed my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of my strong convictions upon this subject. We met, we deliberated upon it. I was in a minority, and I felt then that I had nothing to do—but with the most cordial desire to support her Majesty's ministers in every way I could—l felt that I had no other alternative than to request Lord Derby to place my resignation in the hands of the Queen. (Cheers.) Of that letter I hold a copy in my hand, and as it states the only reason upon which I have retired from office, will the house permit me to read it ? " January 27, 1859. "My dear Lord, —I regret to say that lam about to take the most painful step which I have ever had to take in the whole of my life. I am going to request you to place my re signation in her Majesty's hands, because I find it is ut terly impossible forme to sanctionor countenartce the course of policy which the government are now determined to adopt on the important subject of parliamentary reform. When you were so good as to ask me to join your present administration, I told you I thought that I had better de- cline. I then fOresawthat there were one or two questions with reference to which I might not be able to agree with my colleagues. On being assured, however, that if that should happen, there would be nothing dishonourable to you or to them in asking leave to retire, I consented again to bear my part in the arduous task which the Queen was pleased to invite you to undertake. Parliamentary reform was one of those questions; and it is now quite clear that I cannot come to an agreement with the majority of the cabinet. The reduction of the county occupation franchise to a level with that which exists in boroughs is utterly contrary to every principle which the conservatives as a party have always maintained. (Hear.) It is a complete destruction of the main distinction which has hitherto been recognised and wisely established between the borough and the county con stituencies. It is to my mind a most dangerous innovation, by giving to temporary and fluctuating occupations a pre ponderating influence over property and intelligence, while it throws large masses into the constituencies who are almost exempt from direct taxation, and therefore interested in forcing their representatives to fix that taxation permanently on others. I will not dwell upon other points, for this is enough. But I cannot help saying that the measure which the Cabinet are prepared to recommend is one which we should all of us have strongly opposed if either Lord Pal merston or Lord John Russell had ventured to bring it forward. (Laughter and Opposition cheers.) Under all these circumstances, I have no other alternative but to re peat the request with which I commenced ; and I shall, therefore, consider myself as only holding the seals of office until you can conveniently fill up my place.—l am ever, my dear lord, yours sincerely, "The Earl of Derby." " S. H. WALPOLE. In consequence of the observations which have been circu lated in the country, I think it my duty to advert to the misunderstanding which has arisen as to the reasons why I remained for an hour sitting on that bench after my letter Was written, or rather why I continued upon that seat. My noble friend at the head of the Government was pleased to request me, in the great difficulties by which we were sur rounded—difficulties not merely affecting our domestic policy, but difficulties affecting our foreign relations—my noble friend requested me to withhold the actual announce ment of my resignation until Parliament had met, and be fore it was known that the Government had to meet Par liament with a divided body. (Hear, hear.) My answer to my noble friend was immediate. I said, whatever I felt it my duty to do, I should always wish to consult him as to the mode in which it should be done, and if I could assist him in any way in meeting Parliament I was willing to do so, as one of the Administration, agreeing as I did with my colleagues in their general policy. (Hear, hear.) I said I would willingly do so as one of the Administration, pro vided I might be allowed to retire before the Reform Bill was fully announced. It was on this understanding that I have continued to sit on the Treasury bench for the last three weeks. [The right hon. gentleman was so much affected at this portion of his address that he was under the necessity of pausing for a few moments. He then re sumed.] It was for that reason that I continued to sit upon that bench for three weeks, doing, I hope, my duty to this house and to my country, and it was not until the an- nouncement of the Reform Bill was made that I considered it my duty to make my resignation known. Indeed, one of my colleagues was good enough to say to me, " You have no right to go out until you know we have finally adopted a measure and will not change it." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) That reason was irresistible to my mind, and I felt that when the appeal was made, I could only act upon it. These are the explanations which I have to offer. Whether they are sufficient others must judge. But I only wish the house to bear in mind, that had I remained I should have remained there a Secretary of State for the Home Department, whose duty it would have been to have given my grudging support either to the principles or the clauses of the bill. And I ask you, whether with my strong convictions, I could have given it that support ? (Cheers.) It has been said, I know that I was in favour of reducing the franchise in boroughs to a£6 rating. How that should be known I cannot tell. But this I do know that any information which I may have given upon that subject was of the most private and con fidential character. (Hear, hear.) This I also know, that I never proposed such a measure as that to the cabinet. And this I further know, that I told them, and they all knew it, that I was prepared, if they thought they could stand upon it, to stand by the £lO franchise settled by the Reform Bill. I will not disguise from the house—now that the dream stance has been published to the world—l will not disguise from the h ouse t h at I t hi n k it d es i ra bl e th a t you s h ou ld ob tain some res ti ng p l ace to wh i c h t h e f ranc hi se s h ou ld b e lowered, and that that resting place should be adopted as a permanent settlement of the question. Ido believe, for reasons to which I will advert when the second reading comes on—l do believe that the reduction of occupation to £2O in counties would have been such resting pla Ido co believe that a reduction o f t h e £lO value in boroughs to a their tenants' rst.(cH ear, rc hear.) I only ad vert to t hat because the circumstance £6 rating, which is equal t o £8 value, would h ave been such caormesetintogbeplacabele because t ocompound that d foris a point a t which n elandlords been made kno wn to the world. But I must deprecatee has in th e strongest manner an y inti mation of private opinions being communicated to the public as reasons for my resig nation when they were not so ; and I must say that if this is the policy on which we are to act for the future, I might be at liberty to reveal any schemes or propositions made by any other hon. gentleman . (Hear.) Never will I take suc h a course at all. Whoever may wish to damage me by mak ing the statement, I cannot conceive how it got into the public papers. (Hear.) Sir, I have only two other obser vations to make ; one addressed to my colleagues, the other to the house. To my colleagues I have to say with perfect sincerity, agreeing with them in tho policy which they have adopted, whether foreign or domestic —taking as they do no inactive part in the social and legal reforms they are so wisely recommending to the house —believing that their policy, as a general policy, and independent of this particular question, is really for the good and well-being of the country—if my assistance as an independent member can be of any use to them, they know, or they may know, I believe they do know, they can command it as much as if I remained one of their colleagues. (Cheers.) To the house I will say I have now sat here for 12 years, I have filled THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, , MARCH 2, 1859. during that time the office of Secretary of State, once for 10 months, once for upwards of a year. I have had, no doubt, to nix in party strifes and party