The Sun. — London, England, 1829-02-09 00:00:00

'~~~ .- _ • -_ • _ Ilni eT ALIA NG. OFFICE,- FEB.- 7. • 1829. P INE loinmissioners - fo r Vi c t ua lli ng Hi s .? , IL, Moja y'm Navy, &c. do hereby give notice, that on Wentratatray, thil 18th instant, they will be ready to receive - ' Tordeiv ha writing (sealed up), and treat for 4 the under . Mentioned article, -to be delivered into the Victualling ' ; . lStores at Deptford, viz : One Hundred Tons of SUGAR. ..„ Fifty Tons of RAISINS. • ~ ' One-half thereof by the - Slst day of March next, and the re • 'minder by tholsth day of April following. ' . Tiro Handled and Fifty Tons of BAY SALT, Stove dried, and • ' • , Two Hundred Tons of-WHITE SALT, Stove dried. One-half thereof by the Ist day of July next, and the re ' mainder by "the let day of August following. I ' Samples of R a i s i ns o f not l ess t h an t h ree poun d s each •' .must be produced by the party tendering, but samples of the Sugar and Salt, such as will be required to be delivered, .., trill he exhibited at this Office. .The Conditions of the Contracts may be seen at this . 011ie. Each Tender must specify the price in words at length, and be delivered- before One o'Clock on the day appointed, and the Persen who makes the Tender, or some Person on his,behalf, -must attend to answer when called for. M. WALLER CLIFTON. METROPOLIS ROADS. THE CONMISSIONERS OF THE METROPOLIS TURNPIKE-ROADS NORTH , OF THE THAMES, will receive TENDERS for W ATERING the Several ROADS tinder their Jurisdic tion, from the 2fith of March to the 20th of September, ,1829, on; the conditions stipulated in the Specification for .! the respective. Districts, copies of whi c h ma y b e o bt a i ne d epon_application at this Office., Se fled' Tenders for .the above Sei t vice, marked " Tenders for Watering the Roads," must be sent into this office, ad ' • dreiied, tti the ConAnissioners,• on or before FRIDAY, the • 20th day of February instant, at Twelve o'clock. J. L. PANTER, Secretary. Metropolis Roads'-Office, 22, Whitehall-place, February, 1829. ' day tits published, with Eight Plate's, 164. (M. A TREATISE on PRACTICAL SUR.- VEYING AND TOPOGRAPHICAL PLAN DRAWING. John Murray, Albemarle-street. REGENT -STREET, NORTH of OXFORD-STREET. Valuable Leasehold Estate, Eligible for Investment, held under the Crown for a long Term of Years. TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION. • By JOHN ROBINS, • (Of Warwick House, Regent-street,) At Garraway's Coffee-house, 'Change Alley, Cornhill, on THUR9DAT, February 12, at Twelve, Ak- VALUABLE LEASEHOLD ESTATE, held under the Crown . for a Term of uirmards of Ninety ,Years, at a moderate Ground Rent, comprising a convenient DWELLING-HOUSE, • Recently Erected and substantially Built, situate No. 263, on the West side of Regent.strcct; • Containing on the 'Upper Floor, Two Attics, Water Closet, Sink, and Water laid on ; on the Second Floor, NO good Bed Chamb e r s , W a ll s nea tly P a p ere d, & c . Fi rst Floor, Two D raw i ng R ooms, W a ll s elegantly Papered, Sta tuary Marbl e Chi mney Pi ece!, commun i cat i ng by Folding Doora, &e. Ground Floor, a spacious Shop in Front, with Folding Doors, cominunieating to a large Ware Room at the 14 c/c, beyond which there is a Sitting Room and Bed Room; Private Entrance, Light Staircase; with Water Closet, &e. Basement, a good Kitchen, Si n k, and Water laid on ; Closet, 'Area in Front, with Knife Hole and V aults : a secondary Staircase to a Kitchen at the back of the Ikuse ; Maid's Room, Store Closet, &e. and a small Area. In the Occupation of, and on Lease to, Mr. James Fisher. hatter, for Twenty-one Years, from Midsummer day, 1828, who has expended a considerable sum since the Lease was granted. To be viewed by permission of the Tenant. Particulars • May be had of Messrs. Vandercom and Comyn, Solicitors, 25, Bush-lava, Cannon .street ;at Garraway's, and of Mr. 'Robins No. 170, Regent -street. .'VALUABLE AND EXTENSIVE PREMISES, 4Propriate for a Timber Merchant, Cabinet-maker, Car 'Penter, or Joiner, and convertible to other purposes %%where Space is reqnired. Eligible Compact Dwelling ; bon*, in Mortimer -street, Cavendish-square, and a ,: Dwelling -house in Titchfield-street. • TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION, By JOHN ROBINS, (Of Warwick House, Regent. street), At Gerrawy's Coffee.house, 'Change-all e y, Cornhill, on THURSDAY', February 12, at Twelve, In One L o t. BY Order of th e Executors of M r . J o h n T ac k er, deceased, A . Valuable LEASEHOLD ESTATE, held for a long Term of Years, Comprising a de=iroble, compact, well-arranged DWEL LING-HOUSE, recently Built, situate No. 65, MORTIMER-STREET, CA VENDISH SQUARE, Containing an Entrance Lobby, Dining Room, and Gen ,Aleman's Room, on the Ground Floor; Two Drawing Rooms, coutmnnicating by Folding Doors, handsomely fitted np, and a Bed Chamber, on the First Floor ; over *hid there are three principal Bed Chambers, and two goOd Attics; with numerous conveniences, and convenient Domestic Offices, Yard, &c. ; a Show Room adjoining, %Pith a small Residence and extensive Work Shops, with B oW-pits, and commodious Yard, extendin from Igor tit:mei-street to Titchfield-stre e t. g At the extremity of the Yard, situate in front of Titch fiebl-street, tr DWELLING-HOUSE, Two Stories High, Tw Rooms and Closets on a Floor, with Two Parlours "'I Closet en the Ground Floor, Yard and Work Shop at the hack, Kitchen, Cellars, &c. in the Basement, with Areas -and Vaults. The Hoene in Mortimer-street to be viewed by Tickets between Eleien and Four o'Clock ; the Premises by p rotniips. ion of the Tenants. Particulars may be had on the Mhes ; of M e ssrs. C a pro n , R ow l ey , and Weld, Solid- Burlin g t on - street ;. at G arraway ' s ; and of Mr. flobins, No. 170, Regent-street, of whom Tickets for view.. 1 .&e ....... _May be had.. SORE THROATS, HOARSENESS, &C. UTLER's ACID UL A TED CAYENNE LOZENGES are particularly recommended for }Jabitual sore Throats; relaxation of the Uvula; enlarge liktvit of the Tonsils, and that description of Hoarseness arises from relaxation of the membranes of the T hroat, and the parts contiguous. Zell Cayenne Lozenge has been found of great utility to Zei_h:Persons as are frequently in the habit of speaking in L"Ne ; they'may therefore he advantageously taken in the :47 4 , 11 % at the Bar, and in the Pulpit, and the highest 1,4 46 "1 in the Musical World has been advanced in their st.„-, t % pecially in those cases, where, from the con -...",13"11 of the voice, or the influence of a humid at ,ni,Z,"ere, the membranes have become relUzed, and dirni ' '".in their tone. Th - • . 