The Sun. — London, England, 1848-04-18 00:00:00

HAMBURGH MAIL. The Borsenhalle of the 15th says that from the offi cial list the loss of troops on the 18th and 19th of March, at Berlin, amounted to three officers and seven teen soldiers killed, or who had died of their wounds up - to the 12th of April, and that the number of the wounded snsounted to 14 o ffi cers, 14 subalterns, 225 privates and -sergeants. SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN AND RENDSBURG, APRIL 13..4- 'instead of the official report respecting the engagement of - the 9th, the Vaglebladt contains merely the following motice - :—" Although the results of the last engagement are very melancholy, the General in command feels him self called upon to make honourable mention of the valour of the troops." Here the various companies are enumerated. These did all that could possibly be expected from a well-disciplined army, and painful as the sacrifice has been to the country, the heroic :example of those who fall will serve as a noble stimulus to their fellow. soldiers. APRIL 12, 4 o'Coocn, P.M.—Yesterday a Danish corps of 800 men arrived at Schleswig. The leaders of the ;political party arrived here early this morning to avoid beiug sent to Denmark. Count Reventlow von Farve, 'who has been appointed Ambassador of the Provisional Government at Vienna, has also arrived here. RENDSBIIRG, APRIL 12.—Major Michelson, of the Sth Jager corp , , lies at the Flensburg hospital severely wounded. On the evening of the 12th Flushing was brilliantly illuminated. The Danish standard was un furled °a many of the public and private residences. The Rendsburg Jageblaft says that the Bracklow Volunteer corps arrived there on the evening of the 12th, together with the 6th company of the Rantogan corps of volunteers, consisting of Brunswickers, under the com mand of a StoWeld. A half-battery of Pruasian mounted artillery likewise arrived at Altona, and proceeded towards their destination. HAXISURGH, APRIL 14.—Yesterday evening 800 in fantry, avid one battery, of eight Hanoverian pieces, arrived here, and this morning about an equal number of Brunswickers, together with artillery, arrived at Altona. The troops have, however, as yet not re ceived any orders to advance further. The cause , of these continued delays remains inexplicable. The train this morning has brought no further intelligence either from Kiel or Rendsburg. COPENHAGEN, APRIL 12.—The Copenhagen journtils state that.his Majesty sva,s received with great demon strations of joy at-Flensburg. The Dannevirke and Fadrelandet state that the Schleswig-Holstein main army at Flensburg consisted of from 7,000 to 10,000 men, which were put to flight in the utmost confusion, when the valorous Danes stormed Bau and other strongholds; that at noon the Duke and his brother fled, followed by masses of troops in the greatest confusion; that the Duke and other princes who occupied the city previous to the engagement, were seized. with a panic and took to flight, and only escaped the hussars, who pursued them, on account of the- extreme swiftness of their horses, although the Duke had declared on Sunday morning that lie would - remain in Flensburg as long as a single house remained standing, or an individual German stayed in the city. The Berlingsha Zeitung is of opinion that the affairs of Flensburg hare routed the insurgents and disorganiied the army„ The loss on the Danish side at Bau was eight _or ter killed and wounded, among whom. was Captain Stigemann Linden Crone. .The Dannevirke gives- the loss of the Danish killed and wounded at 100 men. In the reports of this journal a fierce engagement is likewise mentioned as having taken-place between the Haderslibon volunteers of thirty men and a German corps of volunteers bearing the insignia of the, death's head, consisting chiefly of University men, of the wounded brought to the Flens burg; seven Danes and twenty-four Germans have died. Among the Danish wounded officers are Captains Rohe berg, Stigemann Linden Crone; Lieutenants Heckscher, Prunst, Fogh, Meyer, Regenburg, and Weyede, and 68 subalterns. Among the Germans are Captains Michersen, Hedeman, Smith, and Vasmer; Lieutenants Lutzau, Aller, and - Mathesen; and of the aristoertio vo lunteer corps - the • two Counts, Ranzan Baron Gylden and Baron Von Rosen; seventy-four subalterns, besides a considerable number of wounded, who were carried off by the insurgents. The Fadrelandel greatly censures Colonel Bagges . 