The Sun. — London, England, 1837-03-21 00:00:00

ltr to that which carried the Reform Act—the argn-; tnenturn ad Birmingham.—Morning Advertiser. We have had in the House of Commons able speeches upon the affairs of Spain. Mr. Maclean las elucidated the circumstances of the present strug gle with great industry and extensive research ; Lord Mahon has brought to the illustration of the subject the resources of a mind rich in historical information ; Sir Robert Peel has exposed the vanity, the vacilla tion, the fatuity, of the Foreign-Office, with the most conclusive argument and the most bitter sarcasm ; but this is not enough—it is time to ask the House of Commons for a vote. We know bow strong is the repugnance which is felt by constitutional statesmen against any course which may tend to exact from the Foreign-Office premature disclosures, or to embarrass in any way the free action which, within certain bounds, is rightly allowed to the King's Ministers in their ma nagement of the external relations of the country. We do not blame the Conservatives for their long-for bearance, though the Whig Radicals would not have been so delicate in a similar position. If the Duke of Wellington had been in Lord Palmerston's place one-tenth part of the supplies which iNlendizabal has squandered, one-tenth part of the interference which Lord John Hay has practised, one-tenth part of the losses which Colonel Evans has sustained, would have afforded a theme to blustering patriots for motions without number, and orations without end. But once more, we do not blame the Conservatives for their long forbearance. Yet surely it has reached its limit— surely there is a depth of disaster and disgraCe at which Englighmen who love England are entitled to pause, and to demand from the contriver of these harms an account of his stewardship. We ven ture to counsel the Conservatives against the fear which calls itself caution. There is no need of the pros and cons of party tactics. The Spanish policy of Lord Palmerston is condemned by the universal voice of the country and of its represen tatives. Its injustice long ago made it odious : its failure has now rendered it contemptible. Let us see whether the House of Commons will dare to sanction by a vote the iniquities and the blunders which not ten of its Members, out of its walls, hesitate to denounce and to deride. If the Members of the House of Commons should vote honestly, in the dis charge of their duty to their constituents, an address for the dismissal of Lord Palmerston would be carried to-morrow by an overwhelming majority ; and if they should vote dishonestly, in fulfilment of their pledges to the Administration—if they should vote that black is white, to keep the Melbourne Ministry in office—certain are we that men so unmindful of the credit and of the interests of their country would never again disgrace the deliberations of a British Se nate. Is it not marvellous that Lord Palmerston's colleagues, unpopular as they are, should endure —should embrace—the superfluous and unprofitable unpopularity which accrues to them from their alliance with this contemptible man ? Lord Palmerston has been the hack of every party that has successively held the reins of Government for nearly thirty years : and in the history of each Administration to which he has belonged Lord Palmerston earns for himself no parti cular distinction but that which is due to the versatility which has enabled him to accept the wages of them all. Lord Palmerston has been a Tory and a Radical with equal sincerity : but little honoured among Tories, and little trusted among Radicals. Lord Palmerston has cheered the speeches of Lord Castlereagh and the speeches of Sir John Hobhouse with similar enthu siasm ; but Lord Castlereagh did not bring him into the Cabinet, and Sir John Hobhouse can hardly be anxious to keep him there. In council he is both un wise and unfortunate ; in debate he is both indo lent and ineffective. Neither by his moral vir tues nor by his intellectual powers, neither by his connections nor by his professions, does lie command any following in the House, or in the country. What inducement, then, have Lord Palmerston's colleagues to take upon themselves their share of the censure and ridicule which follow Lord Palmerston's policy ? However, if none but Lord Liverpool's Secretary-at-War will serve for Lord Mel bourne's Secretary of State, it is time, as we before said, for the Commons to interfere. Before another man is sent out to Colonel Evans, before another musket is handed to Mendizabal, before another treaty is framed, before another protocol is penned, let the House of Commons be asked for a vote. We verily believe that in a resolution expressing censure of Lord Palmerston's Spanish policy all parties but the mere placeman party would concur : Mr. Roebuck supporting Lord Stanley—Sir William Molesworth echoing Sir Robert Peel. Some may like Lord John Russell for his endeavours to rob the Irish Church—others may love Mr. Spring Rice for his willingness to defraud the English Church : Mr. Poulett Thomson may have made friends by his rea diness to repeal the Corn-laws—Lord Howick may have won popularity by his disposition to yield on the Ballot ; but, notwithstanding all this, scarcely the most corrupt, scarcely the most audacious, will venture to vote the continuance of a system by which British treasure is wasted, British lives sacrificed, British interests endangered, and British honour disgraced. --llfor fling Post. The subject of Post Office Reform is one of such deep importance to a commercial nation, that once it is fairly undertaken, we cannot doubt of important results. There are two distinct views to be taken of this subject, of which one may be considered the official view, the other the popular, but in both it would seem there is a great field for useful inquiry. Officially, the Post Office is regarded as a source of State revenue, and though public convenience is by no means lost sight of, vet, we believe that the pro ductiveness of the Post Office, as a source of revenue, is the principal object. According to the popular view, which consists also with the view of the framers of the Post Office Establishment in the reign of Charles 11., the principal object should be the accom modation of the public by the quick and certain, and cheap transmission of correspondence, and the conse quent advantage which commerce, and, indeed, every active pursuit of life, would therefrom receive. The investigations of several Government Commissions, and the discussions of various points relating to Post Office management in the House of Commons, have roused a decree of public attention to the details of the subject which already has led to some beneficial consequences. and will probably lead to many more. Among them we perhaps ought to rank the pamphlet of Mr. Row land Hill, who appears to have thoroughly looked into the subject, and whose views of Reform are certainly of no confined range. He goes so far, indeed, in his speculations, that we fear some of the attention which his pamphlet has received may be as much on account of its strangeness, as for more practical reasons ; but even those who think that his views of what may be done touch rather upon the realm of extravagance, must admit the value of the information, which he has con densed from official documents, and of the calculations which he has founded upon that information. Look ing at the Post-office as a source of revenue, it must be quite clear, upon an inspection of the financial re turns, that there is something wrong. On a compari son of the receipts of 1815 with those of 1835, it ap pears that there is no increase whatever of revenue to the state, but a trifling diminution. Mr. Hill, how ever, shows, by calculation, that if the increase in the receipt had advanced in proportion to the increase in the population of the country, there would, in 1835, bare been an increase in the Post-office revenue of 507,7001. a year. But the case is made much stronger by a comparison of the progress of Post-office revenue with that of a revenue which may be considered