The Sun. — London, England, 1837-06-09 00:00:00

411l uded to, but as the result of that case was a confirmation h • e the highest judicial authorities in the land of the privi lLgcs no w c l a i med by the House he had hoped that the __7 4l n• and Learned Attorney-General would ra th er h ave r&olined t Te l h e H n blouse to u assertion of its own privileges Tell_ a constitute a rule, recommending a second applica lisi.o ,to th e C ourt of King's Bench. H e (Si r R o b er t P ee l) '4(l been one o f t he se d epute d b y the House to inquire ilit° the subject. He had, as was his duty, given the , m atter ev ery consideration in his power, and the result at '' l eli 11 e confid ent l y arr i ve d was, that the House was per fectlyl tight, when any investigation was thought necessary, to e nter int o t h e f u l lest inquiry possible—( Hear, hear)—to 'loaidate all the facts connected with, and trace all the h tle nees which might bear upon, the subject.—(llear, t ar.) This was not only the right but the duty of the 4 , use, and i t was equally its right to publish, if it thought 4V the result of its inquiries, either for the use of its own eicrnbe rs , Or of the publicat large.—(Cheers.) H ow it the H ouse teach loyalty to the people, or expect. Yom them, if i t upheld the doctrine that it could by e mer e assertion of its opinion, and without any rei n shown, thrust from the Throne the legal claimant ? Cheers.) I such a thing could be done, and no sa actory reason assigned, how could the people assure liiilaiselves of the enjoyment of liberty ?—( Hear, hear.) Ow could the House, in justice or in honour, resort to a lt o th ere course, unless the public were made this of ,"ere being sufficient grounds for its adoption ? if this doe- Tne were permitted 'that House could ',,reserve to itself no T ll't to institute inquiries upon tt_e of br e Conduct pule men. The House would not be to t o itself the right ...ate re serve c(4o4l3rTteeting its own servants friim the jurisdiction of a of r a r nat this would clearly be the result no On q Agibiy deny. The Courts of law, it was true, e e uectde up on t h e a b stract quest i on o f lib el, b ut that s e " . el lion wa s not co - equal w i th those powers which were : f er c ised i n support of the public convenience. If a Court l 'tw were to be permitted to decide on this question, it null be impossible that any public functionary could be a light to trial for his delinquencies, and those delinquen t ade public, and therefore any person, such as Mr. 4arren Hastings might come to a Court of l aw an d com t P ini n of any allegation made against him on public grounds t e as tir"oll:de of Commons. N o ma tt er w h a t th e extent h el large might be that might be preferred against him, 4 t House could not interfere and give to it publicity. Il e Court of law in that case would only have to consider %ether the published allegation was in violation of the law "i f lihel or not. If this were the state of the case, and if the ' e rd Chi e f J ust i ce were r i ght i n his manner of laying down th e law, then the functions of Parliament were altogeth er a Par 1 Yse( • So, at least, he should judge from the charge of — la Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice had that hi s charge as follows :—" Gentlemen, I think the case which has been quoted on that subject is not applicable to the present ; it does not go the whole length ; a nd it seems to me that it is not in any respect capable of / e h in g Urged as an authority to prevent my going the length „ L s . ye just n ow state d. Th ere f ore my direction to you, () 'plea to a qu es ti on h erea f ter , i s , t h at t h e f act o f t h e H ouse G ammon s having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish all their Parliamentary reports, is no justification for them, r for any b oo k seller who publishes a Parliamentary report ev en sontini ng a lib e l aga i ns t any man ." Thi s did not a ll ow e t do disti nc ti on b e t ween se lli ng an d pu bli s hi ng , upon 17-e " the whol e o f hi s H on . F r i en d' s (Si r R. Inglis's) argu tt appeared to go. It reduced the privilege of Parlia eet to thi s, that libels were made to be published only for Use of Members of that House.—( Hear.) Sir R. INGLIS—To be distributed. a n S PEEL—Why, thii was con t rary t o th e power " , .Privileg es o f P ar li ament, suc h as were exercised in i ir s the Bill o f exc l us i on an d i n t h e suspens i on of the 6t'ea•E Corpus Act.—(Cheers.) So far as the protection of reivate individuals were concerned, it might be urged that t 8 Umbers of th a t H ouse h a d no r i g h t to g i ve pu b l i c i ty 11 ° 1 anythin g refl ec ti ng on th e i r c h aracter. T h i s was a nice e oretical distinction that might be drawn. It was quite naht to sa thatprivate f ee li ng should not b e i nva d e d b y wh atthe Y House p printed ; but then, by such a distinction, The feeli ngs o f the popular body, which was intended, would e ll e c t in any way b e protected.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared, Lnerefore, t o hi m, i n accordance not only with the dictates ti r eason, but of common sense, that such privileges should exist ; but that, without a doubt, the House possessed in been such privileges. True it was that such power as had bu t urged by his Hon. Friend might be liable to abuse ; 0(4 in that House alone existed the right to determine U pon it, and none but thems e lv es h a d the power.—(Cheers.) -15 ut, independent of this inherent right, all his assumption s were fortified and confirmed by a continued stream of pre cedents. They were confirmed by common sense and by th e hi g hest. Constitutional authorities known in this coun try. They were expressly maintained by the Bill of Rights. --(Cheers from the Ministerial side.) Previous to the passing of the Bill of Rights it had been asserted that the Speaker of the House of Commons printed and published a certain document relating to certain persons. Now, the authority of the Speaker was an authority derivative from the House of Commons. On the publication of this offen 6ive document an information was filed against the Speaker, end he was conv i cte d . After the abdication of King mnes and the accession of King William, the Bill of Rights teas framed, and it - was expressly declared that " the late ding (James the Second), assisted by divers evil friends "d Ministers, by prosecution in th e C our t o f Ki ng ' s bench and elsewhere, prosecuted certain persons for offences etenizabl,, only in Parli ame nt." Th ere it was express l y s of td that the Crown prosecut e d th e Sp ea k er i n th e C ourt ele e l king's Ben c h, an d t h e gr i evance was because it was 4 "4 matters " co gn i za bl e on l y i n P ar li ament. " — (C heers.) this was one of the reasons given, which would be fo und in the 9th Article of the Bill of Rights :—" That l i b: fre e d om of speech and debates or proceedings in Par tr I nentt ought not to be questioned in any place out of it." wasp tc : now speaking constitutionally—dolus yenera ,' was not speaking of privileges generally. • The 43 " u ght of printing and the right of publishing had been im begtZd,—it had been questioned by the Court of King's and, being so, it was brought before Parliament, 4N. Parliament settled it.—(Cheering.) With respect to rtUsis article, on the 11th o f F e b ruary, 1688, the Lords re ed lto a gree to a ll of that article, and wished to know if so e . House would insist upon it. The House did insist., and iportant did th ey t hi n k i t that they accommodated sham_o artirder cle in th e Bill o f Ri g h ts to t h e i r own special case. also to lea ve no d ou b t to a ll poster i ty of their in -I,%.le,etion th e y a dd e d S i r William 'Williams, the Speaker, ) had b een conv i cted, to the Members of the Com mittee appointed to draw up the Bill. He mould con cludelvr: this part of the subject by the express assertion that the oe ' vil Fge of printing resting in that House was not to be ' -estim led.