The Sun. — London, England, 1837-12-22 00:00:00

children, and had now suffered an imprisonment of two hundred days for a debt of 71. ; the other was that of a person with six children, who had been imprisoned for a similar number of days for a debt mot exceeding 71. 13s. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from the Reverend Charles Aldridge, who stated that he was a Clergyman of the Established Church; that he was canonically or dained by the late Bishop of Sodor and Mann, and that for more than two years he had been a witness to the great good and benefit conferred upon that diocese by the Personal exertions and superintendence of the late Bishop. The petitioner referred to a statement made in that House by a Right Rev. Prelate, stating that no injury would result from the union of that diocese with Car lisle, and proceeded to say that from his experience lie was of opinion that it would be productive of much mis chief. The Noble Lord presented a petition from the licensed spirit-dealers and victuallers of Glasgow, signed by 700 per sons, praying for an alteration in the law relating to licences. DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASTER. Lord MELBOURNE said that he had a few words to offer to the House in reference to a subject which, in some degree, was connected with the motion, a notice for which he saw in the Order Book, with respect to the production of the accounts of the net proceeds of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, for a certain number of years. It had been certainly stated, on a former occasion, that there would be no objection on the part of Government to the production of those accounts, but that they since found that this information had never before been laid before the House ; and, unless it was a voluntary act of grace on the part of the Crown, it would be an insult to the Sovereign to call for the production of them. lie had already stated that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce new regulations with respect to the Duchies of Corn %all and Lancaster ; to do away with the present system of secrecy as regarded the accounts; to remedy any abuses that might be poitited out, and to lay those regulations before the House. The whole management of the Duchies was to be laid open to Parliament. Therefore, upon all these grounds, he put it to his Noble and Learned Friend if be would persevere in the notion ? Lord BROUGHAM could assure their Lordships that there was no man in the universe who was less disposed than he was to turn a deaf ear to such an appeal as had been made by his Noble Friend. He would not persevere in his motion, as it was stated to be both unfitting and disrespectful to the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) He had another reason for not per severing in his motion—he knew that it would be ono of the most futile attempts that possibly could be made. Even if he was backed by his • Noble Friend and those associated with him in the Government, and all those who supported him, he could not for a moment stand in the face of opposition which was about to be mode by the majority of that House ; therefore, as he could not hope to succeed, even with such backing, it would be madness in him to go on opposed, not only by the majority, but by his Noble Friend and his supporters. In order to vindicate himself, he must state that he was not the only one who laboured under the mistake of supposing that his motion was neither unfitting, or at all disrespectful to the Crown; for he had applied to all those whose office led them to have connection with the question, and they had stated that they saw not the slightest objection to the papers. He had therefore done nothing tending to show any disrespect to the , Crown. Those Noble Friends who were implicated in his conspiracy were his Noble Friends the Chancel lor of the Duchy of Lancaster ( Lord Holland), the Lord President of the Council (Lord Lansdowne), and his Noble Friend who presided over the Woods and Forests department. No more were his Noble Friends accomplices with him. Ho held himself free from the guilt of a principal offender in any of those three principal charges. He ventured humbly to defend his Noble Fliends—or at least boldly to defend himself— against the imputation, and he asked their Lordships whether his Noble Friends or (said the Noble and Learned Lord with great vehemence) whether I, at least, my Lords, do not stand acquitted from any such accusation. We are charged, my Lords, with voting hundreds of thousands a year by way of the Civil List for half a century, and the question with us now is, what is the amount t of the Crown revenue from other sources—what amount the Crown derives from those revenues which are with: held from the direct control of Parliament, which are not voted, but held independent of vote. My Lords, when I expected that this question would come before us—and we all knew that it would come before us— I naturally and simply thought it was the fit and natural course to ascertain at first what amount of revenue the Crown en joyed independent of Parliament.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But it now appears, my Lords, that the fitter and more natural course is to vote the money first, and to ascertain afterwards whether the money be wanted.— (A laugh.) But we are told that this preposterous course has the example of the House of Commons—the very best pos. sible exsmple—the very best example in the world—( A laugh)—the example of the Guardians of the public purse— whose voice is the voice of the free people in the people': own House.—(Hear, bear, hear, and a laugh.) But, my Lords, I hope we will not see the voice of the people stifled in that House, by any collision between the Chair and the Treasury Benches—(Cries of hear, hear, and great sensation)—by the defeat and perhaps the final neu tralization—the total and ultimate defeat of every victory which has been gained in the House of Commons by the representatives of the people against the representatives of rotten boroughs, and the nominees of the Crown. A cloud has passed over the representatives of the people ; and when your Lordships are asked why you take .E 0 much care of the Commons—why you are so watchful of the purse of the people—so much more watchful than their own representatives—l have no other an swer to suggest to you than that the people may awake, and may ring a peal in the ears of the present guardians of the public purse, to which even your Lord ships may not feign deafness. Nor do I know that its echos may cease to the latest existence of this country—l will not say to the latest existence of the country—but to the latest period of the life of the youngest public functionary in the country. —( Murmuring and great sensation.) Lord EL LENBOROUGH was quite aware, that within the last four or five years there had been numerous in stances of that House asking information respecting public expenditure, which the House of Commons had either not been asked for, or had refused ; and it was necessary that they should obtain all the information possible to be acquired in any cases to enable them to legislate safely. On these grounds, therefore, he did not think that the Noble and Learned Lord was justified in withdrawing his motion. There was, however, an objection to the motion, which was, that from the nature of the thing, it ought not to be a motion, but an address. Lord BROUGH AM slid it had been changed into that. Lord ELLENBOROUG H then said in reference to the Noble Viscount opposite stating that a Bill was about to be introduced into the House for the regulation of the revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, it was absolutely necessary, from the merging of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall in the Crown, that an Act should 'be passed, because the Crown could not grant a single lease of that property, until as Act was passed, enabling it so to do. One of the first Acts in the reign of William IV. was an Act upon the subject ; therefore the subject must come before the House ; and he, the Noble Lord, would say, that as an opportunity would be granted to the House, so the House ought to take advantage of that opportunity, and make an entire change in the Duchy of Cornwall. He thought that an end ought to be put to the payment of fines upon the renewal of leases, and that all leases should be granted at annual in comes. It was morally ruinous and injurious that a Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, on coming into possession of this property, should at the age probably of nineteen, have to receive 90,0001. or 100,000/. There was no probability of a Prince of Wales coming into possession of it for at least twenty years ; now advantage ought to be taken of that circumstance to place the property upon an entirely new foot ing. H e did not object to information on the subject. On 'the contrary, he wished to have it ; and his objection to the noble and Learned Lord's motion was, that it would afford no iiisformation—valuations ought to be taken. Lord BROUG HAM