conflicts, but I hope I have not—l am sure I have not—intentionally wounded the feelings of any one. In returning to comparative obscurity, which is much more congenial to my character and disposition, I only hope I 'shall be able to say here after, as I think I may say now, that I have endea voured, both as a minister and as a private member, to do my duty to my Queen, to my country, and to Parliament. (Cheers.) Having explained all that I wished to do, I have now to thank the house very sincerely for lis tening to these explanations. I regret most deeply that I could not agree with my colleagues in the particular mea sure which they have proposed—but not agreeing with them, I am sure the house will concur with me in thinking that I had no other alternative than that of tendering my resignation. (Loud cheers.) Mr. HENLEY—I have no doubt, sir, that the house will be kind enough to extend to me that indulgence which they have just extended to my right hon. friend. (Hear.) Under ordinary circumstances I could have been well content to have let my position rest upon what he has said, because in almost every particular I agree in his observations. There are, however, one or two points in which my position some what differs from that of my right hon. friend. The only condition that I made in joining the Government when the proposition was made to me more than a year ago was this— that I would not join it unless the Government would endea vour to undertake what was called the reform question. (Hear.) I had no means of knowing whether that was to be undertaken or not. I thought, as my right hon. friend says, that considering the state in which the question has been for some years, there was a necessity for any Govern ment to deal with it, and I would not have been a member of any Government if I had not understood that it was to deal with the question. This statement will show that I did not come to the consideration of this question with any indisposition to deal with it. (Hear, hear.) It has been said that it is very surprising 'I could not accept this bill—(laughter)—and the remark has been made in some what stronger language. As a guide I had before me the principles to which my right hon. friend has adverted. I thought that at all events that was safe ground to stand upon ; and the only point on which I have differed from my colleagues, and the only ground on which I have left the Government, is the ground which he has pointed out. I be lieve that the identity of suffrage, which in my mind is the principle of this bill, is fatal to the constitution of this coun try. I care not whether the franchise be £lO, £l5, or £5. I care not at what sum you fix it; but if you draw aline across the country and say that all the people on one side of the line shall have the franchise, and all the people on the other side shall not have it, you may have no trouble for a few years ; but as sure as the sun is in heaven you will have all those people who are outside that line, at some time or other, making a;very ugly rush to come over it—(hear, hear) —and when they do come over ;it in that way, it will not be in a manner likely to retain the constitution of the county. You have no precedent for such a course of proceeding in our time. You could not equal it. You could not get at identity without a large measure of disfranchise ment. To get at it you were obliged to disfranchise that large number of persons whose freehold is within boroughs— (hear, hear)—who, so far as I know, value their franchise, and who, so far as I know, have not abused it. I for one could never consent to attain that identity of franchise upon this condition. (Hear, hear.) We must look at this mea sure as if it is to succeed, and also as if it is to fail. Now, I will take the question of success in the first instance. I will ask my right hon. friend near me to consider this. Ever since the passing of the Reform Bill the working people in this country have had a less and less share in the represen tation. (Hear, hear.) Before the Reform Bill they had representation by scot and lot voting, and by freedom. I am not going to say anything either for or against the free dom. But through the freemen the working classes had their voices, and then there was representation. (Hear, hear.) They are gradually dying out. And I ask my hon. friend just to consider, if they draw this hard line, and al low no working man to pass it, how long it will stand— (hear)—because if one thing can be more destructive to the constitution of this country than another, it will be to have a reform bill every few years ; and that will be the case if you cannot settle it upon such terms as to give you a reason able hope that it will stand some small number of years. (Hear.) Ido not talk of finality now. That is out of the question. But if you cannot make the measure last a reason able number of years you are laying the sure foundation for a revolution in this country. (Hear, hear.) It is on that ground that I cannot agree to any identity of franchise. By an identity of franchise you would throw the whole elec toral power of the country into the hands of one class, and whether it is a £lO or a £l5, or a £2O franchise, it would be equally disastrous. Our safety, the permanence of the constitution, in my judgment, is dependent on the great va riety of the constituencies. You never had them all at one time for one thing. If anything is proposed, it gets well ventilated, well considered, and then when the truth is found out the country accepts it. I come now to the question of my own resignation. In the month of December, as my right hon. Mend has told the house, we got a pretty clear inkling of the question we should have to decide, and I then proposed to the noble lord at the head of the government that, as I found there would be an irreconcileable difference between me and my colleagues, I should wish to be allowed to retire then, before Christmas. I was pressed to remain, as my right hon. friend says, till I could see the whole measure. I consented, expecting fully to have it decided in the early part of January. From causes which my right honourable friend has explained, we had not an op. portunity of knowing the decision of our colleagues till the end of January. Without any concert with my right hon. friend, I placed my resignation in the hands of the first Minister, requesting that he would lay it before her Ma jesty, and in a way that would be most convenient for the public service. What a sacrifice it was to myself no one but who has been in the situation that my right hon. friend and myself have been in for the last month can know. But however great was the sacrifice of feeling, we made it for the convenience, as we were told, of our former colleagues. I hope with my right hon. friend that I have not failed—if I have, I am sure it was not for want of exertion—in doing my duty during that time to my colleagues, to the Queen, and to the country. But every one must feel it was a most painful position. If I may use the phrase, it was almost like walking about with a mask on one's face. But I was pressed, and, whether rightly or wrongly, I gave way to it. Now, with regard to the lowering of the franchise, I have to complain. I do not care about it, because lam not a person who, what they call, keeps his light under a bushel. Many of my friends on this side of the house knew that thought the borough franchise ought to be lowered ; I thought that the resting places, as my right hon. friend calls them, were good resting places. They are close on the analogy of the old rating suffrage. It has been said that I do not care about boroughs, if I can only take care of the counties. Well, that is one way of putting the question. (Laughter.) But there is another way of putting the ques tion, and when I know that the working men of this coun try within the last thirty years have loudly complained, but that their conduct has been that of good subjects, I do not think it would be degrading to a borough, or to any other constituency, that a portion of my fellow countrymen should have a voice in the elections. That was my view, and I think I was bound, holding those opinions think every man in this house, whether he sits on this side of the house or the other, every man will feel that, holding those opinions, it was absolutely impossible that I should take a share in bringing forward the measure