6 for having demanded grace for Captain lifichel One hundred and twenty-one prisonerssell. o war, who have :arri ve d at Copenhagen, have been con veyed to the Dronning marine ship of the line, which has been fitted up for a prison, and where they will be examined individually. The frigate Gifern is to sail to-morrow, and the Thetis will follow speedily. The Flora corvette of war, of 22 guns, sailed yesterday for Prussia, with sealed dispatches. It is reported that she is to take up her station at Swine Minste. The Thetis, of 78 guns, is to be ready the day after to-mot Tow, sod will probably take the same course. The Swedish students at Upset have received the intelligence of the Danish victory with. the greatest joy, and have requested the permission of the King that they may. be trained in arms. The students of Lund have requested permission to enter the Danish corps of students as volunteers.—Hamburgh Borsenhalle total Hastipsesh Cc rre..pendent. THE MURDER 114 WESTMINSTER, , WESTMINSTER POLICE-COURT. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Sergeant Wright, 10 B said—About a quarter to one he was walking down Regent -street in company with some other constables. Having been informed that a wonysn had been stabbed, I proceeded to the spot, and found a woman lying on the ground. I gave directions to have her taken to Mr. rearse's. She was taken, and -I saw that gentleman examine her ; he pronounced her dead. I had her taken to the dead-house of the workhouse. Whilst there a young woman whom I know to be an unfortunate girl came up,.and I asked her to look at the female on the stretcher. She did so, and said her Lame was Maria, and gave me her address. Wright and I went ' to the residence of the prisoner, 7, Vincent-street. His father looked out of the window, and we told him we wanted his son. Be came down and opened the door, and showed us into the parlour, where we found the prisoner in bed apparently in a sound sleep. Wright called him several times by his name, but he did not answer. I clapped my hand upon him, and he sprang up in bed, and said to the constable who was with me, " What do you want, Harry ?" The constable told him he had been ill-using " Maria." He got Out of bed and sat on the side of it. He then asked the question "Is she dead ?" ' twice. I told him she was. He asked where she was, and I replied in St. Margaret's Workhouse. He then threw himself on the bed in agony and grief, and exclaimed with his hands together, " Oh, my God, I have done for her-1" (The prisoner here asked for water, which was fetched him by the gaoler.) After a minute or two, we induced him to dress. Seeing the state of excitement he was in, I took the precautionto search his clothes. In the right hand pocket of the backet he has no w on I f ou nd a k n if e , th e p o i n t o f th e lade of which was covered with blood. We took him away with us, and as we passed the end of the street where the woman had been found he said he could not go , by that place; he exclaimed, " 0 my God! I can't go by that place; there she stands looking at me." After a little persuasion we intaced him to go. Wh en h e had passed the street he stal, "There, now I will go with you. It was owing to that soldier, hut perhaps he will be sorry for it now." On the way to the station-house he said---" The knife has done it for her, and the rope must do it for me." The prisoner did not want to ask any questioni.. Police-constable Heiry Wright, 133 B, corroteratcd the evidence of the last witness. ,Inspector Cumming corroborated the evidence of ihe last two witnesses, with this addition, that when he met the ; prisoner in their custody he said " You have get MM."' To .which the prisoner replied, "I have done it." I told him not to criminate himself. Mr. liftonxitiP--A prisoner should be told the charge agllipit him, and should be then left either to speak or be . silent, as he may think fit. Any other course might impede the ends of justice. It has not done so in this case, but it might have done. FJ,sgOinittion resumed--The.prisoner said, " Oh, Sir! if yoa.but know what I have suffered for some time. I read, ~the charge to. Lim. He said nothing, but crotrhed f aa if he wished.to avoid my sight. I took hlm into nity Private _room, and, caused him to undress, it order that I might examine him. I found blood on his left' hand, on- the palm. and the, two middle fingers. Whit I wat - examiniag the right hand, he spat a piece of tobacco frons his mouth into the left hand. I found blood on his right, and said to Mr. Keene, loud enough for the prisaser -to . hear, " This is blood," to which - the prisoner said, "It is tobacco juice, it is not blood." . I the{ ad hisn emiveyed to the cell. Mr. BRODERIP —Do you wish to ask the witness any questions ? Prlicuier—Yea. 