—(Cheers.) He now came to that part of the 31.ebiect which more particularly related to the Courts of • • It might be said that their uthority was not so pos:- ' 4 ,‘e as the House o f Commons ; a but what in addition was i no deci s i on of the House of Lords ? That they were right e n . Publishi ng and pri n ti ng . B ut by far the strongest case of a recent one . I t was a case which related to the trial H▪ orne Took e . O n th i s occasion a bookseller, named right, not having any sanction of the House of Commons. reprinted accurately and fully the evidence and report of of the committeeolthou g h it was a Committee of Secrecy. That report WAS couched in exceedingly, and even ec'u liarly, strong terms , w i th relation to the individuals to whom it referred. These individuals stood in recii injuria. The expressions used certainly were strong. The Right Hon. Bart. then read an extract from the Report. If a case of aggravated libel were required, he would submit that the ease was the one he had quoted. The case was the same against all the pa:ti es — t h ey were Hardy, Thelw a ll, an d rne Tooke. Horne Tooke obtained a criminal informa tion against the printer. On the trial the first exception % taken was, as to th e f act o f pr i nt i ng . Thi s was overruled 11 3' the Judges, and they had to decide, not whether Mr. (hansard was appointed by the House of Commons— Cheers)—but whether a bookseller, selling for profit, ae tiording to the argument of his Hon. Friend, was guilty of a e e "ch of p r i v il ege . T he Judges were Lord Kenyon, e ti nge Gore, and Judge Lawrence. They all took the tie .! ft tlu grou n d, th at, apart from the privileges of Parliament h Publication m i g ht b e a lib e l , b ut, protected by those . e : ' ivi eges, it c ease d t o b e so. I n the charge of Chief ~ 4 1 -st 'co Keny on h e part i cu l ar l y used the word " proceed the word used in the Bill of Rights.—(Cheers.) tri s IN, Judge Lawrence did not let his Hon. Friend take I ,ja,ntage of a fiction of law, but put it upon the ground of iisiune advantage, and said, as only a true copy was pub euiied, although not authorised, " I am of opinion that the . oti pight, to be discharged."—( Hear, hear.) Now, if this all be applied tin d er c i rcumstances o f aggravate d lib e l , (Iv klt tietions t o t h e present assert i on of pr i v il ege must b e 4 rtul ed• It might be said that the precedent of 1638 had I n into de suetu d e, b ut l ie d ou b ted whether the uninter 11Pfted acquie scence o f 180 or 140 years was not a reason i n 4"") . • \\lie n M r . K enr i c k was attached at t h e h er of'that i t , c s e what would have been said if !hie Mr. Justice Kenrick, tit: se quence of hi s exam i nat i on b e i ng pu bli s h e d, i n w h ic h w as much ev id ence aga i nst h i m, bad filed an informa oci 48n the Court of Ki ng ' s B enc h ? M r . D enman , on th a t e o '" , moved that the evidence he printed, which of (chee iticluded all th ose w h o gave ev id ence aga i ns t hi m ,— end 'Ts and laughter.) In 1771 a Member of that House, eon 4 Lord Mayor of London, released from prison a person c lilli tted under the authority of the Speaker of the s House th- mons. Th e Ri ght Hon. G ent l eman t h en went into tter tetement of this case at considerable length, and girt cd 1 '41 41 Judicial authorities on the subject. He (Sir R. eh: )latter these authorities, would say nothing more on ject H l ie , • e had got through the legal parts of the ti F 1 1 4_ 00 1:led to the satisraction of the House, and , trusted vil e succeeded succeeded in establishing that not only was the pri hut; consistent with common sense and comthon reason, als o • of taie w ith comm on l aw. H i s case was, that t h e r i g h t 16 g - and publishing evidence was inherent in the TIM SUN, LONDON, riIIDAY, JUNE 9 5 18i7. House of Cominons.—(Hear, hear.) lie had come to these conclusions on a due and deliberate consideration of the case.—( Hear, hear.) He regretted that the high legal authorities who had spoken on the sUbject did not apprise the lay Members of the House beforehand of all the technical and legal difficulties which interposed in the way of the four courses which had been painted out for the guidance of the House. 131 it it was because hr felt to strongly the justice of his case that he tas content to take the matter calmly ; and resort tfi iio violent pro ceedings in asserting tbv. Eght. He had heard with great regret the a(laite of the Honourable and Learned Atter neystieneral, that the House should at once resort to the peremptory assertion of this privilege ; but he hoped the House would pause before it came to any such strong re solution. It was never too late to consider, especially in a case involving it question of so much importance as that under discussion. There were many difficulties in the course proposed by the Attorney-General. There was the distinct declaration of a Judge of the highest character that the publication of any matter which might be deemed libellous, by Mr. Hansard or any other person, even acting under the authority of the House of Commons, could not be justified ; but he (Sir R. Peel) was in this ease: a Judge also, and he was free to declare his opinion that that declaration could not be maintained. Although there were difficulties in the way of adopting the alterna tives proposed by the Attorney-General, the course he sug gested was not by any means free from them either. As to the supposition that the Court of King's Bench would decide against the privilege, he (Sir R. Peel) entertained no such belief : and he, therefore, objected to the suggestion that in such a case the House should assume a bold part, and proceed to assert its rights. But, whatever decision should be come to, he (Sir R. Peel) was of opinion, that unless the House of Commons had the right of judging on the publication of what came before it, its functions as a distinct Legislative branch were perfectly at an end. Lord J. RUSSELL, after the able and unanswerable arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman—(Hear)—felt it would be little less than presumption in him to enter into the details of the case at issue. But as he had taken no part in the former discussion on the subject he did not think he would be acting right to let the question come to a vote without expressing his opinion on it. He fully agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that the privilege in dispute was an essential incident of the functions of the House of Com mons.—(Hear.) The whole matter rested on the grounds on which Lord Ellenborough had put it. When the ques tion came last before the Court of King's Bench, in the case of Burdett and Abbott, on that occasion the Lord Chief Justice had decided that the House of Commons had the power to enforce the free and full exercise of its own functions. Now, those functions could not be exer cised fully or freely if the documents in question were printed solely for the use of the Members of the House of Com mons, and cot published for the use of the public.