which my colleagues had determined on. I have always acted with frankness with those with whom I come across. I could not sit on that bench, letting it be supposed that I approved of this bill. I never could agree to that great change which is to establish one uniform franchise for all constituencies, whether county or borough. Sir, I heartily thank the house for the indulgence they have shown to me, not only on this occasion but on every other, and I beg leave to make that expression of my feelings which my right hon. friend has done in so much better words, that if in or out of office I have said or done anything which another may take amiss it has not been my intention to do so, and I hope I shall always retain the good opinion of this house. (Cheers.) THE STATE OF THE SHIPPING INTEREST. Mr. LINDSAY then rose pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the house to the present condition of the shipping interest, and to move for a select committee to inquire into the operation of certain burthens and restrictions especially affecting merchant shipping. He said there were more than 70 millions of money invested in British shipping and the trades connected with it. That interest at present was in a state of great depression, and petitions had been presented asking for relief from certain burdens to which the shipping was subject; and the noble lord the member for the city of London had presented a petition attributing the depression under which the trade now suffered to foreign competition, and alleging that British shipping had enjoyed unparalleled prosperity dur ing two centuries of protection. Now let them see how the case stood. In 1803 we owned 2,160,000 tons of shipping; in 1804, 2,220,000 ; in 1805, 2,258,000 ; in 1806, 2,226,000 ; in 1807, 2,228,000; and in 1808, 2,324,000. This was a period of close protection. In those years there were built and registered—in 1803, 149,000 tons ;in 1804, 96,000 ;in 1805, 89,000 ; in 1806, 69,000 ; in 1807, 68,000 ; and in 1808, 57,000. Surely, instead of this period being a period of unparalleled prosperity, it was a period of adversity, and, instead of progress in shipping, the number of ships year by year decreased. He would now direct the attention of the house to the period when Mr. Huskisson proposed the treaties of reciprocity. In 1824 British shipping had in creased to 2,5b9,000 tons, only about 220,000 more than it was in 1808, and the number of ships built in that year was 86,000 tons only. Mr. Huskisson's treaties only came into operation in 1825, and mark the rapid strides in shipping. In 1825 the number of ships built rose to 143,000 tons, and in 1826 to 204,000 tons. He would now pass to 1843, when Sir Robert Peel introduced his free trade measures. In 1843 we owned 3,100,000 tons of shipping ; in 1850 it rose to 4,232,000 tons, and in 1857 to 5,519,000 tons. But to examine the question still further, he would take the seven years previous to the repeal of the navigation laws, and the seven years following. From 1842 to 1849, a period of to reciprocity and partial protection, we built 1,800,0 00 tons of shipping ; but from 1849 to 1857, a period of free trade, we built no less than 2,776,000 tons of shipping. Again, take the sf slopping, fourteenyears previous to 1843 and the fourteen years round after. In 1829 we owned, in numbers, 2,518,000 on and in 1843 we owned 3,588,000, but in 1857 we owned 5,519,000 tons; showing that while British shipping increased one million tons between, 1829 and 1843, from 1843 to 1857 it increased no less than two millions. But it was said that the progress of shipping had not kept pace with other branches of commerce. In 1807 our exports were £37,000,000 ; in 1832 there was little or no increase, but in 1857 they had reached the enormous sum of £122,000,000. Our exports from 1837 to 1857 had increased about three times and a half, and the tonnage from 1832 to 1857 had also increased three and a half time Between 1807 and 1832 our shipping increased about 15 per cent. ; but between 1832 and 1857, a considerable portion of that time being a period of free trade, it had increased no less than 110 1 per cent. He hoped he had now satisfied the owners that it was the interest of the shipowners to support free trade. There was another branch of this subject to which he would call attention, the number of British seamen and appren tices. In 1851 the number of British seamen in our mer chant service was 136,140 ; in 1857 there were 162,000. Then with regard to apprentices, in 1836 there were 11,219, and they went on increasing until 1848, when there were 34,858. In 1849 the law requiring a certain proportion of apprentices to the number of seamen employed was repealed, and in 1852 they had fallen off to 11,105. He did not think, however, there were less boys employed now than formerly, but they were employed by the voyage or by the year. He would now compare the increase of British shipping with foreign shipping. The shipping entered inwards— In 1843, was—British shipping (tons) 3,545,000 Foreign In 1850, was—British Foreign In 1857, was—British Foreign , From these figures it appeared that the comparative increase was in favour of foreign shipping. But he did not think British shipowners need be under any alarm, as during that period British shipping had increased more than ever it did before, and far more than it did during any similar period of protection. And when they considered that foreigners would always have had a right, under the reciprocity treaties, to bring their own produce in their own ships, it was a matter of surprise to him that our shipping had increased at the rate it had done. In 1850 our imports of cotton amounted to 658 million lbs. ; whereas in 18,58 it had grown to 1,025 million lbs.—an immense increase. In 1857, of 8,684,000 cwts., 5,846,000 cwts. came from the United States, and it was quite clear that under any circumstances the greater portion of any article of commerce must come in the ships of the country which produced it. In point of fact out of those 5,684,000 cwts. only 1,279,000 cwts. came in British bottoms. Again, take breaastuffs. In 1857, out of 3,438,000 quarters of corn imported into this country, 1,765,000 came from the United States ; and of those only 58,000 were brought in British bottoms. Again, of 42,000,000 lbs. of stemmed and un stemmed tobacco, 25,000,000 lbs. came from the United States; and of those only 700,000 lbs. were carried in British ships. Such being the case he was really surprised to find that British shipping had increased in the manner it had. He hoped the time had for ever gone by when we should think it was possible for us to get rich by im poverishing our neighbours. The policy of free trade had given each nation a direct interest in the prosperity of those around them. It had been proposed to go back to the principle of reciprocity ; but if we adoped that principle we should not only be taking a retrograde step, but a step fraught with suicidal results. For instance, the present amount of our shipping was 5,232,000 tons entered inwards, and 5,874,000 tons cleared outwards. Now, the total amount of tonnage employed under all flags in our colonial trade was only 2,150,000 tons inwards, and 2,119,000 tons entered outwards; so that if the principle of reciprocity were everywhere established, more than 3,000,000 tons of our shipping would have to be idle, the total trade of all our colonies being that amount less than our trade with foreign countries. (Hear.) Reciprocity was free trade in every sense; but unfortunately those who advocated reci procity in this house forgot that we had no power to legis late for other countries, or power to compel them to adopt free trade. There was an order in council provided by Sir R. Peel's Act, but hitherto it had been a dead letter. When the shipowners of this country were deprived of all protec tion, there remained certain special burdens which they had had imposed upon them, because it was supposed they were enabled to bear them by the advantages they derived from protection ; but when the protective laws were swept away those burdens, the creatures of protection, ought to have been swept away also. Instead of that, they still remained and hindered the British shipowner in his progress to that freedom which at present he only knew of in theory. He (the hon. member) trusted that the Government would have no