The Sun. — London, England, 1829-05-23 00:00:00

Under the circumstances which I have named, I be lieve that the course recommeaded by the Noble Viscount is the proper one—viz. that the considera tion of the petition shall be taken up on a future day, hut whether that day shall be Monday or Tuesday, must be to him, as it is to me, a matter of indiffe rence. This will be for the House to decide. We must be ready to enter into a consideration of the question when the House shall be pleased to ap point a day. I think that the question is one of some importance and deserving serious consideration.- The Earl of MALMESBURY should be sorry to protract the discussion; but, being a member of the Committee, he wished to say that when indivi duals came before the House, in the circumstances of the Corporation of the City of London, there was no doubt about the propriety of calling on thesis for a true representation of their affairs. They came before their Lordships, in fact, in forma pauperis, to ask to be allowed to levy a tax of 60,000/. a year, without contributing one fraction out of their own funds. As a Member of their Lordships' House he would say, " Let me have your accounts, that I may see how lam to act with respect to you." With reference to the proposed delay, he owned he ob jected to allow a question of privilege to be kept in abeyance. The sooner such a question was dis posed of the better. He had no objection to hear Counsel, if consistent with the privileges and prac tire of their Lordships' House; he did not wish to put a spoke in the petitioners' wheel; but he never could support a Bill which was not founded on a genuine representation. Lord MELVILLE was only anxious to save their Lordships' time, and to observe the course which, by their Lordships' practice, was prescribed for them. Heshad not the slightest objection to the proposed postponement to Monday, provided their Lordships would consent to have the motion of postponement drawn up in such terms as would fix the consideration of the petition for that day. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the only reason for delay was to obtain information; and as that could only come from an indirect chan nel, he deprecated any postponement—which must necessarily, under the circumstances,. appear on their Lordships' Journals in a manner inconsistent with their Lordships' dignity and privileges. The Earl of LAUDERDALE thought the course pursued by the petitioners the most extraordinary he had ever known. Their Lordships would compro mise their dignity, if they consented to one mo ment's delay. Earl GREY was sure that the petitioners in tended to infringe neither on their Lordships' pri vileges nor their practice. They only represented the hardship that would follow from their Lordships insisting on the exercise of their privileges in this peculiar case. The difficulty seemed to him to be resnoved by the Noble Viscount (Melville) consent ing to a postponement to Monday. The order forii the assembling of the Committee should, in the' mean time, be dismissed, because it was impossible for them to take one step until this question was disposed of. He trusted that the House would agree to consider the petition on Monday, with the understanding that the petitioners be heard on that day, should their Lordships be of opinion that Coun sel ought to he heard. Lord DURHAM would consent to withdraw his motion only on the understanding that the Commit tee should not sit on Monday. Lord MELVILLE had no objection to the ar rangement. The Lad of ELDON said that their Lordships would easily effect their object by agreeing to a mo tion that it be an instruction to the Committee to adjourn to Tuesday. Earl GREY—I move that the petition be consi dered on Monday.— Agreed to. Lord DURHAM, having withdrawn his other avitioss, moved that it be an instruction to the Corn mitte,e, when they meet on Monday, to adjourn to Tnesday.,,ls + greed to. ' Lord WHARWCLIFFE rose to - present a peti flan.-=.. The Earl of lIADDINGTON had a petition of great importance to present from the General' As sembly of Scotland, respecting the book of the Kirk now in Sion College. He had not the least object►on to postpone it to Tuesday, provided he were allowed to bring it on the first thing. The Duka of RICHMOND—Tuesday I The wool is on Tuasflay.—(A laugh.)--If bringing on this petition will interfere with the debate on Mon oly, it certainly will interfere with the debate on waoi on Tuesday. The Earl of HADDINGTON said the General Assembly would break up in a very short time, and it was most desirable that the petition should be presented before the breaking up of that body. The Bishop of LONDON was enabled to pro'- mise to their Lordships that their time would not he so much occupied on this subject as they might have anticipated ; for lie hoped to be able to lay be fore then such a statement as would be perfectly a.;-.(,:sfactory to the General Assembly of Scotland. Vcrd BERESFORD presented a petition from LieutemwA Thorndike, praying that the evidence ,token in a &it a Divorce recently before their Lord n-right be admitted in support of a new Bill. Noble Lord made a motion for carrying into i i4,fect ,tbe prayer of the petition—which was agreed to. The Narquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petitiou from the' Fishermen and Ftsh•curers of Dingle, for the reuewal of the law, which is to ex pire immediately, for she protection of the Fisheries Ireland. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition frr,TM, Calverley, Yorkshire, in favour of the Game Bid.—Laid on the table. On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Game Bill. ~-several of the clauses were agreed to. IJpoo a motion to Dave out the words "or grey holin•ts," th,e House divided, when the numbers were, For , ttLe c l ams' Against ....... —••••••• • • ~..• 31 " • then agreed to, and the The other clauses House resumed.