—(Hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) was of opinion that the objection of the Right Hon. Gentleman to the position taken up by the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford and Lord Den man never could be overcome in any way. If 658 persons were allowed each the power of receiving and reading the proceedings of the House of Commons, it was quite evident that there could be very little secrecy, and, consequently, very little protection against alleged calumny. Thus, while no protection would be afforded the subject against libel on the one hand by adopting the plan they suggested, the proceedings of the House would be crimped and the public deprived of the benefit now enjoyed by it. He (Lord J. Russell) would suppose an ordinary case—one of everyday occurrence—a petition is presented against an in dividual holding an office of trust for abuse of the power conferred by that office. If this were not to be printed and published the House would perhaps do an injustice to the accuser or the accused, by either affirming or rejecting the charge, on no other grounds than the allegation. of the peti tion : whereas, if it were, the party petitioned against would have an opportunity of justifying himself, and the world would have an opportunity of adding any further testimony on the subject. If the House were prevented from publi cation its utility as a branch judicature would be destroyed —its power of judging would be lost or put an end to— and its decisions would consequently fail to be respected. The case before the House was not a solitary one. It was supported and upheld by long practice and powerful precedent. In matters of publication and sale of the papers of the House it bad been the practice since 1711 ; and that practice was kept up continuously ever since. It was not a new practice, but one ancient and of long establishment ; and it took its date from the period of the Revolution on an illegal proceeding of James the Second, as the Right Hon. Baronet had already shown He (Lord John Russell) ad mitted that the case involved very considerable difficulties ; but he agreed with the course adopted by his Hon. and Learned Friend, as the best in the circumstances. It was the most authoritative manner in which the subject could be brought before a Court of law. That course would be the most conformable to the proceedings of Parliament, and to the practice of Courts of law and justice. He was con vinced that, after due argument, the Court of King's Bench would decide in favour of the privilege of the House of Commons. He thought the power of adjudicating on their own privileges should be always kept in the hands of the House of Commons, whether they thought fit to exercise them for their own benefit, or for Abet of the public at large. —(Hear, hear.) Mr. PEM BE lITON would be glad to concur in the vote proposed on the other side of the House, if it was in his power to (to so ; but, having had the misfortune to differ on this oc casion from some of those to whom he looked up with the ut most respect, he should consider it a cowardly dereliction of duty on his part if he refrained from speaking his senti ments on that occasion. It was no t now an y longer the question whether the report of the House of Commons complained of was published by its authority, and, there fore, privileged. The question, in point of fact, was, were those resolutions which this House had thought fit to adopt, asserting generally their privilege, to be followed out in all their consequences ?—(Hear, hear.) It was a very dif ferent question whether the report was a privileged publi cation, or whether the order of th e House of Commons afforded an indemnity for any description of publication. The report might or might not be privileged ; on that he had never expressed an opinion, but what he would say was, which he was sure nine-tenths of the bar concurred with him in, that if the nature of a publication did not af ford privileges in itself, the authority of the House of Com mons could not confer it on it. He (Mr. Pemberton) de nied the right or power of the House of Commons to establish laws on its own instance. Whoever assented or dissented from him, he maintained that no order of the House of Commons could make a publication privileged if it had not that within itself which made it, so ; nor, if it were a libel, could it in any degree justify it in the eye of the law.—(Hear,) But what did the first resolution as sort ? Connecting it with the paragraph of the report on which it was founded, no Court of any kind could take cognisance of anything which had the sanction of the House of Commons. What did that paragraph say ? " That by the law and privilege of Parliamnent this House has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges, and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit, or other pro ceeding for the purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision before any Court or tribunal elsewhere than in Par liament is a high breach of such privilege, and renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to the punishment consequent thereon." That was the broad affirmation of the Committee of Privi leges. What was their authority ? Nothing less than the decision of Courts of law for the last two centuries, in which Courts these privileges had been discussed. The question now was, would the House attempt, on its en n responsibility, to interpose its authority between the King's subjects and the l aw o f t h e land ? From the earliest period alluded to in the report those privilege s now sought to be made so sacred were discussed in the Courts of law and justice. What eßasrideignemthat, e reign o f Ch ar l es t h e S econ d , w h en Si r was t Orlando ipresided over the Court of Common Pleas ? In a case tried before him the House of Com mons passed a resolution, declarin g that no Member of Par liainent should be sued in a Court of law during the sitting of Parliament. What sa id t h at celebrated Judge " I shall give (said h e ) a ll reverence, as becomes me, to all opinions and votes of so honourable a body ; but I am under the obligation of an oath, which is greater still, to do equal justice to all men to the best of my belief." After referring to his authorities the Learned Judge then proceeded— " The use that I make of this is, that resolutions and votes of the House. of Parliament arc not so conclusiv e in Courts of law but that Judges should give their judgment, even though it were contrary to them, because they arc on their oath." Up to the time of the revolution and subsequently the law stood in the same manner. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then quoted two cases, one of Ashton and another, the name of which we could not catch, in support of this view of the subject. But who was the last that asserted this right ? It was that constitutional asserter of the people's rights, Mr. Fox, in an action brought against the High Bailiff of Westaninster.—(Hear, hear.) But the doctrine laid down 'by Chief Justice Holt was that the Judges were " bound by their oath" as to the manner in which they were to decide the law in cases like the present. But was any claim of the House established by the decision in the case respectin g which Justice Holes opinion had been referred to ? hear.) A dissolution of the Parliament took place at the time, and from that day to the present no one had dared to inter pose against the law as it was at that time laid down. Now, if there was one question of privilege more important than another with reference to the proceedings of Parlia ment it was the freedom of speech. But it was not by means of the freedom of speech used in that House, or b y the mere printing of the votes (as in th e present in. stance), that the proceedings of the House were made publH, !nit it was by the constant and daily publication in toe nswApsners—(Hear)—and which it was not at tempted to be denied was in reality a breach of the pri leges of that House. The Hon. and Learned Gent lem in then cited the cases of Mr. Frecling and others, in sop port of the opinions he entertained upon the case before the House, arid sail that the airtno miisetsal opinion of Westminster Hall coincided with his civil. Th e people, continued the Honourable and Learned Gentle man, would not., and ought not, to submit to such pro ceedings as the House had adopted in the present in stance. They would not, and ought not to submit to that House attempting to arrogate to itself the right of inter posing its authority to prevent the trial of a legal question. —(Hear, hear.) With regard to the resolutions which the House had thought fit to adopt, lie would tell them that they might commit all the lawyers, all the Counsel in Westminster Hall, and all the Julges on the Bench ; but they must first crush the spirit of the people of England before they could succeed in enforcing 'them —(Bear, hear.) And with respect to the House of Lords, looking at the conflict in which that branch of the Legislature had been of late, and might soon again be, involved, they might, if they chose, invest them with this armour of privileges— this panoply of proof ; but, for himself, he would say that it was from the high respect and consideration he felt for the House of Lords that he did not wish •to see them em b. irked in a contest from which it was his opinion that Par liament never could retire without having its privileges, in stead of being strengthened, cruslied.