'Was there any tobacco juice on my bandit if - 'Witness—Yes, there was. ,Ari;soner—Was there any Wood ? Witness—Yes; theie -gi4orlir:—No, there was net—there was nothing but inice, You looked at my left hand and said there 1 ' 94 "" c " 34 ,uPon it. You then asked to look at my right,. and I then chucked the tobacco into any left, in order that YOU, Migh t ,d o that-pit wa s tetwie you said there was blood on s o, and Mrs. Hare juice. Darling et , said the female , Maria Eder' whose person s h e I , n o g wee k s last Saturday , uentified had lived at her house about V/0113811, and that her hush at said she was a married at Thorne's brewery, © he was a brewer, and wor k e d T h e pr i soner came ho with he would pay the rent. r oom, and remained every sight: h wi r th w h hen she took the • erfor a fortnight, but.she never knew him to take-his food there. i After that h i) cane only occasionally. They sometimes words, but they were very trifling, and genera lly ra l li cl y a fe d w it up soon after. Never heard him use threats m S a he e w as a very sober female. Never saw her tipsy. The b a d, some words m last Friday. The femme laughed,' and she heard something said ab out being hung at Ne,wate- Prisoner—l only. stopped two or three nights. I did: not sleep every night. -wi tnes s—You did not stop many nights, if you did any: Prisoner —I used to stop sometimes on the nights I got • any wages. She used then to turn out. and get some mo ney for h erself. ou are telling a story when you S ay you never saw her drun k. Witness —I was always in bed when she came hgamef. I never saw her. A more quiet girl never lived in any, house. , Mr. George Pearse, the surgeon, o f 5 , Ree.ent-str „ eld Vincent-square, was next examined —The female . w brought to my place about one o clock on Sunday mOrn., ing. With th e exce ption of the loss of her bonneta neck handker c hi e f, h er c lothes were not d i sordere d.: examined' her; she was quite dead. She had horizontal wound about three-quarters of as Deh in length above the lower end of second rib. I inised a probe int9 t _ the woend- # 4Axr tflsdea vertically - ctoWnwa r d s about iwt bal£ I Dore open her dress before and behind in order to see if there was any further wound. I did not find any. Mr. BRODERIP—In your opinion was the wound you viewed sufficient to cause death ? Witness — I cannot say whether any vital part is icjnred without a post mortem examination. About two ounces of blood trickled from the wound. Mr. BRODERIP—WeII, sir, you say the wound was above the second rib. I suppose you have studied anatomy—tell me, considering the vital parts in that. locality, if you have any doubt that the wound was the death? Mr. Pearse—l have a doubt upon the subject. Mr. BRODERIP—Now, surgeon, that is your answer. Mr. Pearse was about to explain. Mr. BRODERIP—I don't want any other answer; write down what he has said. (After a pause)—What, then, caused her death? Mr. Pearse—l believe the wound did. Mr. BRODERIP—WouId such a knife as that cause such a wound? Mr. Pearse—lt would. Mr. BRODERIP—And that is the answer? Mr. Pearse —lt is. Inspector Cumming said that was all the evidence. Mr. BRODERIP —Prisoner at the bar, if you wish to make any defence lam now ready to hear you. Have you anything to say. Prisoner (in a low voice)—No, sir. After the depositions had been read over, Mr. BRODERIP said, owing to the doubt on the sur geon's mind as to whether the wound was the cause of death, it would be necessary to remand the prisoner on this charge of wilful murder until Wednesday, in order that some competent medical man might be appointed to make the necessary investigation. The prisoner was then remanded until Wednesday. The court was very crowded. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April 17, (Sittings in Banco.) DAWSON AND OTHERS V. HAT. Mr. Serjeant SHEE moved for a rule calling on the defendant to show cause why a nonsuit" in this case should not be set aside and a new trial granted. The action was tried at the _sittings at Guildhall after last term, before Lord Denman, and was brought by the plaintiffs, who are advertising agents, against the defendant, as a member of the provisional committee of the Shrewsbury and Leicester and the Leicester Direct Railway Company, to reco - ver the sum of 2701., being the balance of an account due to them by the committee. At the trial it was proved that on the 10th March, 1845, the committee came to a resolution that each member should pay the sum of 631., to defray the liabilities of the company, and that if any of their members should make default in payment of this sum, he should receive no as sistance from the others if legal proceedings should be instituted against him by their creditors. The de fendant, accordingly, paid his - proportion, but several other members of the committee proving defaulters, a further sum became necessary; and it was resolved that another call for 20/. each should be made upon them. 