objection to lay on the table any correspondence that might have passed between this country and any other Power since 1850 on the subject of the burdens to which British ships were subjected by foreign states. While, however, we continued to levy light dues and harbour dues upon foreign shipping we could not expect other nations to establish a real reciprocity. Why should foreign ships pay a tax for the paving and lighting of Newcastle, or for keeping in order the harbours of Rams gate and Dover, from which they could receive no benefit ? But there were other weights which pressed heavily on the British shipowners in the race of competition which they are now forced to run. Thus was for instance the tax on marine policies, which last year amounted to £380,000. Again, there was the system of compulsory pilots. Those whom he represented, and who were suffering under this severe oppression, complained that they were compelled to take pilots when the masters of their ships knew the coast as well, or better, than any pilot they could take. It was said that if the pilots were not certain of being engaged their number would decrease, and the result would be pre judicial to the real interests of shipping. Such an argu ment he considered quite illusory. There were various clauses in the Passenger Act and the Mercantile Marine Act which afforded the shipping interest great cause of complaint ; but, as his hon. friend the member for London wished to make an addition on the subject to his motion, he would not enter into that question; neither would he do more than refer to the timber duties, which were a great subject by themselves ; because his hon. friend the member , for Bridport had given notice of a motion on the subject. It was, however, quite obvious that when they admitted the manufactured article in the shape of ships, it was unjust to tax the raw material of which ships were made. Other smaller grievances he preferred leaving to the shipping in terest to state for themselves. If the committee were ap pointed, if in consequence of its report the burdens to which he had referred were repealed, and if the ports of other countries were thrown open, he had no fear of British ship ping being able to maintain its position, and even to ad vance before all competitors. (Cheers.) • Mr. LIDDELL, in seconding the motion, expressed his gratification at seeing it proceed from the other side of the house. He did not say that by way of taunt, but he had a right to refer to it in proof of the reality of the hardships of which he complained. As reference had been made to free trade, he (Mr. Liddell) wished to state that he did not desire the Government to exercise the power given them of closing our ports by order in council to the ships of non reciprocating powers. Such an act could not be done with out the sanction of the house ; and, after the experience of the last twelve years, no minister dare advocate such a step. All that he wanted was to see pledges which had been given redeemed, and the policy of free-trade really carried out. The hon. gentleman had stated how our trade was restricted at home, and he (Mr. Liddell) would proceed to show how it was restricted abroad. The hon. gentleman had stated that the shipping of some non-reciprocating na tions was worse off than our own. He (Mr. Liddell) thought that no one could be a better witness of the fact than the hon. gentleman, and he, therefore, took all that he had said upon that point as absolutely proved. One point de serving of the attention of the Government was the regula tion made by the Government of the United States as to the ports between St. Francisco and Fraser River. France, our intimate ally, levied double the duties on goods im ported in British bottoms over those in French ships. In some cases this acted as a prohibition ; in all it gave French vessels a preference even in our own colonies. A vessel called the Statesman, lay at Calcutta ten months, unable to obtain a freight, owing to the presence of French ships in the harbour, which obtained freights of 75f. per ton for sugar, while the English ships could only get ss. The reason of this was, that the French ships had the choice of both the English and the French markets, and several of those ships unloaded to London. In some cases the French Government levied fourteen times the amount on Eng lish ships which they did on their own ; aad in many instances preference was given to American ships. Look ing at Spain, he found that that country excluded our ships altogether from her ports, and Portugal robbed us by means of wine duties. These were the two countries for which we had made such enormous sacrifices. (Hear, hear.) Holland levied double duties on our ships ; and Belgium, while professing to reciprocate with us, con trived to place our trade at a disadvantage. He believed that our own coasting trade had to a great extent been taken out of the hands of British shipowners, and the result had been the complete ruin of many families in the north. A large shipowner, Mr. Chapman, had found it cheaper to charter Swedish and Norwegian vessels, and leave his own ships to deteriorate. Swedish and Norwegian captains might be found in London every day purchasing second , hand stores. Our own second-hand ships were greatly de teriorated in value ; and the Swedes and Norwegians were purchasing them up. He would now show how foreigners had thriven under this system by extracts from the trade returns for eight years preceding and eight years succeed ing the repeal of the navigation laws. In the eight years 1842-49 our imports had increased £40,632,000, and our ex ports £76,244,000, showing a total increase of both of £116,876,000. The tonnage of British ships had increased in the same period 2,990,000 tons, and that of foreign ship ping 1,877,000 tons. In the eight years after the repeal of the navigation laws our exports and imports had increased £130,000,000, and the tonnage of British ships employed 4,024,000, while foreign tonnage had increased 5,149,000 tons. The result was, that while British tonnage had in creased from about six million and a half tons to 13,694,000 tons in the 16 years, foreign tonnage had increased in the same period from 2,457,000 tons to 9,484,000 tons; so that while British shipping had little more than doubled itself, foreign shipping had been nearly quadrupled. That was a very remarkable result. He knew that our trade had thriven under the system ; but foreign shipping had in creased so much faster that we must soon be surpassed. He could quite understand shipowners being rather alarmed. lie did not wish to take a gloomy view ; but in the face of these facts the house was bound to do all in their power for the shipowner. Though the house pledged itself when repealing the navigation laws, to remove all disadvan tages from the British shipowner, not a step had been taken in that direction. He hoped the house would go into com mittee with a sincere desire to effect that object. Mr. CRAWFORD moved the following addition to Mr. Lindsay's motion :—" And of the following statutes, 9 and 10 Vic. c. 93, an Act f or com pensating the Families of Per sons killed by Accidents ; the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 ; the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1855 • the Passengers Act, 1855 ; and the Chinese Passengers Act, 1855." He said he had been a party to the representations made by the shipowners, believing them to be well founded. He should have been disposed to leave the question in Mr. Lindsay's hands, but he thought that the inquiry he pro posed would hardly be sufficient. It was necessary to con sider the effect of recent legislation, and the obstructions which shipowners suffered from Acta of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He could not but see that there existed a largo amount of distress among the shipping interest ; but from what did it arise ? Undoubtedly there was competition, but that competition had been sanctioned by the Legisla ture, and it did a great deal of good to consumers generally. He attributed the distress principally to the want of trade ; the trade had been overdone by the shipowners themselves. Mr. COLLIER, as the representative of a commercial port, wished to second the amendment, and expressed his satisfaction that there was to be an inquiry into the matter. It had been clearly established by those who