The Sun. — London, England, 1837-05-31 00:00:00

Mr. P. THOMSON said that as there was no ques tion before the House, he could only say that if the Hon. Member foe Middlesex would bring forward some plan, er suggest a plan, he (Mr. Thomson) would be prepared to show that thi s case h a d not hi ng w h atever to do with that which had been brought before the House last year, and whkh bad been alluded to in the course of the evening. If the Hon. Member would make a motion on the subject, he (14e. Thomson) would be prepared to meet it. Mr. R. WASON wished the Right lion. Gentleman would adopt some mode which should meet with the sanc tion of the whole House. Mr. P. THOMSON said that a motion had been made for referring these questions to the Committee which sat for the revision of the Standing Orders- fie thought, however, that it would be extremely unadvisable to impose fresh labours on that Committee. He could give no pledge whatever on the subject. CHURCH-RATES. Mr. D. W. HARVEY wished to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Hom e Department what was the precise form of the motion which he intended to submit to the House on Thursday next respecting Church-rates ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would postpone his motion to Thursday s.e'nnight. The words of the motion were quite ready, but he would consider them further before he put the motion on paper. Mr. HARVAY said that when the Noble Lord brought forward his motion he would move, by way of amendment, ‘• That it is the opinion of the House that the collection of Church -rates do altogether cease from a particular day, to be deternaLiecl by law." LEGION IN SPAIN. Mr. P. BORTH WICK wished to put a question to the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whom he saw in hi; place. He wished to ascertain whether the Noble Lord had received any official information, either in confir mation or in contradiction, of the reported massacre of several defenceless prisoners in the fortress of lrun, said to have been committed by. the British Legion, under the command of General Evans--(Loud cries of " Oh, oh !")—he begged to add, contrary to General Evans's orders, and his anxious and praiseworty exertions ? Lord PALMERSTON said that he was sure it must lo a satisfaction to the Hon. Gentleman to hear that the report had not the slightest foundation.--(Loud cheers.) On the contrary, the troops of the Legion, though they knew that at the previous capture of Irun five or six of their countrymen, who unfortunately fell into the hands of the C.irlists, had been shot, the men of the Legion, ne ver.heless, showed the most exemplary and praiseworthy forbearance ; and after the confusion of the first assault all the prisoners were trated with that courtesy and kind ness which had always characterised British soldiers.— ( Loud cheers.) Mr. BORTHWICK said that the information was so far satisfactory.—(Loud cries of " order, order," and " spoke.") He rose to give a notice. He was satisfied with the information he had received in the first place ; and in the next he begged to give notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing his (Mr. Borthwick's) Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Maclean) had given notice of a motion for the repeal of the Four-and a-Half per Cent. duties—(Loud laughter)—in as far as the island of Barbadoes was concerned, he (Mr. Borth wick) would move, on the bringing up of the Budget, the repeal of those duties as far as concerned the Leeward Is lands alto.4ether. Mr. MACKINNON begged to say that he had given precisely the same notice a quarter of an hour ago. GLASGOW ELECTION. —BREACH OF PRIVILEGE On the mot i on of Sir J. GRAHAM, the Order of the Day was read, by which the messenger of the Crown-office and the Deputy Postmaster -General were ordered to attend at the Bar of the House, to be examined on the subject of the Glasgow Writ of Election. The parties having appeared at the bar, The SPEAKER proceeded to examine the first in the following terms. What is your name?—William Sparrow. What situation do you fill ?—I am the Deputy Messenger of the Great Seal. Sir J. GRAHAM then proceeded to examine the wit ness as follows :—Do you recollect the 17th of May last? ---i do. Were you on that day sent with a writ from the Crown office ?—I was. By whom were you sent ?—By the Clerk of the Crown. office. where were you sent ?—To the Lord Chancellor's, to get the writ sealed. What hour did you leave the Crown-office at ?—At six o'clock, or five minute's after. Where did you go from the Crown-office ?—To the Lord Chancellor's private residence. Did you find the Lord Chancellor there ?—No. From the information you received where did you then go ?—To Wimbledon ? To whom did you there deliver the writ ?—To the foot man. What hour was it then ?—.lt was five minutes past seven o'clock. How long were you detained there ?—lt was a quarter past seven when I left the Lord Chancellor's house. Did the same person return to you the writ to whom you delivered it 7—No; it was a person who sealed it that returned it ? Were you present when the writ was sealed ?—Yes. Was it done in the presence of the Lord Chancellor ?-- No, Who gave you the writ before you left the house ? The sealer. Were there any directions given with it 2—No direc tions were given. Had directions been previously given at the Crown of fice ?—The direction was, that when a writ was delivered to me, it was my business to get it sealed and deliver it at the Post-offic e , \Vas that all the instruction you had ?—Yes. Was any special instruction given ?—No. The writ was delivered sealed to you at a quarter past seven—what did you then do ?—I went direct to the Post office as fast as I could. What time did you arrive there ?—At twenty minutes past eight o'clock. Were the mails gone?—They were . Al! of them ?—I believe so. Upon your arrival at the Post-office for whom did you inquire ?—For the clerk in waiting. Had you no other instruction of any kind ? I had no instructions at all. Had you instructions providing for the mails having gone ?—Not any. Did you act under general instructions, without any special direction ?—Quite so? Upon your arrival at the Post office for whom did you Inquire ?—For the clerk in waiting. What is his name ?—John Drew. Were you shown up to him directly?—l was. When you came into the room what did you do ?---I gave him the writ. Did he give you a receipt ?—Yes. Have you got the receipt ?—Yes. The receipt was handed in to the cleric of the House and read ; it was as fr;dows 1h of May, 1, 20 mnutes afr 8. " Received ' from the Deputy 837 Messeng minutes after 8. Received from the I)eputy Messenger of the Great Seal a writ, addressed to the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, for the election. of a burgess for the city of Glasgow. " JOHN DREW." The witness was then ordered to withdraw. The next witness was then called, and examined by the SPEAKER as follows : What is your name ?—John Drew. How are you employed ?—ln the Post-office. What situation do you hold ?—I am a clerk. Sir J. GRAHAM—Arc you the deputy appointed by the Postmaster- General to receive writs ?—On certain nights I am. What is the nature or the appointment—is it in writ ing ?—I wait there one night in the week. Are you appointed by the Postmaster-General to receive writs ?—I am. Is the appointment for life ?—lt is only part of my duty. The SPEAKER—Is your appointment in writing ?