was satisfied that his motion would have afforded as much information as would have been neces sary for his purpose, but lie was disposed to withdraw it, chiefly from she hopelessness of its being agreed to. The Duke of WELLINGTON wished to address a few words to the House on this subject. As the House did not usually sit on Wednesday, he did not think that the Noble and Learned Lord would then have brought forward his motion ; and, consequently, he had made an engagement for that evening, which prevented him from being able to stop to hear the whole of the Noble and Learned Lord's speech. The Noble Viscount opposite had stated yesterday that he (the Noble Duke) had made some objection to a similar measure on former occasion. It was time that he had taken an objection to a provision, not having been made in some measure at that period for the office " of the First Lord of the Treasury, and the other great Officers of state, who, in his opinion, ought to be made independent of au annual vote in the Committee of Supply in the other House of Parliament ; and he felt an objection to this measure on the same ground. He likewise professed to feel a very strong objection to the system which had been established in respect to pensions being granted during the pleasure of Parliament. It was his opinion that a sufficient provision had not been made for those pensions. The Noble and Learned Lord had gone into considerable detail in respect to the inconvenience likely to result from the long period of time for which Pensions were now granted. He (the Noble Duke) wished them to consider that, and see how the matter stood. Those pensions are not granted to persons who have not elven great services to the country. There were many ofticers upon the list who had been put there for their ser viecs in the late war. Legislating, as they all hoped they were for tj t e next fifty years, he would ask were they making a suf ficient provision, whereby the Crown could reward such services by givitig a power to grant 1,200/. a year? B ut there was ~ nother objection he had to the Bill. He objec ted to that clause b 4 '7 which the Crown was called upon to state to Parliament `an grounds upon which the pension was granted. There Ivere man y well-founded claims upon the authority of the Crown which a Minister could not successfully defend before p arliament. He could then state names which he was confident the ir Loreistips would consider as well-founded claims l 'Pon the bounty of the Sovereign. Besides , P arliament ou g ht to be i n f orm ed'w[2at the Sovereign was called upon to give 111) upon ente eirg into this bargain, in order that the public might consider ei.tietber there was not some claim upon their generosity. Every !ndiwi dual in the country having large pro perty had th e power of acting generously. Was it r i g ht, then, ghat th e on l y i n di v id u alin the country. wbo was to be denied e lib er t y o f ac ting upon such feelings , w ithout its bein g tigtgged be fore :the public, should be sh e who filled the T hrone Lord MELBOTRNE said, that notwithstanding what had fallen from theiNoble Duke opposite, with respect to the present arrangement not conducing to the comfort or dignity of the Sovereign, he was still of opinion that it was, under all the circumstances, the best and most convenient that could be adopted. No inconvenience had been found to result from the arrangement of the Civil List which had been made in the beginning of the last reign, and he certainly could not see that any would arise if they followed that pre cedent as respected the present. The Noble Duke complained that the sum which had been granted for pensions was insufficient for the purposes of generosity and charity. They differed in opinion on that point. The Noble Duke had adverted to the number of claimants that were entitled to rewards at the hands of the Crown. Ho had feelingly alluded to the widows and families of naval and military officers, and to others for whom provision ought to be made by the country. To a certain degree he concurred in the sentiments of the Noble Duke, but he could not go to the full extent with him as to the standard of charity and super annuations which he bad set up in his own mind. For his own part he was of opinion that there was nothiug so dan gerous to the country as too enlarged a system of pensions and superannuations.—( Hear, hear.) The finances of the country could stand it no more than those of a private individual.—( Hear, hear.) He knew that this allowance of , 1,2001. a-year was a smaller sum than had been granted un der the former system, but it was less uncertain. Ho believed, in his conscience, that, small as it was, if that sum were properly administered, and its proper administra tion could only be secured by the publicity e.tablished by this Bill, it would be found sufficient for all its purposes. His opinion was that what was given was sufficient, and the restrictions were only those which would secure a more liberal and useful administration of the funds. He was rejoiced that the Noble Duke opposite had no intention of obstructing the passage of the Bill. The Earl of RIPON said, that although the Bill professed to be a temporary measure, terminable with the life of the Queen, yet it proposed to fix permanently upon the Civil List the charge for the Duchess of Kent. Lord BROUGHAM thought it right at that time (lest there should be no future opportunity) to observe on the clause in the Bill, which gave to her M.:jesty the authority to grant pensions not only to the amount of 1,2001. a-year in every year, but to lay over for accumulation, to the :increase of future pensions, the surplus which might remain in any year above the pensions granted in that year, and the said sum of 1,2001.,—the clause had come up in such a state that it was difficult to say whether her Majesty would have less power than was intended to be given her—whether she would hare any power at all—or a great deal more power, in granting pensions than the House of Commons suspected were given her. Lord ELLENBOROUGH asked what did the Noble and Learned Lord wish to be done with the clause? Lord BR OUG HAM—To make it clear, if that can be done. —( Laughter. ) _ _ Lord 'ELLENBoROUGH considered that consistently with the known privileges of the House of Commons, the House of Lords might add words, in order to make the meaning of the Bill more clear. The Bill went through Committee, and was reported with out amendments.—To be read a third time to-morrow. UNIVERSITIES. Lord RADNOR said that when he formerly brought forward the question of the absurdity of the statutes of the Universities, he was assured that they would undergo a rigid investigation by the authorities of the respective Universities. They had sat all during the long vacation, but the whole of the Reforms which had been made were of a most ridiculous nature. The absurdity of making a young man swear to observe sta tutes of which he knew nothing, and many of which never were and never could be obeyed, still existed. It had been proposed to abolish an obsolete custom, by which two masters were appointed to instruct the fellows in the (Mounting of the Litany ; that proposal was opposed by no less than sixty-eight persons. A question had arisen as to the illegality of their proceedings, viz., whether they ought to have originated with the Hebdomadal Board or th e C onvoca tion ; but he wished to refer to the question of the total illegality of sta tutes being passed by the University of Oxford without the consent of the Crown. The code of statutes by which the University was governed had been passed by the Convocation, and was received in 1636. About 1631 the Earl of Pem broke, and subsequently Archbishop Laud, Chancellors of the University, being anxious to get the statutes framed into one code, set about the task with great zeal, and their object was accomplished. Very few new statutes were drawn up, but the old statutes were arrarged and embodi-d in ono code. Charles the First then sent down officers, who were received with great solemnity, to give his sanction to the new code. On that occasion he apprehended that the University gave up the rules of its former Charter granted by Elizabeth, and adopted ie their stead the Constitution given by Charles. That was the opinion of many lawyers. If, then, that was the code by which the University was governed, the question was—did that code give a power of changing the statutes to the Univer "city ? He found, on the contrary, that there was a statute forbidding change ; and in a letter, written by Archbishop Laud, on the subject, it was declared that the statutes were passed, and sanctioned, and adopted, in posterum perpetuo. The statutes passed in 1636, and for 120 years after that time there were only seven alterations. In 1789 some doubt or dispute arose as to the enactment of new statutes, and, upon the opinions of Mr. Justice Blackstone and two other Barris ters, it was supposed that the University had power to make statutes. Many of the Colleges asserted most strongly that they had not the power to