to de pend upon nearly the same influences—namely, the revenue from the tax upon stage coaches. If the Post-office revenue since 1815 had increased in the same proportion that the revenue from stage coaches has increased, the Government would now be receiving from the Post-office two millions a year more than it does receive I It is fair to make allowance for greater facilities to the public which have been afforded since 1815, and a consequent increase of expense ; but, taking this into consideration, it is still evident that some principle must have been operating with regard to Post-office revenue, that made it an exception to the general laws of increase by which other sources of revenue are governed. This principle will, no doubt, be found in the excessive rates of postage. The taxation upon the conveyance of letters is so great, that, upon a large scale, it becomes more profitable to cVade thr law, and to incur the than to send letters through the c hinitl which would make them contri hut* to the revenue. The quantity of letters and com munications of all sorts which the law requires to be sent through the Post-office, but which are not 30 sent, must be enormous. If it were not so, our Post-office revenue must have been by this time fully double what it is. to France, where the progress of omi - tierce, and the activity of communication s is so Much inferior; the Post-office receipt has increased 54 per cent: since 1821. In this country it has rather ch**ettfir:4 since 1813. In Mr. Hill's pamphlet he calculates the tax upon letters—that ib r the cost of postage beyond the actual expense of transmission--at no less than 300 per cent. He contemplates three rates of reduction, of which he prefers the last. Reduction to a considerable extent, would, according to his view, produce an increase of revenue ; a second reduction would be required to bring back the revenue to- its present amount ; and a third to bring it to the limits which he proposes. Our readers will perhaps smile when they hear that that limit is one penny per half-ounce ; and since, according to his cal culation, the expense of conveying a letter to the most distant part of the kingdom is so small as not to be measurable by any existing coin, he would have the same rate whether the latter was conveyed a short dis tance or a long—that is to say, one p enn y f or a ll l etters . We cannot of' course enter, in this place, into the details of management by which he conceives this reduction might be accomplished, but they are at once bold and ingenious ; and we do not in the least doubt that ere many years pass a reduction of postage will actually take place, the mention of which at this day seems almost ridiculous. We do think that Mr. Hill's enthusiasm for cheap postage has rather run away with him, and that he expects an activity, and an accommo dation of long-established habits to the new system, which would be found in practice wholly impossible. But Mr. Hill leaves room for a very considerable re coil from his proposition before we fall back upon that which now exists. We think it is quite clearly esta blished that, in our present system, some very erro neous principle is in operation ; and we feel confident that, by proper attention to the subject, there may be combined greater accommodattion to the public, along with a greater contribution to the revenues of the State.—Morning Herald. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 20. The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat at Five o'Clock. Lord STRAFFORD presented a petition from Poole, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. . Thee Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented petitions from various parishes in the county of Kent, against the aboli tion of Church-rates. The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions from Stroud, Stanmore, Edgeware, Bushey, and other parishes, to the same effect. The Bishop of St. A SAPH presented petitions from Whit tington, and other places, to the same effect. Lord HADDINGT ON presented petitions from several parishes in the county of Nottingham, to the same effect. Also a petition from Mr. Hope Johnstone, claimant of the Annandale Peerage, praying their Lordships to take his case into consideration and give judgment upon his petition, by which he claimed the Peerage so long ago as 1820. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the clergy of the diocese of Dromore, and also from the clergy of the diocese of Clogher, against the present system of edu cation in Ireland. The Right Reverend Prelate took the op portunity of saying that a statement made by the Noble and Learned Lord whom he saw in his place ( Lord Plunket) with respect to certain forgeries which had been committed in certain signatures and applications which had been made to the Board was, as he was informed by a letter he held in his hand, entirely without foundation. Lord PLUNK ET said that he had no personal knowledge of the subject, and all he had stated was the fact as he had been informed, as it appeared before the Commissioners, and which he believed to be true. He had been assured that both the names of Mr. Morrison and Son were in the same hand writing. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mr. Fox MAULE, and other Members of the House o) Commons, brought up the Loughborough Small Debts Bill, and several private Bills. The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions against the abolition of Church-rates from several parishes in Stafford shire, Herts, and Norfolk ; also from Brattlestoke, Totness, and Harford, in Devonshire. POOR LAWS. Lord HOLLAND said he had a petition to present from the constable and inhabitants of Salford; but although they had done him the honour of entrusting it to him, he must sa , he differed altogether from the prayer of it, which was—that their Lordships would alter the Poor-law Amendment Bill. The Bishop of EXETER said that he concurred in the prayer of the petition, but would not make any further ob servations in respect to it, lest they might excite adverse decla rations. He, however, took the present occasion of stating, that he had received many petitions on this subject, which he would present on Thursday next. The Duke of RICHMOND said that he had been entrusted with a petition on this subject by the Guardians of a Union in Sussex, praying that their Lordships would not consent to make any alteration in the Poor-law Bill. The petitioners stated that Sussex had been one of the most pauperised dis tricts in the kingdom under the old law, but that the new law had been so satisfactory that it was their unanimous opinion that the condition of the poor was less precarious, and that they were more effectually relieved by the working of the pre sent system, and they therefore prayed that their Lordships would not consent to any serious alteration of the law.—. (Hear.) He (the Duke of Richmond) would take the oppor tunity of saying, that he concurred in the opinion of the peti tioners. He had beenjChairman of a Board of Guardians in the country, and was ready to prove before a Committee of their Lordships' House if a Committee was appointed that the condition of the aged and the infirm, of children, and the de serving poor, was now better than under the old law. Before the new system was adopted, the overseer might refuse relief of his own accord, or the pauper might go to a magistrate, who might be ready to sign an order on the rates ; but now the the poor had the protection of attending the Board of Guardians, by whom they could be heard and their cases imparti a lly de cided on.