—lt is not expressly in that way. Sir J. GRAHAM—Are you the officer appointed in all eases to receive writs ?—No. Is there such an appointment, or does it vary ?—There is no special appointment to receive writs. Do you remember the 17th of May last?—Yes, very vrell. Were there any special directions given with regard to the receipt of the writ that day ?—There was a note writ ten by Mr. Stanley to Colonel M o b er ly, w hi c h , i n the abse nce o f Colonel Moberly, I opened. Have you got that note ?—No. Who has ?—I gave it to Colonel Moberly. When ?—Thc. , morning after the writ was sent off, on Thursday. What was the substance of that note, do you recollect ? Mr. O'CONNELL—Have you a copy of it ?—No.— (Cries of " order," and cheers.) Si. J. GRAHAM—Can you state the substance of the note ?—lt said that a writ was to be received that. evening, and that if it were not received before the Glas gow mail bad started, to forward it by express, if prac ticable. Is your memory so correct as to say these were the pre cisewords ?—Yes, I think so. Was there anything else There was something else, but it was of no importance. Did it relate to the subject of sending the writ ?—Yes. Will you state what that addition was ? Sir J._ WROTTESLEY made some observations, and the witness was ordered to withdraw, Mr. E. J. STANLEY rose and said that he was most anxious that the letter should be produced.—(Cheers.) Sir J. WROTTESLEY said that he bzo. mo'ved that the witness be ordered to withrio-at- ; i,s, after stating that there was a document it was improper for the House to hear evidena as t o its contents.—(Hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM said that the witness had stated that the document was not in his authotity anA that he had delivered. it up ti, a thiti he thought, therefor% that thett could 1 - tb objection to the witness stating the ''Onteilki! th the House. He admitted that the Honour Ale Baronet was correct as to the strict rade, bet the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. stanitY) bmA, s he was anxious that the document sitet4d bO before the House. It the liencktable Getttteiltan said he would produce the let ter, of' courst ho would not put the question to the witness about it. Was he to understand that the letter would he produced. Mr. E. J. STANLIV said I\ Was perfectly ready-, as soon ZIP tin Right ilen. ilaronet had concluded ; to state all he knew, every , e!irtninstauce in his knoviltdge, about the matter. He would also read the letter he had written to Col. Maberly.—(Cheerz.) Sir J. GRA LtAisl said that as far as ho, wds Zoncerned it was not tti intention on that da,F t tnake any motion on this 'subject.—(Cries of " Oh.") Ail he sought wag 62 di cit the facts.—(chters from the Opposition.) fie had stated on a former evening, on making the motion, that he thought there were some facts which required explanation. They must see the necessity for an explanation before they pro nounced their opinion, and before he could call upon the House to pronounce an opinion it was absolutely necessary that the facts should be known, and some grounds shown for it. lie therefore submitted that the most satisfactory course would be for the Hon. Gentleman at once to produce the later. The Hon. Baronet the Member for Stafford shire (Sir J. Wrottesley) thought that the course of the examination which he was pursuing was incorrect, but if the House wished he was perfectly willing to proceed. Was he to understand that the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanley) had given an assurance that the letter would be produced ? Mr. ROEBUCK said it was quite clear that all the facts were out, except the letter. They bad one witness who gave the history of the writ, of its going and coming from the Lord Chancellor ; they had it traced to the Post offiee ; they had another witness who told them that he received the writ, and that an express was sent.—(No, no.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that that was the very point he wanted to get at, namely, that an express had been dispatched.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. ROEBUCK said, they certainly had not the fact of the express having been sent. If they had that they would then have all the facts before them, except the letter. —(A cry of " How do you know ?") The witness having been recalled, the examination was resumed by Sir JAMES GRAHAM-,--Look at that paper (a paper was handed to the witness) ; is it your handwriting 2—Yes. Are you sure that the hour was actually stated on that paper at which the writ was put into your hand ?—lt is exact to a minute. That is, half-past eight on the evening of Wednesday ? —Yes. Had the Glasgow mail left ?—Yes ; - it had left half an hour before. Had the other mails left ?—I believe so. Are you certain that the Glasgow mail had left before you signed the receipt ?—Yes, I am quite sure. In consequence of the letter from Mr. Stanley, and the receipt of the writ, what did you do ?—I sent the writ by express. Into whose hands did you entrust it ?—To a messenger of the Post-office. What is his name ?—I do not know his name. Are you sure that he is a Post-office messenger ?—Yes, I know him very well by sight. Had you ever entrusted him on similar missions before ? —I do not know. What instructions did you give him ; were they written or verbal ?—Verbal. What were they ?—I told him to take the parcel in which the writ was enclosed to a place in Holborn from whence the horses started. Did you see the parcel ?—Yes. Was it open at the ends, with a cover ?—lt was rolled up, with a direction upon it. To whom was it directed ?—To the sheriff of the county of Lanark. Did you fold it up in another cover, and direct it ?—Yes. To whom ?—To the Post-master at Glasgow. What instructions did you give with respect to its con veyance ?—I directed that it should be taken by a messen ger on horseback to Barnet. And how was it to be conveyed thence was to go on all tke way by a horse express. Was that your order ?—That is the customary order, on such occasions. I believe the Post office is willing to undertake to for ward expresses for individuals who may wish t• do so ; but on such occasions, I believe, they require a lodgment of money, to defray the expenses. Is that the case ?—Yes. Without the lodgment of money for the expenses, Post•osce would refuse to forward such expresses ?—Yes In the present case, by whom was the money lodged ?- We got no money at all.--(A laugh.) Then, why did you depart from the accustomed prac• tice, and forward the express without having the money beforehand ?—Because expresses, on his Majesty's service, always go free.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.) In consequence of the letter from the Treasury which accompanied this parcel you considered it to be on his Ma jesty's service ?—Yes. And that was the reason why you, without requiring a deposit of money, sent it in the way described l--Yes. Election writs are always considered to be on the public service ?—(Ministerial cheers.) Have you on any former occasion sent election writs in this way ?—Nover by express.—(Opposition cheers.) If this is the first time that you have sent an election writ in this way, how do you account for your former an swer, that such writs are alw..ys sent on his Majesty's ser vice ?