The Sun. — London, England, 1837-06-02 00:00:00

gentleman to the rank and position from which he was unjustly removed.—Morning Advertiser. We obServed yesterday the remarkable progress backwards which Lord John Russell was making upon the question of Church-rates. While we were writing the Noble Lord was already meditating another coun termarch, which is to place a little further interval be tween himself and his pursuers. He was to bring on upon Thursday the Bth his motion originally intended for Thursday the Ist, for a Committee to consider the truth of a fact which he has twice persuaded the House of Commons positively to affirm. But last night he was reminded that several motions in the hands of other Members have precedence of his . motion on Thursday, the Bth, and he readily admitted that he had no intention to interfere with the introduction of these motions. Now, among the motions to which allusion was thus made stands a motion by Mr. Hume on the subject of household suffrage, which excites a great deal more interest than it ought, and which will probably produce a long debate ; and also a motion by Lord Dudley Stuart, on the subject of Cracow which excites a great deal less interest than it ought, and which will probably produce a longer debate. So there is little hope of hearing from Lord John Rus sell, on Thursday, the Bth, his Lordship's most ex quisite reason for examining, by the labour of a Com mittee, the proposition which lie has already esta blished by a vote of the House. But, then, what be cemes of the Church-rate Committee ? Lord John Russell will move the appointment of it on Friday, the 9th. On Friday, the 9th ? Impossible ! Why, it is the day selected by Lord Morpeth for the tardy resump tion of the Irish Tithe Bill. It is even so, however. Friday, the 9th, is to be given up to the debate on the Church-rates' Committee ; and the Irish Tithe Bill—the Bill which was of such pressing importance two little years ago—the Bill whose principle pushed the Whigs into Downing-street—the Bill which was to exterminate Captain Rock, and to make the lives of Protestant Parsons insurable—that Bill is to be postponed to Monday, or Tuesday, or any day you please—to the Greek kalends, perhaps—without a whisper of censure from Mr. O'Connell, or a shriek of shame from Mr. Sheil. And with this womlerful regidarity is the business of the country conducted by Lord John Russell.—Morning Post. Our Foreign Secretary being resolved upon occu pying for another year, at least, the dignified office of principal purveyor of human victims for the shamblss of civil butchery in Spain, we are naturally led to in quire what has been done for the service of the Ma drid Government of La Granja Revolutionists, during the last two years, by the British mercenaries, who were decoyed by our peace-professing Ministers into a " non-intervention war," in which they have been defrauded by their allies, flowed worse than African bondmen by their Chiefs, and dreadfully thinned by the bullets and bayonets of that peasant-soldiery whom they were to sweep from the face of the earth within six weeks after landing on the Cantabrian coast, finish in their " glorious work," as an Evening organ of the i'ilinistry assured the public they would, by " hanging air Don Carlos." Whether a gibbet was sent out for the purpose, among the other munitions of war, sup plied at the expense of this country, we cannot say ; : such a machine would not be an inappropriate ac companiment of what Lord Lyndhurst called the miserable buccaneering war." The British mer et. nary legion originally consisted of ten thousand n.cri ; it has been reinforced, from time to time, by .a!lont 5,000 more. What remains of that force of 5,000 men now ? The last accounts, previously to the attack upon Irun, estimated the remnant at an effective force of somP.thina better than 3,000 men The Carlists' resistance at Irun the other day has still further thinned its numbers, but we will put it down a: 3,000. The question then arises, what has become of the other 12,000 ? Can Lord Palmerston, with his one-sided suspension of the Foreign Enlistment Act, answer that question ? Of that 12,000, it is supposed that between 3,000 and 4,000 have returned to their native shores, either disgusted with the ser vice, and the violation of the promises made to them, or invalided and crippled ; all pennyless, destitute, in rags and wretchedness, bitterly complaining of the ill treatment which they have experienced from the Spanish Government, and seeking in vain for re dress, as the reports of Mansion-house proceedings and other police-offices testify. Is it to experience similar treatment that Lord Palmerston and his Whig colleagues are anxious to decoy new levies of British subjects into the calamitous service of a fraudulent Government, which has already proved fatal to so many—in which 8,000 or 9,000 of the subjects of the King of England have already perished by the sword or disease—suffers by the shameful neglect of supplying them with the comforts and necessaries of a soldier's life, which has charac terised the whole of the unfeeling and dishonest con duct of the Government with whom they contracted ? But we suspect the leave and license given by the re newed suspension of the Foreign Enlistment Act for another year to British subjects, to earn a livelihood by cutting the throats of the Basque people, with whom their King and country have no quarrel, will prove a dead letter. The living examples of non-in tervention " glory" that arc to be seen begging in our streets and upon our way-sides, in defiance of consta bles and tread-wheels, have not been lost upon the class of people to whom they belong. They see that instead of returning with pockets filled with Spa nish doubloons, and knapsacks stuffed with plunder, the poor deluded legionaries are thrown upon our shores in a famishing half-naked condition, and only qualified by the hardships and miseries of their two years campaign, to pass the remaind er of th e i r li ve s within the comfortless cells of a union bastile. But what has the Legion done during its two years' ser vice for the advancement of the cause of the " inno cent Isabel ?" That is a question more easily asked than answered. At St. Sebastian its campaigns be gan, and there its campaigns have ended. The effect upon the general destinies of the kingdom, and the war of succession, have been much the same as if they were still encamped in the " Isle of Dugs," and had never touched Spanish ground at all. Defeated twice at Hernani—the last time with terrific loss, and once put to flight before the mouldering walls of Font arabia—the Legion, with the assistance of 4,000 or 5,000 Spanish troops, has at length succee d e d i n capturing the fortress and the Spanish half of the frontier town of Irun, reducing, after two days' fight ing, a garrison which consisted of only 3,000 regular Carlist troops, with 200 armed peasants. This mighty exploit being achieved, and the gallant Evans hav ing been feasted and serenaded, as if the " deliver ance of Spain " had thereby been accomplished, the Legion, or rather its shattered remnants, is marched back again to the old " rabbit-ground" of St. Sebastian, to repose upon its laurels, while Don Sebas tian, at the head of the flower of the Carlist forces, marches unmolested from the mountains of Guipuzcoa to the plains of Aragon, and threatens the capital itself. It was with the view of retrieving the last de feat and disgrace of the legion that Lord Palmerston