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Mr. C. W. WYNN then rose, but owing to the indis tinct manner in which the llon. Gentleman spoke, and to the conversation which prevailed in"the House during the whole of his speech, we regret that we are unable to give more than an outline of his observations. There had been several attempts similar to the present made t at different periods, and they had all ended in the same way, both with respect to the course pursued by the House of Lords and by that House. The Hon. Gentleman then cited two cases, one in 1768 and the other in 1788, and in each of which a Justice of the Peace was the party implicated, in the former of which the attorney employed in the action was com mitted to Nea '' sate, and in the latter the party himself to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms, and yet in neither case did any Court of Law impugn the conduct or question the privileges of the House. With regard to the case of Sir Francis Burdett, he (Mr. Wynn) had been informed by Mr. Windham himself that lie gave way in . that case solely on the ground that a Court of law would not en tertain the question. As to the circumstances of the pre sent case, the report of the Ccrnmittee could not be con sidered as authoritative until it was adopted by the House ; and be could not object that any Court of law should have a communication made to it by the Speaker on the subject of these actions, and that the resolutions which the House had adopted should be also communicated to it. But the Court might direct a new record, and that might bring the House into collision with the Courts of law.—( Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding this, the case involved privileges without which that House could not discharge its duties—(Hear, hear)—it involved a question which ought not to be lightly entered into, and was at the same time a case where it was absolutely necessary something should be done. The Hon. Gentleman then, after alluding to the case of Mr. Kenrick, which had been referred to by his Right Hon. Friend (the Member for Tamworth), and contending that ' he (Sir R. Peel) had clearly shown that the House could not have justified their proceedings in that case, unless they had had the privilege of publishing the evi dence, detailed the circumstances of the case under the consideration of the House, and stated that the rule had been, up to as late a period as 1817, that all peti tions were printed in the body of the votes—that evidence of all sorts was printed—and was formerly the source of considerable profit to the Speaker. Amongst other things the evidence in the case of the trial of Lord Melville was printed. If they could extend that privilege to the printer, the same privilege might, upon the same ground, • be extended to all. There were some difficulties in the present case which ought to be guarded against. If the action was brought while Parliament was not sitting the House could conic to no resolution. In that case he saw no reason why they should not now authorise the Speaker to make communication to the Courts, informing them that the House had come to such resolutions. M r . 1-IL,TME said that if any Hon. Member had pre viously entertained any doubts as to the propriety of the resolutions, those 'doubts must be now strengthened by the course proposed. He doubted very much whether it was a judicious one. Suppose a Court should overrule the objection, what was to be done ? The speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and of the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last ought to fortify Minis ters in adhering to the resolutions without taking any other step. He was nut disposed to submit their privi leges to the judgment of the House of Lords. They were the best, and ought to be the only, judges of their own privileges. He did not see how it was possible to discharge their duties to the public if their proceedings were. not to he published. Lord HO WICK considered that the course now pro posed was in every view of the matter the best the House could adopt. Tney would thus follow the precedent of 1810 in the case of Burdett against the Speaker of the House of Commons. That was, perhaps, even a-stronger case than the present, and yet the House came to the con clusion that the Speaker ought to appear, and they came to this conclusion after mature deliberation, and on the re port of a Committee (the Noble Lord read an extract from the report, recommending that the Speaker should appear to the action). Here an action was brought against Han sard and Nichols by Stockdale, and in his opinion the course ought to be to allow theM to plead, that the Court, as in the case of Burdett, might have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the ground of action. It was asked how the House would act if the Court decided against them. He had no hesitation in saying in saying that however the Court might decide, that House must still maintain its privileges as they did in 1810. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he would support the mo tion, and he congratulated the people of England on this virtual abandonment of the Resolutions to which the House came the other night. It was a virtual abandon ment, though Ministers talked boldly, and spoke of what they would do. They said they were not afraid, but if their conduct upon this occasion was not fear it was cer tainly the best imitation of fear he ever saw. On the night they brought forward these Resolutions their voice was the voice of a lion, but upon the present occasion their acts were the acts of hares. They should recollect that, in the case of Burdett against the Speaker, there were no such Resolutions as these upon the table of the House.— (Hear, hear.) Ho did not believe the people of England would support them in these Resolutions. Mr. Sergeant WILDE concurred in the course proposed by his Hon. and Leatlned Friend the Attorney-General. It was seid they had a precedent in the case of Burdett against the Speaker. He did not consider the course taken in that case to have been a prudent or a very constitutional one. The question was as the best course. His Hon.' and Learned Friend the Attorney-General told them there were prece dents of letters having been directed to the Court of King's Bench by the Speaker, and disregarded. It might be a ques t on whetlier a Communication from the• Speaker was a con stitutional course, but he did not think such a communica tion inconsistent with the Resolutions, for though the Court might entertain the question, it would not follow that the Judges should be called to the bar for breach of privilege. There were numerous instances in which parties were de clared guilty of a breach of privilege, and yet had not been called to the bar or punished. His opinion was, that the parties who brought these actions ought to have been im mediately called' to the bar, for breach of privilege. It was desirable as much as possible, for the House to avoid com ing in collision with the Court . of King's Bench, or any of the other Courts of Law ; and the instances of the House having come into collision with thoSe Courts were so few, that it was difficult to form a precedent. Now, the course which the Attorney-General proposed was not at all likely to bring about a collision, but rather to avoid it. That House had asserted a privilege, and all that was proposed was, that the Court of King's Bench should be apprized by a plea that the House had asserted this privilege, and thus to be a bar to an action. He would not say what the Courts might ulti mately decide, but he knew that the general opinion in Westminster-hall was against the privilege of the House. But be was convinced that those who gave that opinion had not fully considered the subject, and he would recommend the Attotney-General not to argue the case before the Court of King's Bench, but merely to call for its judgment. The House should support and hand down to its successors its privileges unimpaired. The grossest ignorance was daily shown in the public press in arguing this question. What could a corrupt Government require more than secrecy, and this would be obtained by preventing the publication of the proceedings of the House ? The opening of the gallery to those who published the reports was a most be neficial act for the public. He had defended Mr. Stock dale, and got a verdict, on the ground that the work was so indecent it ought never to have been purchased.