—(No answer from the witness.) Mr. ROEBUCK interposed ; but his voice was drowned amidst cries of " Order, order," in the midst of which the witness, at the desire of the Speaker, withdrew. The Hos. MEMBER then said that it was almost unne cessary for the witness to withdraw, as he only interposed for the purpose of having the answer to which the last question referred read by the short-hand writer from his notes.--(Hear, hear.) The shorthand-writer then read the answer as above given, that " election writs are always considered to be on the public service." Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he did not attach much importance to the distinction in the words used and those he quoted. If the House would refer to the former an swers of the witness they would see that he used the words "his Majesty's service" in the ssme sense as he had afterwards used the words " public service." Mr. ROEBUCK said the witness bad made a general observation in reference to the conveyance of parcels on his Majesty's service, but in connection i‘ith the subject of election writs the witness had used the words " public service." The witness was then recalled, and the question again put to him. - Mr. ROEBUCK objected to the witness answering the question until it was properly worded. The question was then again read in the following form : —" If this is the first time that you have sent writs of election in this way, how do you account for your former answer, that such writs are always considered to be on the public service ?" Answer—Because they are always in covers with " On his Majesty's service" printed on them. - 7 ( Laughter and Opposition cheers.) Then we are to understand that the writ was sent by you by express on his Majesty's service ?—Yes. How will the expense appear in the public accounts ? The witness hesitated in replying to this question, which lie did not appear to understand the drift of, and at the order of the Right Hon. Baronet it was struck out. Did you make any advance of money to the messenger ? r-No. How are expresses on his Majesty's service paid for, and by whom ?—By the Postmaster-General, I believe. Such payments, then, are deducted from the gross amount of the returns of the Post-office believe they are. And the expense of this express will form part of such deductions ?—I dare say it will. Are you aware whether this writ was actually forwarded to Glasgow by a horse express, or whether it was sent by any other mode of conveyance, as a chaise and four, for in stance ?—Expresses are always sent on horseback. Was that your order in this case ?—That is always un derstood to be the arrangement. Then you merely ordered this writ to be conveyed by ex press to Glasgow ?—I ordered it to be conveyed by express. You gave no other order than that it should be conveyed by express by a man and horse ?—No. If it happened that it was conveyed by a chaise and four, such a proceeding was inconsistent with the order you gave ? —I dare say it would do as well.—( A laugh.) For anything you know to the contrary, might it not have gone by a chaise and four ?—lt may have gone so. By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Did it ever, to your knowledge, happen before that a writ has been deli vered at the Past-office after the departure of the mails / Never when I have been on duty. Have they not been sometimes delivered in the evening between seven and eight, before the mails departed ? They have been delivered at different times of day. Was not the messenger entrusted with the charge of this parcel a person in the usual employ of the Post-office ? He was. 13y Sir J. GRAHAM—Did the periou to whom you gaiie the parcel go with it farther than Holborn? Did he there rive it up to another, or did he leave London with. it ?—He only went as far as Holborn with it. Tile person whom it was then entrusted to you know not ?—No, By Mr. P.01.:B aliy cailie to the Post tjt ee in the course would it not have been sent in the same manner you sent this ?—Yes. By Sir J. GRAHAM—If any o inidual l lVA ‘'.,:dme to you with the writ in oucoieil ant ;dined the money for the „ ,exnet.',•e e':'ipress,_and or d ere d y ou t o f orwar d i t 61as g ow by express, and that you had had no letter from the Treasure directing you to do AO, would i_ you have for war d e d i t b y express in the wn.y yak diP;;-:=No, certainly not: WARIAtV asked a tinestion i a *Oll as the reply to it., amidst the ennfinibti which reigned in the Houto., was 0,14 inaudible. By Mr. H. GRATTAN—Are you aware that the Holyhead mail stops at the Angel, at Islington ; till a iintit ter after eight ?—(Reply inaudible.) Would not yotir messenger front the Post-office OVer- Lace the Glasgow mail ?=--,That Wottld depend upon the time it started If the express messenger left the Post-office at half-past eight, might it not overtake the mail before it reached Glas gow?—(Reply did not reach us.) By Sir J. GRAHAM—Were not your orders that you should express this parcel the whole way to Glasgow? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that they would net stand upon technical objections to the course pur , sued by the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir J. GRAHAM—I have no technical knowledge.— (Hear, hear.) The question having been repeated to the witness, he re plied that the letter said that the writ should be expressed if it were practicable. By Sir J. GRAHAM—Did you give any order that if the express overtook the mail dshould be given into the custody of the guard?—No. Under the order which you gave, then, you have no doubt that it went by express the whole way P—No. Did you receive from the postmaster at Glasgow any re turn as to the time it was received ?—Yes ; the way-bill was returned by the next post. Is that way-bill in existence ?—Yes, I have it here. From that way-bill, does it appear that the writ was sent by horse express, or otherwise ?—lt does not say, as far as I can see, anything about a horse.—(The witness then read the way-bill, which was to the following effect ;—" You are hereby required to use the utmost diligence in the convey ance of this letter, and to require and demand of the post masters at the various stages through whose hands it passes a receipt stating the precise time when it was received by him ; and for this you shall answer at your peril ; and this way-bill is to be returned by the postmaster at the place where the letter is finally delivered, by the next post, in order to acquaint the authorities at the Post-office in what manner your riding has been performed.") From that way-bill, at what hour does it appear that this parcel was dispatched from London P—At 45 minutes past 8 p.m. When did it reach Glasgow ?—At 20 minutes past S in the evening of the 19th inst. At what time would the tnail which left London on Wednesday evening. in ordinary course arrive at Glasgow ? two in the afternoon of the 19th inst. Does it appear from that way-bill whether the express took the straight and ordinary road to Glasgow, or whether it went by Lanark ? Will you read the names of the last five stages to Glasgow ?—(Witness did so, from which it did not appear that the express went by the way of Lanark.) Were you, at the time you forwarded this express, aware of the existence of an Act of Parliament regulating the mode of transmitting writs for the election of Members of Parliament ?—Yes. Had you ever read that Act ?—Yes. Had you general instructions from the heads of the Post office to attend to such matters?—Yea. Did you, on the following morning, inform any of your superiors in the Post-office of what you had done ?