1 6, eft Lozenges are also recommended as a stimulus, .I.4,ing Field Sports ; they are refreshing and prevent sore Hoarierrees, &c. to those who are unaccustom e d to s A rnro: in the morn i ng , b e f ore t h e dew has passed off, ' . _ ll moist and foggy evenings. - 47 1 1 in Boxes' at 2e. and 4s. 6d. by Messrs. Butler, Cheapaide, corner of St. Paul's; Princes-street, Edinburgh ; Savory. and '..136, New Bond - street; and the principal Medicine 4111 " .5 in the K . 1 in.l( .4) . Ask for BUTLER'. CAYENNE LOZENGES.. l l ' DR. JAMES'S POW DER. HIS celebrated Medicine is invariably adopted by Physicians; and for those who cannot di t medical advice, with each' packet are enclosed full tttuns for.its use. Its efficacy is most certain, if fre e ly N l ': On the attack of FEVER, MEASLES, SORE t o , ` IO AT, recent Cold with Cough, and other Oinord ers . I n RHEU MATISM and Chronic C0m ,N41:6 it has performed the most extraordinary cures, s ou n nsed with p e r s e verance . D r. J AMES ' S POWDBR )1 1 „, n ott to he prepared by Messra. NEWBERY, FROM ARE ONLY COPY OF THE PROCESS LEFT BY J AMES IN HIS OWN HAND-WRIT ING, k4T k was DEPOSITED WITH THEIR GRAND -14 :HER IN 1746, AS JOINT PROPRIETOR. D 2 s. 9 d . and 245. "l i "It • JAMES 'S ANALEPTIC PILLS afford eon- nt • reli e f i n IND IGESTION, BILIOUS and STO 11C 4q COMPLAINTS, Gouty Sympt oms , recent 1theu .4,4'1,,, and Cold with sli g ht F ever , an d are so mild in r A e fFects as not to require confinem en t. D r. JAMES ' S beLEPTIC PILLS are prepared by Messrs. NEW.. ttl, l ll ,Y, from THE ONLY RECIPE EXISTING iiii,"Xft DR, JAMES'S HAND, and are sold by them i t :: lea at 2a. 9d. an d 4 1 . 6d . , at 4 5, St. Paul ' s Church ;. and their Agents, J. S anger, 150, Oxford-street, /1bi,;5 1 %; W. Pegg, Dublin ; an d R o b erts , Place Vendome, Cilo h. 4 * Tottenht stump. e . name " F. Newberg " i s engrave d in each - //,2 No. 11 This day was published, the Third Editio n , p r i ce 10 s . 6d. PAROCHIAL SERMONS, preached at Glasbury, By the Rev—C. BRADLEY, Vicar of Glasbury. Sold by Hairiilton, Adams, and Co. By the Same, SERMONS, preached at High Wycornke.: Seventh Edition, 2 vols. price 21s. PSALMS and HYMNS, selected for Public Worship, price 2s. 6d. INTERESTING WORKS, Published by Edward Ball, New Public Subscription Library, 26, Holles-street, Cavendish-square, London. The Adventures of T . H E KI N G'S P A In 3 lots. ThePubilratThil of this Work is unavoidably postponed for some days, Feb. 10. Now Ready, 2. 'The TRIALS of LIFE. By the Author of "De Lisle." Second Edition. 3 vols., price 31s. 6d. " Two Tales, both full of thought, and in the highest degree pathetic. They are those romances of real life of which Lord Byron says, most truly, we see and hear more than we shall ever read."—Times. 3. CONVERSATIONS ON INTELLECTUAL PHI LOSOPHY, or a familiar Explanation of the Nature and Operations of the Human Mind. In 2 vols., price 16s. 4. The MANUAL for INVALIDS. By a Physician. Price 9s. 5. The THIRD EDITION of " The ROMANCE o HISTORY." 3 vols. Price 31s. 6d. 6. The SECOND EDITION of " DE LISLE, 01 the SENSITIVE MAN." 3 vols. Price 31s. 6il. The Author professes profound powers of thought.' —Times. " It is in truth the Book of Matrimony. —Atlas." In the Debate on Friday night, the whole of the Press . fell i nto a mistake, by substituting the name of Mr. R. SMITH for that of Mr. LOMELI,: Mr LIDDELL spoke immediately after Sir JoRN NEW PORT, and the following was the lion. Member's very praiseworthy and patriotic speech : Mr. LIDDELL said he could state it as a positive fact to the Government, that the opposition to this measure was not so general as some individuals seemed to imagine. He was connected with a large and considerable connty, and he could assure the House that many of the inbabit ants----men Who all their lives were opposed to Catholic Emancipation—had expressed themselves to him as being willing to co-operate in any measure which Government might propose to settle this question by concessions accom_ . panied with proper securities; end they looked forward :with an anxiety to the time when Government would' take the business' in hand. For his own part, he thought the satisfaction at the adjustment of this question would 'be great and general, he would almOst say universal. It was also to him, on another account, a matter of most hear4. : - felt Congratulation that the aubject.Would soon be set at rest; forif had pot -cfrfly created public disunion, and em barrassed the Proceedings of some of the most able men in the country, in the administration of public affairs, but it had made its way into private families, and created ill_ feeling and disunion even there. That question threatened to produce an almost implacable hatred throughout the country; but its settlement, he hoped, would banish all feelings of that description, and create in their stead reli gions peace and general tranquillity. That systein which had drained the country of its resonrces would now cease, and the wounds which it had inflicted would be healed by those salutary balms, religious toleration and political equality. He thought that a great day had dawned both on Ireland and on England—(bear)--,and be was sure that the course which England had taken would shortly be rewarded by increased prosperity, and by the unvarying attachment of the sister kingdom. FRIDAY NIGHT'S DEBATE. IMPROMPTU ON THE LATE WILLIAM SHIELD, ESQ. BY DIL. BUSBY. . , The homage, dear Shield, that true talent may claim, All admirers of merit will pay to thy name; • While a trophy more precious than e'en thine own lays, All lovers of g oo d ness t h y v i rtues will praise. As in taste,. so in manners, thou'st honounl thine age, Adorning at once both the world and the stage: The Musician, Philanthropist, Genius, and Friend, Have triark'd thy career, and distinguish'd thine end. Where the strains of thy fancy delight shall impart To future entbusiaqs, they'll think of thy heart; Nor know to decide, if more sweet in their kind, The strains of thy song, or thy graces of mind ; Whether purer the notes which from Nature you caught, Or that Christian suavity Heaven had taught. We regret ourinability, from want of space, to give insertion to an account of a most important Meeting at Leicester, on Wednesday last, where upwards of 6,000 persons assembled. We shall endeavour, however, to in sert the account on an early day. A series of Resolutions, embracing most of the abuses which new call forth the in dignation of the people, were passed singly, and, among others, a Resolution claiming for the Catholics the rights of citizenship. The speakers who advocated the Claims of the Catholics were vehemently applauded. Let those who talk of appealing to the people against the concession of the Catholic Claims bear in mind, that this is another of the great townsin-England which has been tried and found fa vourable to the Catholics. Leicester contains a popula tion of shout 40,000. These are indications not to be de spised.