—(A laugh.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman quoted many cases, to show that Courts of Law had never interflo - ed with the privileges of the House when that privilege had been previously asserted or declared. It. was his firm con viction that it was necessary- for the well-being of that Howe that it should be well versed in the law of the land. In this case he believed the privilege - of the House was per fecti3 consistent with the law of the land. Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that it had been urged that it was absolutely necessary to the existence of the House and the benefit of the people that the privileges of the House should be maintained ; but then cane the question whether the privileges of that House, sustained, perhaps, by a small majority, were to be considered, superior to the law of the land ? If they were to throw the shield of privilege over such cases much injostioe'might be done, and he, therefore, must that he should not like to see, however Parlia• ment..try it might be, irresponsible power of this description exercised by either that House or any body of men who were subject to all the inflaences of popular opinion. Sir ROBERT PEEL, in explanation, said that if the Hon. Gentleman would, in the course of to-morrow, go tigalti to the . library, and refresh his historical reminiscences be would find thltt it had been connecting two circum stances which were distinct and separate,—(Hear, hear.), He would find that the resolutions of 1688 and the Bill of Exclusion were separate and distinct transactions.—( Hear.) Mr. G. F. YOUNG denied that he had adverted to the Bill of Exchsion. Sir It. PEEL—Then I was or course in error. Mr, G. F. YOUNG observed that, although he could not put his hit Drical recollection in competition with that of the Right lion. Baronet, he still was well aware that the Bill of Exclusion was not pissed in 1688. He had only alluded to the resolutions of the Houses of Lords and C3mmons. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply, said that if is Hon. Member for Tynemouth would again resort to the library he would find that the proceedings of that House were published for the public information. He (the At torney-General) was glad to find that his motion had not been seriously opposed. It was quite necessary that some course should be adopted, and he thought that his was better than any other that had been suggested—better even than directing the Speaker to write a letter to the Judges of the Court of King's Bench. He had no doubt that it would gratify Mr. Stockdale to be sent to prison. Mr. Stockdale might, perhaps, deserve to be sent there ; but, paltry as he might be, it might give him an importance which did not be long to him, and, therefore, he, for one, would be unwilling to gratify him at the risk of setting the country in a blaze for such a person. The only course that remained to them was either to plead, or to let judgment go by default. In the 'atter case the plaintiff would be entitled to execution, as a matter of course. There was another course open to themnamely, that adopted in the case of Lord Newbury. In that case the record was ordered to be laid upon the table, and then taken to Palace-yard, and burnt. He was not prepared to take that course. His Hon. and Learned Friend (the Member for Newark) had suggested another course. He recommended that judgment_ should he al lowed to go by default, and then that notice should be served on the Sheriff not to - execute the execution. He (the Attorney-General) doubted very much whether the Sheriff would obey such a notice ; but it seemed to have been forgotten that there was another objection to that course—namely, that the writ might be issued at a period when that House was not sitting. Mr. Sergeant WILDE observed that in such an event the amount might be lodged with the Sheriff. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think that this would obviate the objection, because then the damages would, in effect, he levied. He contended that the resolu tions which they had agreed to merely embodied the law of Parliament as it had existed from the time of Fortescue down to the period of Lord Ellenborough. Parliament had always been the only judges of their own privileges, and in this view the bulges of Westminster Hall had al ways concurred. The House of Lords were as anxious to maintain their privileges as they were. In 1827 it hap pened that one of the messengers of the House of Lords took an umbrella from an individual on entering that House. The umbrella was lost, and an action for it was brought against the Messenger. What was the conse quence? Why that the party and his solicitor were called to the bar, and if they had not consented not only to abandon the action, but to make an ample apology, they would have been both sent to prison.—(Hcar, hear, and laughter.) This showed that the Lords were never behind hand in asserting their privileges. He had not brought forward his motion without due consideration of all the remedies suggested; he thought it the least objection able, and, therefore, he hoped the House would agree to it. The question was then put, and the motion agreed to, after which the Attorney-General was instructed to plead to the actions, with a view to the assertion of the privileges of the House. Mr. HU ME gave notice that he should bring forward his motion respecting household suffrage on the ?7th inst., when he hoped the Noble Lord would throw no impedi ments in his way. Lord D. STUART wished to come to some under standing with his Majesty's Ministers respecting, the motion which he had on the paper of that day. He was anxious to bring that motion forward, and he hoped that an oppor tunity of doing so would be afforded to him at an early pe riod. He was willing to admit that his motion ernhi aced a charge against the Noble Lord the Secretary of State `►'or Foreign Affairs.—(Cries of " Order, order.") The SPEAKER said that unless the Noble Lord meant to proceed with his motion he ought not to enter into any of the topics connected with it. Mr. IiROTHERTON—I shall object to the Noble Lard's going on with his motion at this late hour.—(A laugh.) Lord D. STUART had no intention to go into his motion, but he hoped the Noble Lord would appoint a day when he could bring it forward. Lord J. RUSSELL meant to ask the House to allow Orders of the Day to take precedence of Notices of Motion from the 15th to the 30th of June, and after that period the Noble Lord might, on any Tuesday or Thursday, avail himself of any opportunity he thought fit for bringing for. ward his motion. _ Lord D. STUART would not be put aside by such petty, paltry, and shabby shuffling, and consequently he should bring forward his motion on the 20th of June. Mr. A. THE VOR moved for a return of the number of places of worship in connection with the Established Church, and of those in the Dissenting interest, in the parishes of South Shields and Jarrow, Sunderland, Bishop Wearmouth, Monk Wcarmouth, Stockton-on-Tees, Darling ton, and Gateshead,in the county of Durham, with the num ber of sittings annexed to each, and the average number of persons attending them severally on each Sunday. Lord J. RUSSELL did not think the House could agree to this motion. After some further conversation, in which Mr. Lamb ton:" Sir H. H. Inglis, and other Hon. Gentlemen took part, the motion was negatived without a division. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord J. RUSSELL moved the appointment of a Select Committee to consider whether and how far the public busi ness might be conducted with improved regularity and de spatch, and also to consider what improVements might be adopted in conducting the private business of the House. After a short conversation, the motion was agreed to, and the following Committee appointed :—.Lord John Rus sell, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Poulett Thomson, Sir James Graham, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Lord Stanley, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Loch, Mr. C. Wynn, Mr. Aglionby, Lord Granville Somerset, Sir John Wrottcsley, Mr. Charles Buller. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed or, and the House adjourned, at Half-past One o'Clock. ROUSE OF LORDS, eluxE 8. The LORD CHANCELLOR, the Archbishop of CANTER BURY, and Lord DUNCANNON, as Commissioners, gave the Royal Assent to the Exchequer Bills Bill, Indemnity Bill, Penitentiary (11Plhank) Bill, Newark Crown Estate Bill, Trial by Jury (Scotland) Bill, Glasgow Police Bill, Go:- bals Police Bill, • London and Greenwich Railway Bid, Trinity North Leith Harbour and -Docks Bill, Swansea Waterworks Bill, Stourbridgc Canal Bill, Holme Reser voirs Bill, ,Wakefield Waterworks Bill, Greenwich Pier Bill, ormegay (Norfolk) Drainage Bill, Worcester Cattle Market Bill, Dundee Improvement Bill, Mertoun Bridge Wat , rford County Rates Bill, Roborough Hundred (Devon) Small Debts Bill, Sun Life Assuranc , ! Company 13111, Elland Bridget Road Bill, Ashborne and Leak Road Bill, Butterbouse Green and Gorton Road Bill, Manches ter and Oldham Roads Bill, Leeds and Otley Road Bill, Belfast and Lisburn Roads Bill, Antrim and Coleraine Roads Bill, Glasgow Roads Bill, Darlaston and Shelton Road Bill, Biddulph Roads Bill, Roxburgh Roads Bill, Clapton (Somerset) Inclosure Bill, Clun Forest (Salop) Inclosure Bill, Banff Glebe Lands Bill, Angerstein's Es tate Bill, Hale'a,Naturalization Bill. Mr. BROTHERTON, from the House of Commonq, brought up the Argall Estate Bill, and several private Bills, which were severally read a first time. On the motion of Viscount DUNCANNON, the Dub lin Police Bill was read a third time. E.irl FITZ WILLIAM presc i nted a petition from the congrFgatio n , o f a c h a p e l in Southwark, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. Petitions for the abolition of Church-rates were presented by Lard Brougham from Brighton ; from Saint 1113ryle bane, signed by seven hundred persons, with their resi dences attached ; from Bilptit Dissenters of Southerton, Lincolnshir e ; Cock-Tivell, in Durham, and by the Earl of Burlington. Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that on Thursday next he should move the second reading of the Bill provi ding for education and the administration of charities in this country. .The• Bishop of WINCHESTER presented a petition from the Magistrates of Surrey, against the opening of Vauxhall Gardens on every night in the week, and particu larly against the probable desecration of the Sabbath by their being open on Saturday nights. The Earl of WICKLOW complained that in the copy of the letter of Mr. Nicholls to Lord John Russell, laid on the table of the House, several material paragraphs had - been omitted. Viscount DUN CANNON was not aware of the circum stance, but he would inquire into it. Tha Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from Raworth, in Surrey, for the better observance of the Sab bath ; also a petition to the same effect from tl.e parish of St. George, Worcester. The:Marquis of L ANSDOWN presented a petition from the guardians of the poor of Walmeslcy, Wilts, pra!-- ing that the rating of cottages may be on the owners and rot on the occupiers ; also another petition to the same effect. The Noble Marquis likewise hid on the table the Order in Council, dated February -19, 187, approOng of the scheme prepared by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On the motion of the same Noble Marquis, the Public Works (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be • committed on Monday next. . . _ The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from a place in Norfolk, approving of the operation of the new Poor Law Amendment Act, The Earl of SHAFTESBURY brought up the report of the Vestries Notices Bill. _ _ _ After a conversation in which the Bishop of London, the Earl of Maltnesbury, and Lord Godolphin took part, The Bishop of LINCOLN rose for the purpose of moving a clause. The effect of it would be to put an end to a custom prevailing at Caistor, in Lincolnshire, which led to a desecration of a place of religions worship. It was, that the lord of the manor of Broughton, on a certain day in each year, was require'd (or presumed to require), as the condition of his tenure, to hold a leathern whip over the reading desk of the Clergyman. This it was proposed to do away with entirely, and to substitute fur it an annual payment of a trifling sum in money. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the custom was doubtless most indecorous, but he doubted whether to introduce into a public Bill a clause that might materially affect private rights vas the course most in accordance with the practice of the House. The Bishop of LINCOLN had come forward at the request of the lord of the manor himself, who desired to discontinue the custom, but feared to deprive himself by so doing of his rights. He would, howeiter, withdraw the clause, if not in accordance with the practice of the House. Lord DU NCA NNON, adverting to the observations of the Noble Earl (Wicklow) on the letter of Mr. Nicholls, said that the copy of which the Noble Lord complained should be withdrawn, and a correct one substituted, the same as that presented to the House of Commons. The Earl of WICKLOW called the attention of the House to the inconvenience of the practice now sought to be passed over in silence. His Majesty had commanded that the letter should be communicated to both Houses, but in the copy laid on their Lordship's table the writer had thought fit to alter it in respect of some of the most important paragraphs, and to foist an incorrect copy on the House. _ _ ------- The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the Noble Earl did not seem to be sufficiently alive to the fact that the let ter in question was originally a private letter, for which Parliament could not have thought of calling but with the consent of the writer. As a desire had now been expressed to have the whole, and as there did not seem to be any objection to their being communicated, the omitted para graphs should certainly be laid on the table. The Earl of WICKLOW begged to assure the Noble Marquis and the House, that the paragraphs in question, so far from being irrelevant, were really, or at least one of them, the most important in the whole (atm'. He need only call the attention of the House to the fact, that one.of them went so far as to say, that all attempts to improve the moral and political condition of the Irish poor would be useless, unless the Roman Catholic priesthood were educated in a manner to conduce to that end. The Noble Earl con. eluded by reading the paragraph in question, but in a low tone. As far as we could undrstand, it went to recommene, indirectly, the education of the Roman Catholic clergy.at the expense of the State. Lord BROUGHAM could not tell what charge the Noble Lord opposite meant. It could not be intended to conceal the two paragraphs from the House or country, - be • cause, if it were, anything more impossible to carry into effect could not easily be contemplated. It appeared that, long before the publication took place, the charge made was this, that his Majesty sent down the letter which contained the two paragraphs to be printed. The Noble. Baron then moved for the production of the letter, and then came the letter without the two paragraphs, and this the Noble Lord opposite construed into an intention to conceal those para graphs.