preceded him that the shipping interest did labour under grievances. Ho agreed with the hon. member for Northumberland, that many grievances pressed upon that interest, and he only differed from him as to the nature of the remedy. He (Mr. Collier) would be disposed to deal in a more summary way with the matter than the hon.. member seemed inclined to do. He thought the addition of his hon. friend was a de cided improvement, and he concurred with him in the opi nion that over legislation was one of the grievances which the shipping interest had to complain of. (Hear.) Mr. HORSFALL said it was admitted that great distress existed amongst the shipping interest, and that 'being so, th e natural course for the house to pursue was to appoint a com mittee to inquire into the cause of that distress, and if pos sible to suggest a remedy. He thought the amendment of his hon. friend was an improvement on the motion of the hon. member for Tynemouth ; but perhaps it would suit his hon. friend's view if the word "certain" were struck out and the word " all" substituted for it. It was better not to limit the inquiry, because the decision of the committee in that case would be inconclusive and unsatisfactory. But he thought it was the duty of the house to grant a committee to inquire whether a remedy might not be applied by the removal of unnecessary restrictions ; if that were done the shipping of this country would be able to compete with any other. (Hear.) Mr. LABOUCHERE would not detain the house long, but as it had fallen to his lot to introduce some measures which had deeply affected the shipping interest, he wished to make some observations. It was exactly ten years since the navigation laws hadbeen repealed, and he thought he might congratulate the house on the complete refutation of the dire forebodings then held out. During the last ten years the amount of shipping had greatly increased, and so far from the shipowners buying foreign vessels, he believed the British builders had sold largely to foreign countries. There never was a time at which British sailors were so fully employed. If the navigation laws had not been repealed this country would never have got possession of the great carrying trade from Germany and Russia to other countries. It was true that there had been a large increase in the num ber of foreign ships in British ports; but even that had pro duced a good effect. Within the last 10 years there had been a period of extraordinary prosperity in the shipping trade, and but for the competition of foreigners, British owners would have built largely, and a temporary prosperity would have been succeeded - by extreme depression. The admis sion of foreign shipping saved them from such variations of fortune. He admitted that at this moment there was a considerable amount of distress in the shipping inte rest, but it was not confined to the shipping of this country. America had suffered quite as much. The return showed that in America there were built in 1856 1,703 ships, of 469,000 tons ; in 1857, 1,434 ships, of 378,000 tons ; but in 1858, the number fell to 1,225, of 242,000 tons. He might remind the house that when the navigation laws were re pealed, those who advocated the measure did not hold out any certain hope that other nations would immediately fol low our example. The argument relied on was that they would soon find it their interest to do so. The example had since been followed to a great extent, although France, Spain, and Holland, so far as regards Java, still held out. Nothing was to be done in this matter by direct applica tion; such steps only excited the suspicion and confirmed the prejudices of other nations. In all these discussions great stress had been laid on the case of the trade between the United States and California. No doubt the United States had acted shabbily in that instance. The trade could not reasonably be called a coasting trade ; but still there was this consolation, that the entire was of little im portance. In the past year it only amounted to 180,000 tons, and it would soon be all diverted to the route over the Isthmus. He quite admitted that, after the repeal of the navigation laws, it became the duty of the Government to consider what relief it was possible to afford ship?wners. While he remained in office he succeeded in passing two measures—one to reduce the light dues and the other to do away with the merchant seamen's fund. His right hon. friend (Mr. Cardwell) who succeeded him, had constantly laboured with the same view, and the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) had never ceased to direct his atten tion to the grievances which affected this great interest. Some complaints had been made of the operation of the Passengers Act. As regarded this question, it was not long since his attention had been directed to the sufferings of the coolies in their passage from the East to the West Indies. The horrors of the middle passage were not worse than what they endured. Of course he would wish to re lieve shipowners of any unnecessary restrictions, but com mon humanity required that such abuses, which disgraced the name of England, should be put a stop to. Sir S. 11ORTHCOTE said there might be burdens on the shipping interest which it was desirable should be removed ; but, on the other hand, the Government must guard them selves against the supposition that by consenting to an in quiry they pledged themselves to the concession of large grants from the consolidated fund. The proposer of the mo tion thought it would be very proper for the Government to take upon itself the payment of the light dues, which he believed amounted to £300,000 a year. A similar suggestion had been made respecting stamps on marine insurances, amounting to £380,000 a year, and also with regard to the timber duties, amounting, he believed, to about £600,000 a year. Here, then, was something like £1,300,000 a year which might be required from the consolidated fund if a committee were granted in the terms of the motion. (Hear.) Although the shipping interest had undoubtedly very great claims upon the country, it must be remembered that there was another side of the account, and that the Legislature had already granted considerable advantages to the_shipping interest. For instance, the Government paid something like £50,000 a year far pensions connected with the Mer chant Seamen's Fund, which Parliament took upon itself ' at a cost of at least half a million when it had become bank rupt. Then, again, the Government paid something like £20,000 a year for the expense of sending home distressed seamen—an object which, however important in itself, was connected with the operations of commerce ; and, further, there was a payment of something like £30,000 a year on account of differential dues which were paid under treaties of reciprocity. All these were matters to be considered, and he hoped that, however anxious hon. members might be to press the claims of the shipping interest, they would not forget that there was %per contra in the account. There were also important exemptions in favour of shipowners. For instance, there was the enormous advantage referred to the other night by the Solicitor- General, of the facilitywith which they could transfer property of immense value. Their title was made perfect by a special act of Parliament, and the ex pense of transferring a ship as the Great Eastern was, he be lieved, something like a shilling. (Hear, hear.) As re garded the light dues, a good deal had been done and was being done to lighten their pressure. A great reduction of those dues had taken place under successive Governments. He believed that his right hon. friend the member for Ox ford city reduced them by about £100,000; his successor, Lord Stanley of Alderley, by £70,000; and his right hdn. friend the member for Oxfordshire by about £35,000, this last reduction taking effect from that day, so that there had been a total reduction of something like £200,000 a year, besides which a considerable number of new lighthouses had been built, and a fund had been accumulated which was sufficient to construct all the remaining ones that were required. He thought it might fairly be said, then, that the administration of the light dues by successive Govern ments had been exceedingly beneficial to the shipping inte rest, and although the Government could not consent to the burden of the light