and Colonel Wylde induced Espartero to abandon his strong position at Bilboa, and to come with his 30,000 troops in British steamers to St. Sebastian, for the pur pose of producing some effect by the capture of Her mit' before the 10th of June, when the service of the legion, according to its original contract, expires. Troops were also brought from Santandar and Corunna, so as to make the combined forces amount altogether to near 40,000 men. There was also a powerful force .of British artillery collected, together with marines, a racket brigade, and all the necessary materiel of war that Woolwich could supply at the expense of the British people, whose money has been as uselessly as it has been profusedly squandered in this " non-intervention -war." In the meantime Don Sebastian, who had for some months past been desirous of carrying the war nearer the capital, but who was not strong enough to force a passage into Arragon, to form a junction with Cabrera and other chiefs, as long as he would have hael. to encounter the combined forces of Espartero, Iribarren, arid Burens, saw with delight that move ment undertaken by the grand army of Espartero which favoured his own well-conceived plans. Encou i aging the project, he appeared to give up all idea of a ,listant expedition, and seemed determined to defend H e cuani. Scarcely had the grand Spanish army been safely deposited within the walls of St. Sebastian, when lie, with his 16 picked battalions, and arms for more, marched out of the walls of Hernani, which the heroic Espartero succeeded in capturing in two days afterwards, with a wonderful flourish of artillery, shells, rockets, and small arms, besides many brilliant charges of cavalry, but without any great slaughter, as may be supposed. Having accomplished this mighty feat, did he follow Don Sebastian ? Did he clear a way through Tolosa with his " victorious legions," and co-operate with Iribarren for the destruction of the expeditionary force ? No—having gallantly taken the deserted town and works of Hernani, he waited day •after day to see if Tolosa would be abandoned, that he might have the " glory" of capturing that place also without the peril of a conflict. In the mean time the Royal Infante called at Estella, whence he escorted Don Carlos through the whole breadth of Navarre, crossing the rivers Arga and Aragon wahout opposition, and subsequently beating Iribarren when he ventured to change his system of cautious tactics into one of active operations. Thus, by the ellorate contrivance of Lord Palmerston and Col. Wy de a combination of the Carlist forces has been facili tated, which threatens more serious consequences to the Christino cause than any Carlist Move ment which has taken place since the commence ment of the war. Espartero declines to advance from the neighbourhood of the sea-coast, unless under the protection of the British artillery, horse marines; and British war-steamers, which, as we before suggested, ought to be mounted upon wheels to accommodate him. The sooner, then, that he is transported back to Bilboa the better. He does not like the guerilla warfare that awaits him, should he push beyond To losa. He would rather cajole than fight the Guipuz coans. So he has promised them theirfueros. But they know the " Punic faith" of the Madrid Govern ment too well to place any reliance upon such pro mises, which, no doubt, that Government would shuffle out of, as they have shuffled out of their lawful debts as soon as the brave defenders of Basque rights and liberties laid down their arms. But should Espartero muster the requisite courage and energy to attack Tolosa, and take it, as he ought to do, with his great superiority of force, what then.? The taking of that place, in the remote corner of the Penin sula, will have no effect upon the general issue of the war. It will not even decide the fate of the province of Guipuzcoa. The guerilla warfare awaits his ad vance through every step of these green valleys and mountain fastnesses, where a people, devotedly attach ed to their ancient liberties, defend their national in dependence with enthusiastic courage, resolving that their fields shall be wasted—their hearths made deso late—their pleasant homes offered to the flames, and their blood poured out as water by the sword of the mercenary invader, before he shall succeed in over turning the altars of their hereditary freedom. Such a people may be exterminated—they cannot be subdued. The unhallowed flag of tyrant and infidel revoldtion can never float securely in the Basque provinces, ex cept over the solitude of a nation's grave. It is me lancholy to think that England should be an accom plice in this great murder, imitating in the Basque mountains the crimes which the Russian Autocrat committed against liberty in the plains of Poland ! Morning Herald. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 1. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. HARLAND the Great North of England Clarence and Hartlepool Grand Junction Railway was read a third time and passed. Sir C. B. VERE presented a petition from a place in Suffolk, against the passing-tolls clause in the Bridlington Harbour Bill. On the motion of Sir G. STRICKLAND the Barnsley Water-works Bill was re-committed. Mr. CURTLIS gave notice that on Tuesday next he would call the attention of the House to the petition pre sented by him a few nights ago from a Mr. Mills, and he would take that opportunity to advert, in the strongest pos sible 'onstage, to the conduct of Ministers relative to the Special Report of the Brighton Railway Committee. On the motion of Lord DARLINGTON, the Crue and Chester Canal Bill was read a third time and passed. BRIDLINGTON HARBOUR BILE. Mr. BETHEL moved the third reading of the Bri lington Harbour Bill. Mr. PEASE rose with very great reluctance to dis charge what he conceived to be his duty towards his con stituents and the public. It would be in the recollection of the House that nothing could be more contradictory than the statements that had been made of the merits of the undertaking., and the promoters of the Bill had not thought it worth their while to offer any evidence for the pur pose of rebutting these contradictory statements. It was admitted before the Committee that after all nature and art had done or could do, it would still remain a dry har bour at low water, and no vessels could enter it at such pe riods, whatever their distress or danger might be. From the statements which had been laid before the Committee rela tive to the income and expenditure, it was quite clear that the sum of 58,0001. or 60,0001. required could not be raised in a shorter period of time than 30 years. Another most im portant fact was, that small vessels would be obliged to pay as much as large ones, and that the tax would fall most heavily upon the shipowners from coal ports, who would be obliged to pay from 1,200/. to 1,400/. a-year for the support of that harbour. Under these circumstances he called upon the House to reject the measure for another year, when the subject would be brought before it, and he would conclude by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. D. BARCLAY opposed the Bill. He was on principle opposed to a passing toll. Mr. WI LKS suggested that all those harbours of refuge on the coast of England, Wales, and Scotland should in justice be placed under the control of some public Board.