—Morning Chronicle. By the death of Lieutenant-GiMeral Sir Thos. Bradford, K.C.8., the Chief Military Command at Bom bay, and the Colonelcy of the 94th Regiment of Foot, have become vaeast. It is understood that Mr. George Bankes re signed, on Saturday, the office of Secretary to the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India. The East Retford Disfranchisement question is again to be agitated. Mr. Tennyson intends, on the 17th instant, to more for leave to bring in a Bill to ex clude the Borough of East Retford from electing Represen tatives to serve in Parliainent. Mr. N. Calvert, it is un derstood, will pursue his former course, and more that the franchise be extended to the neighbouring hundreds : but, on Thursday next, he will precede such movement by ap plying for leave to bring in a Bill " to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the borough of East Retford." The vacant Cabinet office of Lard Privy Seal still remains in abeyance. The Duke of Wellington sent an express, late on Saturday se'nnight, to the Earl of Westmoreland, at Brighton, offering the place to the Noble Earl, who did not send a written answer, but came to London from Brighton on the following day, although he had only arrired at Brighton the previous day—Friday. The Noble Earl had an interview witk the Duke on his arrival in town, and had another interview on the follow ing day, Monday, when he declined accepting the office, on his understanding that the Popery Question was to be made an Aet of the Cabinet. The office was afterwards, it is understood, offered to Lord Eldon, who declined ac cepting it on the same grounds as the Earl of Westmoreland. —Morning Paper. It is reported in the political circles that the Duke of Buckingham has written a letter to the Duke of Wellington, expressing his personal attachment to the Premier, and congratulating him oa the high and honour able station which he at present holds ; but thinking it his duty in candour to say, that unless some measures are adopted immediately on the opening of Parliament for the final relief of the Catholics, he shall think it his duty to oppose his Grace's Administration. A letter is also stated to have been sent to some of the Duke of Bucking ham's tenants, in which the Noble Duke declares his ob jections to the Brunswick Clubs, and requests his friends to oppose or withdraw from them. While noticing these reports, it may be as well to state that we have goad authority for asserting that the Duke of Buckingham and the Marquis of Chanilos are on the best l►ossible terms—a fact, the reverse of which might be otherwise possibly in ferred.-- Windsor Express. During the late gales of wind, several large cod fishes, and some Conger eels, (one of which was up wards of six feet long, and weighed near 601b5.) were cast by the tides upon the shores of the Humber, near Patring ton.—Also a fine specimen of that singular marine produc tion, the Sephit or Cuttl e fish, an animal which is seldom found on this roast, though the bones frequently are. The length of its body is 15 inches, breadth eight inches, and the head, neck, and tenacula are about the same length, to gether two feet six inches. It is preserved, and in the pos session of Mr. W. Little, of Patrington, as is likewise a beautiful specimen of the Ampelis or Bohemian Chat terer, two of which were lately shot in that neighbourhood. —Bull Advertiser. THE SPITALFIELDS SILK WEAVERS.— Last Saturday night the room of the Duke of Gloucester public-house, Seabright-atrcet, was crowded to excess by these poor distressed weavers. Mr. Isaac Duce was called to the chair, and after some discussion Mr. Robert Nogent move d, " That the committee be instructed to write a respectful note to his Grace the Duke of Wellington, re spectfully soliciting his Grace to grant them an interview, for the purpose of obtaining an answer to the memorial presented by the silk-weavers of Spitaltields, on Tuesday the 3d instant." This being seconded, was put and carried unanimously, the meeting was then adjourned for a week. Last week, a fine male infant was devoured by a pig at Louglirea.— Tipperary Free Press. A widow lady and her two daughters, resid ing at Ipswich, are sufferers by one of the late failures in London to the amount of 3,0001. BURKING.—The late atrocities which have been perpetrated Within the precincts of our city, have become familiar to the minds of all, and are already a by word in the remotest parts of the country. When an in nocent hare scampers from the presence of a clodpole, lie calls lustily to his pot purveying mongrel, " to Burke her ;" and the little urchins, gamboling on his well littered dung hill, frequently amuse themselves with " Burking" each other.— Caledonian Mercury. RUA RY 9, 1829 _ _~ ADDRESS OF MR. O'CONNELL TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE UNITED PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. • Quid finim ultra fieri ad placandos Deos, miligandosque heroines, potuit, quam quod . 110 S fecimus ? Qui tininrit diScordi arum? Ecquando unam urbembabere, ecquando MuneM hone the patriam, licebit ? ♦icti nos mquiore animo quieseimusqliam rat victores."—Lice, Merrion-square, Dublin, Feb. Gentlemen,--It will be readily admitted that the quo:- lion upon my right to take my . .seat and exercise 4 the' duties of a member of the House of Commons is one of great importance to the people of these conntries. If the decision shall bei as I. am satisfied it ought Oa he, in favour of that right, it will tend to tranquillize Irirland and strengthen Great Britain, If it shall happen that I am unjustly and illegally deprived of that right, the conse quences cannot but be pernicious, and may be not tiintitrous. lam a lawyer of SO years' standing. Experience abs ought to have taughtme something of the law ; and I deliberately . assert my. most sincere conviction o 4 right to sit, speak,. and rote in Parliament, without to any oath inc ons i s t en t w i t h t h e Catholic religion. I thin I shall convince every lawyer in the country, who is: m biassed by political or other motives, that my right to sit, speak, and vote in the House of Commons, is perfectly clear and incontrovertible. I