---( Hear.) There were few measures therefore, he would say, which effected more for the well-being of the poorer classes than that in favour of which he presented this petition. CHURCH-RATES. Lord HOLLAND presented petitions in favour of the abolition of' Church -rates from tho Protestant Dissenters of Newport Chapel, Chancery-lane, and also from several pa rishes in Kent. The Bishop of BANGOR presented petitions from Arling ton in Cumberland, and from parishes in Westmorland, in fa vour of Church-rates. Lord ABERDEEN presented a petition to the same effect from the members of the Scotch Church in Liverpool. The Marquis of DOWNS HIRE presented a petition from the Union of Windsor, praying that their Lordships would re sist any attempt to impede or impair the efficiency of the work ing of the poor-laws. The petitioners stated that the union con sisted of six parishes, and that under the new law 40 per cent., or 3,396/. had been saved there in one year. He would observe that it was desirable such a measure should be extended to, or at least have a fair trial in, Ireland, and any measure to that effect would have his best wishes. Lord DUNCA NN ON brought up the Report of the Com missioners of Inquiry as to Poor-laws in Ireland, which was laid on the table. Tho Duke of BLTCCLEIIGH presented petitions in fa vour of Church -rates, from parishes in Gloucestershire and Northumberland. Lord KEN YON presented petitions to the same effect from several places in Yorkshire. Earl DEVON presented petitions from Plymouth, Barn staple, and other places, against the abolition of Church-rates. Earl MANSFIELD presented petitions from Tamworth, Weldon, and other places, to the same effect. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented petitions from Monmouth, Mapleton, and other parishes, to the same effect. Lord WHA RNC L IFFE presented petitions from Windsor, Huddersfield, and parishes in the county of Berks, to the same effect. Lord HARDWICK E presented petitions from a great many parishes in the county of Cambridge to the same effect. The Noble Lord said that some of these petitioners stated that the claim of the Dissenters was unjustifiable. He would state one circumstance, which induced him to agree with the petitioners. It would be in the recollection of the House that last year their Lordships passed the Regis tration of Marriages (Dissenters) Bill, which threw on the public the expense of building a great many houses for the accommodation of those who chose to get married in them.—( Hear.) Now, as he never could ex pect to see his children married in those places, and as he would in some way or other have to contri bute to the expense of raising and supporting these houses, if the Dissenters were now paying something to wards the support of an Institution which they did not con sider they derived benefit from, in his opinion they could not claim any sympathy in that respect, but were merely in a situation to cry quits on the subject. Lord MONTFORT presented petitions from Stoney Stratford, and other places, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. Earl RADNOR presented a petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Richmond, in the county of York, to the same effect. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Bradford, in tho county of York, signed by some thousands; also peti tions from Chelmsford, Alorpeth, Dover, Caruarvou and se veral places in Wales, praying for tile abolition of Church rates. A Message by Mr. STANLEY and others brought up a copy of the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee appointed in 1834 on the Affairs of Lower Canada; also the Runcorn Gas-light Bill. Mr. Ellis attended from the. Court of Exchequer ( Ireland), and presented papers. The Pistilli) of B rsiGo R. said that be had now to pre'setli a petition, agreeable to the notice he had given on the subject, of the revenms of the Secs cf Bangor and St. Asaph, in the event of the union of those Saes.—(Hear. ) The petitioners d;d not see any good reason for encroaching upon their ancient institutions. The Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor had eitsted in their teparate stele from time immemorial, and before Walt's formed a part of this country ; and they itete of Opinioti that hy uniting them great injustice would be done, and much inCon7enionee would be caused, riot only to the people; but to thb gna clef tymen; There Wei; paiagf Oil in the report Whieti in tOtite Measure reconciled them to the proposal. The pilragraph was to the effect that a large proportion of the re venues of the See should be devoted to the improvement of the poorer livings. The Bight Rev. Prelate, who was almost in audible in the gallery, went on to detail the alterations subse quently made by the Church Commissioners in their plan, and the correspondence that passed between them and himself in consequence. lle concurred in the prayer of the petitioners, and he certainly thought that the Commissioners had acted hastily in the recommendations which they had made to Parlia ment. lie regretted very much to express thus publicly his dissent from the proceedings of the Commissioners, for whom he entertained the most sincere esteem and respect ; but in the few observations he bad made he trusted that he had expressed his opinion with temper and moderation. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought that the Right Rev. Prelate would have done better if he had entered into communication with the Commissioners before he brought forward the matter in the House, for they were certainly the best jud,Tes on the subject. The Bishop of BANGOR said that the reason he had brought the matter forward in the House was because he thought it would have been improper to introduce it before the Com missioners. After a few words from another Right Rev. Prelate, whose name we could not learn, Lord HOLLAND, and the Bishop of LONDON, the petition was received. Lord R E DES DALE moved the third reading of the Scotch and Irish Vagrants Bill. Lord BROUGHAM suggested the propriety of deferring the Bill until after the holidays. After a short conversation, in which Lord REDESDALE, Lord BROUGHAM, and the LORD CHANCELLOR, took part, the second reading of the Bill was postponed until Thursday, April 6. THE WILLS BILL. Lord LANGDALE moved the third reading of this Bill. Lord BROUGHAM said that the alteration which their Lordships had made in this measure had brought it back to the same state in which it stood in the year 1835, when it came from the House of Commons, and when great objections were urged against it. Several Noble Lords on the opposite side of the House had said, upon the introduction of this measure, " see the consequences of the delay which has occurred—the measure comes now before us considerably improved." But the provisions had been very carefully and candidly considered, and everyone of the charges had been given up, so that the Bill was now in substance, though not in all the details, pre cisely similar to the former measure. They had absolutely gained nothing by the delay ; but the consequence had been that some highly important measures with respect to the Ec clesiastical Courts had been likewise delayed. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Their Lordships adjourned shortly after Seven o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 20. The SPEAKER took the chair this day at Four o'Clock. A Messenger from the Court of Chancery presented returns according to order. A Messenger from the East India House presented certain resolutions respecting the granting of pensions, pursuant to order. SOUTHWARK AND HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY. Mr. BAINES presented a petition from the Directors of the Southwark and Hammersmith Railway Company, contra dicting certain allegations in a petition lately presented against the passing of their Bill. DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. EVANS, leave was given to bring in a Bill for Altering and Amending the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Act. Lord HENNIKER brought in the Lowestoffe Harbour Bill, which was read a first time. The Noble Lord also moved the third reading of the Loughborough Small Debts Bill._ Agreed to. DURHAM JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. LAMBTON brought in the Durham Junction Rail. way Bill, which was read a first time. NORTH AMERICAN STEAM NAVIGATION. Mr. HAMILTON brought up the Report of the Commit tee on the North American and Colonial Steam Navigation, and brought in a Bill for enlarging the powers of that Corn any, which was