— (Cheers.) In the meantime, though he was opposed to the principle of a passing toll, still under the circumstances he would vote for the Bill. Mr. HUTT thought the Government ought to give their serious consideration to the suggestion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Wilks). If the money *ere entrusted to a local Board, those paying it had a right to require that those harbours of refuge were placed in the most convenient posi tion for the general shipping trade, that the money was all expended on the harbour, and that the payers had some controul over their own funds. Sir GEO. STRICKLAND was surprised at the state ment of the Hon. Member behind him (Mr. Pease), that since the House had sanctioned the second reading, no circumstances had occurred which had induced him to alter the opinion he then formed with respect to the mea sure. Had the Honourable Member forgotten that the Bill had been duly and justly considered in Committee, and had been carried through that Committee by as large a ma jority as the second reading ? One of the great objections of Honourable Members to the Bill was that it did not im pose equal taxation upon all ships. For his own part,' he certainly thought such an equalization would not only be improper but unjust. He concurred in the statement of the Hon. Member for Hull, that the Government should take subjects of this description under their own controul. The construction of this harbour had been the means of saving the lives and property of many individuals, and such being the case, were they now to be told that no means should be adopted of keeping it up ? Mr. LAMBTON felt called upon to deny the state ments of the Hon. Baronet who had just sat down, that the Bill had been done justice to in the Committee. That Committee, instead of allowing the promoters of the Bill to give their evidence in support of it, had called upon the promoters of the Bill to do so. That, in his opinion, was a most unusual and unjustifiable course of proceeding. Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that he had always been the strenuous opponent of the principle of passing tolls, and considered that, if the House passed the present Bill, it would set its seal against that principle, because, if passed, it would exclude all parties from coming at any future period and asking for passing tolls.—(Hear.) He had the satisfaction of knowing that by consenting to this measure, he was taking a course most consistent with the interests of his constituents, but should at the same time regret if that course did not give satisfdction.—(" Divide, divide.") Mr. HOGG said the Hon. Member for North Durham having accused the Committee of gross injustice, trusted that as he was a member of that Committee he might b e allowed to say a few words. He contended that the de lay which had arisen was solely owing to the Hon. Mem ber himself, who had proposed the adjournment of the Committee for a week, when there actually existed no ne cessity for such a proceeding. Sir E. CODRINGTON would support the Bill on the ground of humanity, and on behalf of a most meritorious class of his Majesty's subjects. He was satisfied that for every increased foot given to the width of the mouth of the harbour, hundreds of lives would be saved. =Mr. IN G HAN' supported the amendment. Mr. BETHEL replied. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House divided, when there appeared— For the third reading Against it B2 Majority for the third reading -43 The Bill was then read a third time, and passed. The Manchester, Cheshire, and South Union Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. The Ellesmere and Chester Canal Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. MAXWELL brought up the Report on the Pol lock and Govan Railway Bill. On the motion of Mr. ANGERSTEIN the further consideration of the Report on the London and Greenwich Railway Bill (No. 2) was adjourned to the 12th of June. Mr. E. TENNENT brought up the Report on the Bel fast Harbour Bill. Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition from Dun dee against the Dundee Water Works Bill. Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from the Copy holders of Hampstead against the Portland Cemetery Bill. Mr. HUME thought if Government were to purchase Primrose-bill, which he understood it was the object Of the petition to keep open for the use of the public, they would be conferring a great benefit. Sir W. MILES presented a petition from the inhabi tants of Bristol against certain clauses in the Bristol Canal Bill. Sir R. VYVYAN brought up the report of the Com mittee on the Bristol Encroachment Bill. __ Mr. T. DUNCOM BE presented a petition from Hamp stead in favour of the Portland Cemetery Bill. Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Chairman and Committee of a Company formed to construct a railroad to Brighton without a tunnel (Mills' line), prayilig their plan might be submitted to the engineer who might be directed by the House to consider the plans of the other lines. The Hon. Member moved that the petition be printed, and gave notice that he should bring it forward on Tuesday next, when the question relating to these lines was to be discussed, ENGLISH MUNICIPAL BILL. On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the Lords° amendments to the English Municipal Bill were or dered to be printed. PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had two peti. tions to present of very great importance relating, to the privileges of the House. The first was from John D. Nichols, who stated that for 30 years he had been printer to the House, and that he had printed the votes and pro ceedings of the House, until he received the notice which was the subject of his petition. The petitioner stated that on the 14th of March the House made an or der that a petition respecting the Greenwich Railway, denying allegations in a petition that had been presented by another person of the name of Thomas Green, should be printed ; that he had printed the petition under the order of the House, and that since then he had received a notice of action from a person calling himself the attorney of Thomas Green. The next petition was from Messrs. Hansard, who stated that another action had been actotally brought against them by a person of the name of Stockdale, for an alleged libel. Both the petitioners, Mr. Nichols and Messrs. Hansard, prayed the House to give them directions as to how they should proceed to defcnd actions brought against them for obeying the orders of that Honourable House. He (the Attorney-General) thought the best course would be that these petitions be printed with the votes, which, perhaps, might be done without an action for libel—(A laugh)—and that a day should be appointed for taking them into consideration. Probably Tuesday next would be convenient for that purpose. COLONEL ARTHUR. _ _ Mr. HUME presented a petition from an individual in Van D:emen's Land, containing various complaints against Colonel Arthur, for having withheld the license of his paper by which he had suffered great loss, and prayed the House to take his case into considera tion. The Hon. Member stated that this case was similar to that of Mr. Buckingham's. _ _ Lord J. RUSSELL having moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Poor Relief (Ireland) BR) HARBOURS OF REFUGE. Mr. LAMBTON begged to ask whether the Govern ment intended to introduce any measure this session relative to harbours of refuge ? Mr. P. THOMSON said the Admiralty had obtained information relative to the harbours of refuge, but it rested with the House to decide what