—Report to be brought up on Thurs , day next. The Consolidated Fund Bill went 'ltrough a Commit tee. Adjourned at a Quarter past Seven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMNIONS.-;LAST NIGHT.) The SPEAKER immediately after taking the Chair proceeded to the House of Lords to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to several Bills, for which see the Lords' Report. 'SHIPPING TRADE. It was ordered, on the motion of Mr. BELL, that there be laid before the House an account of the number of Shipping engaged in 1826, 1827, and 1826, in the trade between Canada, New Bruns wick, and the United Kingdom, stating the amount of their tonnage. Mr. R. HILL presented a petition from the Iron Masters of Shropshire, praying that the trade with India might be opened. After a few words from Mr. C. PELHAM, the petition xvai; laid on the table. Mr. W. WYNN presented a petition from the Tradesmen of Oswestry (county of Salop), praying the enactment of a Bill for the better Recovery of Small Debts. Mr. BUCK presented a petition from a parish in Nottingham, complaining of the excessive pressure of the Poor's Rata. Mr. HOULDSWORTH presented a petition from Dartmouth, in Devon, praying a more equal distribution of the Duty on Coals. TRADE WITH INDIA: time, with the understanding that the discussion should be taken on the secoad reading. LICENSING SYSTEM. Lord NUGENT presented a petition, from a most respectable individual named Seymour, a retail brewer at Chichester, who complained of the Re striction on the Sale of Beer, and of the Licensing System generally. The petitioner complained that he had repeatedly applied to the Magistrates for a licence, and bad been as repeatedly refused, without any reason being assigned for such refusal. The petitioner prayed the insertion of a clause in the Licensing Bill, to compel Magistrates, who refused a licence, to assign in writing their reasons for doing so, in order that the Sessions should be en abled to judge of the validity of those reasons. iThe Noble Lord said, he thought there- were many objectionable clauses in the Bill of last year, and he hoped they would be amended. He moved that the petition be brought up. Mr. OTWAY CAVE seconded the prayer of the petition, and bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioner. Mr. ESTCOURT thought it unfair to find fault with a Bill which does not come into operation until next September. Lord NUGENT and Mr. OTWAY CAVE explained. After a few words from Mr. SLANEY, the pe tition was brought up arid received, and ordered to be printed. LOSS OF THE BRIG ROSANNA. Lord WILLIAM POWLETT, in rising to bring forward his motion relative to the loss of this vessel, begged to assure the Gallant Officer oppo site that he did not introduce it with any vindic tive or hostile feeling. He thought it best at once to proceed to a statement of his case. It ap peared that in 1828, the vessel in question was pro ' ceeding with a cargo of coals from Sunderland to this port, when coming in contact with a King's ship she was destroyed and sunk. The brig was sailing in one direction, the frigate in another, and the ship came in contact with the King's vessel, and the consequence was the accident for which the petitioners now sought to obtain reparation. As the matter was stated to him, the frigate was going with a free wind, anti the brig against the wind, and under these circumstances the frigate ought to have given way, and have allowed the brig to keep her course. The night was dark, but not so dark that the brig could not be descried at half a mile's distance. When the word was given " : Ship a-head," the Lieutenant in command at that moment gave the order to starboard the helm ; but the man at the helm mistook the order, and put the helm a-port. The consequence of this mistake was, that it became necessary to alter the tonne of the frigate ; and as it had become impossible to pass the brig in the manner at first determined, the Lieute nant gave the order to put the helm a-port, when, unfortunately, the man at the helm seeing the error he at first committed, became bewildered, and put the helm a star-board, the effect of which was that the frigate came down on the brig, which was sunk. No blame was imputed to the Lieutenant, whose order, if at first obeyed, would have been sufficient to enable the two vessels to pass clear of each other. The crew of the brig were taken on board the fri gate, and landed at Sunderland, ands memorial was addressed to the Admiralty praying for remuneration. To that memorial a negative was given, and the pe titioner brought his action in the Court of King's Bench, where the evidence on the part of the plain tiff was gone into; and the case was-then stopped, as ,I..ordTenterdeti held that the Captain and, Lieu tenant, who had been made defendants, were not answerable for the conduct of the man at the helm, who was not their servant, and could not render them answerable for his misconduct. It was un fortunate that, according to the letter of the law, the plaintiffs could not procure redress from the parties, for that was the only way through which they could hope to obtain compensation from the Government-for the consequences of the misconduct of the King's servants, unless the House should lis ten to the prayer.of the petitioners, and afford them some-means of relief. Sir G. COCKBURN observed, that in replying to the - Hon. Gentleman, it would perhaps be the best way for him to state the principle on which the Admiralty always acted in cases of this kind. Whenever a. memorial complaining of a loss was for warded to them they looked into the case ; and if it appeared that the ship of war was decidedly wrong, then, rather than po into Court, they either repaired the ship or gave the party compensation in damages. But when they thought the case was one of what was called a fair sea risk, of course they did not think them• selves justified in giving away the public money. In the present instance they thought it to be so ; and the