trust, too, I shall be able to carry the same conviction home to the minds of every one of you ; but as very many of you are not lawyers, I will use as little technical guage as possible, and divide the.subject into separate and. distinct propositions, in order to avoid confusion or intricacy: My first proposition is, that it is a maxim both of con stitutional and judicial . law, " that • penal and restrictive statutes are to be construed, strictly, and not to be extended by implication beyond the words thereof." This is an universal rule, founded on plain ,common sense. The law would create a miserable servitude if it were otherwise. Men should have -distinct and accurate information of that which. the law constitutes. an offence or defines to he a crime; and men should also have distinct and accurate information given. by the law itself, and not by any interpreter, of the nature, quantity, and quality of the punishment or penalty to be incurred by the commis sion of such offence or crime. This principle of common sense has been fully and une quivocally adopted by the British law. Our Judges in one thousand instances on record have not only asserted the principle that penal and restrictive laws are to he construed most strictly, and not to be extended by implication, but have boasted of the adoption of this principle, as one de cisive evidence of the peefect conformity of British law with common sense and natural justice. I am tempted by my forensic habits to cite authorities, and to refer to the dicta of great and eminent Judges, as proofs of the extent to which this principle has been adopted, asserted, and lauded by our Judges in every cen tury, modern as well as remote. But I refain. lam ad ds-easing men who are not professional lawyers ; and it is enough for them to know, that this maxim of common sense is also a maxim of common law, that penal or restric tive statutes are to be construed strictly. It was declared in the reign of Edward "1., " that there is a principle in the common law, that penal statutes should be taken strictly, and shall not be extended by equity to the prejudice of them upon whom the penalty is inflicted." You can, therefore, easily comprehend that no tribunal, nor any authority whatsoever—save the Legislature—Mn add " words" to complete a supposed or implied intention of the Legislature in a penal'statute. That Ivoulddx to legislate, not to expound; that would be to place the judicial over the legislative power, and in a penal matter too. The law_is_particularly stricken. this subject, as indeed it ought to be. 4. is so strict, that even when the Legislature in a penal statute uses words of a doubtful nature, the Judges have laid it down as a rule, " that doubtful words shall never be construed to the prejudice of a supposed offender." Perhaps I shall he deemed impropetly prolix on this in troductory part of my case; but it is absolutely necessary that this rule and neaxim of the law should be distinctly understuod—" that penal laws are to be construed strictly, and are never to be extended by implication." It is so portant that this matter of law should be understood, that I am induced to mention another rule laid down by the Judges, as resulting from the maxim of construing penal statutes strictly : it is this.—" That affirmative words in an Act of Parliament never take away a common law right." - This rule may be quoted in many ancient authorities, and is not inaptly illustrate.l by what Lord Eldon, presid ing in the House of Lords, is reported to have said in the case of the corporation of Galway. An Irish Act of Parliament bad enacted, that " the free men of Galway should reside in that town." Persons, not resident, have claimed the rights of freemen of Galway. The question on this point was, whether constant and un doubted non-residence disentitled them to claim these rights. Lord Eldon is reported to have declared that it did not ; that the statute was merely affirmative, directing the free men to reside in the town, and only implying that none should be freemen but those who so resided. However, such implication could not be allowed to destroy the rights of the non-residents. It was a penal statute, and there fore would have required negative words to take away the subject's rights. this law, reported to have been laid down by Lord El don, will be admitted by every well-informed lawyer to be perfectly accurate. To deprive the subjects otherwise entitled to the freedom of the corporation of Galway of that right, it would have been absolutely necessary that the statute should have con tained not only an enactment "that all freemen should re— side in Galway," but it should have added, " that no per sons who did not reside in Galway should enjoy the rights of freemen of th a t town." I now beg of you, in considering the case I shall lay be fore you on my own behalf, to carry in your minds these truths-- 1. That penal and restrictive statutes are to he con strued strictly. 2. That penal and restrictive statutes cannot he extended by construction or implication. 3. That no tribunal can add " words" to any penal or rcstrictire statute. '4. That the doubtful words of a penal or restrictive statute are to be construed in favour of the supposed offender. 5. That affirmative words in an Act of Parliament do not take away a common law right. And, 6. That the right of the elected Representative of a county to sit and vote in Parliament is a common law right of the highest nature. These are truisms familiar to those whose profession has initiated them in legal details ; and I state them only because this letter is addressed to gentlemen whose habits and pursuits reader it necessary to rouse their attention to the principles wkich ought to govern any legal decision in my case. If these principles are kept steadily is view, my case will be found to be one which cannot create any doubt or difficulty. I now proceed to consider the present state of the statute law relative to the oaths necessary to be taken by members of the House of Commons. You will recollect that I assert my right to sit and vote in that House, without taking any oaths inconsistent with the Catholic religion. I shall say nothing with respect to the oaths of allegiance and abjuration. I have taken both these oaths frequently. I am ready to take them as often as any justifiable occasion requires me to swear. No man is more ready than lam to pay due allegiance to the Sovereign, or to maintain the title of his family to the throne of this realm. No man more thoroughly abjures than I do any foreign Prince, Po tentate, Pope, or Prelate, in all temporal or civil affairs. The oaths of allegiance and abjuration being thus out of the question, I proceed to my second proposition. It is this : " That lam entitled to-go into the House of Commons, and to take my seat without taking any oaths inconsistent with the Catholic religion, out of the House itself." It has been asserted, and repeated in print, that it is ne cessary to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy in the Lord Steward's office, previous to entering the House of Commons. I deny that any such obligation exists : it is quite true that it did exist, but it exists no longer. The obligation to take these oaths was created by the stat. hth Elizabeth, cap. 1, sec. 16, and 7th James 1., c. 6, sec. 8. But mark, besides other objections, both those stataes, as far as they relate to oaths of allegiance 'mit,' not como to . ~,"...../.