sum of money they would vote for such a purpose. He would suggest to the Hon. Member the propriety of bringing in a Bill upon the subject. Mr. HUME observed that the measure was of a public nature, and should be taken up by Government, instead of leaving it to any private individual. Mr. WARBURTON contended that the Government was bound to put the House in possession of whatever in formation it had obtained, instead of suggesting the bringing in of a Bill by any Hon. Member in the absence of all ne cessary information. Mr. YOUNG gave notice that on an early day he should call the attention of the House to the subject of harbours of refuge. Mr. TOOKE deferred the bringing in of his Bill re lative to the killing of cattle in Smithfield Market to Mon day next. Mr. TREVOR understood that the Hon. Member for Salford had a petition to present, relative to a statement made by him when tho question of Church-rates was before the House. He suggested to the Hon. Member the pro priety of postponing it to Thursday, when he (Mr. Trevor) would be in his place. Mr. BROTHERTON had a petition complaining of statements made by the Hon. Member without good autho rity. That petition contained allegations affecting the cha racter of the Rector of Warrington ; and, at the sugges tion of the Rev. Gentleman, who was at present in town, he had postponed its presentation to Monday ; but he had no objection to defer its presentation further to - Thursday next. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord STANLEY—As the Noble Lord opposite had deferred the subject of Church-rates, (as we understood) to the Bth of June, and as the discussion upon that question might• lead to a second day's debate, he begged to ask what the intention of the Noble Lord was with re spect to the Irish Tithe Bill, which was fixed for Friday the 9th ? He would be also glad to know what day the Noble Lord would fix for the Committee on the Irish Tithe Bill, and as a preliminary Committee would be necessary to impose an additional tax upon the Clergy, the Noble Lord would perhaps state the day when that pre liminary Committee would be moved for. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was his intention to proceed with the Bill on the following day, and to bring on the Irish Tithe Bill on the following Monday. He be lieved his Noble Friend proposed, before going into Com mittee on that Bill, in a Committee of the whole House, to bring forward the resolution to which the Noble Lord had alluded. At that moment he was not able to state the time precisely, but would do so before Thursday next. Mr. HUME hoped the Noble Lord would not interfere with him on the Bth June. He had a motion relative to the question of household suffrage, of which he had given notice on the first day of the Session, and which he had twice postponed, at the request of the Noble Lord. He had fixed the Bth of June in order that he might not be interfered with. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, if the Hon. Gentle man stood before him (Lord J. R.) ho would not attempt to interfere with him. He would bring on his motion in the regular course. Mr. A. TREVOR said as he had been informed of some gross inaccuracies in the statements made respecting the number of persons attending the Church and those who attended Dissenting Chapels, he would on the Bth of June, move for returns on the subject, in order to show the coun try how the case actually stood in many large towns. In answer to Mr. Maher, Lord MORPETH said he had not yet received the Report of the Commission on Railroads in Ireland, nor was he prepared to say that the Government intended to afford any assistance to the undertaking from the public funds. Lord G. SOMERSET moved the reinstatement of the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Final Registration of Electors Bill, when he was interrupted by Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, who rose to order. His name was first upon the list of motions—Mr. Speaker had called upon him, and he believed that he was in possession of the House. The SPEAKER said, according to the usages of the House, the dropped notices should be first disposed of. The dropped Orders of yesterday were then called over for the purpose of being replaced. Sir ROBERT PEEL said he understood that the Noble Lord opposite had stated, in consequence of a re quest from the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that he did not intend the Committee on Church leases, which stood for Thursday, Bth June, should supersede that Hon. Member's upon household suffrage. Such being the case, he (Sir R. Peel) presumed that the same courtesy would be extended to other gentlemen who had notices on that day, of which there were so many, and among thee one with respect to Cracow—{Laughter)—that he was afraid there would be no chance whatever for the House proceeding with the Committee on Church leases.—(Hear, hear.) He wished to know from the Noble Lord, whether in the probable event of his not being able to bring on the Committee on Church leases on Thursday, that Com mittee or the Irish Tithe Bill would have precedence on Friday ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he certainly intended that the Committee on Church leases should have pre cedence on Friday ; but it was not his wish to prevent either the motion of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, or that with respect to Cracow being brought forward. Colonel SIBTHORP said that he should certainly press his motion for the reduction of official salaries on that day. CHARGES AGAINST COLONEL ARTHUR. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose, for the purpose of moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the allega tions contained in the petition of Colonel Bradley, which was presented on the 1 7th of Yebruary. That petition T.HE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1837. contained serious charges, not only with respect to the character of Colonel Arthur, but the army generally. Since he had presented that petition, the Noble Lord oppo site had presented a petition from Colonel Arthur, praying also for an inquiry. Considering that Noble Lord had al ways been opposed to inquiry, it was most extraordinary that Col. Arthur should have fixed on him to present the petition. T►i'e charges in the petition of Col. Bradley might be divi ded into two heads ; first—that Colonel Arthur during his appointment in the Honduras had usurped the military command of the King's troops there, and that during that command he had exercised that authority with injustice and inhumanity. When he (Mr. D.) brought this subject forward on a former occasion, he was told that Colonel Arthur was in Van Diemen's Land, and that it was not right to make those charges in his absence. Colonel Arthur was now in England, and within the call of the House ; therefore, he had no scruple now in repeating those charges, and moving for a Committee before which he could substantiate them.