• Anything more impossible to effect, he repeated, could not easily be conceived. Lord WYNFORD said, that though the letter was printed, the case was not exactly as the Noble Lord stated. A very few of the letters were in circulation, and as soon as it was discovered that they contained the two paragraphs their circulation was suspended. Lord DUNCANNON admitted that the paragraphs were of importance. He was asked by the Noble Earl opposite whether he had any objection to their production, and on being told that they had been printed by the House of Commons, he replied that he certainly had none. The gentleman who wrote the letters, upon seeing the notice of the Noble Lord, thought it advisable to omit the para graphs, and he accordingly struck them out in the proofs. This baring been done by the gentleman himself; the House would at °lice see that there could hare been no intention of concealing the paragraphs in question, because, by the Noble Earl's own showing, at the time he asked for the letter it was then'in circulation. _ _ The Marquis of CLANRICARDE hoped that the qu9stion would be discussed without any reference to party feeling. Earl FITZWILLIAM thought that both Houses,of Parliament of late years had been too much in the habit of calling for individual opinions. That practice appeared,to him to argue an extraordinary degree of diffidence on the part of Parliament. This had been the case with re spect to this document, which bad been presented to both Houses, and which was intended to fora the groundwork of one of the most important changes that was ever effected in the social relations of a people. He asked his Noble Friend the other day if he had any objection to communicate to the House those facts —facts which were to form the groundwork of the pro- posed measure. Since then he (Earl Fitzwilliam) had had communication with the gentleman who wrote the letter, and by him he was informed that he had no documents which he could present to the House. Finding this to . be the case, he thought it better not to proceed with his motion, although he could have obtained a list of the individuals, with their names, additions, and residences. - Viscount MELBOURNE vtirely agreed with his Noble Friend as to the importance attached to this mea sure, and as to the importance of the House being in pos session of all the grounds on which it was founded and re commended to Parliainent. He thought that his Noble Friend had stated-the question narrowly when he said that they were called to legislate'upon that report. They were called upon to legislate certainly, in some degree, upon that report, but they also had before them the whole previous examination on the subject, and the very minute inquiry and investigation before the Poor Law Commissioners. They were, therefore, called upon to legislate upon their general knowledge of the case, and upon the knOwledge and information which they themselves possessed with re ference to the state of Ireland. The gentleman whose name had been mentioned was sent to Ireland in consequence of his peculiar knowledge of the working of the Poor-law Act in this country, in order to ascertain whether the same pr:neiples could be applied to Ireland. But it did-not follow that that Gentleman had not made observations of his own--it did not follow that he had not obtained information—because he had not presented those - observations and that informa tion in a digested form to that House ; but he (Visw:ount Malhourne) would beg to observe that it was quite unze cessAry for Hon. Gentlemen to enter into any detail of the subject, because he had before him all the facts which could be collected—all the knowledge which could be gathered in the inquiries which had been made under the authority of the Poor Law Comm6sionus. That gentleman .was sent to inquire whether from the facts so collected, and whether upon his own peculiar knowledge, a plan could be recommended as applicable fur that country. On that account the Gentleman was sent to Ireland, and he •begged to observe that no imputation could rest upon him or upon the Government for proposing to Parlia ment a measure, the grounds for which were already before the House. The Earl of WICKLOW viewed the present course of proceeding as a frightful experiment. He would not, how ever, take upon himself the responsibility of opposing- it. Lord MELBOURNE said that Mr. Nicholls did not differ with the Commissioners as to the facts, but merely .as to the conclusions which they drew in their report. Here the conversation dropped. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill. Lord MELBOURNE, at a future stage, would move that the Bill be referred to a Select 33ommittee up stairs. After a few words from the Marquis of BUTE and Lord BROUGHAM, the Bill was read a second time. The House then adjourned. In the course of Wednesday evening Mr. Hes:oth Fleetwood paired off with Mr. Loch, the former in favour of, the latter against, the second reading of the Lord's-day Bill. In addition to the liberal subscriptions of the Duke and Duchess of Cleveland for the Spitalfields weavers, their Graces have given an order for a quantity of silk damask fur niture of Spitallields manufacture. The custom of rid ng the Stan -2; is of immemorial date, and was, in the olden time, a kind of Lynch law in cur villages, by which dd.:utters were judged and punished ; and perhaps in the remoter periods the civil authorities were scarcely, if ever, sought for this purpose. Its institution wa for the punishment of the grosser description cf conjugal squabbles, such, ,for instance, as the husband bestowing sum mary chastisement on his beloved spouse, and vice versa ; also for the more heinous offences against the marriage vows. A scene of this kind occurred iu a neighbouring town a few nights ago. where the majesty of blackguardism rode trium. phant.—Kendal Mercury. T NTELLIGx,NCE. LITERATer — S.—Coy cLunED . THE HISTORY OF CHEST ns of indul g i ng i t . „ri ng days, w a s 4CE_ la - n e j e i the ed i n a Tiomas Ford, 1837. We have received the first four Numbimeetings.:: l ns b a u u t tistr as and handsomely illustrated-history of this ilerY superior chit ren .an -'1 d the towns and hamlets in its viu'"„...arnuch th t Jt sport m , haft t might haft in a style highly creditable to the provincial of England. The engravings are numerous and Ilea in Pn=4o ve. executed ; and the work, when completed will forma lic o tht useful addition to our topographical literature. The , e 4 first Number is embellished with a view of the High street, Chesterfield, studded with sundry bipeds and quadrupeds, apparently moving in various directions ; with a number of rather " business-like" looking dames in the foreground, evidently employed in inspecting the contents of a few well-filled market-baskets.. A jolly-looking old fellow in a waggon has entrusted the reins to a fair-fellow traveller, that he may expatiate with more freedom on the scene before him. In the distance the mailcoach comes whirling along at a deuce of a pace ; and more remote still stands the Church, displaying to every eye that most singular of optical delusions—if it be in reality delusion a crooked spire. The cost of this engraving and twenty-four pages of letter-press is only sixpence, and the o!her Numbers are all proportionately cheap. We select an extract—premising that we might choose others much better in themselves, big from their length unsuited to our columns : " Chesterfield, anciently called Cestrefeld, is a town of some trading importance, but irregularly built, chiefly of bricks. It is pleasantly situated on the confluence of two ri vers, the :Wpm and the Rother. It is built on the south side of a hill, in a fertile soil, twenty-four miles from the county town of Derby. It is in the diocese of Lichfield; is tit's chief town in the hundred of Scarsdale, and the second in rink in the county; and is one of the only two corporate towns in Derbyshire. The whole district around Chesterfield is exceedingly rich in valuable minerals. The town itself stands upon an extensive coal field; its position, therefore, is a favourable