'This second rt r oh e ue f g u bt s r e ti d a al gtioatipnyvasyta him,and nominally,thereupen the present p o r e es p e l n a t in a t c i t tr io s n ; ad mitteds by the plaintiff's solicitor that, in d rea l ity, the d defen ant by the proceedings was instituted against the u t t h h e e s p e caiirnctui plaintiffs, sottahnecrems,etreeisorodf Cthbeiecfosaumstiiteteeel; onsu n i but the Learned Sergeant now moved t t e o edr set aside the fnonsuit on the affidavit of the plaintiffs' solicitor that ! t t b h a e t s t t b e e t e me action nt a w t a the b r t r i o u al o, h w t a on made under a mi s t a k e, an d though with th e sanction of the a fide by t p he laintiffs, tended that as t h e plaintiffs committee. He also con s, tended of any s had a substit u ti ng c l a i m against the defendin P t, it could not b e b arred b y the agreement between the defendant and the committee, to whi c h the plaintiffs were not parties. Rule nisi granted. CO RT OF EXCHEQUER, .4pril 17. (Sittings in Banco.) POTEZ V. GLOSBOP. Mr. CHAMBERS appeared in this case to show cause against a rule, obtained last term, to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff, on the ground of misdirection, and im proper rejection of evidence. The defendant in the case was a clergyman residing near Clifton who, having seen in some of the papers advertisements offering to advance sums of money upon personal security, made application to the parties. A correspondence ensued, and the defendant was ulti mately induced to give his acceptance upon two bills of exchange, upon the representation that the money should be immediately forwarded to him, or if not, that the acceptances should be returned. The de fendant of - course never received the money, and all efforts to obtain the return of the acceptances were fruitless, and upon the bills arriving at maturity the present ac ti on was commence d by th e p l a i nt iff, who alleged that the bills had come into her possession through having advanced some money upon them. Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Humfrey appeared in support of the rule, and contended that upon the trial of the cause evidence was tendered which would have shown that the plaintiff was not the bona fide holder of the bills, but that such evidence had been refused. Rule absolute. (Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and a Westminster Common Jury.) TAMLYN V. BURTON COOPER, ESQ. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation in damages for a libel spoken, and also written, on the plaintiff, for the purpose of bringing the plaintiff into contempt. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The damages were laid at 5001. The plaintiff appeared in person ; Mr. Sergeant Tal fourd appeared for the defendant. From the statement of the plaintiff it appeared that he had been engaged in law proceedings for the last forty years. In 1807 an uncle died, leaving his property to his relatives. Under the will plaintiff and his wife be came legatees, and entitled to a portion of 47,0001. The matter subsequently came into the Court of Chan cery in 1833, and on the 24th of April, 1844, when Lord Lyndhurst was Lord Chancellor, the plaintiff pre sented a petition, on which occasion Mr. Burton Cooper, Q.C., and also of the Chancery bar, rose and said that the plaintiff's case had been fully heard, that he (Mr. Cooper) had spoken several hours in support of the plaintiff's case, and the petition was dismissed; that the plaintiff on that occasion promised never to bring the natter again into court; that in 1847 the plaintiff pre sented another petition to the Court of Chancery, Lord Cottenham being Chancellor; that when his petition was about being called on, the defendant wrote a letter to the Lord Chancellor, informing his Lordship that the plain tiff's case had been fully heard, and that the plaintiff had promised never to trouble the Court again. This letter was the cause of having his petition dismissed; that he, the plaintiff had applied to the Lord Chancellor for his papers, when the letter of the defendant was delivered up to him. The plaintiff then proceeded to enter into a history of this law and Chancery proceedings, in the course of which