—(Hear, hear.) He would prove the charges of cruelty and inhumanity against Colonel Arthur, not only by documentary but by oral evidence, if the Committee were granted. The Hon. Member here referred to an extract from a letter addressed to a London merchant, from Honduras, which stated that the writer had known soldiers to be flogged by tap of drum. Captain Willis did not deny the fact of such corporal punishment having been inflicted. He merely stated that he had no recollection of it ; but he (Mr. Duncombe) would bring forward persons who had a distinct recollection of the facts. There was a most respectable merchant now in London who would come before the Committee and state that Cook was given 550 lashes by tap of drum, and so severe was it that many of the men were obliged to leave the ranks. He was in the militia in Honduras at the time, and saw the punishment. He was called a very hu mane man, but he could not find out in what it consisted. Another case of a similar nature was that of a man named Doherty, who had been punished in exactly the same man ner. Various other cases of inhumanity had been adduced. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Com mittee to inquire into the allegations contained in the peti tion of Thomas Bradley, Esq., late Lieutenant-Colonel 2d West India Regiment, presented to the House on the 17th of February last. Lord HO WICK considered it his duty to oppose the motion. He regretted that the correspondence which took place between the Commander-in-Chief and himself was not yet printed, and placed in the hands of Hon. Members. The press of business had prevented its completion ; but to-morrow morning Hon. Members would have it in their possession. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had divided the charge into two parts, the first of which referred to the circumstances attendant on Colonel Arthur's assumption of the chief military command at Honduras, by which Colonel Bradley was removed from his post ; and the second re lated to the acts of cruelty and inhumanity which it was al leged were perpetrated during his command —( Hear, hear.) Respecting the first part—namely, the right of Col. Arthur to assume the chief military command, he did not think the House ought to grant a Committee of Inquiry, because the question had already been subjected to another tribunal better qualified to decide. An English Court of law had recorded their verdict in the action instituted by Colonel * Bradley against Col. Arthur. The Court of King's Bench had awarded the sum of 1001. damages to the former. This sum had been given against Col. Arthur, on the ground of severe imprisonment, but a distinct negative was put on the assertion that the command had been improperly assumed by Col. Arthur. The sum awarded was considered by Col. Bradley as too small, if the command was illegal, and he applied for a new trial in order to prove the point. The evidence of Sir Henry Taylor and other military officers clearly proved that Col. Arthur was entitled to the command, and the Jourt of King's Bench decided that a new 'trial ought not to be granted. After such a decision he could not consent that the matter should again be entered into. If he had been in the situation of Commander-in-Chief, which the Duke of York then filled, he certainly would not have dealt so leniently with Colonel Bradley as to allow him to quit the service without a Court-martial. The Duke took into consideration his former good conduct, and left him the price of his majority. These were his rea sons for objecting to a Committee of Inquiry on the first part of the charge. With respect to the second, that Colonel Arthur had been guilty of various acts of cruelty and inhumanity, which, if true, would sink him into an abyss of infamy, he should also object to an inquiry. These were alleged to have taken place between the years 1818 and 1820. How came it to pass that, though Col. Bradley was hostile to Col. Arthur, not a hint of this con duct was thrown out until the debate of last year on mili tary flogging ? How did it happen that 18 or 19 years were suffered to elapse without some charge being brought forward on the subject ? Was it to be tolerated that an inquiry should now be granted relative to acts alleged to have taken place so many years before ? It was this con sideration which influenced him, when the Commander-in- Chief referred the case to his investigation, to refuse the inquiry. He stated in his letter to Lord Hill, as Hon. Gentlemen would see when the printed papers were, in the morning, placed in their hands, that, however Colonel Ar thur might desire an inquiry, yet a refusal must be given, as the length of time which had elapsed since the alleged impropriety of conduct was a complete bar to any investi gation at present. If this application were granted there was nothing to hinder charges being brought against other officers, and, though the charges might be utterly false, what difficulty might they not have in disproving them, from the death of witnesses or other circumstances at tendant on the length of time which had elapsed ? The Hot). Gentleman had dwelt on the evidence to be brought against Col. Arthur, and had produced considerable effect on the House by the narration of the various cases. Let the House look to what the evidence really was. In the case of Ingram the evidence was merely hearsay. Persons in this country spoke of what they heard told by a drummer and a black man at Honduras, and on that evidence the Ho nourable Gentleman thought the case was established. Those witnesses were still at Honduras, and if the Committee were appointed its proceedings were at a stand-still until these witnesses were brought over. But, by a sort of provi dential chance, he happened to possess evidence that Col. Arthur was distinguished by a spirit of leniency when in his command at Honduras, and that the Magistrates had deemed it necessary to address him a letter requesting that an example might be made, and pointing at this very man In gram as a fit person for the infliction.—(Hear.) He pos sessed also letters from four officers now surviving, who had been present at Ingram's punishment, and they positively denied the fact that he had been punished by tap of drum. —(Here the Noble Lord read the letters from the magis trates and the officers.) He had, besides, the evidence of three private soldiers of the 2d West India Regiment, also denying the truth of the allegations in Ingram's case. In Cooke's case the facts were these :—Before Colonel Arthur went to the colony there was an anomalous state of judicial authority, arising from the nature of the treaty between this country and Spain. Considerable difficulty was found in establishing a proper tribunal, particularly for grave offenders. The mode of dealing with these was to esta blish Military Courts-martial to try them. Colonel Ar thur doubted of the propriety of awarding death in such a manner, and he set his face against the practice. For atro cious offences, however, he did not object to have recourse to the long-established practice. The magistrates of the colony pointed out the case of Cooke as one to be tried, and added that he was charged with a most atro cious burglary. The man was tried by the Court-mar tial and sentenced—not by the wish of Colonel Arthur, but because the case deserved it. The whole secret of the charges made against Colonel Arthur now was, that he had formerly, in the discharge of his duty, informed against cer tain persons in the colony, who had detained Indians as slaves, contrary to law. He had too good an opinion of the sense of justice which governed the Hon. Gentleman's pro ceedings, not to believe that he would withdraw the motion. Mr. HUME said it was the duty of that House to sup port the present motion, for if it should be rejected, the greatest injustice would be done to a meritorious officer. Sir H. HARDINGE said, that after the very clear and able statement of the Noble Lord the Secretary at War, he felt quite convinced that the House ought not to sanc tion the present motion. He should oppose the motion, because, if such a course were sanctioned, any officer would be liable, after a lapse of twenty years, perhaps, as in the present case, to have charges of this description brought against him. Colonel THOMPSON should vote for the present motion. Mr. C. PELHAM said a few words, which were quite inaudible. Major BEAUCLERK should support the motion, although he feared there was but little chance of its success. Mr. WAKLEY was greatly surprised at the determi nation of the Gallant General opposite (Sir H. Hardinge) to oppose the motion, after the observations which had fallen from that Hon. and Gallant Officer on the subject on a former occasion. After a few words from Mr. Ward, Mr. G. F. Young, and Mr. Dumcombe, in reply, The House divided— ... 