do so, and that Parliament had none. But in the Senate last year a new statute was passed to repeal some chapters of two statutes, one of which related to the Regius Professor of Divinity having the appointment of the select preachers for the University. In fact, it was the practice to repeal a whole chapter, and to put a whole chapter in the addenda ; and the same thing had been done with re ference to the Regius Professor's appointment of preachers. Upon technical grounds, then, he contended that the Univer sity had violated their statutes, and in this opinion he was borne out by that of many other persons, as well as by that of the Attorney-General himself. With respect to the case of Dr. Hampden, the proceedings adopted he could only consider as decidedly wrong, both on the principles of law and justice. That gentleman was living quietly at Oxford as the Regius Professor in that University. A great stir had been made among out-lying voters with respect to him, a great number of whom, although no doubt but few of them had read the works they were going to condemn, went up to the Convoca tion at Oxford to pass that statute by which they pronounced a decision that some of Dr. Hampden's writings contained such theological opinions —for so, he supposed, he must translate res theologicas—that the University could no longer place that confidence in him which the situation he held ought to insure. That statute was passed without Dr. Hampden having ever been heard in his defence--( Hear, hear)—and the Warden of Merton College had absolutely concluded one of the speeches which he made upon the occasion by asking " where was the accused, and of what was he accused ?" One of the effects of this statute was, to exclude Dr. Hampden from sitting at the Board of Heresy in the University ; and he must say that if there was a regular and an irregular, a legal and an illegal, way of doing that which had been done to that gentleman, the University had adopted the most irregular one. He ( Lord Radnor) wished to repeat, before he sat down, his opinion that the University most distinctly required the Royal assent to be given before it could proceed to alter any one of its sta tutes. Every individual who took a degree at Oxford, of whatever nature, swore to comply with the statutes of the University. The Noble Lord then read an extract from an anonymous publication, and from an article in a former num ber of' the Quarterly Review, for the purpose of showing that by altering any of the statutes of the University any of the members thereof would be guilty of perjury, and concluded by moving for copies of the protests made by Dr. Hampden on the Bth of November, 1836, and the 28th of January, 1837. The Duke of WELLINGTON ruse and said—l think it my duty to resist the motion of the Noble Lord, although, in- deed, I know not to what person, in point of form, that motion ought to be considered as addressed.—( Hear.) But, my Lords, it appears to me that the object of this motion is to bring the subject under the consideration of this House, with the view of prosecuting the University of Oxford for the trans action to which the speech of the Noble Lord referred. But that, my Lords, is a step which this House ought not to take. —( Cheers.) But, if this House were to take such a step—if this House were to act with a view to the prosecution of the Uni versity, and if, after that step was taken, and that prosecution entered upon, an appeal should be made against it, I should like to know in what situation the Noble Lot d would stand ? —(Hear, hear.) My Lords, I cannot help observing that the last part of the speech of the Noble Lord is a complete answer to the first, because, if the Noble Lord be correct in his asser- tion that the University has no right to make any alteration in its Statutes, why can he blame the University for not making such alteration ?—( Cheers.) The Noble Lord has entered at some length into the Constitution of the University of Ox ford, with a view to show, that as a Corporate body, it has not the power to alter its Statutes.- I think, however, that there is no Corporation in existence which has had the power of making Statutes during a longer period of time than the Uni versity of Oxford. So far back as 1634 that University agreed upon the adoption of a course with respect to the alteration of one of its Statutes ; and so lately as 1836, a Royal letter was sent to Oxford upon the subject of that Statute, contain ing the prohibitionary clause adverted to by the Noble Lord, and which he pretends has the effect of preventing any alteration, although the words of the Statute in ques ticn contain an express power of enacting, interpreting, and altering the University Statutes, forbidding, at the same time, any alteration of those which were conferred by Royal authority. The Noble Lord pretends that those words re ferred to the whole of the Statutes from 1634 to 1836. But it is well known in the University that the prohibition only extends to those which are called the " Caroline Statues," to those directed by the King himself to be carried into exe cution, and containing very different words from any of the other Statutes of the University. This prohibition has cer tainly been always so understood in the University, and has so been acted upon from 1634 until now. The Noble Lord stated that in 1640 a Statute was passed, with reference to a Professoi ship of Arabic, by Archbishop Laud, at that time Chancellor of the University. But surely it was understood then that if a Statute could not be altered or interpreted but by the Queen's consent, the Archbishop would not fail to ask that consent. But it so happens that that Statute was not confirmed under the Great Seal. There were also other Statutes passed, and by those well acquainted with the Statutes of 1634, and no doubt had ever existed as to the power of the University of Oxford to alter their Statntcs until a later period. I believe there must have been some doubt expressed in some quarter as to the right of the University to alter its statutes; but be that as it may, nothing could be more clear or just than this opinion appeared to be, and on it I rely ; and this I must say that the Noble Lord and the publie in general having called upon the Universities of Oxford and Cam bridge to alter their statutes it is rather hard now to say that they have no right to do so—to say that these statutes are THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1837. things which, although they may have become obsolete, must not be altered, because there are certain words in a certain statute containing a prohibition to that effect. So far then as to that part of the speech of the Noble Lord, and now I will advert to what he has stated of the case of Dr. Hampden. His late Majesty was pleased to advise the appointment of that gentleman to the office of Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. No doubt some of the theological opinions of that gentleman were not considered in the Uni versity as exactly consistent with the Articles of the Church of England ; and he had published certain works, in which it was stated that sentiments prevailed of such a nature as to induce several members of the University to petition the governing body to address his Majesty, in the hope that ho might be pleased not to confirm the appointment. The appoint ment was made, however, and shortly afterwards Dr. Hampden published a protest in explanation ; and I will here take the opportunity of stating that, in proportion as Dr. Hampden, in that explanation, professed to remain in the same opinion with respect to those points which had been ob jected to regarding him, in the same proportion those who re fused to approve of his appointment were justified in with holding their approbation.—(Hear, hear.) I think that, as Dr. Hampden refused to explain his opinions upon those points, they had some justification for the course they adopted. —( Hear, hear.) Everything was done that could be done to induce him to explain his opinions ; and I must say that I think the Convocation acted in the most consistent manner they possibly could in taking that notice of the transaction which they felt it to be their duty to do. The University of Oxford, and all who had ha d any influence on the question, have since that period done everything in their power to put down any further discussion with respect to this affair, with the exception of the single instance of the present Vice-Chan cellor of the University having put up in his own College the notice to which the Noble Lord has adverted. The Noble Lord has adverted to the fact of that gentleman having, in his capacity as the Head of a House, excluded students from attending the lectures of Dr. Hampden, and held out as a perialty for so doing, the refusal of their testimonials for holy orders. Now, I certainly do not approve of the course taken by the Vice-Chancellor.—( Hear, hear.) In my opinion, the real point under such circumstances to be looked at is this ; that the ordination for which the necessary testimonials were to be refused did not rest with, and could not be conferred by the Head of a House.