more especially as they found, on a careful exa mination of the officer before the Admiralty Board, that both the vessels had filially beerk . somewhat in the wrong. From the statement of hat officer it appeared, that after both his orders bad been mis taken, and just when his vessel was beginning to answer the helm, he hoped to have been able to pass the brig, and believed the frigate could have done it, though not then in the course he originally wished to have put her into; but that the brig, as well as the frigate, put her helm a-port at the same moment, and both were at the same time trying to get to windward. The case was, he was sorry to say, closed in the Law Court, solely upon the ground of the legal liability of the officer§ ; if it had not been 'closed in that manner, the proof of what he had stated would have been given in evidence. — But, besides all this, he had the evidence of the carpenter, who was ordered to go on board the brig, and who gave directions to the sailors to take in the head sails, let go the anchor, and bring to ; but instead of obeying him, they ran below to look after their things, and their whole conduct left him no doubt that they were determined to abandon the brig entirely, and to rely on the insurance. Under these circumstances, which he believed to have been fairly stated, the Admiralty did not feel themselves justified in giving away the public motley. Mr. SYKES said, the only ground of his inter ference was, that on public grounds the Government ought to have acted differently. No wilful miscon duct was imputed to any party, but there was a great deal of blame imputable to the reap who ought to have obeyed him. The Admiralty seemed to cons;j:' that but one side was heard in the Court of King's klet;r1); but he could assure the House that such was not the fact, for the first A itness to support the plaintiff's case was the pilot, who was employed on board the King's ship. That witness was examined and crosa-examined at great length, and the result was, that he showed most clearly that the man at the helm had occasioned the accident, by disobeying the orders he had received from Lieut. Inman, The Hon. Member here read part of Lord Termerdon's summing up of the evidence, which went to estaMish the point he had mentioned. Sir J. SCARL4TI knew nothing of these par ties beyond what bud appeared in the course of the cause in the King's Bench, in Which he had the honour to appear at counsel for Captain Dun44s and Lieut. Inman. He made it a rule not to speak in that House of the instructions he received In a cause in Court, but on this occasion he should break that rule, merely tor the purpose of stating that he had abundant evidence on his brief to have shewn, not only that this oecurrence was not the fault of the man-of-war, but that it was uttributabk to the con duct of the merchantman ; but as he had another de fence, which was complete in itself, he did not think himself justified in taking up the time of the Court by going into the defendants' evidence, when it was clew that the defendants were not legally liable. Mr. BROUGH4 would not have said one word, had not his Hon. and Partied Friend set him the example. For himielf he followed she rule men tioned by his Hon, and Learned Friend, and would not have made this instance an exception, had he not been compelled into doing so by his Hon. and Learned Friend. He could not tell what might have been the instructions given to the defer.dants' Coun. lAsol ; but he could say that the evidence in his own brief, much of which, from a desire not to over- I , harden the roof, hp had not called, was as strong as Mr. A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from the Merchants and Shipowners of Port-Glasgow, praying the opening of the Trade with India. Sir J. MACKINTOSH gave notice, that he would on Monday next makea Motion on the sub ject of the Registrar's Office at Madras—a question NT hich involved the case of Mr. O'Reilly. he hoped that at this period of the Session, he might be illowed to bring in his Bill, rind hare it read a thst possible to shew that the frigate only had been to blame. The trial was decided on the legal question of liability alone ; the order given.appeared to have been right, and if it had been properly executed, no . damage would have ensued ; but when the Lieute nant who gave the order was brought into Court to answer for the man at the helm as his servant, the Lord Chief Justice dearly held that neither the Captain nor the Lieutenant was answer able, for that man was not the Lieutenant's nor the Captain's servant, but was the servant of their common master, the King. The case was therefore different from that of a merchant-vessel, in which the men employed were the servant! of the Captain, or of the owners, who were iesponsible for his misconduct. With respect to the evidence, .he would only remind his Hon. and Learned Friend, and the Gallant Admiral opposite, that evidence put down in a brief, or statements made in private, were not exactly to be put on a level with the testimony of men sworn and examined in open Court ; and he therefore thought that it would be wiser to abide by the safe rule of listening only to the evidence that had been so given. Dr. LUSHINGTON contended, that the state of the law (and he did not dispute that it had been correctly laid down by Lord Tenterden), was such that serious injustice was done to the owners of merchant-ships. The parties in this case had been turned round without having had an opportunity of going into the merits ; and it was possible that their whole property consisted of this vessel, which had been run down by a King's ship without the possi bility of redress. Had the facts gone to the Jury they would have felt no difficulty in deciding that the owners of the merchant ship ought to be compen sated, more especially as it was admitted by the Gallant Admiral (Sir G. S. Cockburn), that the tiist error was committed by the