dues being thrown on the consoli dated fund, because that fund arose from public taxation, they were prepared to do everything in theirpower to lighten those burdens which still pressed unduly on the shipping in terest. It had been remarked that in France the light dues were paid out of the general taxation. He believed, however, that in that country there were heavy tonnage dues for local ' purposes which were paid into the Exchequer, and it would perhaps be only fair to the shipping interest to consider whether some such system as that might not advanta geously be adopted here. The hon. member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) proposed that, besides inquiring with regard to the burdens of the shipping interest, the committee should inquire into the operation of the statute relating to the compensation to the families of persons killed by accident, and into the operation of the two Mer chant Shipping Acts and of the Passengers Act. Those were subjects which might be very properly and usefully discussed before a select committee. The granting of com pensation in cases of accident was a matter which there would be some difficulty in considering simply with re ference to the case of merchant shipping. The act in question was, it must be remembered, very closely connected with the general law of the country, and there might be considerable difficulty in dealing with it, as it affected the shipping interest, without touching upon its operation in other cases, and especially in the case of railway accidents. He threw this out merely as showing that the subject was one which must be handled with caution, although it might not be desirable to exclude it from the proposed inquiry. With regard to the two Merchant Shipping Acts, which 'had proved of great value and for the passing of which great credit was due to his right hon. friend the member for Oxford (Mr. Henley) it was impossible not to be struck with the fact that the first of those acts, comprising 548 clauses, passed through a committee of that house in a single night, the truth being that it could not have been passed at all if the clauses had had to be considered ; and if there were certain parts of the act which had been found to work injuriously, it was but right that they should be considered by a select committee with a view to an alteration. He would not touch on the Passengers Act, chiefly because he did not know anything about it—(laughter)—but he had no doubt that it contained provisions which required to be reconsidered. If the object of the proposed inquiry were to get rid of ascertained grievances, the Government would be happy to aid in its accomplishment. (Cheers.) Mr. FENWICK thought that the substitution of the word "all" for " some" in reference to the hurthens on shipping would prolong the inquiry, so that it would never be brought to a termination. Mr. CLAY rejoiced in the appointment of this committee, which would show the house what were the burdens under which the shipping interest rested. Mr. INGHAM hoped that the shipping interest would not again be expected to go through the humiliating task of proving the injuries inflicted upon them by passing tolls. That subject had already been fully entered upon. Mr. RIDLEY reminded the house that many anomalies arose under the present state.of things. He would give the house an instance—if a ship came home in ballast no light dues were charged, but if she happened to carry a little more provisions than she required, she was charged to the full amount of the dues. These dues in fact fell upon the consigner. Mr. CARDWELL thought the limits of the reference to this committee ought not to be too narrow, so that the entire scope of grievances under which the shipping inte rest might be supposed to rest should be fully gone intO.' He sincerely trusted the committee would industriously in quire into the whole subject, with a view to remove every real gfievance, and secure all possible advantages to our shipowners in the competition which they had to sustain, and he hoped that, if the peace of Europe should be pre served, the growth of our commerce at home and in the East would bring them a return of prosperity. Mr. HENLEY expressed his hope that the result of the appointment of the committee would meet the expectations of those most interested in the matter. He was glad the committee was going to be appointed to examine into the alleged grievances of so large and respectable a body of men. Mr. ADAMS said the inquiry should not be confined to sea-going ships, as the coasting, trade also was suffering a great deal. Mr. WILSON admitted that the shipping trade was in a state of considerable depression, but all other trades were subject to such depressions, and he trusted and believed that it would rapidly die away. (Hear.) Mr. SPAIGHT had no hesitation in saying that the working of the Passenger Act had been disastrous to the shipping interest on the west coast of Ireland, and also to the emigrants, who had been driven to obtain passages in foreign vessels. All parties admitted that the shipping in terest was in a depressed condition, and he trusted the com mittee would devise some means of correcting such an un happy state of things. Mr. LINDSAY said he had no objection to the alteration which had been suggested in his motion by the substitution of the word " all " for the word " certain. ' The motion, with the addition proposed by Mr. Craw ford, was then agreed to. APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES. Mr. M‘MAHON obtained leave to bring in a bill to secure the right of appeal in criminal cases. ENDOWED SCHOOLS. Mr. DILLIVYN obtained leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of endowed schools. PETITIONS OF RIGHT. Mr. BOVILL obtained leave to bring in a bill to amen( the law relating to petitions of right, to simplify the pro ceedings, and to make provisions for the cost thereof. ,AFFIDAVITS BY COMMISSION. Mr. BOVILL then obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable the judges to appoint commissioners within ten miles of London, and in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, to administer oaths in common law. MANSLAUGHTER BILL. This bill was read a second time. LANDED ESTATES BILL. The Title to Landed Estates Bill and the Registry of Landed Estates Bill were committed pro forma. INCLOSURE OF LANDS BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. The house adjourned at a quarter-past twelve• ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. WESTERN CIRCUIT.—WINCHESTER, March 1. CROWN COURT. TIIE ANDOVER MURDER. (Before Mr. Baron Watson.) At the opening . of the Lent Assizes this day, his lordship, in charging the grand jury, complimented them on their numerous attendance. He said he could not congratulate them on the state of the calendar, as on the present occasion there were 71 prisoners for trial, and many of them were charged with very serious offences. There was a serious charge of murder committed at Andover. Two persons, Thomas Alexander Banks, and Emma Banks, his wife, were indicted for the wilful murder of William Parsons, a linendraper, on the night of the 22d November. The deceased left his home at nine, and was not seen again by his household ; next morning his body was found in a field in such a state as to leave no doubt of a most brutal murder having been committed. An ash stick, six feet long, was lying near, the evident instrument with which the deed was perpetrated. The deceased's watch and money were perfectly safe in his pockets. Between half-past 9 and 20 minutes to 10, several persons heard cries of " Murder" and the sound of blows coming from the fields, about a quarter of a mile from the town, and from this it was considered clear the murder was committed between half-past nine and a quarter to ten. The prisoners were not arrested till some days after the murder. The im portant question for the jury was whether sufficient evidence of suspicion existed against them. At nine o'clock the female prisoner was passed on the road walking, and when asked to get up and ride in a friend's vehicle, she refused. The party in the vehicle went on to the Railway Tavern, and there finds the male prisoner, who shortly leaves, saying he should be back in a quarter of an hour. At ten o'clock both prisoners are seen walking together back towards the town. The question arose where were the pri soners