—Yes, I informed Colonel Maberly. Did he approve of what you had done ? No. He knew it was contrary to the Act of Parliament. What did he say to you when you informed him of the circumstance ? The witness was proceeding to answer the question, when The ATTORNEY-GENERAL interposed, and the witness was ordered to withdraw. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he apprehended that the observations of Colonel Maberlev could throw no light upon this subject. Colonel Maberley's opinion could go for nothing in this House. It was for the House to form its own opinion whether the Act of Parliament had been violated in the present case, and whether it had been wilfully violated. The Right Hon. Baronet was, he appre hended, stretching his right of examination a little too far, when he' inquired whether Colonel Maberly had approved of the proceeding.—(Hear, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM intimated that he would not press the question, and the witness was again called in By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—What is the or dinary rate at which Post-office expresses go ?—At about she rate of seven miles an hour. By Mr. T. GLADSTONE—Did you give any parti cular directions to expedite this express beyond the usual speed, or were your orders the same as you generally give in all such cases ?—I gave exactly the same orders as are usually given in such cases. By Mr. WEST—You re-addressed the parcel to the post-master at Glasgow ?—Yes. By whose authority ?—(Answer inaudible.) Can you state whether the writ ever went to the town of Lanark?—Witness intimated that he could not say. Can you say whether it ever reached the hands of the Sheriff of Lanark ?—Yes ; I have his receipt for it. [The witness then read the receipt, which was signed by James Watson, Sheriff-substitute of Lanark, and was to the following effect :—" Received from the Postmaster of Glasgow a writ for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament for the city of Glasgow this 19th day of May, at half-past 5 o'clock, p.m."] Where was that receipt given ?—At Glasgow. By Sir J. GRAHAM—What distance is Glasgow from London ?—About 400 miles. Is it not rather more than that ?—No, it is rather less. The precise distance is 395 miles. What is the usual average rate a horse express goes at per hour ?—About seven miles an hour. Then must not this particular express, which left London at a quarter to nine on 'Wednesday the 17th, and reached Glasgow at about five o'clock on the afternoon of Friday the 19th, have been conveyed at considerably beyond the usual speed ?—Yes, it appears so. Are you sure it was cal ried by a horse express, or do you know anything to the contrary ?—1 don't know anything to the contrary. You don't know whether it was conveyed by a chaise and four, or not ?—No. Does the way-bill show whether it went by a chaise and four ?—No. Is there anything upon the face of the document which shows whether it wont by a chaise and four, or otherwise ? —(The witness cursorily read some passages from the way bill, in which the words " riding express" occurred.) Is that the instruction usually marked upon such way. bills, or is it specially incurred ?—lt is printed ; the words are "riding express." Does the entry at each particular stage show whether or not the express was received and dispatched by a man and I horse ?—No, it does not. Who can inform us upon this point ? Can the messenger who took the parcel to Holborn give any information on the subject ?—The postmaster at each town is passed through could supply the information requirad. Can the messenger who took it from Holborn tell us ? I don't know. What is the name of that messenger ?—I don't know. By Mr. MACLEAN—You arc understood to say that when the Postmaster-General was absent it is your duty, on one day in each week to wait for matters of this descrip tion, and if they arrived before the mail departed, to send them by post ? Yes. Have you ever received and forwarded any such writs on former occasions ?—I have. You never had any special directions on the subject of them before P—No. By Sir R. H. INGLIS—In the ordinary course of business, if a writ were delivered at the Post-office after the mails had left, would it not be kept back till the following evening ; it would not have been sent off that same night without some special order ?—No, it would not. In point of fact it appears that twenty-four hours, or nearly so, have been saved in the arrival of the writ in ques tion, in consequence of the ordinary custom having been de parted from ?—The witness was understood to acquiesce. By Mr. H. GRATTAN—Why was it that the express had not overtaken the mail ?—(Loud laughter, in which the reply of the witness was drowned). Is it possible that a man on horseback cannot overtake a coach and four ?—The express startml three-quarters of an hour after the mail. At what rate do expresses generally go p—Seven miles an hour. By Sir JAMES GRAHAM—(The queotion was un derstood to refer to the person who delivered The writ a n d the letter at the Post-office on Wednesday evening)—wi t . ness—l did not know his name. Did you ever see him before? I don't recollect ever seeing him. How was ho introduced %—I was sitting in tho room, and he walked in. —(A laugh.) And what did he say to you %--He banded me) a letter from Mr. Stanley. To whom was that letter directed ?—To 'Colonel m a . berly. . Then how did you come to open it ?—He said. might open it. Besides, the orders are that we are to spen letters addressed to Colonel Maherly in his absence, unless they are marked " private." Then a person, whose name you did not know, and whom 0)0 had never 'nets teNre; tqld yO3 t till lit Open a letter . tiddreiSed.to tolonel Mabetiy:. td ? 1 -;:itiriel tjf " No, nO.") Did lie tell YOU yod Might obeli it Hadyett 4riy.i.erbd dr Wittetl cdrafthnitatidti before; it 'Jiiir;j'ki 8f thit 6ii lhti ihje4 Bfdd alie6ied writ ?—No. Then the first communication you had on the subject, was conveyed in the letter alluded to from Mr. Stanley ?—Yes. Had you any further conversation on the subject with the person who delivered this letter to you ?—I told him it Was contrary to the Act-of Parliament to forward writs by eipregs. And what answer did the stranger make to you ?-1-Ie said that he remembered cases in which writs had been for warded not by the regtilar course of post: And upon the aiithority of this stranger ; thena person VrtiliSe yeti, did tilt litidW, a nd Adititii yfiti had never seen before—you departed from the law laid down by the Act of Parliament ?—I acted as I did upon the authority of the letter from Mr. Stanley. You then, being aware of the provisions of the Act of Parliament in question, were guided in your departure from them by Mr. Stanley's letter?—Yes, By Mr. A. TREVOR (whose questions were inter= rupted by strong manifestations of impatience): How long have you been employed in the Post-office?—[Witness's answer inaudible]. Did you ever hear, since you have been employed there, of writs being received after the mails had departed ?—The witness was understood to answer in the affirmative. By the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER — How are clerks in waiting appointed ; arc they taken indif ferently, or are they otherwise selected ?—Tney are taken by seniority. Was it the regular course of your duty that you were in attendance as clerk in waiting on the evening of the 17th instant, or out of the usual course ?