steersman of the Sapphire. A case of greater hardship could scarcely be stated ; and he did not think lie asked too much when he required that the merits should be examined. Mr. W. SMITH concurred with the last speaker, and argued that a Jury would have given the owners damages. Mr. ROBINSON noticed what had fallen from the Gallant Admiral on the misconduct of the crew of the collier after the two vessels had come in col lision, and submitted that the accident was attributa ble to the misconduct of the helmsman of the King's ship, who, when told to put the helm one way, had put it another in the confusion of the mo ment. Had not the crew of the collier acted as they had done, the vessels would have come stem on, as it was phrased at sea, and the lighter and weaker mast have gone down at once. Government was called upon, in mere justice, to give the parties an opportunity of proving their case. Lord MILTON took a similar view of the sub ject. If private parties had no remedy when their vessels received damage from men of war, it was a most serious evil to the shipping interest of this country. An Honourable Member, whose name we could not learn, contended that the collier might have been saved and repaired, if she had not been needlessly deserted by the crew. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR had looked into the case, and had seen several of the parties ; but without advert:ng to their individual merits, he insisted that some remedy ought to be within the reach of ship owners who unstained injury from King7s ships. lle agreed, as every lawyer must agree, that Lord Ten terden had rightly nonsuited the plaintiffs, the ob jection having been taken. The owners of the col lier were, however, 2,0001. out of pocket by the ac cident. Policy, honesty, and charity, required that the Admiralty should pay for damage done under such circumstances. Sir G. CLERK observed that the Admiralty was in the habit of giving compensation to parties injured in all cases where they could make out a good case on the merits. The principle on which the Admiralty acted was to pay in all cases where the owners of merchant ships would have been called upon to pay for accident or misconduct. This case was only a common sea risk, in which a Jury would have given no damages. , Mr. BARING said, admitting the Admiralty sometimes made compensation, the inquiry before that Board was not as satisfactory to the public as if it took place in an open Court of Justice; thete was, and must be, always a leaning in favour of the officers of the King's ships. Mr. CROKER remarked, that a Court of Law was always open to parties aggrieved, and the Ad miralty never interfered. In many cases they were anxious to save the parties, and the public, expence, by avoiding litigation. That, in fact, was the only difference between the Admiralty being defendants and the owners of a merchant vessel. Mr. BRIGHT was of opinion that, upon the sheaving of the Gallant Admiral that the King's 'ship committed the first error, the owners of the collier were entitled to damages. The LORD MAYOR rose to ask his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty whe ther, if the complainants were advised to bring an action against the helmsman, and the Jury should give damages, the Admiralty would consider themselves responsible for the payment of the ver dict ? If his Right Hon. Friend stated that the Admiralty were prepared to adopt the course of taking on themselves the responsibility, he should think their conduct just and equitable. Mr. CROKER could only say in reply, that such had ever been the practice of the Admiralty ; but when his Hon. Friend asked him a question as to an individual ease, he hardly knew how to answer him. The general practice had always been for the Admiralty to pay verdicts obtained against their officers; and he did not believe they would depart from that principle, unless there was something of a very peculiar nature in the case. Sir J. SCARLETT said the ques:ion before the House was, whether the law on this subject ought not to undergo a serious alteration. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then went into some details connected with the trial of the case. There was no reason why Lieut. Inman was made a defendant, except to prevent him from being a witness; and indeed it had been owned so by the plaintiff's at torney. Mr. BROUGHAM agreed in the general sor rectness of his Hon. and Learned Friend's state ment, but expressly and positively denied that Lieut. Inman had been made defendant, merely to. prevent him from being a witness. Mr. HUME was of opinion that Government should be placed, with regard to their ships, on the same footing as a private individual, who was an swerable for the conduct of his servants. Sir G. COCKBURN stated that the Admiralty, when a complaint of injury was made to them with a claim for compensation, inquired into the case; and if it appeared to be very plainly in favour of the party complaining, as they did not wish to go into the Courts of Law when they could avoid it, they paid the amount of the damage inflicted. If not satisfied they left the parties to settle the question by litigation. After a few words from Dr. Lushington, Mr. Baring, Lord W POwlett, and Mr. Sykes, the peti tion was read, and ordered to be p r i l4 o ? SMALL NOTE CURRENCY. On the motion of Lord FRANCIS GOWER, the Order of the Day was read for a Committee of Supply, and it was moved that the House should 8 . 0 into the Committee. Mr. WARBUR roN rose to put a question to the Right Hon, GeV ? opposite, relative to the Paper Currency of the country. Ha lielieyed it was a general opinion, both in and out of that House, that, by two Acts, the 3d and 7th of his present Majesty, the small notes between 1/..and si: were removed from circulatioe, but within a few days an opinion had become prevalent among the persons Meet concerned in the currency, to which he wished to call the ct;:gntiOn of the Right Hon. Gentleman. A change in the Act to which he had referred had excluded these notes from cireolation; ki!?"