- ,--,-;., ._. ...ry 4.,.,:1,e -, 41! ... 4:17 , r- A iii i#9 7 - -- - itmL`74,lk., ~.„.:,,.., Q. 3C-. 76 „ • • .. , 'IL.' ... ~,,,..", . ~ 1 / 4 ._•-N, , , 4 , " f,1, - ; ,- 87 ' ,z, t. ,r% ~..,, ; ~,,T.2.,- II Inn -',... ---..5,.-,f} ~, :4 - ) ;f O -' ' ' ' ,I.c> . ,' • , -. 1 ,--- '''' 111 1. S b •17 1 k.. 5(...... %.-.. ISt Cr S- . " v;,"4 € ' ,% 4 0: .. ...' . ...77 . • . 1w --46.1t 1 / 1 1 " - 11.i!.„ 4 ' 4 41 ,J , tir - .0... i 1;1 11 ' 1 ' 14 11 41P ' 0 - N - , I1 4118' :Uili -1 ~,, . . / f PIRIT OF THE LONDON JOURNALS .collhe, IntVe b e 4 wilt • THE TIMES.) Parliament. This wa.„4 T .„ nu , s ,„ btedly be The 22d article of thear A ingly provided against. , i' . ' - ' ble and Scotland made the requjet erlit 104,, , it. 7 the sth and 6th Anne, cap. "..617,''.. „? d It iilf vital importance ",t . a':tted'eis'is nfirk i an , matter that the 22d article of the'Vninsi with SRL.. ' Mr. should be kept in view. The ''tirn - vPio'n.s - of that article l k are these :- Ist. It regulates the number of Scotch pe, re namely, 16. 2d. It regulates the number of Scotch members of the House of Commons —namely, 45. , 3d. It regulates the time and manner of meeting of the first Parliament of Great Britain. And, . : 4th. It prescribs the oaths to be taken by all the mem lan of the British Parliament. Thus It recited expressly, and by titles and dates, the 30th of Charles IL, the Ist of William and Mary, caps. 1 and 8, and it directed that, until the Parliament of Great Britain should otherwise direct, all the Atembers of the British Parliament should take the oaths and make the tleclaration mentioned in these Acts (mark what follows), at such time and in such planner as the Members of the English Par liament were, by those enumerated. Acts, directed to take them, upon the penalties and .disabilities in the said re spective Acts contained. Thus the 30th Charles H. and the Ist. William and Mary were embodied in the Legislative Union of Scotland ; not in part merely, but in all their details. The ScotehtUniort did not merely adopt the oaths mentioned in these Acts, but it also adopted the time and manner of taking them, and expressly enacted the penalties and disabilities fur not taking them. It follows, therefore, that the taking of the oaths was as necessary in the British Parliament as it was in the English Parliament; and that the same penalties and disabilities would be. incurred by the not taking of these oaths. But why does it so follow? Simply because it was expressly and in terms enacted that it should be so. The British Parliament was thus bound 'by positive enactments ; the 14w *as express and cleir during all the period that intervened between the Scotch and Irish Union. During all that period, any member who refused to take the oaths in the House incurred a forfeiture of his seat.— L was not (as I hare said before of the English Parlia-• ment) that the law created a priori an eligibility, but that a disability to retain the scat was created by the refilsal to take the oaths. So stood the law of Parliament until the Irish tin lint: It being admitted that it was necessary, in ont!sr to re= tain a seat in the British Parliament, to take the Mira within the House, now it is idle to cite, as Lord Colchester has done, cases that occurred daring the continuance of that Parliament, as applicable to the present and altered state of things. _ . The Irish - Union annihilated the British Parliameut, its the Scotch Union had annihilated the English Parliament, From the Irish. Union a new legislative . body stit!!se,-= - . English and Scotch members became entitlt4l - to legiestc for Ireland; Irish members became entitled to legislite for England and Scotland. All.the business relative to Eng land and Scotland might be transacted in the present House of Commons by Irish members alone. The present Parliament, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,—:-a title too lohg to he repeated—,is not bound by any act to regulate the Eng lish Parliament. The 30th of Charles 11. was effectual to bind the Eng sh Parliament—it did not bind the British Parliament— .. . _ it does not bind the United Kingdmn Parliament, The 30th of Charles 11. was at one time applicable to the member for Middlesex : it is, and always was, totally in • applicable to the member for Clare. All these allegations are equally true of the Ist of William and Mary. So the 22d article of the Scotch Union bound the British Parliament—it does not bind the United Kingdom Parliament. The 22d article of the Scotch Union was at one time applicable to the member for Midlothiad—it is, and always was, totally inapplicable to the member fo' Clare. • This brings as to the period of the Jrish Union : until we arrive et that Union there is nothing to require "the Member for Clare" to take any oaths in any place in Eng land. By the common law no oaths are necessary id enable a Member to sit and vote in the House of Commons / and none could possibly have been required by the ohtti4 mon law; inconsistent with the Catholic religion, whivii was the religion of those who framed and adopted the com ' mon law. By the common law the House of Commons had no power •to administer an oath. The House of Commons could not, and cannot, by any act of its own, arrogate to itself an authority to administer an oath. Thus the ground is completely cleared to the period ni the Irish Union. First, the common law retptitel no oaths to be taken within or without the House. Secoßtily, the House had no common law authority to administer an oath. Thirdly, all the statutes which were passed in England or Great Britain prior to the Irish Union, rela tive to the English or British Pediment, are of them ielves totally inapplicable to the United Kingdom Parlia- men The entire