—( Hear, bear.) That ordination could only be conferred by the Bishops of the Church.—( Hear, hear.) And whether the student who was a candidate for orders had attended the lectures of Dr. Hampden, of the Margaret Professor, or of any other person, it was the duty of the Bishop alone to consider, when that student came be fore him to be ordained, whether he was qualified or not — (hear)—and not the duty:of Heads of Houses or any other persons whatsoever. It was solely the duty of the Bishops, and, I must say, at the same time, that the Vice-Chancellor, in adopting the course which he did, had the very highest sureties for what he was doing..-. 4 Cheers. ) Lord BROUGHAM said, with reference to the Noble Duke's observations upon the explanation of Dr. Hampden, that that gentleman expressing his intention to remain the same with respect to his opinions,was no more a proof that those opinions were what they were represented to be by others than his (Lord Brougham's) assertion that the report that he had the other day abruptly quitted the Queen's table was a false one, was any argument in favour of such a report.—( A leugh.) Now he would take that opportunity of protesting to their Lordships that that report was a pure fiction of the brain—a pure dream of the imagination. The Earl of WINCHIL SE A concurred in what fell from the Noble Duke, that the University of Oxford acted with great leniency towards Dr. Hampden. They had an impor. tant duty to discharge. They were entrusted with the educa tion of the rising generation, and they were bound to take care that the young men under their charge should not be im bued with religious opinions at variance with those of the great majority of the University. Viscount MELBOURNE said if there was anything un orthodox or schismatic in the opinions of Dr. Hampden it was certainly a matter not very easy of detection. The opi nions which had been objected to were not upon leading points of orthodox belief, but upon extremely nice, diffi cult, and abstruse points, with which he would confess that he was but little acquainted, and of the nature and tendency of which some persons whom be had an opportunity of consult ing seemed to have been very little better informed than himself_ He believed there was nothing in his writings that militated against the doctrines of the Cnurch of England. The Noble Duke intimated that Dr. Hampden gave an ex plenation of the doctrines he entertained, which explanation was not satisfactory to the majority of the University. He was appointed to the Regius Professorship, because he was considered the most competent person to fill the chair, and in his inaugural lecture he entered into an explanation of his opinions, and he believed those opinions were found to be perfectly consistent with the doctrines of the Church of England. The Noble Duke said those opinions were con trary to those of the majority of the University of Oxford. He (Viscount Melbourne) would not admit that the opinion of a majority of that University ought to be decisive in mat ters either of a religious or of a civil character. The refor mation took place in opposition to the opinions of a great ma jority of the University of Oxford ; the opinions of Mr. Locke were opposed to a niajce-ity of the same University ; so that, if such a majority had prevailed, every thine free, and noble, and generous in religion and politics would have been lost to the country. He did not mean to deny the competence of that house to call for the production of the paper moved fur by his Noble Friend. He concurred in much of what fell from his Noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor), and as his object was sufficiently answered by bringing the matter before the House, he would suggest to him whether the better course would not be to withdraw it. 1786* FOR Ttt ADESMEN'S BILLS. I❑ Lord Chamberlain's Department Lord Steward's Ditto Master of the Horse' ....Ditto Master of the Robes' ....Ditto £43,8 , 0 tl,ooo 2,200 I 937-S. X 42,000 t-6,000 39,0.10 5,50) IL I 18,200 :1:172,500 More in 1837-8 by £53,300 FOR SALARIES. SUPERANNUA TIONS, Ric., TO SERVANTS 6F HOUSEHOLD. In Lord Chamberlain's Department lord Sttivard's Ditto Master of Horse's Ditto. ... Master of Robes' Ditto £47,!42 29, It 12,791 I,OSO Z1P,41:3 36,381 27,650 73t1 40,294 • See Civil List Report of i £90,166 I £131,260 15th March, 1202. X 94,594 N. B. In the bills for salaries for 1837 there are some ser vants excluded, which were charged in another account in 1792, to the amount, it is supposed, of 6,0001., which will re duce the difference to that amount. By which it appears that the sum expended in the years from 1786 to 1792 in Tradesmen's Bills and Servants' Wages, to the Royal Household, amounted to 209,1661. This sum at that time would have maintained 10,064 agricultural la bourers' families, at the rate of Bs. a week, or 201. I6s. per family per annum, being the average wages of agricultural labourers in- Devon and Wilts, according to the evidence before Parliament. The sum proposed to be expended in the year 1837-8 in Tradesmen's Bills and Servants' Wages for the Royal House hold amounts to 303,7601., which would maintain 14,600 agricultural labourers' families all the year, at the average rate of their earnings of 83. per week in Wiltshire and other places. A comparative statement of the charge on the people of England for the Royal Family, and that part of Pensions which were on the Civil List in the last year of William IV., and in the first year of Victoria ; is also annexed : Comparison of the Civil List, and other charges for the Royal Family, in 1836-7, under Will. IV., with similar charges to be incurred in 1837-8, under Queen Victoria:— CIVIL LIST Or WILLIAM IV. CIVIL LIST OF QUERN VICTORIA. CLASS. £ CLASS. £ 1. Their Majesties' Privy 1. Her Majesty's Privy Purse llO , lOO Purse 2. Salaries to the House- 2. Salaries to the House hold, and Superannu- hold, Superannua ations, &c. 3. Tradesmens' Bills 171,500 0. Tradesmen,' Bills 4. Royal Bounty, Special 4. Bounty, Alms, and Spe and Secret Service, cial Service 13,201 Alms 23,9. 0, 5. Pensions to the extent 5. Pensions 75,000 of 1,200/. per annum... 6. Unappropriated Monies 8,0.10 Total .£510,0101 PAID FROM CONSOLIDATED FUND IN 1856-7. It ,yal Family, viz. : Duke of Cumberland 21,000 Duke of Sussex 21,000 Duke of Cambridge Prince George of Cambridge 6,000 Prince George of Cumberland 6,000 Four PI ince , ses, each 13,00)1 42,000 Duchess of Kent and Princess Victoria 22,000 Duchess of Gloucester Primo Leopold 50,0001 206,000 Balance against the Public by decease of William IV 62,000 ~X 778 Exclusive of Palaces The public will see that the more expensive by the Civil L Reforming Ministry than at any Total £385,1.00 TO ME PAID FROM CONSOLIDATMD FUND IN 1837-8. Royal Family, viz. Duke of Cumberland 21,r00 Duke of Sussex Duke of Cambridge 21,000 Prince George of Camin idge 6,000 Four Princesses, each IN,OOO/ 42,000 Duchess of Kent Duchess of Gloucester ...... 7,000 Prince Leopold.. 50,000 Queen Dowager 100,000 308,000 Secrct Service Pensions 75,000 Total £776,000 and other expenses. expense of Monarchy is made ,ist settlement under the Whig y prior period. LORD BROUGHAM'S PROTEST AGAINST THE CIVIL LIST BILL. LAst night Lord Brougham entered upon the Journals of .he House of Lords the folio sing "PROTEST AGAINST FURTHER PROCEEDING WITH THE CIVIL LIST BILL. " Dissentient, " Firstly,—Because it is inconsistent with every sound prin ciple of legislation to make provision for so important a branch of the public expenditure as the Civil List, by an arrange ment which is to last for the life of the reigning Sovereign, inasmuch as through a period of time most justly desired and reasonably expected to be of long duration, the whole circum stances may vary to which the terms of the arrangement must be adapted, and the sum now allotted may be found either too small or too large for the appointed purpose. " Secondly,—Becauso such variations are more especially likely to happen through the changes which may take plsc.e in the relative value of money, and all articles of consumption, by the fluctuating supply of the precious metals, the increased powers of machinery, the improved skill in other respects Lrought to bear upon manufactures, the progress of agricul tural improvement, and, above all, the improvement of our legislation upon the importation of foreign corn, which would at once lower the price of all commodities, and give an entirely different real value to the nominal sum now allotted, as neces sary for the expenditure of the Court during the period of the Sovereign's natural life, upon an assumption altogether gra tuitous, that prices will undergo no change. " Thirdly,—Because the arrangement is also framed upon an assumption, if possible, still more gratuitous, that the habits of society will remain fixed, and that one generation after another will pass away without undergoing any change in the opinions and tastes which must always form the standard of the establishment required to support the Royal dignity at any given time ; while, if the object of the arrangement be to fix these opinions and tastes in their present frame, or in one more antiquated, and to arrest their future course, it must be confessed that no attempt can be conceived more visionary and chimerical. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY would not have risen to say one word upon the motion, were it not for an observation which fell from the Noble Viscount the First Lord of the Treasury. He felt assured that the Noble Viscount, in the observation made by him, did not mean any disrespect to certain persons who waited on him relative to the appoint ment of Dr. Hampden to the Regius Professorship. Ile said they appeared totally ignorant of the subject. He would not say whether he was ignorant of theology or not, or whether he was more ignorant of it than the Noble Viscount professed to be ; neither would he now allude to the peculiar opinions of Dr. Hampden. These opinions were announced in several publications, and he believed they gave dissatisfaction in va rious quarters. They were, however, of a character totally different from the opinions which produced the Reformation, and from the opinions of Mr. Locke. The question was, were the opinions maintained by Dr. Hampden consistent with the doctrines of the Church of England ? Upon this point he would abstain from any observation now. He would not attempt to go into the subject. He felt it his duty certainly to make some representations to the First Lord of the Treasury upon the appointment ; but he appealed to those Ministers who were in power previous to the present Ministry —he appealed to the Noble Duke (Wellington), and to a Noble Friend of his who had just left the House—if he ever, upon any occasion, stood in the way of any man's preferment in the Church. Nothing but a sense of duty could induce him to remonstrate against this or any other appointment, but, having with him the great majority of the University, many also of the ablest Divines, he did not feel that his conduct ought to meet the ridicule of the Noble Earl ( Radnor). For his part he did everything in his power to soften the matter in the University. The Noble Earl read a passage from a Re view. What right had the Noble Earl to assume that this Review was the organ of the Church? What right had he to assume that certain sentiments must be the sentiments of the University of Oxford, because he found them expressed in this Review ? Similar sentiments might be entertained in an Oxford Newspaper, or in some Church Magazine, of which there were many; but were such publications therefore to be called the organs of the Church ? The Church had very dif ferent organs, and he hoped they would adhere to them. The Earl of R ADNOR, in reply, said it was generally un derstood that the Rreview froin which he quoted, spoke the sen timents of the Church. The truth was, that the doctrine laid down in the Review was adopted in practice by the University. The doctrine was, that by an oath, the person bound himself to God, not to man. With respect to the alterations made in the statutes, he thought that getting rid of the oath was a great advantage, but the subscription, as now insisted upon, was more objectionable than it was before, because persons even under the age of twelve were called upon to subscibe, and that as to matter of faith, not merely as to matter of opinion or reason. . _ _ " Fourthly,---Because all experience bath shown that the Civil List arrangement is only held binding upon one of the parties to it—namely, the country—being always departed from as often as it is found inconvenient for the Crown, and uni formly employed to preclude all revision of its principles or de tails, as often as these are found disadvantageous for the country. " Fifthly,—Because the last time that a Civil List was settled upon a 'loyal life of long probable duration, to wit, in 1760, before nine years had elapsed Parliament was called upon to r2consider the arrangement, and about half a million was paid to defray the arrears of the Royal establishment—and in eight years more above six hundred thousand pounds were again required to supply a like deficiency, not to mention various other similar applications during the remainder of the same reign ; All of which clearly shows that what is constantly treated as a compact between Prince and People, when the interests of the latter are concerned, is as invariably deemed to impose no obligation whatever upon the former party when his interest requires the compact to be disregarded. " Sixthly,.—Because that which experience has proved to have been unwise and improvident nearly eighty years ago ought to be still more jealously regarded at the present day by those whom the Constitution has appointed to be as well the guardians of the people as the councillors of the prince ; for the public debt has, during that long interval of time, been increased nearly tenfold—the peace establishment been more than quadrupled—and the sums raised from the country are above five times as large, and weigh upon its industry and re sources with a pressure against which even its increased popu lation, capital, and skill, can with the 'greatest difficulty main tain a struggle. The motion was withdrawn, and some Colonial Returnshav ing been laid on the titble, their Lorthhips adjourned at Ten Minutes to Nine. Yesterday Mr. Hodgson had the honour of submit ting to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, at Bucking ham Palace, Mr. Parris' Portrait of her Most Gracious Ma jesty, of which her Royal Highness was pleased to express the highest approval. We are happy to hear that some of our largest American houses have, within the last few days, given out or ders to the manufacturers to a considerable extent; and it is confidently anticipated that the spring trade with the United States will be a brisk one. —Birmingham Advertiser. NOTES ILLUSTRATIVE OF TIIE TIMES OF GEORGE IV.-Queen Caroline is, we hear, represented in these pages in truer portraiture than she has ever yet been. Be sides the private history of her late Majesty, these memoirs, we are told, will contain remarks on many of the leading cha racters of the times, bringing hidden things to light which will excite great surprise. SPAIN AND THE BRITISH LEGlON.—Colonel Evans has announced his intention of bringing forward the subject of Spain immediately after the recess. As the affairs of the Peninsula must form a subject of deep discussion to Parliament, Members of all political parth s would do well to peruse the memoirs and correspondence of Colonel Char:es Shaw, lately published, is which they will find an impartial account of the true state and working of parties there. The many sugges tions' b thrown out f or the benefit of the soldier and the good of the service are also w e ll worth of consideration ; indeed, no one can rise from th e perusal of the work without enterini, into the soldier-like, chi va l rous, and even romantic f ee li ngs o f the gallant anthor a ( Seotchman), who we observe, speaks strongly to the high character of his Irish brethren in arms. Much may be exiiected from the forthcoming " Memoir of the Court and Times of Louis the Fourteenth," not only on account of the known talent of the writer (Mr. James, the author of " Darnley," " Richelieu." &c. ), but from the great interest inher nt in the subject. The reign of " Louis le Grande" was one of dazzlinc , brilliancy. What gorgeous scenes in the salons of Versailles —wh a t fantastic fetes in the gardens—what rivalry of wit and emulation of beauty—what intrigues and revelries may we not expect to be disclosed in pages devoted to the illustration t i the proudest and gayest era in the history of France. " Seve;itilly,—Because the course, obviously recommended by every rational view of the subject, would have been to pass the Bill for a limited number of years, when the whole matter might again have come under the consideration of Parlia ment ; and this would not have been so great a departure from ancient usage as has been made upon former occasions, and even in the reign. of Charles 11., when the devotion of all men to the throne, and the dread of change, appeared to have reached their greatest height. 