- cause by it, promissory notes below 51. , payable .on d e mand to the bearer, were forbidden. But it Was nut considered by the persons who were contemplating an '4 evasion of thh last, that thisilituse was sufficient to prevent the circulation of small notes. There wai another clanie :to the following effect : " That if any person should utter; publish, or nego tiate any note payable on demand, or any bill of ex change, or draft, or undertaking in writing, if it were of 'the amount of 11., and not more than 51., he should, at cording to the provisions of the 17th of George 111., be liable to a penalty of 201. for every note so issued." It appeared, that bills of exchange not payable on demand, might be issued between 11. and Si., according to the directions contained in the Act of 17th of Geo. 111. He would next state what were the conditions of that Act on which notes of 1/. and .51. might be issued. The Act stated, after several details which he would not repeat, that the notes should bear date before or at the time of their date, and not subsequent to it. This was a provision to prevent the post dating of notes pay able on demand. It also required that they should be payable 21 days after date, and not transferable or negotiable after they became due. That Act also stated that all promissory Dotes, bills of exchange, drafts, or 'undertakings in writing, for the payment of a sum of 20's. or less than 51. shall, after sth of January, 1778, and every indorsement upon them, be void and of no effect. It appeared that, by these Acts, notes of a date not longer than 21 days, between 11. and 51., might be negotiated on payment of the duty fixed by the Acts relative to bills of exchange. But though by this Act, com bined with the 7th Geo. IV. the issue of small notes was, though not expressly, yet virtually, pre vented by the duty levied on bills of exchange, until the Act of last session was passed, which was known as the Composition Bill, the amount of duty pay able on notes due in twenty one days was one shil ling; and as the notes contemplated by those who were seeking to evade the Act would be 24 notes, ,they would be subject to a charge of 2i per cent. for the twenty-one days. It was clear, by the amount of the duty imposed upon them, that these notes were, though not expressly, yet virtually, repealed. But by the Act of last Session persons Were allowed to make composition, and if they could take out a licence for 5/., they might circulate small notes, and compound at the rate of 3s. 6d. for every 100/. The sum to be paid was ascertained by the average amount of the notes circulated during that time. The duty was not in proportion to the fre quency of the issue, but on the average amount of the notes in circulation. The amount of duty was the same, though re-issued. Notes to the same amount might be re-issued immediately after the presentation of the notes, without the payment of any additional duty. Under this interpretation of the law, the parties interested thought they might, without any breach of the law, issue promissory notes, payable on demand, between 1/. and 51. He had some forms of theme notes in his possession ; and if the interpretation of the law by these persons was fair, the country was likely to be inundated by the issue of these small notes. The only objection which he had to this circulation was, that the holders of the notes, after the expiration of twenty-one days, had no clAn upon any person but the acceptor, and not any against the indorser or drawer; but he was persuaded that such an objection would not be con. sidered by the Government as of no avail. If the banker happened lo be a respectable person, of course the notes would be held by the possessor on the se curity of that respz - ctability, en -the understanding that he was a man of credit enough to be able to pay the note when presented. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the material part of the question that had been asked appeared to be this—whether, in consequence of the Composition Act of last Session, parties could have small notes in circulation without payment of the stamp duty ? He could assure the Hon. Gent., that if that Act did appear to enable persons to evade such payment, there would be no indisposition on his part to repeal it, With a view to prevent any evasion of that sort.—(Hear.) Mr. BARING—The Right Hon. Gent, was right in not clearing the, way for those whose object it might he to evade the Stamp Duty ; but at the same time he had to consider whether the Act could remain till next Session without running the danger of the country being inundated with these notes : for it would be very little satisfaction to have a remedy next year, if during the recess the mischief was done. Mr. WARBURTON—In the event of parties evading the . law, he wished to know whether their license would be subsequently refused ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not aware how the law stood upon that point. IRISH ESTIMATES. The House then went into Committee on the Irish Estimates. On the motion that 9,0004 should be granted for the support of the Society for the Discouragement of Vice, Mr. S. RICE said, that under all the circum stances, he was certainly of opinion that the matter might be well left in the hands of Government till pext Session. Lord LEVESON GOWER—He entirely con curred in the feeling expreued by his Hon. Friend, and for that reason should avoid entering into any particular discus•ion on the present occasion. Mr. HUME—He only wished to throw out an observation, which was, that whatever arrangement -was made for the distribution , of the money granted for the promotion of education in Ireland, Govern ment would endeavour to consolidate the system; by which means the salaries, which now consumed so much, would be materially reduced. -Mr. TRANT must enter his protest against the Report of the Education Committee of last year, and was sorry that the Noble Lord was pledged to sup port the resolutions of that Committee, especially as one of its recommendations was to discontinue the use of the Bible. Mr. F. LEWIS—Any imperfect discussion like the present was, in his opinion, to be deprecated. If the House was resolved to wait for the state ment of the Noble Lord until next Session—and that certainly appeared to him to be the wisest course --why should they now enter into a fifty-ninth part of a discussion on the subject ?