34 81 -47 Ayes Noes Majority NATIONAL EDUCATION. Mr. BORTH WICK then rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for establishing a system of National Edu cation. After referring to the systems pursued on the Continent, the Hon. Gentleman went on to say that the one which prevailed in Scotland was more akin to the plan which it was his intention to propose. His wish was to afford to all classes, and at a cheap rate, moral and religious instruction in all branches of education. He would not further intrude than to ask leave to bring in his Bill. Mr. A. TREVOR seconded the motion, On the question being put, Mr. E WART said he should divide the House, and move the previous question, thinking the Bill narrow, sec tarian, and impolitic. Mr. GILLON should also oppose it, as sectarian in its principle. Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Bill was a money Bill, and he apprehended there was a technical objection to pro ceed otherwise than by a resolution, preparatory to mov ing for leave. The SPEAKER said that if the money were to be de rived from the Consolidated Fund, it would no doubt be the more regular course to proceed by resolution ; but the Hon. Gentlemen might obtain leave to bring in the Bill, but could not proceed further without a resolution of the House. Mr. BORTHWICK should be equally ready to take the preliminary step of a resolution. The SPEAKER said that as the Bill would involve a grant of money on a large scale it would be better to pro ceed by resolutien. Mr. STEWART thought a resolution of the House ought to precede any measure which might be proposed. Mr. FORBES could not omit that opportunity of re turning his thanks to the Hon. Member (Mr. Borthwick) for having brought forward the measure. Mr. ROEBUCK could only characterise the Bill as a scheme, and not an artful one, to throw power into the hands of the members of the Established Church. After a few words from Mr. G. Price, Mr. Borthwick, Mr2Wakley, and the Speaker, Mr. BORTHWICK said that he certainly could not take any other step but by resolution.—( Here the Hon. Member was interrupted by loud cries of " Divide," in the midst of which we understood him to propose the with drawal of his original motion.) Mr. HAWES should object to the withdrawal of the Bill, and should take the sense of the House upon it. Mr. BORTH WICK hoped that no such unfair advan tage would be taken of him. Mr. LAW rose, and moved that the House do adjourn. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when the num hers appeared— Ayes Noes 36 34 Majority for the amendment —2 The House then adjourned at a Quarter past Nine o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 1. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. The Bishop of CARLISLE presented petitions in favour of Church -rates, from places in Lincolnshire. Earl GREY presented a petition in favour of the York and Durham Railway, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Lord SEFTON presented a petition from Preston, in favour of the Irish Municipal Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition in favour of Church-rates. Lord SKELMERSDALE presented petitions to the same effect from places in Wilts and Lancashire. Lord DUNCANNON laid on the table the Third Re port of the Irish Poor Law Commission. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Ross and Cromarty, in favour of the Prison Discipline Bill. Mr. BERNAL and other Members of the House of Com mons brought up the Great North of England, Clarence, and Hartlepool Junction Railway Bill, and several other Bills. On the motion of Lord SHAFTESBURY the Rayley Estate Bill was read a third time and passed. On the motion of the same NOBLE LORD several other Bills were also advanced a stage. The Bishop of WINCHESTER presented a petition against the abolition of Church-rates from places in Gla morgan. . _ . The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition from the General Assembly of Scotland, in favour of the Bill for the better observance of the Sabbath. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented a petition in favour of Church -rates, from a place in Gloucester. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions against Church rates, from Highgate, Dartford, from Stratford St. Mary in Suffolk, and other places. The Duke of RU TL AND presented a petition from the Agricultural Society of the county of Leicester, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. The Earl of RIPON then moved for an address to the Crown for copies of a letter from the Secretary of the Governor of Van Diemen's Land to Colonel Arthur, dated Oct. 10, 1836. This letter he (Lord Ripon) be lieved, referred to the actual condition of the penal settlements in that country, and it was important to know how far the mode of punishment there had been relaxed. It was also important to learn the condition of the free settlers there, the numbers of which had increased to a very great extent of late years. It was clear that the state of the colony had been greatly altered in consequence of this, and increased the difficulty of go verning the country in the anomalous state in which it was— composed as its inhabitants were of convicts and free settlers, the children of convicts being also free settlers. The docu ment he moved for would throw a light upon the subject. The Noble Lord then read several statistical documents to show the increase, during the last ten years, of the popula tion of the country, and of the land under cultivation ; also to show the increasing export of wool from that country to this ; of manufactures there ; also of the shipping interest and the fisheries ; the state of education too had been considerably improved ; there was also an increase in the means for reli gious instruction, which kept pace with the increasing popu lation—this did great credit to the exertions of Govern ment. The documents also showed a decrease of crime, as well in reference to offences against the person as against property, this might be owing to the improve ment of the police ; but it was also owing to the improve ments of the state of society there. He would now refer to an individual under whose superintendence these improvements had taken place ; he alluded to Colonel Ar thur, who had exhibited great ability in the execution of his duty—that officer had been an object of much abuse in the colony, but he (Lord Ripon) thought he might quote him as a judicious and a humane governor of the colony. The Noble Lord concluded by moving for the despatch. Lord GLENELG said that he had no objection to the production of the document. He agreed with the Noble Earl that there was no subject more interesting than the state of these colonies, and also that the government of them was a matter of great difficulty. Whatever Colonel Arthur had done, he was sure he had done with the best motives ; he was therefore happy to have the opportunity of adding his testimony to that of the Noble Lord, as to the ability and zeal which Colonel Arthur had displayed in the government of the colony. All the charges which had been made against him he had triumphantly refuted. He would say no more than that in reference to his conduct, he would repeat that he was glad to have the opportunity of expressing his approbation of the conduct of that officer. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that on Monday next he would make a proposition to their Lordships, in reference to the state of the business of the House. POOR LAWS. Lord TEYNHAM presented a petition against the Poor Law Act. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the Mayor and Council of Macclesfield, praying for the repeal of the Poor Law Act, or for a considerable alteration in it. He would now make a few ob servations in reference to the motion of which he had given notice, and in doing so, he begged to observe that he did not cast any blame upon the Commissioners. He would confine himself to the subject of his motion in refe rence to those who were in poor houses. He was aware that regulations existed in reference to the subject which his motion contemplated ; he was aware that it was car ried into effect in several places, especially in Worcester, where the inmates of workhouses were not allowed to at tend their parish. churches ; for there was an order in existence there that Dissenters should be allowed to attend their places of worship, provided they returned to the house at a proper time. This showed that a prohibition existed in respect to those who did not come under this description. No precise order was given by the Commissioners that these parties should not be allowed to attend divine worship at their parish church but regulations were adopted which had been sub mitted for the approval of the Commissioners, and, there fore, the act was virtually theirs.—(Hear.) In present ing a petition some few weeks since, he had stated that this system existed, and he stated that on the best au thority ; for in the second report of the Poor-law Com missioners it was stated that it was an essential rule that paupers should be confined in the workhouses so long as they received relief ; and it further stated, that if this rule were relaxed in favour of any one sect, it would create dissatisfaction amongst others. This rule was not, how ever, acted on in the union of Worcester, and he rejoiced that it was not, as if it were it would infringe upon the prin ciples of toleration which permitted persons to attend their own churches. He thought the mingling of rich and poor in places of worship tended to the best purposes, as showing the poor man that all others were his equals in the sight of God ; and it was a disgrace to Protestantism that this feeling of equality in worship existed to a greater extent in the Catholic church, where the noblest of the land knelt beside his poorest brethren.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Thus the pew system, however beneficial in other respects, was decidedly injurious in this regard, inasmuch as it amounted to an usurpation of the rights of the poor. But although the system of pews was one of which the poor could not avail themselves, was that a reason why the sys tem should be driven a step further, and the poor excluded from the House of God altogether, 'as was the case with reference to the Poor-law Act ? He was sure that if their Lordships would take into their serious consideration the consequences and effects of such a system as this, they would 7-- not hesitate a single moment in endeavouring- to devise some mode of pr. tting a stop to so unjust an interference with the rights and liberties of the poor. 'With respect to the law of the land upon this subject, he was in the presence offline' Noble and Learned Lords who would correct him if he w as wrong ; but, even in the presence of so many sages of die t law, he would maintain, with great deference to them, that the principle adopted in the Poor-law Act was contrary to the canon law as well as to the common law of England: Bishop Gibson, an eminent expounder of ecelesiasticnl law, had laid it down that "no person shall be discharged from the attendance of Divine Worship in his own paro church, or be warranted in resorting to the service of a nother, unless he shall have been licensed to do so by the °tali! nary, and that such license is common in the e cclesiasti cal _ records."—(Hear, hear.) If such, then, was t he law of the land, where was there to be found any precedent of ot a. body of Commissioners being authorised to make a set rules and regulations in defiance of the law ? The Com' missioners were not competent, he apprehended, to do that.—(Hear, hear.) If, however, he were wrong wi th respect to the canon and common law, he was not so s. far as the statute law of England went, for he fo und that by the 21st and 23d of Elizabeth, and by the 3d of bo n d the duty of attending Church was strongly urged, a n _ penalties of a graduated nature attaelfed to a g reater .fe less violation of those enactments.—(Hear, hear.) did not go the length of proposing that those statutie! should be revived or enforced, or that their pen alties shou d be inflicted ; but he merely reminded their Lordships that they were still on the books, and that it wa s wisdom 113 to keep them there. He thought he had succeedeed 'a showing their Lordships that, by the law of the ' prohibition of such a nature was wrong, and he w oula n e. longer trespass upon their Lordships' time and Pail The Right Rev. Prelate then concluded by " Copies of any rule or rules made by the Poor LAW C°P3 e ; missioners, preventing the pauper inmates of workhon!sh from attending Divine Service in their several Pa rl o f Churches on the Lord's Day ; also of any regulations d the Board of Guardians of any Union which bad rece ive s gu i a tioe i the sanction of the Commissioners ; also of any re under which the inmates of any workhouse were allowen by the Commissioners to attend Divine Worship." The Duke of RICHMOND said that the Right Rea, Prelate who bad moved for these returns mu st, be thong" moving 0 , d b e be well aware that almost every parish church view ‘ ; c b too small to admit all the inmates of the workhouse wine might be situated within the parish. In his (the D u 6 of Richmond's) own neighbourhood, indeed there w : us His i parish church which was not large enough for the aki r : ", 6 . wants of the parish congregation alone, and it was '' s tention to enlarge that church.—(Hear.) He couside;ehe that the effect, under such circumstances, of letting " r poor out of the workhouses would lead to anything than the promotion of religion, and tend to fill the b e re , er. shops, and cause dissipation and disturbance. 'W ith ;he spect to the Right Rev. Prelate's observations uP° ll . - te s Dissenters having privileges which the rest of the lou s i ",, - 0 had not, all he could say was, that the Boards of gualr n; were expected to provide the means of religious vver s i y a Tcl but that by one of the first rules by which they reg,' -e g o the workhouses the paupers were not to be allowed t te out of them. He regretted that the Right Rev. Pf c.