6' Eighthly,—Because the unexampled haste with which this measure has been carried through both Houses has pre vented the information from being in possession of either, which it was absolutely necessary to hare before it could be at all known what the revenue of the Crown will be after the grant is made. In particular we are entirely ignorant of the sums actually derived from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and only are aware that those revenues are very considerable; that they are managed at a heavy cost; and that as the law now stands, and as this Bill leaves it, the larger portion of them may be anticipated at any time, by way of fine, to the immediate profit of the reigning Sovereign, and the impoverishment of the future heir-apparent, for whose support they are believed to have been given, but whose ex penses being always defrayed in by far the greater proportion by the country, the revenues in question ought to be placed under the management of responsible functionaries, and ad ministered for the public benefit. " Ninthly,—Because the like haste has been shown in passing this Bill's provision, regarding pensions, before the Committee now engaged in considering that subject has made any report ; and when it is impoQsible to foretell how far its inquiries may bear upon the policy of the proposed arrange ment. " Tenthly,—Because ample time might have been afforded for considering the whole of this important measure, and for passing it into a law, with all the requisite information before us, in such a mature form and at such an early period, as might have testified the respect justly due to the Sovereign and satisfied the duty we owe to the people, if the Parliament had been assembled at such a period as the other interests of the empire seemed plainly to require; more especially if, as early as it has been summone d i n p as t times when th e wor k o f war was in hand, and required supplies of men and money, it had now been called together fur the more blessed labours of peace and conciliation, to retrace the steps of oppressive injustice, to save the remote dominions of the Queen from the horrors of civil warfare, and to spare the mother country the hard ne cessity of bearing a part in such a conflLt. (Signed) " BROUGHAM." Lord Hillsborough and his newly married Countess, daughter of the Gallant Viscount Combermcre, will occupy during the season the spacious mansion in Hanover-square formerly in the occupation of Sir George and Miss Talbot. The Duke and Duchess of Sutherland, the Mar quis of Stafford, and the infant Ladies Leveson Gower, left Stafford House yesterday, at three P. M., to pass the recess at Oatlands, 'tear Wqbridg,e. CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.) EX PARTE MARSHALL. This case came before ilieCO;;Jtii:npetition of two gen tlemen, who were the executors of a person who perished at sea, two or three years ago. That individual by his will gave certain legacies to charities at Mexico, upon the death of two persons. Those individuals were now living, but a proposi tion having been made to enable those charities to receive the gifts before their death, and the charities being much in want of assistance, the present petition was for the purpose of hav ing a reference to the Master, to inquire whether it would be proper for the executors to accede to the proposal. His LOLDSIIIP ordered the reference as prayed. RESLOP V. MEDCALFE. The arguments in th;s part-heard case were resumed, bu had not concluded when our reporter left. VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY. His Honour the Vice-Chancellor did not attend his Cour to day, having been subpoenaed as a witness in the trial of " Duncombe v. Daniel," in the Court of Queen's Bench. QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY). (Before Lord DENMAN, and a Special Jury.) LIEEL—DUNCOMBE V. DANIELS. This was an action for libel. The declaration charged the defendant with publishing two libels, to which he pleaded_lat, not guilty; 2d, a justification of the first libel; and, 3dly, a justification of the second libel. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL stated the case. He said that it was almost unnecessary for him to state what was so generally known, that Mr. Duncombe, the plaintiff in this case was a gentleman of high rank and respectability. He was the eldest son of a gentleman of ancient family and large fortune in the county of York, and had sat in Parliament for :many years, first, he believed, for the borough of Hertford, and now for the borough of Finsbury. It was with the greatest reluctance that Mr. Duncombe felt himself compelled to appear before them in the character of a plaintiff; but he had no alternative, for if the charges which had been brought against him were true, be would no longer be fit to hold the high trust which bad been placed in his hands, or to occupy the station he did, in society. The jury might very well conceive that the charges of which Mr. Duncombe complained had no reference whatever to his political principles or public conduct. These were fair sub jects of animadversion and condemnation to those who might differ with him in opinion ; but when he was followed into pri- ' vote life, and charges affecting his honour as a gentleman, such as the commission of the grossest frauds—in short, being a swindler—were brought against him, be felt bound to ap peal to the laws of his country for redress. He was sorry to inform them that the defendant in this record was a member of the profession to which he (the Attorney-General) had the honour to belong ; and knowing that, he stated, unfeignedly, that he was much surprised at the manner in which these charges were brought forward, and he was still more asto nished at the manner in which it was attempted to defend them. He must say, that the conduct of Mr. Daniels in this transaction was not such as might be expected from the station which he held in society, and still less from any man of good feeling. The rank of Mr. Daniels rendered it the more necessary that Mr. Duncombe should appeal to a jury, for it was not an anonymous slander which he had ut tered against him—he had thought pi oper to enter the field of publication, and to give to the charges whatever weight his name and rank might carry with them. He (the Learned Gentleman) thought that the most expedient course he could adopt, was to state shortly to the jury the real truth of the charges which had been brought against his client. The first libel accused Mr. Duncombe of having by false documents knowingly imposed on the Vice-Chancellor of England, and fraudulently obtained an injunction for the purpose of defeating the claims of a just creditor. In the second, he was charged with having fraudulently obtained money from, aid swindled his private friends. They should now hear the truth with respect to these allegations. In the year 1834, a person named Bentley held a bill for 9003, on which Mr. Due- . combe was liable. Mr. Duncombe entered into an arrange ment with him, by which it was agreed that he was to hand over to Bentley a bill of exchange for 1,000/., of which Mr. Duncombe was the drawer, and that Bentley was immediately to return the 9001. bill. Bentley received the 1,0001. bill, and not only did not return the other bill, but, on' being ap plied to for it, refused to give it up, and subsequently en dorsed it to a person named Surr. The 1,0001. bill became due in November, 1834, and having been dishonoured by the acceptors, Mr. Duncombe became liable. An action was brought against him, and believing Surr to be the bona f ide holder of the bill for the full amount, he consented that judg ment should be taken against him by Surr for the 1,0001. Bentley shortly after left the country and became, a bankrupt, and it was not until about the beginning of July last that he knew the real nature of the tran sac ti o n which had taken place between him and Surr. He then learned that Bentley had Landed the 1,000/. bill to Surr, not for the full value, but as an indemnity for two bills of exchange which he had accepted for the accommodation of Bentley. Surr having become a bankrupt, and the bills of exchange having been dishonoured, Mr. Duncombe learned that the total amount for which the indemnity had been given by Bentley was not more than 3501. Surr was not, therefore, the holder of the 1,0001. bill for its full value, and beyond the 3501., the amount of the two bills of exchange for which the indemnity had been given he had no further claim upon Mr. DuncOmbe. Mr. Duncombe, as soon as he came to a knowledge of these facts, thought that by appealing to the Court of Common Law in which the action was com menced, that he would get the proceedings stayed in paying the three hundred and fifty pounds fur which alone be was liable. He never thought of defeating Surr's claim on the bill for the three hundred and fifty pounds, but he thought that by applying to the Court, and paying the three hundred and fifty pounds, satisfaction might be entered on the record. On consideration, however, he found that a Court of Common Law only looked to the judgment, and after judgment could give no equitable remedy, and that his proper course would be to apply to a Court of Equity. He accordingly filed a bill in Chancery on the lath of July last, stating these facts, and praying the Court to stay judgment. On the same day (the 18th of July)—he begged of them to bear the date in mind„for it was most material—Mr. Duncombe made an affidavit, which he would take the liberty of reading to the Court. (The Learned Gentleman here read the affidavit, which was a mere recapitulation of the facts already stated.) The bill in Chan cery praying for the injunction contained some facts, which were not mentioned in the affidavit, and which were inserted on the suggestion of Counsel. Amongst other things that were stated was this, that Surr being requested to desist from the