—(A laugh.)—The Hon. Member for Dover had laboured under mis- conception in every part of his statement, but he should abstain from answering him. Mr. PEEL—His Right lion. Friend, after depre cating partial hll, he was afraid, added his modicum to the fifty-ninth part of a discussion. It compelled him to add his share to the rest, so that if this was only a fifty-ninth part of a discus sion, he really could not tell what would be its length when they came to have the whole of it.— (A laugh.)—But let him seriously ask whether it would be wise--a great change having lately taken place in the polity of Ireland—to follow up that change by laying down immediately a general plan of education, without first waiting to see what were the consequences of that change ? But, if this course were unwise, it would be %HI more so to dis cuss what could not be settled that Session.— st - 'r • declared his determination never to give it his assent hereafter, although, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he intended on this occasion to support the Government. Sir R. INGLIS' expressed , his sorrow that the Right Hon. Gent, opposite should continne to idea.- tify the Government with the errors of the Catholic religion, and expressed a hope that the vote of money to the College would be dispensed with in future. After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORPE against the grant; and from Mr. Ross and Lord SANDON in support of it, Mr. M. FIT Z GERALD defended the College, and declared that whatever might be its error, it did not display so much illiberality as those who were opposed to the present vote. Mr. MAXWELL observed that ever since he had been in Parliament he had protested against.the grant, and he was now prepared to follow up that protest by voting against it. Sir C. CARRINGTON would vote for the grant, if the question went to a division. Mr. SPENCE thought that it would be better to defer this grant until some report had been received on the general system of education in Ireland. Mr. Secretary PEEL defended the grant; and in answer to the declaration that the opposition to the grant now proposed would be withdrawn if his Majesty's Government would pledge themselves not to propose it next year, he said that he certainly should give no such pledge. Lord MANDEVILLE explained. Mr. PELHAM denied that by objecting to the grant any injustice would be perpetrated. Sir R. INGLIS would next year oppose any grant of the kind. Mr. TRANT suggested that no new scholars should be taken into the College, with a view to its gradual extinction, and to prevent any future imputa tions of injustice being thrown on those who were opposed to the grant. Mr. H. GRATTAN supported the grant. Mr. ESTCOURT was not disposed to withhold the proposed grant this year, as he conceived the honour of Parliament pledged to granting it. He must, however, observe, that he conceived it an ob jectionable grant. In voting, therefore, for it, he thought it right to give fair warning, that if a similar grant should be proposed next year, it would be opposed. Lord F. L. GOWER said, that if the grant was proposed next year, it must be entirely upon the responsibility of his Majesty's Ministers, and Hon. Members would of course act according to their own judgments upon it. Mr. PEstcEvAL and Mr. PEEL explained. The House then divided, when there were— For the Motion Against it Majority in favour of the Motion -104 ADJOURNMENT OF TIIE HOUSE.' On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER, it was ordered that the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday next. On the motion of Mr. KENNEDY ;the Tailzies Regulation Bill went through a Committee. The House having resumed, the Report was brought up, and ordered to be received on Mon day next. Mr. KENNEDY moved the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Committee on the Tailzies Relief Bill. After a few words from Captain GORDON, Mr. ROBERT GRANT, and Mr. SUCHEN; the amend ments were agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Monday, if then engrossed. Mr. SLANEY, in moving the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Committee on the Labourers' Wages Bill, said it was not his intention to pass the Bill this year; he was only anxious to have it printed ; but he pledged himself that he would introduce it, or some measure similar to it, early in the next Session of Parliament. EXCHEQUER BILLS' BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the third reading of the Exchequer Bills' Bill. On the question that the Bill do pass, Mr. HUME hoped the Bill would not be allowed to pass. The plan proposed in it was very disad vantageous to the country, and would entail a loss on the public of no less a sum than 19,8841. He should move, as an amendment, that this House should express its opinion, " That this plan for con verting three .miliions of unfunded into funded debt is one which will occasion loss to the public, is un necessary, and does not deserve the sanction of this House, as it appears there will be a surplus revenue of three millions, which may be applied to pay off three millions of Exchequer Bills, without occasion ing any such loss to the Treasury, and without ren- dering - the funding of bills necesiary." The , CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the House were not, at that time, pre pared to listen to the details of a complicated cal culation, or he could shew them that the Hon. Member was wrong in supposing there would be a lcifis by this transaction. Mr. MABERLY was not surprised the Right Hon. Gent. would not enter into calculations, and make the question n matter of figures, for then he would have convicted himself of error. It was an extraordinary thing that he should attempt to pet suade the House that this scheme was for the bene fit of the people. It was neither more nor less than this—that the Right Hon. Gentleman sold out on one and the same day an annuity of 121. 