- had made this motion. The Earl of MALMESBURY said that the pr e— ar motion was one of the results of; and afforded a strengths gument against, the great extent of the unions unde r . de l present Poor Law Act—(Hear, bear)—for if it was that a poor man would not walk seven miles to Church' should he be moved to a distance of seven miles from it (Hear, hear.) to Earl FITZ WILLIAM said it would not be possib' e we carry out the principle for which the Right Rev. r n° ';%. ratb e contended even in an union of comparatively moderat e :43 l tent. The Right Rev. Prelate had spoken of a id error" they had committed in the Poor Law Act, a nd -- „a that it involved a principle contrary to the statute ay, common law of the land. But did not the Right It e n , Prelate know that if the case of a war or any other eon p tingency the militia of the county of Devon were coleP el „ e . to muster and perform duty at Exeter, they would es '' rot cessitate rei, be, at least by far the greater part Of the m, removed from their several places of worship, and th a t fie Churches of Exeter would not, perhaps, hold them? ° 4i. (Earl Fitzwilliam) agr e ed th a t it was an important 0115 deration that a Minister should be in communion wit h ; own congregation, and a congregation should have the ' t be vices of its own Minister ;but he would submit t ° r ic , Right Rev. Prelate whether the pauper inmates of sc " to houses must not necessarily suffer some of their rigfihtgr.) be in abeyance so long as they continued there ?-- - ( rjeB the What would the Right Rev. Prelate think, if, contrary t° at• present system, those inmates were to be compelle d to ve , tend the parish Churches in the union ?--(Hear' ) Act sides, let not the Right Rev. Prelate forget that the, er contained a most humane provision, for it said that au i n to sons of a certain age should not be compelled to g° , ioo r " the workhouse at all, but should be entitled to 'l t - 1 0 relief. He regretted the tone of the Right Rev. Pre'Bl;:t speech. He hoped that no evil would result from tda speech ; but, even if it did not, he (Earl Fitzwilliato) not consider it to be one for which the country would ° the Right Rev. Prelate much gratitude. ° Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that in some u° ,,. the benefits intended to be confirmed by the Act had 'lce defeated by the misconduct of the guardians thems elyeg a ' rt Lord COLCHESTER said a few words, the pot' of which did not reach the gallery. t° Lord MELBOURNE said, that not to give ere the Rev. Prelate for the motives and intentions by he had declared himself to be influenced would bei;`,;ht gatory, not only to the character and station of the tije b Reverend Prelate, but to the Reverend Bench to s v i l ot he belonged.—(Hear, hear.) It would be to suPP° se hiel' the Rey. Prelate had grossly abused the privilege " It he enjoyed, of speaking and voting in that flouse' b do' would be to imagine that he had prostituted the h i g ns et" ties of his sacred to the worst ends and Purl3-orte It would be to suppose that he had sunk below i'`, s l ',ll o per level, and had placed himself on an equality wlysi violent demagogues who, through the means of the, e lia or of public meetings, were trying to excite publiotikiel' against the operation of this law, which he (Lor a + . c os' bourne) believed had be e n f r amed in a spirit the 0 1 ° 5 " fie ciliatory to the poor, and on the soundest principles.h the therefore gave full credit to the declaration 1 41 ' r pac t Right Rev. Prelate had made of the motives vvb l° "aVit h induced him to bring forward the present motion. , bees respect to the case upon which that motion bat' trot mainly founded, the case of the Worcester Union ,b f Act , observe that that was an union formed under the 01 0 pr ice commonly called Gilbert's Act ; and, as the Neb i le pifi° e , had said, there was a chaplain to that Union, an of the " Service was performed regularly within the wal ls 0 b e ' poor-house. The order with respect to Dissenters o to fore their Lordships. It certainly was in contradicti° vro the second part of the report which the Right Re v .' c ool late had read, and was likewise open to the d as .which had been stated, that any persons ill disP °s° ;,,etc or desirous of evading the regular attendance upon divi'rdert° ship, might declare themselves to be Dissenters in ° t atai r effect that object. It is probable, therefore, that the Co t 1 ,414 sioners might have objected to the order as inconsistentheo' part of their report ; but it had never been submitted the their and, therefore, it was not for him to say what to i g i f,d by tile j decision upon it. But the general rule recommend' o. l a Poor Law Commissioners, and after them supP° rt • c hlis approved of by the guardians under the Bill, and v ib i l , n so b ' been considered by all those most experienced on t; a dher e ject as a rule which it was necessary to establish arturhouso to, was this—not merely that the inmates of the Pe (9 , no t g ° should not go out on Sundays, but that they s hoult.' nte d ° out at all without the leave of the person aPP?, I be 50 : manage and superintend such poorhouses. Let membered that this was not a power given by t il , or , bo t Law Amendment Act—that this was not a new P° i ! e d, a° , one given long before, had been continually exere_lnat merely in the parishes of the metropolis but throlig;t country, and did not in any manner depend upon t,7ol,jec_' Law Amendment Act. He apprehended that ,t l ' . . ir oaße; of that measure was to make general a system 01 and tiol, ment which had been adopted in particular parishes' ost het": was one of the rules which had been found to be n i ,„ s aag t ficial in those parishes where an improved systeM ?leD'ease,,:e ment had been introduced. That, then, being ti , l a i n st o _ o must be seen that nothing could be charged ,?T he 10°, Poor Law Commissioners, or the existing state ot t : not ora, e, "{ t this subject. He admitted that this was a questt ° _ w ho 1 .„, interesting to their Lordships and to all persopsc conotr,,:t any regard for the order and morality of tb fished tbor Much might be said on both sides. If persons w tion se e this liberty should be granted to them , for the! oi d a ot b 1 : 11 indulging in disorderly and vicious practices, it rant it denied that the Commissioners ought not to if the persons requesting the liberty were o f ovear:yorily the of religious dispositions and inclinations , .a nd s &rep° the sirous of attending the parish church, in pre o _ too service which would be performed within th i e .a ,`,,, t hat o sl ot relaxation e, it certainly might be highly des! t o r hie relaxation of the rule should take place._ a: l " c ` ors icle y o , g d u is a c r r d e i t a io n n s — , did that lead ? It only tended to show tat the 2°l. ri 00 1 the o f the P a or circumstances of each case-- church—the distanctbe c hara °t- had I(vHhoeamr,usilteabre)—gmuiudsetdbbevversetfeedreeni referen t t° church—the possibility of attending it . - - n _ 3lOl t hey_ tir g the persons applying—and the m anner for ins: vers the Commissioners and Guardians with o f toe c a fro "; conducted themselves. That was the It had always been the law and customb pree n" ;ste" houlu . • eons - ia that the inmates of poor-houses s nsidered sions going out ;and it could hardly be 0 c. h sane Pi be s with the law because it clashed wit might as .d lit , fl oor' I li this Act. If this rule were Mega that the r e to reason large : no tr / that imprisonment was illegal, and w i t h resP ought to be thrown open on a Sunday. '