one, and its manufacturing resources are great. Among the strata that compose what arc usually called the " cJal formations," are found numerous and valuable beds of ironstone ; and the abundance of material by which the town is surrounded, admirably adapt it to manufacturing purposes. " Chesterfield has long been more or less connected with the popular family of Cavendish, to whose ducal domains so many of its inhabitants, and so many of the neighbouring tenantry, arc happy in boasting their attachment. It is about two miles from Whittington, where in 1688, under the direction of an eminent Cavendish, a plan was laid, which eventually placed the illustrious family of Hanover on the throne of these realms. Chesterfield is situated in the northern part of the County of Derby. It was included in the Roman province, Flavia Cmsgriensis, which was inhabited by the Coritani. Daring the Saxon Heptarchy, it formed a part of the kingdom of Mercia, but its origin is so remote, that nothing but conjec tural hints can be given respecting it. Those however who have devoted most attention to the subject, suppose it to have originated in a Roman encampment or station, situated on an eminence called Topton or Topton, at the point now named Windmill Hill ; but distinguished in several ancient writings by the appellation of Castle Hill." CHURCH-RATES. BUNGAY ST. MAlM—Yesterday, June 8, the following persons were summoned before J. L. Bedingfeld and E. P. Montague, Esqs., Magistrates of the division, viz.:— Messrs. A. Cane, R. Delf, S. Fisher, J. M. Morris, C. J. Thomas, and J. Webster, for non-payment of Church-rates. The parties did not appear in person, but a gentleman was deputed to say that they desired to express no dis courtesy to the Magistrates in declining to do so. Service of the summonses having been proved, Mr. Scott moved the demand of the respective sums, and put in the rate. Orders for payment were then made out, Mr. Montague observing that he felt it to be very hard upon the Dissenters, and he wished the law were altered ; but while the law con tinued he fit hound to administer it. The prosecutor in this case is the same Samuel Scott who sent Mr. Childs to gaol, and the incumbent of the parish is the same Archdeacon Glover who lately charged the Clergy of his archdeaconry on the subject of Church rates. The peesert case demonstrated that the worthy dignitary's zeLil for renscving the injustice, and his love of peace in his own parish, are not together worth sOs.—as tsis is the whole amount for which proceedings have been taken against his six parishioners, and by paying or even collecting it, the Archdeacon would have effectually pre vented litigation. When the abettors of the Churchwar dens (for both the individuals are but the imbecile instru ments of others behind the scene) —when their abettors re sorted to the Ecclesiastical Court in Mr. Child's case, they instructed Lord Henniker to assign as reasons, that one of the Magistrates was a Clergyman, and that they feared the excitement to be produced by executing distraint warrants. They have now given the lie to their own declarations, as the very same Magistrates act in the division, and certainly the excitement on the subject of Church-rates has not diminished since 1834. LIVERPOOL.-WEIYNESDAY. The cotton market continues steady, prices having, an upward tendency, with a respectable amount of business. The best proof, perhaps, that can be adduced of the ge neral belief of cotton having attained its minimum value is the appearance in the market of a class of purchasers who have long been comparative strangers to it—the speculators. To-day this description of buyers have taken 500 bags at the current rates, and during the whole of the present week their operations have been tolerably brisk. This, of itself, is calculated to inspire confidence for the future, and to justify the belief that affairs have now attained their least encouraging aspect. Althoueli there is a constant apprehension in the minds of many of future failures, none to•day have taken place ; nor have any—which is'still better—been talked of. The house of Humberston, which yesterday stopped. was re motely, if not immediately, connected with the New York packet-house which stopped the day before ; in fact, they may be considered one and the same concern. This failure, or, it may be. these two failures, are the only stoppages which have occurred here since the opening of the week, a fact in itself extremely gratifying. The transactions in cotton to-day have been ' l OO Per nam, Bd. to O i kd. ; 30 Maranham, 7 d. ; 70 Baltia,6. l ,d. to 81d, ; 50 Egyptian, 9d.; 300 Surat, 30. to 6d. ; and the remainder American, to 81d.—total, 3,300 bags, in cluding 500 to speculators.—Morning Chronicle. The incoming packet from New York (now due) is looked for here with great anxiety. U p on the nature of the intelligence brought by her very important results will depend. She will put us in possession 6f two events of considerable importance in the present critical position of affairs botween Great Britain and America—the decision of .the Prerident Van Buren about enforcing, or for a time suspending, the payment cf the Custom-house bonds ; and also the inei,sures adopted by the meeting of merchants respectiag the embarrassed state of commerce throughout the Union. With resrct to the first measure, the Presi dent assured the recent deputation to Washington that he would give .the subject his best consideration, and commu „eatQ the result through the collector of the customs at N ew Fork. The meeting of the merchants, for the pur pose of rece...Ying the report of the deputation appointed to wait upon the PreJdent at Washington, was to have taken place on the evening 0 , - . ,'Llay 8, and as the last New York packet (the /?oreac) sailed on the morning of that day, she was unable to bring the result. :ri7e issue of both these the New York cv.:nts will, therefore, come to h and b y tcket of May 16.—Morning Post.. NVe have to announce that the additional mail to London will commence running upon 6th July. The new mail will therefore arrive on Saturday the Bth, at 9 morning-; and the same mail will be dispatched from Glasgow at 5 after noon. The establishment of this additional wail will be of the greatest advantage to Glasgow anil the west of F.,'^otland. Too much pi aise cannot be given to the Ministry for th:: benefit t° the commercial world. Messrs. Alexander futon and Co. arc the contractors.—Glasgow Chronicle. The sale of the Corporation plate, at Boston, took place on Thursday last. Enormous prices were obtained for .many of the articles, which fetched in one instance 235. per ounce. The splendid punchbowl, weighing 173 °ttees, was said for 16s. 6d. per ounce, exclusive of the a uction duty. The total amount realised was 5531. 93. BV., being upards cf 2001. more than was expected. Great opposition and riot on the part of the Torieb was threatened, but the judicious preeaujens adopted by the Mayor disappoin ted the ho p es of the p arty, and some abuse by a couple of hired blackguaras was the annoyance experieue,.d.—Lineotashiec Obsciecr. Yesterday a Court of Common Council was held for the general dispatch of business. Last week the re-organisation of the Birmingham Political Union took place. It bad been previously resolved upon by the Reform Association, that the final constitution of the Union would not tak..n place until four thousand persons had enrolled themselves as members. To this resolution the Cooncil were determined in adherbig, had it not been that the circumstance of the birth day of the Princess Victoria occur ring on Wednesday, rendered it, to a rertain extent, Leces -- , sary that the Union should be f o rmed for the purpose of :.thircs.i!ig that distin4clidted lady and her mother, in the name and on beLqlf of an Association at one time, and, cc' long, Waely again to be, the most powerful pe;l:ical body in El-trope. —Biniiingham Journal. LIVER POO L COTTON MARKET, JUNE 7.—The Cotton market this day wears a better aspcet. Tile sales of to-dsv sr, 3,500 begs, and prices are firm. ),,