action, he alleged that he had given full value for the bill. That was not the ground oa which the injunction was prayed. The fact was, that the injunction was prayed for on the ground, that Surr had no lien oa the 1,0001. Bill, nor any equitable judgment beyond the sum of 310/. ; that sum being paid, he was fully satisfied. The Bill of 1,0001. as he had be fore observed, had been improperly held over by Bentley, and Surr had only a claim for 350/. —when that was paide'his claim was at an end. A brief was prepared on the 18th July, which ho now held in his band, and which would be submitted to the jury. It consisted of a faithful copy of: the bill in Chancery, aid a faithful copy of the affidavit. That brief was left on the evening of the 18th July, at the Chambers of Mr. Knight Bruce, with instructions for him, at the rising of the Court on the following day, to move his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, for an injunction on bringing into Court the sum of 350/. The affidavit having been sworn on the 18th, on the 19th instruc tions were given by Mr. Duncombe's Solicitor, that the usual course should be pursued, which, where it was material to have an office copy of the affidavit, ought to have' been furnished. The office copy was made by the So licitor himself, and not in the office. For that reason the affidavit was filed at the sitting of the Court on the 19th, but it was retained for the purpose of obtaining an office copy, and then being filed in the regular course of such proceedings. The copy was made, and the affidavit actually filed, a few minutes after one o'clock; and if things had proceeded in the usual course, the affidavit would have been filed before Mr. Knight Bruce had made his application ; but it so happened that that was her Majesty's first levee, and Mr. Knight Bruce being one of her Majesty's Counsel, wished to attend, and left the Court early, and between twelve and one o'clock he made his application to the Vice-Chancellor. He stated the nature of the application, but out of delicacy would not mention the names of the parties, but handed up the brief which he (the Attorney-General) now held in his hand, folded down to the place where the affidavit was set out. His Honour perused it, and at once granted the injunction on paying into Court the sum of 350/. That sum was paid on the same day, and nothing more took place on the subject until Friday, the 21st. On that day Mr. Jacob, of the Chancery bar, appeared before his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, to move that the injunction be dissolved. He contended that the affidavit was not suffi cient ; and a discussion arose as to whether, upon the affidavit so stated, Mr. Duncombe was entitled to the injunction or not. In the course of that discussion an objection was made which proved fatal altogother to the application, and it was this—that at the time Mr. Knight Bruce had moved for the injunction the affidavit had not been filed. The gentlemen of the Jury would please to observe that there was a rule in the Court of Chancery which, in the laxity of practice, was sometimes departed from, but which, when urged, was considered inflexible, namely, that no motion for an injunction could be made until the affidavit had been filed. The : Court was soon satisfied, by the officer, that the affidavit had not been filed for some minutes after the order for the injunction had been obtained; and his Honour at once stated that it was unnecessary to continue the discus sion—that the objection was fatal, and discharged the order for the injunction with costs, on that ground, and that alone. The following day, the whole of the money that could be claimed, namely, 1,000/., was paid into Court for Mr. Surr's use. Now, if these were the facts, what blame could possibly attach to Mr. Duncombe ? He had been advised that he had an equitable claim to relief beyond the sum of 3501. He made an affidavit, all the facts of which were strictly true, and about which no imputation has ever been made to the contrary. He knew nothing of the time when the motion was made—he knew nothing; of the time when the affidavit was filed—nor did he know anything of the rules and I rartices of the Court. All that he left to his legal adviser ; and a hen the injunction was dissolved, then the full amount of LOON. was paid. He would now proceed to state to them the facts of the other case, and of the ether charge against Mr. Duncombe—and of which, they would find, he was equally innocent. It happened that in the month of February or March, 1837, he bad occa sion to borrow a small sum of money. He applied for the ac 'commodation, not to any personal friend, but to a gentleman named Keely, who was in the habit of advancing money upon certain terms. Keely agreed to lend him 180/., from that day until the Ist of April following, upon receiving a douceur of 20/. Accordingly, Duncombe gave his cheek to Keely, payable the Ist April 1837, for 2001. Now, where money was lent on such terms, the day of payment was seldom very scrupulously observed, and the lender was not much surprised to find application made for a little further indul gence, on such terms as he might prescribe: When the 30th of March arrived, Mr. Duncombe did wish to have. seine_ farther accommodation. He had a sum of 2001. at, his l ititsk-, mand, but there was a creditor of his named King, who ilea -- e-ry pressing, and he asked Keely to allow the sum of 2001. to stand over for a few days, explaining to him that early in Apr . l he expect!d to receive a sum of 500/. that was due him, and then he would pay Keely. After some negociation Kcely consented to that, and by that means Mr. Duncombe was enabled to pay his creditor the sum of 200/. which he owed him. On the Kith May an arrangement was come to between Mr. Duncombe and Mr. Keely entirely to the satisfaction of the latter, and on that day Mr. Duncombe paid Keely a sum of .£lOO, . and then Keely reminded him that besides the remaining 1001., he had a demand of 401. upon a former transaction against Mr. Duncombe, which made the sum of 1401., and that on receiving the sum of 101. by way of bonus, he would be contented to remain without payment until the month of August following. Mr. Dun combs agreed to these terms, and on that day gave Kcely a check for 1501., which check was paid before it became due. So that Keely instead of being defrauded of one single shil ling, received back the whole of the money he had advanced with 201. for the first accommodation, and 101. for the second. He would ask the jury what pretence there was for saying, as had been stated, that Keely was the persor.al friend of Mr. Duncombe, and that Duncombe had swindled him out of a suns of 2001.? They would hear how these most innocent facts he had just detailed had been mixed up with the most malignant falsehood, and by which charges were brought against Mr. Duncombe, which, if true, would render him unfit to appear in decent society. The Jury were aware that Parliament had dissolved about the 18th July, and Mr. Duncombe having re presented the Borough of Finsbury in Parliament was again a candidate for that distinction. He was engaged in a canvass daily at his Committee-rooms—he had attended a public dinner at Higbbury Tavern on the 20th July, and was living at his chambers in the Albany. Monday, the 14th day of July was the day appointed for the nomination of candidates, and Mr. Duncombe was about to set out for the hustings that he might be again put in nomination for the Borough of Finsbury, when a letter was put into his hands signed " W. S. S. Daniels" in the shape of a manuscript letter. That letter was printed and published on the same morning in the Morning Post, and thousands and thousands of copies of it had been circulated and perused before Mr. Duncombe had the slightest notion that such a letter was in existence. So that a letter which was intended for private information and explanation, was first printed in the newspapers, and then a manuscript copy was addiessed to the party himself. The whole of that letter would be read for them by the officer of the Court, but he ( Attorney-General) would now call their attention to some of the passages it contained, The Learned Gentleman then proceed-A to read an extract from the letter which purported to be in reply to a circular addressed by Mr. Duncombe to the electo's of Finsbury, and the writer went on to allude to cer tain acts alleged to have been committed by Mr. Duncombe, which appeared to the writer to be destructive of his (Mr. D.'s) character for simple truth and common honesty. The letter then referred to the proceedings before the Vice-Chancellor, . . . in which it was alleged that he had obtained an injunction on an ex-parte statement, but when the creditor had an opportu nity of being heard, the alleged charge of fraud, which, it was stated, had been distinctly sworn to by Mr. Duncombe, and which had rendered him liable to the consequences of perjury, was disproved, and it was further ascertained that the affidavit had not been sworn at all—that a petition document had