—lt was out of the usual course of my duty. I How came you to be there in that capacity ?—I changed places'with another officer. Was that upon a private arrangement between you and your brother officer, or was it in compliance with an order from the head of the department ?—lt was a private ar rangement between myself and the officer whose place I supplied. When was that arrangement entered into ?—The night before. Was that arrangement in any way connected with the expectation of the arrival of this writ 2—No, not at all. The witness was then ordered to withdraw ; and on the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the first wit ness was again called in. First witness re-examined by the ATTORNEY GENERAL:— How long have you been employed as a messenger to the Great Seal ?—Ten years. During that period you have frequently carried writs for the election of Members of Parliament to receive the Great Seal ?—Yes, I have. Have you ever carried a writ for such purpose to or from the present Lord Chancellor 7—Yes, I have. I belie , ;e the residence of the Lord Chancellor is in Bruton-street ?—Yes, it is. Can you tell us at what time you received the writ for the Glasgow election to carry for the purpose of being sealed ?—At five minutes past six on Wednesday, the 17th. If you had found the Lord Chancellor at his town resi dence when you arrived there, would not the writ have re ceived the Great Seal in abundant time to be delivered at the Post-office before eight o'clock that evening ?—Yes. Were you on this occasion kept an extraordinary time waiting for the seal of the writ ?---I was kept waiting some short time. How long were you kept ?—I cannot exactly say. According to the common course, if no cause of delay had occurred, would not the writ have been sealed, and gone down the same evening to Glasgow by the mail 7—Yes. Was it not because the Lord Chancellor was not at his residence in Bruton -street, but at his country residence at Wimbledon, at the time you sought him, that you were prevented getting the writ sealed in time to deliver it at the Post-office before eight o'clock ?—Yes. Was not this and this alone the cause of the delay ? Yes. By Sir J. GRAHAM—What time does the Crown office usually open and close?—lt opens at three, and closes at six. Was there any departure from the usual hours and course of business on the 17th inst. ?—Not any. By Lord STANLEY—Did you take the writ direct, or did you call anywhere on your way P—l took it direct, without calling anywhere.—(Hear, hear.) The witness was then ordered to withdraw. Sir J. GRAHAM said that since the letter which had accompanied the writ to the Post-office was about to be produced, he should like before the witness withdrew to call upon him to identify the letter as the one he had carried. Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet can have an opportunity of identifying the letter if he wishes to do so ; hut h e seems , i n th e observation he has just addressed to the House, to insinuate a reflection upon --.—(Tremendous cheering from the Ministerial side drowned the conclusion of the sentence.) The Right Hon. Baronet, after having brought a charge against my Hon. Friend of having sent down a writ so that it should arrive too early, now seems to charge him with having forged a sham letter to vindicate himself from that accu sation.—(Renewed cheering.) Sir J. GRAHAM—I know not, Mr. Speaker, whether there has been anything in my demeanour to justify the insinuation of the Noble Lord—(Opposition cheers)—or the tone and temper in which it was uttered —(Renewed cheers.) But neither by the tone nor the temper, nor the manner which the Noble Lord has thought fit to assume, shall I be deterred from the execution of what I conceive my public duty demands.—(Opposition cheers, ironically repeated from the Ministerial side.) I did not mean any thing disrespectful to the Hon. Member in the remark which I threw out ; but as we are now proceeding judicially, and a witness tell you that he was aware of the Act of Parlia ment which he was about to violate, and that he did so vio late it under the directions of an officer in his Majesty's Government, a Secretary of the Treasury, and when he says that he received that letter from the hands of a stranger, that the letter was addressed to Colonel Ma berly, but that upon being told by the stranger that he was at liberty to open it, he did so, and that on reading it he found it contained directions that a certain writ should be expedited by express to Glasgow, I think it of impor tance that that the witness should have an opportunity of recognizing the letter upon the authority of which he acted. The witness stated that he received the letter from a man whom he never saw before ; that in obedience to it he acted in violation of an Act of Parliament ; and that he gave the letter in the morning to Colonel Maberly, to whom it was addressed. Now, if the witness had given it to the Hon. Member, and not to Colonel Maberly, he (Sir James Graham) should not have offered the least ex pression of desire to trace the authenticity of the docu ment further. But the letter having been handed by the witness in the first place to Colonel Maberly, he thought the Hon. Gentleman could not offer the least opposition, when he produced the letter which lie had written, to the witness's looking at it to see whether it was the same let ter as that which the stranger bad given him. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that undoubtedly if the letter had been tendered by the witness, or by any other person but an Hon. Member of the House, then the Right Hon. Baronet might have bad some grounds for such a proceeding as that which he now proposed. But he would have the Right Hon. Baronet to recollect that his Hon. Friend, in order to prevent any inconvenience which might result from the singular departure from not only the or• dinary course of judicial proceeding, but from the course which common sense dictated in such inquiries, which seemed to be about to be taken up, of inquiring into the substance and tenor of a document which was in existence, and which could best explain itself, came forward and said that he had the letter in his pos session, and was ready to produce it.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had endeavoured to point out the pre cise grounds upon which he denied the authentication of this letter in the present case. The Right Hon. Baronet understood a fine distinction as well as any one—(lronical cheers)—but was there any one who had heard his propo sal on whose mind any than the one impression had been made by it ? He believed that by the rules of Parliamen tary law no evidence at the bar of the House, no docu ment put in there, was of greater validity as affected any thing relating to the privileges of Parliament, than a state ment made by an Hon. Member in the House, or a docu ment produced by him.—(Hear.) Now he wished the House first to notice the distinction which had been made by the Right Hon. Baronet by the question which he had put. If the Right Hon. Gentleman did not show any dis position to depart from the ordinary rules of the House or the usual line of courtesy which Members showed to one another, how did he raise the point, and suggest the possi bility of a forged letter being transmitted to Colonel Mo berly ? Did not the very doubt thrown on the proceeding lead to the supposition that there was a forged letter? — (Hear.) What he wished to know was this—did the Right don. Baronet believe that was a bona fide letter? Did-be doubt that ? If he did not doubt the genuineness of the let ter for what purpose did he wish to have the letter 'pro duced at that particular moment in order that he might exa mine the witness as to the identity of the letter which bad been sent to the Post-office ?