from about a quarter past nine till ten, they not having been seen during that interval, and the possibility existing of their having been at the scene of the murder, only a quarter of a mile off. The evidence against the prisoners was entirely cir cumstantial, but when there was a complete train of circumstances, that evidence was perhaps the best. It seemed that the female prisoner took a dress from the deceased's shop on the 21st October, but it did not clearly appear whether the act was looked upon as a theft or not. The husband had seen deceased about the affair, and they had been heard having warm words. There was a suggestion of a familiarity between the woman and the deceased, but nothing in the depositions went to that extent so as to prove it. 11l will appeared to be created through tie taking of the dress. If the evidence was not conclusive the jury had better ignore the bill, as if they found upon weak testimony, avid the prisoners were acquitted, they could not thereafter be charged again if better evidence came to light. After some further remarks the grand jury were dismissed. In the Andover murder case upwards of 40 wit nesses are subpoenaed for the prosecution. Mr. Slade, Q.C., and Mr. Poulden are retained for the Crown ; Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Cole ridge defend the prisoners. The, case excites immense interest. OXFORD CIRCVIT.—READING, MAncrt 1. (Before dr. Justice Crompton.) Isaac Woodyear, 28, labourer, was charged with setting fire to a rick of barley, the property of Thos. Lanfear, at Avington, on the 26th Dec., 1858. Mr. Griffiths appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended by counsel. It appeared by the evidence of a little boy that at about one o'clock on the. afternoon of Sunday, the 26th December last, the prisoner was walking along the road from Hungerford to Newbury, by - the prosecutor's fields, which. abut upon the road. The boy lost sight of the prisoner for about twenty minutes, when he again saw him in the road, - , arid was told by him that a rick was on fire. This was found to be the fact, the rick being in a field about 300 yards off. Some footmarks were traced from the spot where the boy had lost sight of the prisoner, and these led towards the rick, and back again, and along the road in the direction in which the pri soner. had gone; and, in order to show that these were the prisoner's footmarks, impressions in lead were taken of them, and produced in court, and compared with the prisoner's shoes. The prisoner handed in a well-written defence. This was readby the officer of the court, and showed considerable knowledge of criminal jurisprudence. He chiefly relied for bis defence on the entire ab sence of motive for the commission of the crime. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and a previ ous conviction was found against him for setting hay on fire in 1851, when ho was sentenced to seven years' transportation. The prisoner then said that now he was found guilty he admitted he was guilty ; and added, that if her Majesty had sent him out of the country when he was convicted before he might now have been as respectable a man as the prosecutor. He did not wish for mercy, and had set fire to the rick in order that he might be sent out of the country. Mr. Justice Crompton said, prisoners were not tried and convicted of offences to.be sent out of the country as honest emigrants, and the prisoner would find that the sentence he was about to inflict was not a light one. His lordship then sentenced the prisoner to eight years' penal servitude. (Before Mr. Baron Channell.) Edwin Nash and Henry Brown, labourers, were charged with feloniously wounding Gaius Mason, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm, on Jan. 23, 1859, at Sonning. Mr. Carrington appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. J. J. Williams defended the prisoner Nash. Brown was undefended by counsel. It appeared that about five o'clock on the morn ing of Sunday, Jan. 23 last, the prosecutor, who was head gamekeeper to Mr. Robert Palmer, M.P., heard the explosion of a maroon, placed to give an alarm when trodden upon, like a fog signal used on a railway. Soon after, he heard the report of a gun, which came from a cover of Mr. Palmer's. The gamekeeper, with an assistant named Early, went towards the spot, but finding no one there, they went to another cover of Mr. Pal mer's, called Skinner's copse, where they heard an other gun fired. Directly afterwards the two pri soners emerged from the cover, Nash having a gun, and Brown a pheasant and a stick. A conflict at once ensued between the keepers and the prisoners, in which the assistant got away Brown's stick. The prisoner Nash then divided his gun into two parts, giving Brown the stock, and keeping the barrel himself. After this, a sort of running wrangle and fight was kept up between the parties, the prisoners from time to time threatening to kill the gamekeepers. As the night was very light, the gamekeepers were thus enabled to distinguish the men. M hen they had all proceeded in this way for about a mile the prisoner Brown struck the gamekeeper on the head with the butt-end of the gun-stock, and the prisoner Nash struck him many times on the body with the gun barrel. After this violence the gamekeeper fell insensible, and his assistant was obliged to run away. The game keeper afterwards recovered so far as to be able to go to Reading to give information, but he was ob liged to be taken home to Sonning in a fly, where he had ever since remained under the care of Mr. Davis, a surgeon. Evidence was also given to identify the prisoner Brown by his footmarks. Mr. J. J. Williams having addressed the jury for the prisoner Nash, _ _ The jury found both prisoners guilty, and Mr. Baron Channell sentenced them each to four years' penal servitude. The business of the assizes was brought to a close a little before four o'clock p.m. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, March OLD COURT. (Before the Recorder.) Amelia Charlotte Collins, a respectable looking woman, surrendered to take her trial for misde meanour. Sergeant :Ballantin© was specially retained with Mr. T. Salter to conduct the prosecution ; Mr. Ribton appeared for the defendant. The charge against the defendant arose out of a claim set up by her to a house in the Cornwall-road, Lambeth, and an action was tried in the Court of Queen's Bench a few days ago, when the whole of the facts were published. The prosecutor was a Mr. Thomas, who, it appeared, purchased the house in question, with other property, about eight years ago, and he remained in quiet possession of it until October last, when defendant got into the house, and she was ejected by force. On the 4th No vember it appeared that the defendant went to the place, armed with a hammer and chisel, and she forced down the shutters and then broke a window and tried to get through the opening head foremost. In so doing it appeared that she stuck fast, and the position in which she was placed of course afforded very great amusement to the crowd that assembled. She at length contrived to get into the house, and ° it was with considerable difficulty that she was removed. The defendant subsequently brought an action against Mr. Thomas for assault and false imprisonment, but the jury gave a verdict in his favour, and the defendant was now indicted for what is, in law, termed a forcible entry into the premises in question. It transpired in the course of the case that the house did formerly belong to the defendant's father, and it was alleged that she was in possession of the house, under an agreement with a person named Mr. Grett, who was a tenant of the prosecutor. The defence set up for the defendant was, than she had only acted in accordance with what she believed to be her legal right, and that . the prose cutor had no right to eject her by force. The jury, without any hesitation, retv trued a ver dict of guilty, . and the defendant was %called upon to enter into a. recognisance to appear and receive judgment if SILO was called upon to do so, upon the understanding titiat no further proceedings would be taken if she refra fined from giving the prosecutor any further annoyance. , POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—March 1. WORSHIP-STREET.