read a first time. MERTHYR TYDVIL ROADS, Mr. MACKINNON brought in the Merthyr Tydvils' Road Bill, which was read a first time. SOUTHWARK AND HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY. Captain ALSAGER presented a petition from the Church wardens of Christchurch, Surrey, complaining that notice of the intention of the shareholders to apply for this Bill had been served in the name of the City of London Railway Company. The petitioners stated that they had been watching a Railway Bill under that title, but had found no notice of such upon the books, and they had been thereby prevented from attending to the progress of the Southwark and Hammersmith Railway Bill. The SPEAKER said the question was one of much im portance, and he confessed that be was totally ignorant of the mattnev id which the title of the Bill had been changed. He would make inquiries on the subject. Captain ALSAGER brought in the Southwark Collier Dock Bill, which was read a first time. DERBY SMALL DEBTS BILL. On the motion of Mr. STRUTT, this Bill was read a first time. DUNDALK WESTERN RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. S. CRAWFORD, this Bill was read a first time. WATERFORD COUNTY RATES BILL. On the motion of Mr. V. STEWART, this Bill was read a first time. DROGHEDA AND KELLS RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. HAMILTON, this Bill was read a first time. ST. PANCRAS PARISH. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from certain rate-payers and mortgagees of the parish of St. Pancras, against a Bill (No. 2) which had been introduced into that House, against which the same objections apply as had been stated on a former occasion. The petition stated, that this Bill com prised certain changes, altering and increasing the rates, no notice having been given to that effect as prescribed by the Standing Orders. The petition prayed that the Bill might not be entertained. In conse quence of the salutary regulations introduced by the Speaker with reference to the conduct of private business, it was ren dered imperative on agents conducting proceedings in Par liament that the Bills which they introduced should be in conformity to the Standing Orders. The agents were made personally responsible to the House for the due observance of the rules, orders, and, regulations, of Parliament. It appeared to him that this Bill came dis tinctly within the rule laid down on the former occasion, in consequence of which the Bill No. I was withdrawn. He pre 'mined that the Speaker would take the same course with re spect to this Bill in determining how far the Standing Orders of the House had been complied with. Mr. WILK S thought that proper notice had not been given. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. Sir H. PA RNELL brought up the Dundee Water-works Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow. Lord D. STUART presented a petition from Ayr in favour of the Glasgow and Ayr Railway Bill. Mr. RUTHVEN brought up the Cotton Joint Stock Com pany Bill, which was read a first time. Mr. M. PHILIPS brought up the report of the Stand ing Order Committee on the Leeds Railway Bill, reporting that the Standing Orders had been complied with. The Hon. Member also brought up the Report of the Committee on the Sheffield and Manchester Railway. Mr. if INDLEY brought up the report of the Committee on the Rochdale Road Bill. The Hon. Member also brought in a Bill for the purpose of forming Water Works at Barnsley. On the motion of Mr. JONES, the Llanrwst Road Billwas read a third time and passed. Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition in favour of the Glasgow, Paisley, and Ayr Railway. Also a petition from Kilmarnock in favour of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway. SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. On the motion of Captain JONES the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill was read a first and second time, and ordered to be committed. KINGSWORTHY AND WESTMONCKTON RAIL- WA Y. Mr. MORRISSON wished to state, for the information of Gentlemen interested in the Kingsworthy and Westmonekton Railway Bill that it was not the intention of the Company to proceed with the second reading, which stood for to-morrow, but it was their determination to apply to Parliament in the next Session. The , reasons which induced them to follow this course were the resolutions of the House in another Railway come to last week which might probably affect their case, and the great scarcity of capital at present. He should therefore move that the Order of the Day for the second reading b e now discharged. SOUTH MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY. Mr. T. GLADSTONE presented petitions against the South Midland Counties Railway Bill. Lord CASTLEREAGH moved for leave to extend the time for bringing in the Belfast and Newry Railway Bill (as we understood the Noble Lord). The SPEAKER intimated that the proper course for the Noble Lord to pursue would be to present a petition, praying for leave to bring in the Bill. Lord G. SOMERSET brought up the Report of the Committeeonthe BRISTOL B sm ALL Birmingham a nd Gloucester Railway Bill. Sir R. VYVYAN b roug ht i n thie TS BILL. e Bill which was r ea d y a first time. - GLASGOW AND GREENOCK RAILWAY BILL. Mr. GREENE presented petitions from the Provost and Magistrates of Greenock, and from the Chamber of Commerce of Greenock, in favour of the above Bill, which was then read a secondti STUARTe.rbour Bill UART brought in the ArdrPssaii / Lord J. , which was read a first time. EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWKI. atThnhedTh The Provostst ite s t a ti ng t AT ni .nga TO ntadhnadLtß Learned their CouncilrEned• objections GENERAL NMember m berEd i n b urght presented rethse pe enr Billt e s n d e n f aa t h ed a yapodeutbri etpoieoefnnt thisrt r o mo n rmoßvill same body, in favour of the Glasgow and Paisley Railway Bill, 131 - 41,FAT HARBOUR: On the motion of Mr. E. TEI 4 NENT this Bill was read a ,rst time. BATH GAS BILL. Or, the motiol of Mr. ROEBUCK this Bill was read a first time. JJUNGARVAN ELECTION. The SPE Ala 12 ir,forriscd the flouts, that as Mr. Oalwey had not entered into his recognisances to prosecute his petition of the 3d of MarCh, complaining of an undue election for that bOrtittel; the btder for ttilting, it into Consideration must be dis charged. The order was accordingly dikhafgefli A new writ was moved for the borough of Warwick, in the room of the Hon. C. J. CANNING, now called to the Upper House.—Ordered. DEPTFORD AND DOVER RAILWAY. Mr. WA SON presented a petition, praying that the Kent and Dover Railway might be referred to the Committee on the Deptford Railway. Captain POLHILL resisted the prayer of the petition. He was willing that every investigation should take place, but he thought that it should be referred to the Committee on the 13ill. If the Hon. Member did not take that course, he should take the sense of the House on the subject. He was willing that every investigation should take place with regard to this petition, and he, as one of the Directors, could pledge his word and honour that the allegations therein contained were false in every respect. The Hon. Member concluded by moving an amendment, that the petition be referred to the Committee on the Bill. Mr. R. WASON could assure the House that he had no personal interest whatever in the matter ' • and he had no ob jection t o an y course w hi c h m i g ht meet the ends of justice. After a few observations from" Sir E. KNATCHBULL, the petition was ordered to be referred to the Committee on the Deptford and Dover Railway Bill. _ DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. - - Mr. G. EVA NS brought in a Bill for extending the powers of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Company, which was read a first time. THE FACTORY ACT. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, before moving the Order of the Day, wished to say a few words with respect to a notice of a Noble Lord opposite relative to an alteration in the Factory Act. Complaints had been made that Mr. Horner, one of the Factory Inspectors, had issued certain orders and made regulations inconsistent with the provisions of that Act. It appeared to him (Lord John Russell) that it was a matter of doubt whether these regulations were in conformity with the Act, and the matter had been accordingly referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. Their opinion was, that these regulations which related to the judging of the age of children from the strength of their persons only, without re ferring to any other evidence which might be given of their actual ages, were not in conformity with the spirit of the Act. On receiving that opinion he had directed that instructions should be sent to Mr. Horner, requiring him to attend to that opinion, and to act strictly in execution of the Act. He would take leave to add, that when the Bill of last year had been given up, he ( Lord John Russell) had issued directions, after consulting with his Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that the present Act might be strictly put into execution. If any error had arisen, he could assure the House it did not occur from any wish on the part of the Factory Inspectors either to shrink from the execution of the Act, or to put a wrong construction on it. He hoped under these circumstances that the Noble Lord would not persevere in the motion of which he had given notice on the subject. Lord ASHLEY said it never had been his wish, or that of those with whom he acted upon this question, to make any personal charge against Mr. Horner—( Hear)—though they had thought it their duty to question his acts. With the explanation which the Noble Lord had just made, he was per fectly satisfied, and would not press his motion.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. FA Z AKE It LY brought up a Report from the Poor law Amendment Committee. Mr. HINDL EY hoped the Attorney-General would in form the House of the grounds upon which he had come to the conclusion that the instructions of Mr. Horner were illegal. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was not prepared to give his opinion upon a matter of such importance in such an off hand manner as his Hon. Friend seemed to expect. He would give the case his utmost consideration, and inform him of the result. CHURCH-RATE BILL. In answer to Mr. L AMBTON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the Government did not intend to proceed with the Church-rate Bill till after Easter. Mr. MACLEAN gave notice that on the 20th of April he would move for returns relative to the College of Maynooth, and would then draw the attention of the House to the condition of the second order of the Catholic Priesthood in Ireland.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman also gave notice that he would to-morrow ask whether the Government had received any dispatches from the north of Spain confirmatory of the rumours of late events before St. Sebastian. _ _ Mr. C. PELHAM wished to ask the Government whether they had received any communication respecting the Severn Navigation Bill ? He thought the rights of the Crown were interfered with, as well as those of all who were connected with or concerned in that navigation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the attention of the Government bad been called to the Bill, and in consequence of that the Bill had been submitted to the" Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and the Exchequer Loan Office ; from what had taken place at these offices, cer tain alterations had been suggested, but not of such a nature as finally to settle the subject. The information that was required upon the subject, he trusted would be obtained during the recess. _ . SPAIN. Sir JOHN EL LEY wished to know whether his Ma esty's Ministers were prepared with any measure to re lieve the sufferings of the unfortunate men who composed the British Legion in Spain.—( Cheers.) It was his firm be lief that no person in the United Kingdom would object to any expense that was incurred in so laudable an object. Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the present state of af fairs it was impossible for him to give any direct or positive answer to the question of the Hon. Member. Sir H. HARDINGE hoped Government would take im mediate steps upon the subject. CHURCH-RATES. Mr. VERNON wished to know whether it was the inten tion of his Majesty's Government in the Church-rates' Bill to introduce a special clause, relative to the leaseholders of the county of Durham. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce a clause in the Church-rates Bill with respect to the leaseholds of any particular county ; their object was to give satisfaction to all parties. CANADA. Mr. ROEBUCK wished to ask the Noble Lord if he had come to any conclusion as to the day on which the affairs of Canada were again to be discussed ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the motion for renewing the adjourned debate on the affairs of Canada at present stood for to-morrow, and it would be in his power, following an example which had more than once been adopted during the Session, to move an amendment on the motion for the first Order of the Day, that the affairs of Canada should take precedence.—( Hear, hear, hear.) At the same time he was unwilling to enter into any project of that sort, if the Hon. Member for Bath would say that he wished to avoid the discussion of the question, and put it off, by delay, as long as he could.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Mr. ROEBUCK did not wish it should come on before Easter, but would accede to any day after Easter that the Noble Lord might fix upon. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then stated that he would fix the debate, for the first Wednesday after Easter.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. ROBINSON begged to remind the Noble Lord that he had entered into a compact with the Vice-President of the Board of Trade that he should be allowed to bring on the question relative to the East India Officers' Bill on that day. Mr. GOULBURN understood the Transfer of Aids Bill had left the House, and his Right Hon. Friend (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer) knew well, he believed, that it was customary in the early part of the Session to move the Ex chequer Bills in Committee of Supply. He begged to know why that course had been departed from on the present occa sion, as he did not apprehend that any public inconvenience would arise from answering the question? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made some explanation across the table, which was quite inaudible in the Gallery. BOROUGH BOUNDARIES. Mr. PEASE begged to ask whether the Bill for the Re gulation of the Boundaries of Municipal Corporations would be laid upon the table before Easter. Lord JOHN RUSSELL believed the Bill was quite ready, and hoped it would be laid upon the table on Thursday. The NOBLE LORD then moved the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, and hoped the Hon. Member for Coventry would postpone the motion of which he had given notice. Mr. WILLIAMS did not wish to offer any obstruction to the business of the House being proceeded with, and would withdraw his motion. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said that the Hon. and Gallant Member for Scarborough had, when the Bill was last before the House, referred to a speech made by him (Sir J . C a mpbell) two or three years ago, and in which, it was imagined that he (Sir John Campbell) had expressed an approbation of the assassination of Archbishop Sharp. Now he ( Sir John Campbell) would declare that he had never ut tered such sentiments, for he believed that act to have been a foul and atrocious murder. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—IRELAND. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented petitions from Kerry, praying for a measure of Municipal Reform for Ireland similar to that now enjoyed by England and Scotland. Mr. SH A - RMAN CRAWFORD presented a similar peti tion from Derryleran, in the county of Tyrone, to the same effect; also a petition from the town of Bangor, in the county of Down, praying to be included in the list of corporate towns of Ireland. Petitions for Corporate Reform for Ireland were presented by Mr. M. Bellew, from the county of Louth ; by Mr. V. Stuart, from Waterford ; by Colonel Butler, from Kilkenny ; and by Mr. Morgan O'Connell, from Meath. Mr. HAMILTON presented two petitions against tho Bill for Reforming the Municipal Corporations of Ireland. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL. Sir JAMES GRAHAM seeing the Committee on the Registration of Voters Bill among the notices for this evening, wished to state that it was his intention to urge certain arguments against the principle of the measure at its next stage, as the second reading was allowed to pass without opposition. It was, however, impossible to proceed ''h it to-night, and he wished that an early day might be wh. '. on which it could be brought forward, after Easter: namekThe., A ''FTORNEY-GENERAL said he would not press the Bill further until after Easter, and he should take care thrt the Right Hon. Baronet had doh notice of the day named for the Committee upon it. MR. EMMERSON TENNENT. Mr. O'C ONN via' be had a motion to brin g forward respecting s'zateinents is the spee:t: the Hon. and Learned Member for Belfast, on the occasion Or the last debate on the Municipal Corporations' Ireland And as the discussion on his motion would not occupy much titiie, he trusted the House would allow him to bring it forward, espe cally as the statements put fort‘ ard by the Member to whom lib alluded greatly affected the character of one of the highest jildiCial functionaries in Ireland. His motion was for a re turn of the pfodeeditt,,og against a man earned Mackarran, who was three times tried at ilicenagitan on a charge of murder, the indictment preferred against him, the name of the Judge before whom he was tried, the number of jurors set aside by the Crown on each occasion, and the name of the gen tleman who then filled the office of his Majesty's Attorney- General in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) His motion was ren dered necessary by a speech published in the newspapers from the M. S. of the Hon. and Learned Member for Belfast. He would not stop to inquire how much of that speech was spoken in the house, but it was therein stated that the rule in troduced by the late Attorney- General for Ireland had been pro ductive of vicious consequences, and he instanced the case of Mackarran to show the impropriety of adopting the regulation of dispensing with the right of the Crown to set aside jurors. The Hon. and Learned Member for Belfast stated that this rule was introduced by the present Master of the Rolls, and that its vicious effects were visible in the case of which he spoke, as well as in that of a man named Carter, referred to by the Honourable and Learned Member for Bandon. He (Mr. O'Connell) would not now say anything of that case, but would bring it under the notice of the House immediately after Easter. The Hon. and Learned Member for Belfast said he spoke from details which he held in his hand, and which were therefore entitled to more attention. The late Attorney-General, Mr. O'Loughlen, was accused of making a regulation by which murderers were allowed to es cape, and justice defeated. He was now commissioned to deny in the strongest mariner he might do so, according to the forms of the House, that there was any shadow of trnth in the accusation. Mr. O'Loughlen had made a rule by which no one was to be set aside as a juror except good cause was shown for so doing, which was a ma nifest improvement upon the old practice ; and now no man was set aside in consequence of his politics or reli gion. ( Hear, hear, hear.) That denial would be enough to clear the character of Mr. O'Loughlen ; but still further, he was furnished with dates, which proved that the last of the three trials to which allusion had been made did not fall under the cognizance of that Learned Gen tleman at all—that the last one was had five months before Mr. O'Loughlen came into office—that they were had when Mr. Blackburne was Attorney-General, and the Earl of Haddington governed at the castle. Three trials had taken place during the Attorney-Generalship of Mr. Blackburne, and in every one of those trials the Roman Catholic jurors were set aside.—( Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would allow him to have the returns he had moved for, as they would demonstrate the allegations ho had made, and would show that the allega tions made with respect to Mr. O'Loughlen were totally with out foundation.—( Cheers.) Mr. E. TENNENT said, in consequence of the short notice that had been given, he had been precluded from obtaining that information he otherwise should have had on this subject. The Hon. Gentleman, after referring to the circumstances under which the murder took place, and the fact of the Juries having twice refused to find a verdict, said that the charges brought by him against the Government with respect to this case were, that the Government ought to have moved the case into another county, where they would have a certainty of a conviction ; and secondly, that they had subsequently induced these unfortunate men to plead guilty of a minor offence. Other circumstances had since come to his knowledge connected with this case which he thought it his duty to bring before the House. He understood that the Government of. Ireland had not only permitted these men to escape, but had supplied them with money for the payment of their passage, and for the purpose of enabling them to establish themselves in America. Government had thus pronounced to be guiltless men whom three juries had refused to acquit, and had furnished them with the means of becoming settlers in Ame rica. His (Mr. Tennent's) object was not to bring any charge against Mr. O'Loughlen—it was. the system which he objected to, as he thought it most improper and impolitic. Mr. O'CONNELL explained. The Hon. Member had made charges, and should be prepared to sustain them. He was surprised to find that any Hon. Member would make such a statement, when it was well known that Mr. O'Loughlen was not Attorney-General at the time, and that the regulation referred to had not been made for 12 months after the last trial had taken place.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. E. TENNENT, in explanation, said he was prepared with all the details, except the dates.—(oh.) Lord MORPETH hoped the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny would withdraw his motion, and enable the House to go into Committee on the Irish Municipal Bill, and he could give a notice to bring it forward at a future period. Another statement, relative to his Right Hon. Friend Mr. O'Loughlen, had found its way into,an Irish Northern paper, which was also most unfounded. Mr. O'CONNELL then withdrew his motion, and gave notice that he should bring it forward on the first Friday after the recess. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in answer to a question from Mr. RIC HA RD S, said he was ex ceedingly distressed that he should put the Honourable Member for Knaresborough to any inconvenience. If the Irish Municipal Reform Bill should be disposed of before 10 o'clock,hewould endeavour to bring on the Imprisonment for Debt Bill. If he could not bring it on to-night he would try to morrow night to do so; if not to-morrow night he would try on Wednesday, and again on Thursday night, and if he found it impossible to bring it on this week he would fix it for Monday, the 3d of April. Sir W. FOLLETT said this was a Government measure, and the Attorney-General ought to fix some day. (Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL said it had been fixed for Friday, the 10th, but the whole of that evening was occupied by a discussion on Spanish affairs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL. The House then resolved itself into Committee on this Bill. The preamble was postponed, and the Ist, 2d, and 3d clauses were agreed to without discussion. On the 4th clause being put, Mr. SHAW said the usual title of the chief magistrate of Dublin was, "the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor," while the words in the clause were simply, " mayor, aldermen, and burgesses." In that case it appeared the Lord Mayor of Dublin would be deprived of a title which he had always enjoyed. The ATT 0 RNE Y. G E NE R A L said there was nothing in the clause to interfere with the title of the Lord Mayor. Sir R. PEEL though it would be better, in order to remove all doubt, that a clause should be inserted to enable the Lord Mayor to retain the title. Mr. O'C ON NE L L had no doubt if such a clause were pro posed it would be agreed to unanimously. After some further observations, the clause was agreed to without amendment. The sth clause was also agreed to. On the 6th clause being read, Mr. MARTIN thought the franchise should be placed on the same footing in Ireland as in England and Scotland. He did not see why in some boroughs a householder rated at Si. should have a right to vote, when in the rest of the kingdom none but 101. householders could vote. He thought some of the words in the clause, particularly the words "value" and "occupy," were indefinite. Sir ROBERT PEEL said it would be better to make use of the same terms as those inserted in the English Municipal Bill. The words he thought were uncertain and vague. Mr. WOULFE considered the terms sufficiently definite. After some further discussion, the clause was agreed to; as were also clauses 7, 8;9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Clause 17 was postponed. Clauses 18, 19, 20. 21, 22, 23, and 24, were agreed to. Clauses 25 to 28 inclusive were agreed to without observa tion. On clause 29 being put, which provides for the mode in which elections shall be held, &c., Mr. SHAW objected to this clause, inasmuch as respected the signing of the voting papers. It was required that the Christian and surname of the party for whom he voted should be given by the burgess voting. There was a remarkable instance of omission in this Bill, as compared with Sergeant Perrin's Act ; because the latter added the words "in his own handwriting." He wished to insert these words. Mr. Sergeant WOULFE said the constitutional practice had not been to deprive persons who could not write of their elective franchise. The constitutional practice had not been to require that persons voting should give the names of the parties for whom they voted in writing. After a few words from Mr. G 0 ULB URN, who supported the view taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin (Mr. Shaw), Mr. O'CONNELL observed that a man who might be able to read might not be able to write. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the decided ob jection to the additional words proposed was this, that they would always have a great difficulty in discovering who were able to write and who were not able to write. Suppose the, case of a person whose hand was guided, the signature or de scription would be his, though not, strictly speaking, written by him. Again, in the instance of a person who had lost an arm in the service of his country, was he to be excluded from the right of voting ? Clauses 30 to 44, inclusive, were agreed to. On clause 45 being put, which provides that every burgess elected to the office of councillor, and every councillor elected to the office of mayor or alderman, shall accept the office, or pay a fine to the borough fund of 100/., Mr. SHAW objected to the amount of penalty (as we un derstood.) After a few words from Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Wyse, Mr. Shaw, and Sir Edward Knatchbull, the clause was agreed to. Clause 46 was agreed to. Clauses 47 to 62, inclusive, were agreed to. Clauses up to 95, inclusive, were agreed to. On clause 96, the appointment of sheriffb' clause, being proposed, Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved an amendment, to the effect that the Councils or corporate towns in Ireland should have the absolute power of appointing their own sheiiffs, without being subject to the veto of the Lord Lieutenent. The great object of the Irish people, he observed, was to have an iden tity of legislation in this, as in every other point, with the English people; and accordingly, his purpose in proposing this amendment was to restore the clause which formed part of the original Bill of 1835, and which was a counterpart of that in the English Act. He could not at all understand why the original Bill had been so materially changed in this re spect, nor ou what principle it was that the Irish people were to be refused the privilege enjoyed by their English brethrers of electing their corporate officers If the alteration were made with a view of conciliating those who considered the Irish people as " aliens in blood, aliens in religion, and a liens iii language," the idea inns a most fallacious one. The alte ration 0 , -.;ld not, indeed, be so important, if the Irish people were always to leave such a Government as they were fortunate enough to possess at i,tr , ent : but it was essential to avoid the ado:ission of a principle which might give a power so great as to future Governments, which might be hostile to the liberties of the Irish people. He would. therefore, earnestly call on Ministers, and on the friends of Ireland, not to regis ter so gross an insult on the Irish nation as would be conveyed by this clause, which declared them incapable of selecting their own corporate officers. Colonel BUTLER seconded the amendment, and entirely concurred in the sentiments of the Hon. Mamber for Dundalk. Lord J. RUSSELL, while he gave the lion. Member credit for the best motives in proposing this amendment. could not at all admit its propriety, nor concur in the lion. Gentle man's opinion that justice to Ireland was involved in servilely adopting for Ireland every detail of the English Act.—( Hear, hear.) If such, indeed, were the lion. Member's opinion, how did it happen that he had not insisted that in Ireland as in England the Aldermen should be elected by the town Coon -61? How was it that the Hon. Member had not denounced this deviation from the English Act as an injustice to Ireland? For his ( Lord John Russell's) part, he considered the c h prini ple so desirable a one, that had he to introduce the Englis measure again, he should propose that the Sheriffs in Eng land should be elected in just the same way as the Sheriff in Ireland would be under this clause. In the English Act a deviation had been made from the Act in reference to Scot- , land, as to the election of Magistrates, who were appointed in Scotland absolutely by the Town Councils, while in England the appointment was subject to the veto of Government, and no objection had been made in England to this deviation, and the Irish people had as little reason to complain of the deviation now proposed from the English measure. In the appointment of officers connected in so important a manner with the admini stration of justice as the sheriffs, it was most desirable that the Crown should have some, at any rate negative, power. There was little doubt but that, in most instances, the persons nominated by the Town-councils would be approved by the Lord-Lieutenant; but it was essential that there should be vested in Government a check against the nomination of the Councils of improper persons. The check which the Government possessed in England on the appointment of Magistrates had been found most beneficial in its effects. Nothing could have been further from the intentions of the Government in framing this clause than to imply any in sult to the Irish people. He should certainly abide by the clause as it stood. Mr. SHA W did not see that the Noble Lord had shown any reason for the deviation made from the original Bill. He thought that the Hon. Member for Dundalk had rea son to complain that this Bill had not been restored to what it was originally. It should settle the matter either one way or the other ; it should give the appointment of sheriffs either to the Lord- Lieutenant or to the Town-councils. He could not support the amendment if it were pressed to a division ; but he certainly must say that it was a m ore straightforward proposition than that of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell). Both the clause and the amendment were in his opinion bad, but the balance, he thought, was in favour of the amendment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the provision in the Bill was the best that could be made on the subject. He thought that the Town-council having to submit their choice to the Lord. Lieutenant would take care to name proper per.