case against me must turn, therefore, on some positive enactment in the Irish Union statute, or in some statute of the United Kingdom Parliament. I as. sect positively that there is nothing in the Irish Union statute, or in any subsequent statute, which inflicts any species of penalty, disability, or forfeiture whatsoever, on any member of the House of Commons for refusing or neglecting to take the obnoxious oaths. This is my case. The penalties and disabilities for not taking the obnoxious oaths were enacted first by statutes, which bound the English Parliament; and secondly, by a statute which bound the British Parliament. There is no such statute binding the United Kingdom Parliament. None. Here allow me to request, that gentlemen who arc pleased to read this letter with attention, will pause for one moment and call to distinct recollection what is the rule and the maxim of common sense and common law, relative to penal statutes, and how strictly and rigidly such sta tutes must be construed. The Irish Union Act does not create any penalty or dis ability for refusing to take these oaths—the only part of that Act which relates to oaths is the fourth article. The fourth article of the Irish Union is that which corresponds with the 22d article of the Scotch union. The provisions of that article are these :- Ist. It regulates the number of Irish Peers—namely, thirty-two, four spiritual and twenty-eight temporal. 2d. It regulates the number of the Irish Members of the House of Comnsons. 3d. It regulates the rotation of Spiritual Peers, and the creation and extinction of Irish Peerages. 4th. It regulates the qualification of Irish Members. sth. It regulates the time and manner of the meeting of the first Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the num ber to sit in that Parliament--and 6thly. With respect to oaths, it contains nothing more than these words—" That every Member of the Muse of Commons shall, until the Parliament of the United King dom shall otherwise provide, take the oaths, and make and subscribe the declaration, and take and subscribe the oath now by law enjoined to be taken, made, and sub scribed by the Lords and Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain." That is all. A mere temporary direction to take the oaths, without any species of sanction to enforce the taking of them. For take notice, and mark it particularly, that no time is limited for taking the oaths,—no manner of taking these oaths is prescribed, pointed out, or alluded to,—no person or body is authorised to administer the oaths. Time is left at large; at least to the extent of the entire Parliament. Manner is left at large to the utmost con ceivable extent of all and every the modes of oath-taking. Ni authority is given to any body to tender or call for these oaths; but above all, and before all, I may remark, and let it not for a moment escape your recollection, no penalty is mentioned or referred te--no disability is men tioned or referred to. Recollect also that no statute is recited, mentioned, or referred to, and not one word to create any penalty or dis ability whatsoever—not one. I need not, surely I need not, repeat, that penalties and disabilities are odious to our. Jaw, and that not one, even the meanest of the King's subjects, can incur any penalty or disability whatsoever, by or from any implication or conjecture, or mere constructive notinn or otherwise, save by the express words of a p os iti ve an d di rest enactment. _ . Te introduce penalties or disabilities in any other way, be the most gross mask palpable oppression —it would vert the very first and- most sacred principals of our ju iat'system. I appeal to honour, candour, and truth to regulate the discussion of this important question, and to decide on its merits. This is a penal statute.. Construe it strictly : that I ani entitled to ask, and respectfully to require. This is a penal statute: you •cannot, the House of Com mons cannot, add one word to it. This is a penal statute: you cannot extend it by any rnplication. This is a penal statute : if there, bea doubt upon. it, aniventitled to a favourable construction ; but, in Iced, there is no doubt, and I may well wave that point. This is a penal statute; it ma only affir►native word,' p". ;.,--. - t_ _ . . . l i 4 tk . .1,1 . 10 .4,, , , ,.. 1,, 1 110 ' • e S' ? „ .../............114, 0.00 , ' ' 1 / - N- ~.,„3412:;-,,..a11:":4177:031,,,c 1::: 0 _,N: ----: 4 „ ....7 . ,e7r ‘"r-IP.Alow. -';', / --5 , -roi , - fi-" '::"C' f} . 'At) 0 1 ,,w4 P , 0 = - - • s •:',' . •-• Mar ~_, ..-- . 3.....4 .1 . 01,,, te.4,, . ' ' 't , i' dte' / :* ' ' 44f . '4 7 „ ' -...1.1:i. Alliiii I i _______ ---_______----=_ ----t-- -- — ,36 1 . LOND ON, MONDAY EVENING --- , FEBRUAti _ _ _ ~ I COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING LAST tV FICK. Wheat. Batley. Oats. leans. Per Quarter. is.to a. s. to a. S. to a. a. to s. Catliac— 71 35 25 Carmarthen-- 62 31, 21 36 ••••• HCX ham 61 79 27 39 IS 25 50 52 Morpeth 68 79 39 40 18 27 39 40 Penrith 72 36 26 Skellield ---. 80 92 33 46 2% 31 46 53 Winchester 72 90 33 37 23 27 42 46 Per Bushel a. d. a. d. s. (I. F. cf. a. d. a. d. s. d. s. d. Coventry -- 100- 116 48 52 30 43 50 60 Newcastle (Staff.) 12 6 12 9 60 62 411 52 70 76 Northallerton 80 100 40 43 23 26 50 56 Stafford ---- 12 0 12 3 5 6 6 0 4 0 4 3 7 6 8 0 Swansea —.--- Bfi 9 0 4 7 4 9 2 9 3 3 0 0 0 0 Warwick -- 99 10 9 4 9 52 30 43 50 60 Per 8011. Barnardessfie 186 216 00 110 66 70 00 100 Darlington --. 180 fr 2 0 90 106 59 74 90 100 Durham.,, ~ 18 6220 9 tt 10 35 6 ROll6 12 6 Wolshigham --.. 17 0 206, 86 90 60 76 00 00 • WAKEFIELD. Feb. 6. The supply of Wheat fresh up to-day is only moderate, but there are many samples offering from vessels which are a few miles below, and will be here in a day er two. The Liverpool market being lower for Wheat, and the Flour trade very dull, the millers have bought very spar ingly of Wheat at a decline of la. per quarter. Oats are unaltered. The hest samples of Barley meet heavy sale, at a reduction of Is. per quarter, and there is no demand, for Foreign and light descriptions of English at any toler able price. Beans are Is. per quarter lower. Malt is ex-. cessively dull and cheaper. Wheat, Red, Norfolk and Suffolk 6ss. to 735. fine 765. Lincolnshire Yorkshire, &c fibs. to 71s. fine 735. - White Foreign, Old Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk - Lincolnshire Sts. to 345. fine 375. - Yorkshire Wold 29s. to 325. fine 3.55. Beans, Tick 14s. to 395. fine 41s. - Small 17s. to 395. fine 405. Oats, Poland and Potato 2ls. to 30s. fine 325. Friesland and Small 2ls. to 235. fine 28s. •- Mealing l3d. to 15d. per Stone. Shelling 115. to -s. -s. to 375. per L oa d. Malt 3Ss. 435. fine 465. per Load. Rapeseed 3O/. N. 321. N. 331. 