—Francis May Cray, 48. was charged with drunkenness, furious driving and thereby cam ing severe injuries to an old man of 87 years of age. Mr. C. Inc e, printer, Curtain-road, stated that on the evening c Saturday last he saw the defendant and another t nan, both intoxicated, in a horse and chaise, proce.c'ding along the Hackney-road. Defen dant was driving at a furious rate, and after pass ing an omnibn s, crossed to the wrong side of the road, where an old man tending a stall stood close by the kerb. The horse, or one of the shafts, came in contact with that person, who was dashed to the ground screaminj fearfully. The constable v, 'ho had charge of the case pro duced a certificate' from the house-surgeon of the London Hospital, t o the effect of the poor fellow being severely injured by bruises about the thighs, body, arms, and havds. He had, however, been able to leave, and was an out-patient.. The old man hobbled. to the front of the court and told the magistrate that he was lame in conse quence of the fall in que stior.. Such an accident had never occurred. to hint before although he had kept a stall for above forty years. Defendant, who said that he had offices in Billiter-street, City, and resided in the New North road, expressed his grea t regret for what had occurred. He had. given I the , injured man a sove reign and supplied him wit h all he required; more over, he would take care th at he should never want. Magistrate—What answ - er do _you make to the charge of drunkenness ? Defendant—Why, sir, tl te factis that I and some friends, shortly previous t. t. this unfortunate affair, were amusing ourselves by shooting at a lighted candle with my gun, and endeavouring to snuff it out in that way, so we gt )t inebriated over it. Magistrate—Highly reprehensible as your con duct has been, it certain: ly does appear that you have done all in your pa wer to recompense this poor old man for the injurit .s received at your hands. I shall fine you o& for dru] ikenness, and order you to pay the expenses of th e witnesses, the surgeon who first attended, the cab. fare, and expect you to keep your word. MARYLEBONE.—Job xi Jones, a cab-driver, badge 13,282, was charge 3. before Mr. Broughton with being drunk while d. riving his cab, and with assaulting police-constable s. s Wheeler, D 84, and Crutcher, D 180. It appeared from the evi dente that about half past nine on Monday nigh t the prisoner was in Baker-street driving his cab, and was in a state of intoxication. ' The attentim 1 of police-constable Crutcher was called by a gent %leman to the conduct of the prisoner, who was vary violent towards the gentleman, by whom he wos given in custody- Witness took hold of the prisons r's horse, and led it as far as Duke-street, when c looking behind him he found that he had gon , tl off the box. He gave the cab in care of a const able, and ran after the prisoner, whom he overtook i St. James-street, Oxford-street. He then seized 1. hold of the pri soner, when he was knocked dm cn by him. They had a struggle together while o - a the ground, and the prisoner bit him in his ha aid. At this time police-constable Wheeler came u tp and rescued him from-the prisoner. Wheeler stated that, upon taking the prisoner off the last witness, he (prisoner) m tide an attack upon ,both of them, and they all fell. The prisoner was on the top of witness, and said - that he would do him(witness) a serious injury. He then laid hold of witness's trowsers, behind, anal attempted to put his threat into execution. He t ore his (witness's) trowsers and drawers, and seriously injured him. Two constables came up, and as they were carry ing him along the prisoner bit him in the right thumb three times. Mr. Broughton—Do you feel the effects of his attack ? Wheeler—Yes, sir ; I had no sleep last night. and I am now in much pain. (Vie constable showed his hand to the magistrate, which had on it some adhesive plaister.) The prisoner was fined 205., or a month, for being drunk, 15s. for the damage dons to the clothes of Wheeler, and one month's imprisonment for the assault upon him. COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL—MIiton 1. At our corn exchange this morning there was a :lair attendance of the town and country trade, but the busi ness passing was limited, and no further quotable alteration occurred in the value of either wheat or flour, and holders were very firm. The demand for Indian corn was better, and a fair quantity found buyers at an improvement of Id per cental. Oats and oatmeal steady, at full prices. Peas and barley without change in their value. Egyptian beans advanced Id per cental. The market on thei whole displays more tone. LEEDS-11ARcit 1. We continue to be fairly supplied with wheat ; there is no great activity in the trade, still a fair business passing at about previous rates. Fine barley fully as dear. Besns in limited demand. Oats and other articles as before. Averages for the week : Wheat 3,973 qrs., at 42s Old Barley. .2,342 „ 34s 110 Oats 169 „ 2ss tad Rye 6O „ 3ss 4d Beans Peas — _ -- .7 !, —s oil Arrivals thiS week : Wheat 2,440 qrs. Oats Barley 1,460 Beans .. 364 Rapeseed Linseed .... , — SHEFFIELD—MARcu 1. The snpply of wheat to-day was small, and the trade un usually dull. In flour and other articles no change. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels... 14s 6d to 16s 6d White , f )) ...16s Od to 18s 6d • Beans ), 1, ... 17s Od to 19s 6d Peas, per qr Grinding barley, per qr 27s Od to 32s Od Malting ditto, „ 37s Od to 40s Od Oats ~ 24s Od to 30s Od Millers' prices for flour--is scl, is 7d, and is 9d per 141 b. _ Hay, 80s to 85s; wheat straw,.2Bs to 365; oat straw, 285 to 36s ; turnips, 18s to .19s. per NORWICH CATTLE-FEB. 26. There was a large.showot store cattle to-day, consisting of Scots and shorthorns. With a fair attendance sales were good, and at the close of the market very few remained un sold. The selling price for. Scots was 48 to 4s 6d ; short horns, 4s Oct to 4s 6d; Irish, 3s to 3s 6d per stone of 141bs• estimated weight when fat. Fat beasts firm at 7s 6d to 85 —very prime, 8s 6d per. stone. There were no Devons and Irish worthy of notice. . Sheep—fat sheep, 8s Od to Bs6d, prime lots 9s per stone. All sold. Pigs—Good store pigs, Iss to 20s per head. Fat pork, 5s Od to 5s 6d, prime 6s per stone. The supply was larger than the demand. SENTENCE ON A RIBBONMAN.—Martin Fallon, who was convicted at the Westmeath assizes on Friday of being connected with illegal societies, the passwords of which were found upon him, was sentenced on Saturday to seven years' penal servitude. BIRTHS. DENT.—On the 28th ult., at Ribstoxi Hall, Yorkshire, the wife of John Dent Dent, Esq., M.P., of a daughter. GRAHAM.—On the 24th ult., at Wimbledon-park, the Lady Hermione Graham, of a son and heir and daughter. RicE.—On the 27th ult., at Eaton-place south, the lon. Mrs. Charles Spring Rice, of a son. • RowcßoFT.—On the 28th ult. ' at Worcester, the wife of Francis Frederick Rowcroft, Esq., 2d Grenadiers Bengal Army, of a daughter. MARRIAGES D'EYNcouRT—CLINTON. --- On the Ist in s t., a t St. M a ry'e t B ryans t on -square, Captain d'Eyncourt, R.N., second son of the Right Hon. Charles Tennyson d' Eyncourt, to the Lady Henrietta Pelham Cli n t on , younges t d aug ht er of the late, and sister of the present, Duke of Newcastle. FRANKS — BREwis.—On the Ist inst., at St. George's, Han over-square, Major-General Sir Thomas Harte Franke, K.C.8., to Rebecca Constantia Elizabeth, widow of the late Samuel Brewis, Esq., of Langley House, Prestwich; Lancashire. DEATHS. BARTER.. ---OR the 20th ult., Mr. George Baxter, of Purse ley Farm, Shenley, Herts, aged 22. BLYTII.—On the 27th ult., Mr. S. Blyth, of Park-lane Farm, Longhorn, Essex. BRODERIP.—On the 27th ult., William John BroderiP , Esq., F.It.S., one of the Benchers of the Hon. Society of Gray's-inn ' and formerly a magistrate of the Westmin ster Police Court, aged 71. HODGKINSON.—On the 25th ult., at Grove-lane, Camber well, Edward George, third son of the late Cadman liodg kinson, Esq., of Dowgate-hill, and East Dulwich-Dov e, aged 30. SMEDLEY.—On the 25th ult., at Grove-lodge Regent's park, Francis Smedley, Esq., High Bailiff of Westmin ster, aged 67. STOW.—On the 27th ult., at 48, York-street, Portman square, Mrs. Ann Stow, aged 89. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUN G ' of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112 ; Strand, in the Precinct 'of the Savoy, in the county Middlesex, Weduesday, 'Groh 2, 1859. • r aim