- sons. If the matter were entirely left to the Town-council there would be a chance that they would name persons who were not titer:testi fitted for the situation ; but knowing that the Lord-Lieutenant had the power of setting them aside, they would take care to name proper persons, and thus ensure ea' tisfaction with the administration of justice. ,•• Mr. F. FRENCH said that if the clause stood alone be would support the proposition of the Hon. Member for Dun dalk ; but after the perfectly satisfactory explanation of the Noble Lord he hoped that his Hon. Friend would not press his amendment to a division. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL hoped that the Government would take a lesson and show less anxiety to endeavour to conciliate their opponents. They certainly could not bo charged with doing so now so much as formerly ; but he was afraid they were endeavouring to do so, on this subject. The first Bill vested the election in the Town-Councils; the power was transferred to the Crown at the suggestion of Hon. Mem bers opposite, and this very fact was made a ground for the re jection of the Bill elsewhere.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped his Hon. Friend would not press his amendment to a division, and more particularly after the recommendation of the Hon. a nd Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw.) Mr. SHAW begged, in explanation, to say that he had not recommended, the - chin. Member for Dundalk to press hie amendment. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL—The Hon. and Learned Gen• tleman duly insinuated a recommendation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER attached great importance to the clause then under discussion. The great object was:to give to the country an assurance that offices connected with the administration of justice should not depend upon popular election. In everything connected with the ad ministration of the law the Crown was, or ought to be, the source of all appointments, and should have in that respect fill power and privilege. This clause was not meant to cast all reflection or stigma upon the people of Ireland. It would be most beneficial that the Crown should have this power, and in no part of the empire was it more important than in Ireland. It was most important and desirable that those who would be called upon to administer the law should be unable to sat , " This man is my constituent, and that man voted against me."—( Hear, hear, hear.) Such a course would lead to suspicion, which ought to be entirely banished from the administration of justice. He did not think that the nomination on the part of the Crown was a matter of which the subject had a right to complain. The Crown must certainly have a recommendation somewhere, and he wished that those persons who gave the recommendations should be responsible. They should be given by persons who were known, recognised, and responsible for their acts. The clause as it stood secured this responsibility, and certainly the norni• nation when it took place was not that of a popular body, but was subject to the selection of the Crown. This was nothing new. It was at present the law of Ireland, as the Recorders of many Corporations were popularly chosen, but they were subject to the confirmation of the Lord-Lieutenant. True, the control was wholly inoperative, because there was only one person sent up to the Crown. ' Mr. WYSE hoped that his Hon. Friend would not press his amendment. After a few words from Mr. SCARLET; Mr. BoaTuvitctc, and from Mr. S. CRAWFORD in reply, The Committee divided— - - For the amendment 5 Against it _ 65 Majority The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 97 to 108.. Clause 109, providing that presentments should be made 10 the Court of King's Bench instead of the Quarter Sessions, was withdrawn at the suggestion of Mr. F. SHAW. The remaining clauses, after some discussion, were agreed to. Schedules A and B were also agreed to. On schedule C being proposed, Mr. J. GRATTAN m ove a that the town of Wicklow be included in schedule C, and after some conversation the motion was withdrawn. Mr. S. CRAWFORD said, after what had taken place, 11S would allow his motion relative to the town of Bangor to 13° negatived without a division. The remaining schedules and the preamble were tb sti agree to. The d House resumed, and the report was ordered to be 0 " ceived on Wednesday. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he would take that opfl°r . tunity of stating that he would move that the Bill be read s third time on Monday, the 10th of April. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and th e House adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve PATENT LEVER W A TCHE £6 5 6 g With silver double-bottom cases W ith si huntinc , cases This lver celebrated ' construction (the most accurate on whic- th a watch can be made) is offered, with the latest improv ements' i. c. the detached escapement, jewelled in four holes , caPrsit,, hand to mark the seconds, hard enamel dial, and maintaining Po" to continue going while winding up, at the above price, by T. COX SAVORY, Working Silver and Goldsmith, 47, Cornhill, London. N.B.—Second-hand Watches purchased in C1Cha1_21:....0041 BIRTHS. T 'On the 17th inst., at Grove-hill-terrace, Camberwell, Mrs' Conway, of a daughter. On the 17th inst., at Brighton, the lady of Sir R.D. King, n art.' of a daughter. On the 20th in Montagu-street, Portman-square, the lady of FL Lindsay, Esq., of a son. - - MARRIED. „ flo or On the 18th inst., at Dorking, John Gurney Hoare, E B cl -9 " 0 "f C. S. Hoare, Esq., of Hampstead, to Caroline, eldest daughter Barclay, Esq., M.P., of Bury Hill, Surrey.- Esq 4 On the 18th inst., at Hayes, Middlesex, H. B. Robinson, ,0,5, Hillingdon.heath, to Mary Ann, widow of the late Major G. of Ale xander-square, Brompton. Clisr le4 On the 16th inst., at St. George's, Edinburgh, Capta in Kinnaird Johnstone, K.L.S., son of the late J. Johnstone, V a . of Alva, to Elizabeth, only daughter of F. Gordon, Esq., of cardine, Aberdeenshire. ht On the 14th inst., the Rev. Alfred Hanbury, to L ouisa, trd daughterLowestoffe. ftev• On the 17th inst., Francis Rodd, Esq., eldest son of the hits Dr. Rodd, of Trebartha Hall, Cornwall, to Mary, eld est da u g of the Rev. J. S. Rashleigh, Rector of Wickham, Hants. / On the 18th inst., at St. John's, Hackney, Thomas EA Beuli! Olt of Lower Clapton, to Amelia, only daughter of the late John Esq., of - South Hackney ,0 of 1 4 /Q, London: Printed and Published by MUPD O ; 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. Strand, in th of Middlesex. —Tuesday, March 21, 1837. • 4 • . D lED. f ra til°l4 On the 13th inst., at Leiston Old Abbey, Suffolk, 11 f rs. widow of Wm. Tatnoll, Esq. rt'clia rci On the 18th inst., at Tichfield, Hants, Sarah, wife of - I MiOn thssing, Esq. h inst., barris, t Mrs. t n er-a-law. ether.' e 17t Mary Watson, of Paradise - r ow, hithe, aged 87. ..„ e d 5, On the 17th inst., at St. John's-wood, James Seaburn, lib, t he the youngest child of J. W. May, Esq., Consul-General oi Netherlands. (if On the 16th inst., at Bath, Sir Christopher Baynes, Bat., Harefield-place, Middlesex, aged 92. e Georg . On the 16th inst , at Scarborough, Elizabeth, wife 0, Davies, Esq., aged 7 . 3. V,, On the 10th inst., at Islington Sarah, wife of W. Williams'l an ' ' f On the 17th inst., at York, aged 47, Mary Norcliffe, relict : li p • Best, Esq., M.D., third daughter of the late Thomas 1 4 ° r Esq., of Langton Hall, Yorkshire. -..—......r!.....- VIE SUN, LONDON,_TutspAV, ivlAßcil 21 ; 1831.