103. per Last. SCOTCH MARKETS. I I ADDINGTON CORN hl A KET.—Feb. 6. The markets were very (lull to-day ; 125 quarters of Barley sold, 27 unsold, top 6d., and average Is. 10(1. below last week ; 280'quarters of Oats were sold, 30 un sold, top the same as last day, average up about 6d. Nearly the half of the Wheat in market remained unsold ; top 2s. and average 2s. 4d. down. Pease are up a trifle on the average, and Beans down. Wheat. Barley. Oata. First 76* Od 40s Od 30s Od Second 6Bs Od 31Ss Od 254 (Al Third 'l'herc werellg qrs. of Wheat in market, 200 Unsold.--32 Grey. ........... 31. 10s. 4o PCIISC. Beans. 33s Od 35s Od 31s 6d 32s Od 284 Od 30s Od 219 whereof were sold A veral DA LKEI There was an u] Grain at this day'! and rather lower tl ITH COR/ incommonl 's market, than la.st w, N MARKk ly large au, which in reek. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First 76s OA 38s Od 29s Second 72s Od 368 Oct 26a Oct 068 Od 314 Od 22s Od ii. 11-12ths ET.—Feb..S. ipply of all kinds of general sold heavily, Pease. 36a Od 3kOd 30i Od Beans. 364 Od 31. Od 30. Od CORNWALL. MARKETS. TRURo.—Wheat (average) 30s.&1.—Barley, I3s. 9d.—Oats, I Is. 'l;l[4l.ol4—Wheat, 30s. Od.—Barley, Hs. Od. ST. AusTeLL—Wheat, 28s. to 30s.—Barley, 14s. to 15s.—Oats, 12s. Od. to Igs. Boum IN—Whoat (average) 295. (M.—Barley, 13s.—Oats, I Is. Od. LA U acESTO t ' average) 308. od .- Barl e y, 13 s .6t . —O ats, I Is. Od. — Beet, 6 d .— Mut t on, d. LtsKn mto — Wheat,29s. to 30s. &L—Barley, I4s. ed.—Oats, —s. to gs. 6d. ST. COLUMIS—•Wh eat, 304. to Sts.—Barley, I3s. to 14s.—Beef, and Mutton, 5d to &I..—Veal and Lamb, Od to sd. PENZANCE—Wheat, 275. 'to 295 .—Barley, —s. to 15s.—Oats, utte N. to r, I Is 134. . 0(1. per —Beef and Mutton . 3d. to od.—Pork, 30. to Od.— B lb. MINING INTELLIGENCE. Tons. Cwt • Quantity of Copper °resold at. Redruth last Thursday 2 ,015 0 Average Produce 7 0 Quantity of fine Copper llO 17 Amount of Sale, 10,014/. Ms. (Al.—Average Standard, 1101.8 s. Oil. KINGDOM OF AVA. The following arc the documents read by the Speaker, in the House of Commons, acknowledging the Thanks voted to the Army for the Conquests in Ava. The Thanks were forwarded on the Bth May, 1827, by the Speaker : " Head-quarters, Simla!), May 20, 1828. " Sir,—l have the honour to transmit to you a letter which I have received from Major-General A. Campbell, acknowledging the receipt of a letter from me, conveying the thanks of the House of Commons for his conduct in the command of the Army lately employed in the kingdom of Ava, agreeably to the instructions which I receive&from you. (Signed) " COMBERMERE, " General Commander in Chief iri India. " The Speaker of the House of Commons, "Moulmyue, March 24, 1828. "My Lord,—l have the honour to acknowledge the re ceipt of your Lordship's letter of October lb, conveying to me the thanks of the House of Commons, through their Speaker, for my conduct during the late operatisns against the kingdom of Ava. " No feeling can be more gratifying M the bosom of a soldier than that arising from the approbation of his country ; and this high and honourable distinction will ever be to me a source of honest pride and gratification, deeply and gratefully cherished. " Allow me to offer my sincere thanks to your Lord ship for the handsome manner in which you have ►natie the above resolutions known to me. (Signed) " ARCH. CAMPBELL, M. Gen. " To• Lord Comhermere, G.C.8., Commander "in-Chief of the Forces in India, &c." So extraordinarily numerous have fatal casu alties been of late, that Mr. Michael Stocks, of Halifax, Coroner, has held eleven inquests since Friday last. —Leeds Ineelligencer. PRICE 7 and supremacy, arc repealed by the express words of the statute Ist William and Milli. I defy any lawyer to controvert this statement by point ing out any statute , ., now of fire, .requiring a member of the House of Commons to take the oath of supremacy be fore the Lord Steward or his Deputy, prior to his entering the House. - • This brings me into the body of the House, and here I have. a third proposition to adduce and prove. Before I do so, let me make two observations. The first is, that even if the statutes of the sth Eliza beth, and 7th James 1., above sited, had not been reppled, yet I could successfully contend that they: were remlered inoperative by the act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The second is, that the oath of supremacy, in the sth Elizabeth, is an affirmative oath, asserting that the; So vereign is the head of the church—an oath which Dissen ters and Presbyterians equally reject with Catholics. I now come to the third proposition—it is this: "That I incar no penalty, privation, or forfeiture, by sitting, .e speaking, an d vo ti ng , i n t h e House, without taking the re oath of supremacy, or making the solemn declaration against ay transubstantiati on i n th e H ouse i tse lf . " ag This is the main point in the case: if I prove this pro ik position, I establish my right incontrovertibly. It is plain that here lam called on to prove a negative. Bat lain prepared to do so. 'I will raise the objections to my sitting and voting fairly, and I intend to .salve them completely. The statutes which require oaths and declarations to be takera'and made are these—the 30th Charles H. section 2, cap. 1, and Ist William and Mary, cap. 1. The first of these statutes was enacted under the in fluence of that fanatic folly and barbarity which disgraced that period of English history, by the countenance given to the sanguinary fable called Titus Oates' Plot. By the second section, that statute required every mem ber of the House of Commons to take the oaths of alle giance and supremacy, and to make the declaration that there is no transubstantiation in the elements after conse cration ; and that the sacrifice of the mass, and the invo;. cation of saints, as used in the Church of Rome, are im pions and idolatrous. The third section provides a tribunal before which these oaths are to be taken—namely, the House of Commons, with the Speaker in the chair. The fourth section enacts disabilities, penalties, and for feitures of a most grievous nature : disability to hold any office or place of trust, civil or military, under the Crown; disability from thenceforth to sit or vote in either House of Parliament ; disability to sue as plaintiff in any court of law or equity ; disability to be guardian of any child ; disability to be executor or administrator to any person, or to take any legacy or deed of gift, and also a forfeiture of 5001., to be recovered by any common informer. The seventh section direets in the event of any Member of the House of Commons refusing to take these oaths, that a new writ should issue to return a new Member in the place of such defaulter. Thais the plan of enforcing these horrible oaths was complete—it consisted of these particulars :- Ist. It directed every Member of the House of Com mons to take these oaths previous to sitting or voting. 