—(Hear, hear.) If he doubted the genuineness of the letter, then it was relevant for him to move that it be produced in evidence ; but if he had no doubt, why should he propose a course that could even in ,the least possible degree be derogatory to the privilege of fjhat 11% - itise, and cast some doubt on the course of pro ceeding which they hid hitherto uniformly adOpted ? Loud cheers,) Mr. ROEBUCK thought the Right Hon. I:Let:net had shown a small inconsistency in the course which he had Ptlqkt.l with respect to the question before the house.Whoti h iitphint the 39hiect forward the other night, h e Said he twat indt;t4 In do it (in the undoubted authority Of a letter Which he had rectii4 and When he was asked fedAjbie iliS aiithb'rity on which he tibMit to bring a charge, what was , _t :, 40 , `, , 0t "las a Afernt , er of Parliament have stated that I have kei*ed such informii , tion,"—(Hear.) And when the Secretary for Etta Trea sury got up and stated that he bad written a letter lo Colonel Maberly,- and that he was ready to produce it, the flight Honourable Baronet got up and threw a doubt on the statement of the Honourable Gentleman, though the other night he had appealed to the honour and word of a Member of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) The Right lion. Baronet on that occasion considered that on his Word and honour he ought to be believed, and claimed that privilege to himself which he would now deny to another, (Cheers.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM cottld not concur in the kite ment made by the Honourable Member. for Bath as to the rules of the House. When he brought forward th' ques tion he stated, that on the undoubted authority of a letter, he charged his Majesty's Government, or Boltriq person con nected with the Govetnment, with having committed a breach of the privileges of Parliament. But the issue, it would appear, has now changed ; and he was put on his trial,—(oh ! and hear, hear!) Was there not an accusation made against him ? (Heat ; heat ; hear !) The Honourable Member for Bath must kyle* there was a natural distinction between the two cases. The other evening he asked for an inquiry into the ea.le pursued by his Majesty's Government, and stated, as a Member of Parliament, that he had ample grounds for the inquiry ; but when the House proceeded—when the subject matter of inquiry was gone into, and the witness was questioned as to the part which he bed taken in the proceedings—he an swered that he acted on a letter from the Secretary to the T rea sury, Now, he said it was the duty of the House to trace the identity of that letter. If the Noble Lord, and the other Members on the other side of the House, thought the question could terminate satisfactorily without the iden tity of the letter being proved, let them say so ; but while they did not say so, and while the House had to act in a judicial capacity, he contended that the course which he proposed was necessary. If the Secretary to the Treasury would state that the letter was written by him, he should consider the assertion of the Hon. Gentleman in his place entirely satifactory. But what was the case ? The clerk of the Post-office received a letter from a person not known, and delivered that letter not to the Secretary of the Treasury, but to Colonel Maberly, and all traces of it were afterwards lost. He thought, therefore, that till the letter was shown to the witness, they could not come to a full conclusion as to the authority on which he had acted. Mr. E. J. STANLEY said he was not surprised at the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet. He (Mr. Stanley) had been asked if he would read a copy of the letter which he sent to Colonel Maberly. He stated gratuitously and spontaneously that he Iva+ ready to do so ; and he must therefore say that the conduct of the Right Hon. Bert. was somewhat extraordinary, and that it was quite unusual for one Member of Parliament to require another to ad duce some statement or evidence corroborative of his word. —(Cheers.) It would be in the recollection of the House that on a former occasion he was ready to say what he knew on the subject, and would meet the charge of the Right Honourable Baronet fairly.----(Hear, hear.) If he did not do so on that occasion, he believed the House would attribute it to the circumstance of his being taken by surprise in the manner he was.—(Cheers.) He was taken by surprise. He had had no communicat►on with a single person on the subject, He had not had time himself to consider even what answer he should give, or how any answer that he should give might affect other persons ; and he, therefore, asked the House if he had not a right to complain of the mode in which the Right Honourable Ba ronet had introduced the question, and which prevented him at the time from giving the fullest explanation. The Right Honourable Baronet (continued the Hon. Mem ber) on Friday last spoke to me behind the chair, and ex pressed a wish that I should be in my place, as he had a question to put to me. I asked what was the nature of the question. The answer was " I will not tell you—you will hear it when I rise."—(Loud and continued cheering from the Ministerial benches.) I ask if there is another Mem ber in the House who would act in such a manner—in a manner so contrary to the practice and courtesy of the House ?—(Loud Cheers.) Even in ordinary matters, what ever may be the subject, it is usual to give notice that a question will be put, the subject to which it relates, in order that the Member to whom it is put may be pre pared with an answer.—( Hear, hear.) But I believe it is quite unparalleled to put without notice a question affect ing, as this does, the personal conduct and personal cha racter of a Member of Parliament ; and going to the extent of charging him with violating an Act of Parliament, in trampling on the privileges of Members of that House, and interfering with the freedom of election.—(Loud cheers.) When charges so grave were brought, I ask is there ano ther Hon. Member who would have done so?—(Cheers.) I do not believe that any other Member would have acted in that way ; I do not believe there is one who would not have given notice, in order that the Member questioned might be prepared to answer to the appeal.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had indeed given as an excuse for not having given notice, that the fact was so incredible that he did not believe it had taken place ; and vet at the same time the. Right Hon. Baronet had stated that the autho rity on which he acted was so undoubted that there could be no question at all about it.—(Hear, hear.) I leave the Right Hon. Baronet to reconcile these statements. I leave it to the House to say what object he had in view by taking any Member by surprise.—( Hear, bear, hear.) But that is the courtesy which we may expect from the Right ' Hon. Baronet when he becomes the leader of that party for whose favour he now bids so high, though he has assailed their principles and their conduct for the last twenty years. This is the courtesy one may expect from one who is the eager volunteer in every forlorn hope against his former Noble and Right Honourable Friends and Col leagues, and even his quondam associates and more hum ble supporters.