10s. and purchased another for 141. 10s. On that sum there was a loss of 21. On a sum of 1001. the loss would be 161., and on the sum of 3,000,0001. it would amount to 450,0001. Where was the necessity of his buying any thing ? If he had a surplus of three millions, why did he not redeem debt'te that amount? If this was a wise plan, he would follow it up next year; but he would do no such thing ; and the House ought to rejecthis proposition now, that it might serve as a beacon to future Chancellors of the Ex.- chequer, to warn them from a repetition of this (he was almost inclined to say wasteful) use of the pub lic money. The Right Hon. Gentleman ought to have reduced the 3f instead of the 3 per Cents.; but he wont 1 not adopt that course, though it was the most beneficial. Mr. MONCK thought the plan disadvantageous. Mr. HUME said he would not press his amend went; and the BM was accordingly passed without a division. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the Order of the Pay for the third reading of the Sinking Fund Bill was read. Mr. HUME had blamed the Right Hon. Gen. tleman when he deserved blame, and he would give praise now he could. This Bill entirely deserved his approbation.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill was then passed. EAST INDIA OFFICE BILL. On the motion of Mr. BARING, the House re solved itself into a Committee of the whole House upon the East India Office Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Hear, hear.)—His a d v i ce to t h e House was to take objected to the principle of the Bill, and said he the votes this year as they stood, on the understand- should propose an amendment, to the effect, that the ing that they pledged no one to any specific opinion vacating of scats should only apply to those ae on the question of education in Ireland. (Hear.) pointmcnts by the East India Company in which 4fter a few words from Lord LEVESON GOWER, his Majesty's Government exercised any approba- Mr. G. Moon.E, Colonel SIaT4ORPE, Mr, PEEL, tiOn or veto. Mr. CRESSET l'EutAst, and Mr. 'FRAN; the Rest)? Mr. BARING had no objection to the amend, lution was agreed to. ment. A vote of 25,000/. to the Socitry for Promoting Mr. FERGUSSON thought that if the principle the Education of the Poor in Ireland was also of the Bill were good, it ought to extend much agreed to. further; and if it were not good, it ought to be op- R Ot a ith c e 4t) Resolution College of may i ioth esolutioiifor grartiinogB; in Ireland, 928/. to the posed. He should vote against it. ornn Mr. P. THOMPSON supported the Bill. Lord MANDEVILLE opposed the grant, and Mr. PEEL doubted if the amendment went far expressed his determination to divide the Com- enough. The only point on which he had any mittee. To agree to such a vote would, in his opi- s strong feeling was that part of the Bill which was nion, pledge the House to support a school for the retrospective. It was a dangerous precedent; it education of these who are bound to disseminate the was not . worth while to violate a principle to principles of religion which they declared to be meet one case. He doubted if a person re-elected foUnded in error; and he thought if they persisted after this Bill had passed would not be liable to the a tOuriie, they would•brmg down the wrath 6th of Queen Anne. He should oppose the retrii of_God on themselves and on the whole country. spectire operation of the Bill, and should support Mr. PERCEVAL disaroved also of a vote to the amendment. increase the power of the catholic Priesthood, and Mr. W. WYNN was disposed to support the originalßill, in pre.erenee t o t—e-emen_mant Right Gentleman. 'He fully-agreedvi 4t ! i' d Right Hon. Gent., as to the danger of nutk lll . o l l precedent to vacate seats in Parliament by an Parliament, though in this case the danger ots:j.l01 trospective clause might be prevented, by iror that it should not operate till May Ist, 1810, Mr. BRIGHT should be disposed to suppor tt original Bill. Mr. BARING, on looking at-the Act of o f Anne, was doubtful, whether the 25th 'sectirle.... that Act did not already provide for Mr.. , 1 ,40 " ton's case. - Mr. BANKES , Wit clearly of opinion, the at o , the appointrnent Of the Governois of the Pre 4 '' 0, • 4. , cies became subject to the approval of the rt.. that these offices were provided for by the section of the 6th of Anne. A new, case had - .: 0 4 been brought before Parliament. To all intent,' l , i t purposes this was a new o ffi ce, and the holds ' -pd was, ipso facto, incapacitated from sittinglo voting. It would be better, therefore, a House should take time to consider the questio?"," - t e should adjourn the further consideration of make inquiries. Mr. PEEL was also of opinion that a new t i, , tion had now arisen of great importance' in • e °1 : 0 , tutional point of view, as it -affected the P; .- tre gative of the Crown. It would be better,:C r i c e fore, to appoint a Committee to search "fore;. . dents, and not come to any decision till ii"trr- had been made. yee Mr. W. WYNN was not quite clear trust the p t he of Mr. Lushington came within the operation"o', I 6th of Anne, because the salary of the oftc,„ 4 l o , not paid by the Crown, but by the East ludisrti:to parry. Considering it, however, as a very ( 16 ,t 1 1 0 0 case, he agreed with the Right Hon. Gent' that it would be better to adjourn the further sidera Mr tion of the subject. the . BROUGHAM was quite sensible o. r ier: great importance of the many const it u tionsl'%o Lions connected with the novel view whichilildf.,-"A. been taken of the subject. Ii the case of Mr. .t" - 00 , ington came under the operation of the 6th of 4' r en s it was possible he had sat and voted in Parl ioni Lor office. since he accepted the Perhaps abio.