2d. It framed a tribunal to administer the oaths. 3d. It created a disability to continue a MeMber of the House in case of refusal to take these oaths before that tri bunal. And 4th. It provided a remedy by authorizing the Speaker to issue a new writ, in ease these oaths were not taken before that tribunal. Now, whilst we are upon this statute, let me implore your deliberate attention to the following train of thought. Suppose for one moment that the statute of the 30th of Charles 11., which I have just analyzed, had contained only the first of the four preceding clauses, and even only part of that ; suppose it merely directed the oaths to be taken by the member of the House of Commons, without limiting any time within which the oath should be taken, and that it did not frame any tribunal or create any autho rity to administer the oath, amid that it did net create any disability, forfeiture, or penalty, for refusing or declining to take that oath, and that it provided no remedy in the event of such refusal. Suppose all these things, and see whether the following propositions do not inevitably result :- Ist, That every member would have the entire Parlia ment to comply with the injunction of the statute. 2d. That the House of Commons would not have any jurisdiction to administer the oath, and could not admi nister it. The House has no inherent jurisdiction to ad minister an oath. 3d. That the House of Commons could not punish any man for not taking that oath. The House of Commons is not a court of criminal jurisprudence, nor indeed any court of justice at all. 4th. That the House of Commons would not have any remedy in its power, or jurisdiction in the event of a neg lect to take the oath. I think I may say with great confidence, and I do say it with perfect confidence, that there is not a lawyer in the British dominions, whose opinion can have weight, tha will controvert any of the four propositions I have thug laid down. If such a one be found, let him not overlay the subject with words, or deviate into extrinsic topics, but let him come to the point directly,--let him sustain his opinion by any reasoning he can, and allow me to anticipate his certain defeat. Now, any one of these propositions conceded to me, de cides the entire question in my favour. I believe there is not one human being in existence, ac quainted with the principles and spirit of our laws, so de void of intellect as to assert that the statute of the 30th Charles 11., if it contained a mere direction to take the oaths, would have been equally potential as a law as it was when it limited the time for taking the oath, framed a tri bunal to administer the oath, enacted penalties and disabi lities for not taking the oath, and provided the remedy, in the event of a refusal to take the oath. Yet if this be not practically effected, which could not, with decency, be asserted, my right to sit, speak, and vote, unimpeded by any decision of that House, is perfectly clear, as I shall presently demonstrate. I return to the second of the statutes I have above cited, as requiring oaths to be taken within the House of Com mons, the Ist of William and Mary, cap. I. The third section of that statute adopts, by a distinct re ference, in terms, the declaration contained in the 30th of Charles 11., and it substitutes a new oath of supremacy in the place of the former oath of supremacy, which it re pealed by the 2d section. The former oaths of supremacy asserted positively that the King was the head of the church—th e new oath of su premacy contained in the lst of William and Mary, cap. 1, and repeated, totidem verbis, in the Ist of William and Mary, cap. 8, is merely negative. It denies to any foreign power or prelate any spiritual jurisdiction. The Protestant Dissenters, Presbyterians, &c. could not take the first; all Protestants, and even infidels, could take the second. The 3d sec. of the let William and Mary, cap. I, enacts, that this second or new oath of supremacy, with the decla ration contained in the 30th Charles 11., shall be taken and made by every member of Parliament, within the time, and in the same manner and form, and under the penalties and disabilities as by that act are ordained, and not at any other time or in any other manner. These concluding words are very important. T p ret h e a n t the ctm e 3 n t O t w h t h o f the Charles s t of l w i a as embodied mand by Mary, with this exception, that the oath of supremacy was altered. And thus by means of these two statutes it is conceded, that from the commencement of the reign of William and Maly, to the Union between England and Scotland, any Member of the House of Commons who refused to take the oaths within the House incurred various disabilities of the mos t grievous nature, and,. amongst them he forfeited his seat. His refusal before becoming a Member to take the oaths did not, and could not, disqualify him from being elected. He was eligible, but he incurred the forfeiture of his seat, by the act of refusing to take the oaths, he being then an elected Member of the House. Such was the state of the law with respect to the Par liament of England. It was the English Parliament until the Union with Scotland, when it became the British Parliament. It by that means became another and a dif ferent body, insomuch so that a mere majority of English representatives could no longer pass a Bill, even one relating to England, if opposed by the Scotch Members It became a new body, in which England could legislate for Scotland, and Scotland shared the legislation of Eng land. This new body, the British Parliament, could not be bound by any statute relating exclusively to the former body, the English Parliament. The 30th of Charles 11., and the Ist of William and Mary, would, ae a matter of Scotlind with S THE ENGLISII CHURCH. In two large vols. Bvo. price 265. T HE HISTORY of the CHURCH' of ENGLAND. By J. B. S. CAR.WITHEN, B.D. Of St. Mary Hall, Oxford; Bampton Lecturer for 1809; and Vicar of Sandhurst, Berks. Part the Firit—to the Restoration of the Church and Monarchy in 1660. London : Printed for Baldwin and Cradock.