—(Loud cheers.) I may have spoken strongly, but after the provocation I have received 1 trust the House will excuse me.—( Hear, hear.) But (said the Hon. Member), after having made this observation, he would come to the main subject, and state the facts as they passed. He moved the new writ for Glasgow at four o'clock, and in ordinary cases the writ ought to have gone that evening by the ordinary post. He desired the Clerk of the Crown to be in attendance, in order to forward the writ to the Lord Chancellor, in Bruton-street, to have the great seal affixed to it. The Lord Chancellor was not in Bruton street, and the writ was forwarded to him at Wimbledon. After the writ came back he questioned a clerk of the Treasury as to the practice, and his answer was, that in his own recollection he had known writs to have been sent by express. He produced an instance which had occurred in 1829, when a writ was forwarded by the Treasury to the Post-office with directions that it should be forwarded by express.—( Hear, hear.) Believing, therefore, that such things had been done before, he had sent the following let ter to Colonel Maberly " May 17, 1837. " Dear Maberly—lt is of the greatest consequence that the the writ for Glasgow should go by to-night's post, so that it it should not arrive in time by the Glasgow mail, I should wish it, if possible, to be forwarded by express to-night, and directed to the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, at Glasgow. " The delay has been occasioned by the Chancellor being at Wimbledon; but I believe tho writ will be back in time, or soon after. " Yours ever, " E. J. STANLEY. " Lieut.-Colonel Maberly, &c. &c. &c." If the Right Hon. Baronet thought the words of the Act of Parliament were liable to any other construction than those he had put on them, he certainly was at liberty to state these doubts. For his part he made no secret of what he had done, and the clerk had no doubt that similar instances had occurred. Shortly after the occurrence he looked at the Act, and he thought it possible that the words of that Act of Parliament would bear the c nstruc tion put on them by the Right Hon. Baronet ; hut he would ask what was the object of that Act ? Was it not to remove all causes of delay in the transmission of writs ? If the Lord Chancellor had not been at Wimbledon the writ would have gone in the usual way, and as it was it arrived in Glasgow four hours after the mail on the evening of the 19th, when the Sheriff of Lanarkshire had left the town. The Sheriff, of course, did not execute the writ till next day, by which time it would have arrived by course of mail.—( Hear, hear.) So far no advantage had been gained, and if he had erred, he erred on the authority of those he considered were most competent to give informa tion as to the usual practice. But after all, though the writ was sent by express, it went through the Post office ; and it might fairly be contended that a Post-office express was as "such a post as the mail -coach itself. It was as much a felony to stop an express as to rob the mail. A post was a post, whether forwarded by the Postmaster-General on horseback or in a coach—on foot or in a steam-packet. If the Right Hon. Baronet thought the words of the Act of Parliament were liable to any other construction than those he had put on them, he certainly was at liberty to state these doubts. For his part, he made no secret of what he had done, and was unconscious that any unjust course had been adopted. The writ, besides, never went out of the hands of the proper officer—it was carried by him to the Lord Chancellor, and, after it had received the Great Seal, was carried by that officer to the Postmaster-General, transmitted to the postmaster at Glas gow, and by him delivered to the Sheriff of Lanark. if he had exceeded his duty, he trusted the House would believe he was not aware of having acted irregula rl y , and that every one would egret: with him, that in forwarding the writ by express., instead of by against the letter of the Act, and believed he %vas only c..iiir r7ing into effect the spirit of the Statute.—(Hear.) He mail, he bad not offende d knowinglf believed he had stated fully all that had occurred, a nd be would only add, in the course he had pur sued, no on- Ow fair advantage had been taken by any party.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member then read the following extracts from the Post-office express-book, relative to th e writ sent by express in 1829 ; and begged to leave his case in the hands of the House : Extract from Express-book, March 23, 38 29 ' On his Majesty's service. " To Sandwich. " A pae.ket for the Mayor, at 25 minutes to one, pm:, (Signed) "G. WELC I Ii Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that making every 3 ,o unce for the manner in which the Hon. Mem ber had ad, dressed the House, he could not help thinking friends had combined with him in withdrawing the attenn% of the House from the real point at issue. It ought to nli v e r esollected that they were sitting there judicially'. rt Hon. IVl?mber continued to address the House for a 511 . ° 0 lbsie, but the noise which prevailed prevented us heai' ° what he said. isIVRAL' After a few tvorcls from the ATTORNEY-GE , 'Th Sir JAMES GRAHAM asked if the Hon. Gen t ' m a d? had any objection to put in a copy of the letter be had r e tit Mr. E. J. STANLEY said he had no objection l° P in a copy. ulna' Sir JAMES' GRAHAM then said that notwiths 11.4 that .10 bug the observations which had been made respecting' w i n political and his private character, lie would not be drinto by any taunts from the Gentlemen opposite to enteir say vindication of his conduct. That conduct was deo, the public, and the public w( it'd adjudicate between th ft , and decide whether lie .'as influenced by private feelings °_,e low, mean, despicable character, or whether his motives vfe'o pure, and would appear to that public as they aPPe are a d tt e his heart and conscience. With respect to the ' l ' gre d he would say that the Hon. Gentleman had ans w- c to candidly ; and that when he gave his private assu"l4ols that House, or out of it, he was ready to believe l l '. o il oh, and Hear, hear.) Was that the way that an 'tar was to be met by Members opposite ? And hers on the Treasury Bench seemed to enjoy it. Ai that the way in which the House was to conduct a il l-c a o discussion ?--(Hear, hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentlealer had given the statement he had made on the former be sion he would have given him credit for it ; but ifit' t tbe r said was, an Act of Parliament had been violated. A ° , ° ; s e Hon. Gentleman produced what he called a paral %T ie', e- s; though it did not appear altogether parallel. 