„ - do Wm. Bentinck had done so, and the Act iO 3 PSif penalty (45001. for doing so. For his own.lrr, t l 0 0 deed, he did not think the case of Mr. Lto! 0 :7 - , be came under the operation of the 6th of Anne Eir ; S h er would admit that it was a doubtful point. IT:tioi that were the case or not, he should prefer of with the question by the common law and prie jle ri t he Parliament, instead of having recourse to an Act Legislature to vacate Mr. Lushington's seat. JO were, he thought, cases on the Journals o f might serve as precedents. He remembered a person who was bed-ridden, and, therefore, ne vi charged from his service in Parliament, anct p li iiir writ was issued. Acting on the usages of " t hso ment would be a better wily to meet the case:t by a retrospective law. Mr. W. WYNN explained. vaVE S The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIx• -- also explained. Mr. BARING wished to adjourn.the qu e °;: i fed and if it were found that the .Act of Anne 9 P o r s he to offices in India, a declaratory law sw° °7 sufficient. 14 r e ' The House then resumed. The CHAtta".. o o ported progress, and obtained leave to sir V ; Monday. CO . Mr. * BARING then moved, that a Select A ot s, mittee be appointed' `_to search for pre ce `i e Agreed to, and the .Committee was apentetotte The other Orders of - Ole-Day haVing'be' through, the House adjourned at Otte o'clock. .ITY 1rr0r .05191• I LI: OP .POURTIEN WHO. TA r OF THE MINOR "ED AGAINBT7rDE G I 4 blAYDrocrrn COLLEIDL Astley, Sir J. D Hastings, Sir C. Rickford• D. Bastard, E. P. Heathcote, Sir G. §l Buck, L. W. Mandeville, Viet'. bPc e Cole, Hon. Arthur Moore, G. Cooper, It. B. Pelham, J. C. alwell, H. Esteourt, T. G. B. LIST OF THE MINORITY OF TERRE WIIO 'crap wren tea.IIIIDIS *ALIAIEST •--g fa.l4ll°Sl PROGRESS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL collars' • hfaberly, J. TELLERS. Wood, John Hume, Joseph Warburton, H. Dawson, A. • FOREIGN INTELLIGENC E . FRENCH PAPERS. (From the Gazette de France, dated May 21. y PARIS, MAY 20.—Lettais from Madr id ' '64-I,iit 12th May, announce that the life ' of the 'Ole'''. Spain was despaired of. A 1, fro.- V' Irk ~~ Cd letter from ienna states that a rePot vsir culated at Odessa, on the Ist May, that roum had been taken by the Russians. Vie informed persons in that city did not believe if. a l .1 The accounts from Sizeboli were of th Apil. The ussians still etained oefies.ge°e it " but the Turks ß were making preparation° fer a 'Pe attack. :A , to hs' 4 The project of law on thecustoms is to"' e fr been signed yesterday by the Kill'. I t is c 9 lie dered as certain that it will be laid before t or Chamber on Thursday. The bounty on t he elP .ei balm' of sugar, refined from the su g a ra o f-our CI , Th g nies, will be reduced, as we hear, t duty on Colonial sugars will remain the same/ ell the additional duty foreign sugars w ill be - roß c e( francs. to 33 francs. 1 - ' It is certain that M. de Chateattbriand is to . 1 . 1 at Paris between the 20th and 25th inst.' . y o ODESSA, APRIL 28.—A considerable - 0 ". 01 0 with troops (4,000. men, it is said) and _provi"l,.c.) will sail next week for the Asiatic coast of the 1310•1 i, Sea. It seems that the Turks arrive from N st ke in great force, advancing to meet, General. witsch, and lay waste every thing on their w"V , „14 1 VIENNA, MAY 10. =-- The commerce of t „ - ‘l9; has become very flourishing since it has -be e *" JO Glared a free port. One of our merchants, vill° a great deal of business in English goods,. h u sl i l v e personally convinced himself of this state43l.",,io" has resolved to form a branch establishment at I:Lot It is said that their Majesties' visit to rlOlO which was to have been next month, will.llo,Shott place this year. The unfavourable season has. 11It LtrY prevented the Court from going into the coc It is said that it will not go to Luxeror n r ' ic perhaps to Schombrunn, or directly to 1110" e "' (From the Messager des Chambres of sio 2ti„ PARIS, MAY 19.—There is . now in' the 011 ; Marseilles a frigate built by order of Mehe lll l - 00, 1 111 Nothing, it is said, can be more rich andinagAjOu" than this vessel, which will cost the Pacha 1,. - ?est!' francs. It contains a suite of - splendid aptir )il iere furnished with that magni fi cence and oriental e racy which would perfume even the tar. dli e All the accounts from Greece announce th' l. o t ° solonghi must soon : fall. The Greeks o o , t ;, blow up all the works of the fortresses take in Livadia, to prevent any re-action (A of the Turks. Of 5,500 French, who.will reh" the Morea, one battalion will be in garri,sol,l Patras; the remainder in Navarin and MOd oll. (From the Constittitionnelof Weenesclqq. / 00 . SITTING OF THF. CIIAIIII3EII, OF DO' lico re PARIS, MAY 20.—There was a re markab l e tradiction among the three Ministers who s r , 7 ° day. M. Martignac acknowledges no kind 'fad responsibility; he equally declines the ji. l vot lr , of the Tribunals and of the Chambers. dean, on the contrary, proclaimed that ei.tsi g ift7 t against the Ministers ought to 60 ilied k ir 'Y ;0 1 , which he acknowledged the necessity. I V,lsf ‘ 7 1 . 0 not be surprised at this; he sat only ye Btt ;.';, / t ". ) the left side, and he is too recently serteo : te to! right, to have arrived at the height of 1 1' 4 111 o ° ,l doctrines ; he will mend by the side of P : i ee ' e l ,; , tigrac. M. Roy hastened to destroy , the„ ‘ i iti fal"; the imprudent words uttered by tbe nesi"' e tio t that in civil responsibility there could: anll' OYI moral responsibility. If M. Portalis had been present he w°ll