been submitted to the Vice-Chancellor, who therupon, with great indignation, dissolved the injunction, restoring the creditor to his just rights, and condemning Mr. Duncombe to all the costs of the proceedings. Now he (the Att,rney-General) begged to call the attention of the Jury to that statement of Mr. Daniels. It alleged that Mr. Dun combe had most fraudulently handed up a false copy of an affidavit, although he would not swear to it, in order to escape the penalty of perjury; and that, upon a comparison of the fabricated copy with the genuine original, the fraud was de- tected, and on that ground the Vice-Chancellor had dissolved the injunction. If that statement were true, nothing more scandalous or abominable could be attempted in a court of justice—and that that should have been done to impose on the judge, and defraud on the just creditor. It would be for them to judge how far these statements were true, from the facts he (the Attorney-General) had stated, and which he was pre pared to prove. The letter then proceeded to ask Mr, Dun combe to explain satisfactorily that attempt to imposo on one of the highest legal tribunals of the country, and the partially successful fraud on a bone fide creditor, which appeared to the writer to be unbecoming the character of a faithful representative of the people. Again, they would see the charge of fraud was repeated, and it was alleged that there was a fabricated copy of an affidavit to make a charge which could not be supported. He (the Attorney-General) had already read the grounds on which Mr. Duncombe thought he was intitled to the interference of the Court, and he would now come to the second charge of defrauding Mr. Keely. The writer then went on to state that he had the previous evening attended a meeting of Mr. Perceval's (the Conserva tive candidate) friends at Stoke Newington, when an elector closely connected with the Dissenters, mentioned publicly that he (Mr. Duncombe) in the latter end of March applied to a friend to cash a check on his father's bankers for 2001., pro mising that it should be paid on the Ist of April. That his friend cashed the check, and on the 31st of March he intimated to him that his father's account was very low, and that it would be an accommdoation to him if he did not present the check until the 4th of April. That ore' the Ist of April he caused another check for 2001. to be presented, and on the 4th, when his friend presented his, it was dishonoured, and he still remained a creditor of Mr. Duncombe. Now the statement which Mr. Daniels adopted, and vouched for, clearly represented Mr. Duncombe as having defrauded his friend of 2001., and to leave no doubt on the mind that sueh was the conclusion, the writer stated further that the man who thus cheated his creditor of his just demand, and endeavoured by falsehood to obtain the assistance of a Court of Justice, was totally unworthy to represent the indus trious, honest, and independent electors of Finsbury ; and that he (the writer) would endeavour, by the publication of that letter in the Times, Chronicle, Post, and Herald, to give his sentiments all the publicity he possibly could. That was the shallow pretext on which the character of an honest man was calumniated ; and if he wished to have any explanation given he should have called upon Mr. Duncombe, stated what his doubts and impressions were, and have obtained at once an explanation. Instead of that he publishes his calumnies in the Newspapers, and then he sent the manuscript letter to the object of these calumnies. Mr. Duncombe, as he had before. stated, was about to set out for the hustings when he received that letter, and when he arrived he saw a placard, which he noticed for the first time,. on which was inscribed " Where's Tommy Duncombe ?" In his usual good-humoured way Mr. Duncombe replied, " Why, here he is." Mr. Duncombe subsequently noticed the letter of Mr. Daniels, and Mr. Da niels did not venture to say one word of the false and fabri cated affidavit; but he said that he bad a Mr. Wilkinson there who could state the particulars of the other charge about Mr. Keely. Mr. Duncombe asked where was Mr. Keely—let him be brought forward. The answer of Mr. Daniels was " No; here is Mr. Wilkinson." Upon which Mr. Duncombe: did what any honourable man would have done under the cln. cumstances—he gave the charge a flat and peremptory denial, and said that Daniels was a liar and a slanderer. If Mr. Keely had been there the matter would have been at once de cided—but that was not a time before 20,000 eager electors to enter into accounts and compare a bill in Chancery with affidavits, and to examine checks, bills of exchange, and pro missory notes. The thing was impossible—Daniels knew well it was impossible, and his object merely was to stab the character of Mr. Duncombe, who did what a man of honour would htive done in such circumstances, by repelling the charge with scorn and indignation. The nomination pro ceeded. Mr. Perceval was proposed on the one side, and Mr. Duncombe and Mr. Wakley on the other. So much for the first letter which was the subject of the present action. Had Mr. Daniels then retracted and apologized for the state meets he had made, no proceedings would have been taken. against him by Mr. Duncombe. On the evening of Monday, Mr. Daniels sat down and penned a letter to Mr. Duncombe—he did not send a manuscript copy to that gentleman, but publishes it in the newspapers, so that on Tuesday morning it would be read by the population of the metropolis ; and in a short time by the inhabitants of the em pire. The whole of that letter would be read by the clerk—in it Mr. Daniel claimed a right to consider Mr. Duncombe as guilty of the charges which had been made against him before the electors, as he had not disproved them, and saidl that he (Mr. Daniels) should treat the terms which Mr. Dtne combe had applied to him on the hustings as "the fra•otie ravings of a convicted swindler, and a baffled bully." Mr. Daniels had refused to meet Mr. Duncombe, when a friend of that gentleman applied to him on, the hustings for that pur pose. And now, what could Mr. Duncombe do ? Was he not bound to appear in a court of justice, if he would not for ever have a stigma attach to his character. Mr. Duncombe might have proceeded criminally against Mr. Daniels, and thereby prevented him from entering into the truth of his libels. But Mr. Duncombe disdained that mode of pro ceeding, and he brough t a civil action against Mr. Daniels, thus daring him to prove the charges which he had made, for by that mode of proceeding the law permitted the truth of the charge to be pleaded 'and proved as a justification. The learned Attorney-General then referred to the pleas of the de fendant The first was that of " Not Guilty," thereby not of course denying that he had written the letters, nor (consi dering who were his counsel) denying that they constituted a libel, or that they were confidential communications. This plea might therefore be well dismissed from consideration. Then there was the plea of justification, to which he (the At torney-General) earnestly begged to call the attention of the Covet. The libel respecting the proceedings in the Court of Chancery, imputed to Mr. Duncombe that he had a false affi davit handed up to the Vice-Chancellor. The defendant ate first attempted to justify that allegation; but by an amend ment he had changed his ground (a practice that was now, tlhe Attorney-General observed, too prevalent in that Court), and now merely rested on a verbal representation that the eAdavit_ supported not all the allegations of the bill, and it was Stir., prising that Daniels, himself a member of the professw.n to which lie (the Attorney-General) belonged, should have cast an im putation upon Mr. Knight B r uce—one of the h'.ightest orna ments of the Ch a n cer y B ar , and of unimpeacht!nle honour and integrity—for in an application for an injuncticai, which must be suni orted by affidavit, that affidavit did rest enter into all the allegations of the bill ; and whether thu injunction was granted or refused did not depend upon what, was stated in the bill, but neon what was contained in the affidavit—and a gen tleman, of much less experience than Mr. Knight Bruce, would look to the affidavit and, upon his hono ur an d responsi bility, state to the Court what the affidavit did really contain. And, in this case, the affidavit handed up to the Vice t Chancellor by Mr. Knight Bruce, would 'be producyd in Court, exactly in the 85111? state as when his Honour received. S Ty Ar. _~ ~ t`'~~ ~;IM CIVIL LIST AND ROYAL FAMILY EXPENDITURE. Erroneous reports having been given of the figures used by Mr. Hume in his speeches on the Civil List Bill, and on the comparison of the expenses of the Royal Family and Civil List in the last year of Eine William I V., and what it will be in the first year of Queen Victoria, we have procured the Ac counts referred to. First, a comparison of the two branches of Tradesmen's Bills and of Salaries only, in ments of the Civil List, viz.:.— the Civil the four List o depart•