11° ,",,1es yet the Po'rsi would say, his purpose would be answered if care wasZi ti olt such a course of proceeding should not occur again• m e n, mischief would be the consequence if an Act of Parl i t y was to be dispensed with by the Executive. The fse.e. tive had in that instance been tied up within narrow hen the they were directed by the Act to transmit the writ to ; II Postmaster or his deputy, to be sent by the mail, but 1 ° :, ( 10 express, by which means the writ might get into the "' - 0 of thirty or forty post-boys between London and 0186„,"; thereby endangering its safe custody. He would aolr 11 a writ issued at the rising of the House, and sent t r u ly' express in the middle of the night, and so cotuP e t ila might the electors . be taken by surprise, that they vi° se not have time to choose a proper candidate. lie 118-A n dIC I charged his duty before the House, and after the e a- his explanation of the Hon. Member he would not ca rr y motion further. Mr. E. J. STANLEY could assure the Right Baronet, that if he had only communicated with bi n ' l i r od vately, he would have given the very explanation h e - given that evening. - r der On the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM the ° was then discharged. Mr. BAINES wished to know if the Right fiCin . 136 ; ronet would give up the authority on which he had ° the charge. „bet Sir JAMES GRAHAM said if the Hon. N e-- eoe brought a charge against him for violating an Act of fra-K1 liament, or infringing the privileges of the House, he °- give it up, but not till then. PUBLICATION OF PRINTED PAPERS' Lord HO WICK rose to move resolutions founde P e a the Report of the Committee on the publication of Pti,Dte, papers, and considered that motion had precedence, a s It " lated to the privileges of the House. Sir W. MOLESWORTH denied that it was a g - t be tion of privilege, and thought his motion should hay° precedenc. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the question affected tilt: privileges of the House, and it was necessary to come some decision on the subject. er ted The SPEAKER said the subject was one which aer e n . . a most important privilege of the House, and, in his cirl nion, was entitled to have precedence of other busine ss ' Sir W. MOLES WORTH was still of opinion that " should be allowed to go on with his motion first. tier The SPEAKER put it to the Hon. Baronet whe t— t question, exceedingly important to the House, should be discussed, and whether it was not desirable to have 1" opinion of the House on it without delay Sir W. MOLESWORTH would give way, though he still believed he had the right. „ o re Lord HO WICK proceeded—His object was to 'r ed s certain resolutions founded on the report of the Comiu.';,‘ on the publication of printed papers, of which Comi lfr '," he had had the honour to be Chairman. To that C° d• mittee had been referred the consideration of the procej.," ings at Nisi Prius in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard off, others. Since the presentation of the report of that ,- ; mittee a second action had been brought by the sam o r, o t tics in the Court of King's Bench ; and it became exP e°l ;e• therefore, on the part of the House to take some eel' PO liminary to that proceeding, in order that all doubt °I, be subject might be set at rest. The Committee to whi ch had alluded reported it as their opinion, met " That the power of publishing such of its reports , iyiss and proceedings as it shall deem necessary or conducive t° 0 1 public interests, is an essential incident to the constito ti° oo functions of Parliament, more especially of this House, A s representative portion of it : s , '.' That, by the law and privilege of P a rliame n t, this ti °- t he has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine ur n all existence and extent of its privileges, and that the instinino or prosecution of any action, suit, or other proceeding, f br ib t ra purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision h e ,b any court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament, is 6 3- ca breach of such privilege, and renders all parties cone s e mit therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to the punis linie consequent thereon : ,o 0 " That for any court or tribunal to assume to deciae uI of matters of privilege inconsistent with the determinati, °° ,, of either House of Parliament thereon, is contrary to the o• o f Parliament, and is a breach and contempt of the privilege' Parliament." LI use Those resolutions he was about to propose that the Al 0 . should affirm. The Noble Lord proceeded, at con si°° o l ble length, to recapitulate the various facts of the case'Ll-de the law and practice of Parliament on the subjeet i °u se fi q tion. It might be said that the privileges of the P,itlt were liable to be abused. The same would hold goad "le respect to the rights and privileges of any human instl ,oo tion or any human being. But if the House of C 019° , 1 , it/ were to be denied the authority of declaring what we r ,`" l ,o own privileges, the danger arising from liability to 0 " t s would not be escaped. The power of any other authoriil, to which the right of controlling the exercise of time Priehj leges of the House of Commons might be intrusted Woo be liable to be abused. If that right w ere given to mini ti id of the courts of law, what security was there that it to; o f tr not be abused ? The proper appeal against the a h L u d s o ol, authority was not to a court of law or any other iu'ajo but to public opinion. With reference to the Partic,,ie' privilege now under consideration, it was the clear c° ° ,,e t h tion of _the House and of the public, not only that its by law and by usage that privilege existed, bu t ti ter" existence was indispensable to the due discharge of the The tions of the House of Commons as a legislative body. 00 0 question on which they were now called upon to pro nO l b/ was not whether parliamentary papers should be s ° „ jo ss Mr. Hansard or not, but whether the House of C°laviith should or should not be excluded from communicat4 Tba those whom they represented by means of the press.. h 11 0 Noble Lord concluded by moving the resolutions will° had read in the course of his speech. er if Sir R. INGLIS thought it would have bee n b ett lao the Noble Lord had postponed the discussion an ti ,. t he other opportunity. He could not look round and se7the thin attendance of Members, without being conscious a pse little interest taken in the q w uestion, and that the ly had been taken by surprise upon it. He " whether, supposing a judge disregarded the order ° of er date of the House, were they prepared to sen d a ofviimice ger to seize the judge on the bench, to compel af °l % with such order ? The house was an unfit h au l " re - far late upon any matter if they did not an tielPil i diffe a case. He bad contended that there was a br°°o"wo rence between the House printing papers for it s looa ° only, and printing for time use of other persons. The o . sr biall. had the right, he had contended, to publish rep°r Ke b a d did not go to affect the character of individuals• shi6 distinctly endeavoured before the Committee to drritho it se line—that the House was not at liberty to Pr iD isras papers, except for the use of its own Members. .. i d be libels sh °P 00' necessary for the public advantage that 11 tart Was it no t , at taw published over the whole country ? libel of the evil to the individual libelled', notuallio libel should be published over the country, sPiaieed eb b, circulated at the public expense. When, the q ' oto s- Honourable Member for Middlesex monled eoing tile d tion of publishing parliamentary papers, and to t hat, e n n i to the public, he (Sir R. Inglis) had raid that if they printed them for prunt_,ve`d e ione! " No, no ! no profit")—well, then, if t h e y rece o '_ se uid ei for them—they might be said to be a great 1) 0 6 objeCte d crief THE SUTN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1837