he stated that about 10,000/. had been obtained in 1810; that at a subsequent period, fortu nately one of the trustees broke his neck, by which the family received about 24,0001. or 25,000/. That he the plaintiff had been a respectable farmer down at Taunton, but when the peace of 1815 came, he sustained great losses by the decline in prices, and in 1817 he came io London in consequence of some advertisements; that since that period he had been before repeated Lord Chancellors; that Lord Brougham had promised to hear his case, but had never done so; and through the con duct of the defendant, he (the plaintiff) never attempted to speak in the Court of Chancery but Mr. Cooper in variably rose and said that he (the plaintiff) had pro miAed never to trouble the court again. Mr: Baron ALDERSON—What is the libel you complain of ? Is it that you will not trouble the court again? if that is all, that is no libel. The plaintiff—Then I will call Lord Lyndhurst to prove the libel. I shall call his Lordship on his subpcena. Mr. Baron ALDERSON—What do you want Lord Lyndhurst to prove? The plaintiff—To prove that Mr. Cooper rose andstated that I had premised never to trouble the court again. Mr. Baron ALDERSON—SureIy you can call somebody else to prove that. • Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—My Lord, Lord Cottenham is also subpoenaed, and is ready to obey the subpcena, not wishing to be called on it. Lord Cottenham, who was sitting in the House of Lords in appeal cases, here entered the Court in full robes, and came on the bench. Lord Campbell, who was in the Lords also, came in, but remained standing in the body of the Court. Mr. Baron ALDERSON—As the Lord Chancellor is present, and as his time is of very great importance, you had better ask his Lordship the questions which you wish to be answered. The Plaintiff (handing up Mr. Cooper's letter)—This letter was returned to me with my papers, which your Lordship took home to examine. I want to know how your Lordship came into possession of it. Lord Cottenham—What is the question you wish to ask on this paper? The Plaintiff—How came it into your possession? Lord Cottenham-1 recollect there was &paper handed up to me when your case came 1a,..-fore me, but I cannot say that this is the same paper. The plaintiff—Does your Lordship recollect Mr. Cooper saying that on the 24th of November, 1839, and also in the month of December in the same year, that he argued my case for several hours, on a promise that I would never apply to have it reheard again ? Lord Cottenham—l have not the slightest recollec tion of what passed. The plaintiff—=Did your Lordship dismiss my petition in April, 1847, in consequence of the letter ? Lord Cottenham—l have no recollection of so doing, It is the practice of my court to look into the merits o a petition, and which is dismissed on the merits—bu when_ once heard I do not re-hear again. I was in formed that your petition had been before Lord Lynd hurst and was dismissed. But I recollect taking your papers home and looking into them, and I dismissed the petition on its merits. Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The first plea of the defen dant is made out. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD —I wish to say a word or two. We have heard from the Lord Chancellor that the petition was not allowed to be reheard, it having had two hearings before. The plaintiff—lf you can prove in any Court in Eng nemdt ort.hsacatyoi Colville i le d ew_ n w o p t oer a rd r hs i arise I m hye the letter, I will lay down my life. before Vice-Chancellor Lord Lyndhurst, his Lordship asked with him me to go . the to r d g p ' e l a t you i h n i t s i plaintiff will ecta petition npermit be fore e a. and they y w t h h e e n n jr. sai the Plaintiff h M ad r. no case. a. The d p a la d in ) : tifr has never paid any of the costs. Mr. Baron ALDERSON--It is quite clear that your petition was , not dismissed in consequence of the writing of the letter, and therefore the second plea of the de tendont is proved. Some other witnesses were called, who could not re collect the circamatance in question. Th p 1 ain ti cam° t early tan citset4rtbertalt4iough I have another witness. Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Gentlemen, you will give your verdict for the defendant. The jury accordingly returned a verdict in accordance with his Lordship's directions. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Aprill7, (In Banco, before Lord Chief Justice WILDE). BATTY (AN INFANT) v. MARRIOTT. A question arose in this case as to the construction of the recent Act relative to games and wagers, it appeared that the plaintiff and one Askew deposited in the hands of the defendant 101. each, to abide the event of a foot race between them; that the race was accordingly run, and that Askew 'having been declared , the winner, the stakes were in due course paid over to him. The plain tiff, however, dissatisfied with this result, brought the present action (for money had and received) to recover back his stake, and a verdict having been given in his favour, a rule was obtained last term to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a non-suit en tered, or why a new trial should not be granted. Mr. OGLE now showed cause. Mr. Howl HILL was heard in support of the rule. His LORDSHIP observed, that the only rule which he clot-) inquirel ay down what w f a o s r t t h h e e p t eTAshwenefns sn he A Anne made hemreeap c nd t e, bear w l de a idst s . The first question was, wheth er a f oot -race was lawful. It had been said in th e course of au t h sn e l af awr argument it lbaet t e h tdh a te to og t bhte that that b s t as a ut t b u j t se e toatt.a 9 ques tion was, what was the effect of the enactment of the present statute (8 and 9 Vict. c. 109) on the question of the wager being unlawful. It a p peared that two persons had subscribed 101. each, w t h h i e ch w t h b o e l y e a lv m er o e un tb t to be be tb p e ai e d al t y o e th m e te w b in d n in e g r pofaratireasc He adve r t e d to that fact, becausee, in there might be a difference in a case where the money was subscribed by persons not interested in the event. p C a o r r t i e i d s e t ri o n t g h , e therefore, r o e n , e t h o a r t twh two m un lawful one, and th a t t h e money had been ar o o t s an . n By subscribed by way by es auesetio was n the 18th sectio n o f t h e Act, all contracts gaming or wagering were declared null and void; and it was enacted that no suit should be brought to recover any sum of money or other valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager, or which should have been de posited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager should have been made; but it was provided that that enactment should not apply to any subscription or contribution for or towards any •plate, prize, or sum of money to be awarded to the winner or winners of any lawful game, t s w po o rt p , eprassotnims e s , ab o s r e e r x ib e e r d eis a e. su T m he te diffi be cu a lt w y winner of a game w hi ch is to be contestedabTtdhthis:—if persons, in what did that differ from a wager? And yet, considering the class of persons in the Legislature who had been engaged in promoting this measure, he thought th a t some difference was intended to be made. It was quite clear, for example, that it had not been in tended to put down horse racing; and yet many horse races were matches between horses for stakes subscribed by the owners. Here there were the two sums of 101. contributed by two persons, to be awarded to the winner of a lawful game, and the case, therefore, seemed to fall within the terms of the proviso. He, therefore, thought that the plaintiff could not maintain an action to recover his stake, and that the rule for entering a a nonsuit must be made absolute. Mr. Justice COLTMAN, in eipressing a similar opinion, adverted to the singular anomaly that, in the present state of the law, the stakes might be recovered from the stakeholder, but that if the latter gave a promissory note for the amount it was to be considered (by virtue of the sth and 6th W. IV., c. 41) as given for an illegal consideration. Mr. Justice Cresswell and Mr. Justice Williams con curred. BAIL COURT, April 17. Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and a Common Jury BROWN T. 31`LEAN. This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover 501., to which the defendant had pleaded that she was not indebted. The plaintiff was a mariner, and the defendant the relict and administratrix of a merchant who formerly carried on business at North Shields. In 1846 the plaintiff was the master of a vessel belonging to the ideceased M'Lean, called the Esther, of London, and he agreed to purchase half of the vessel for 2001., paying 501. and giving a good bill for the balance of 1501. The plaintiff went on a voyage with the vessel, and upon his return found that M'Lean was dead, and that the defendant's widow had resold the ship. She agreed, however, to refund the 501. paid by the plaintiff to her husband, but had neglected to do so, and the present action was instituted to compel her. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. MARYLEBOIVE COUNTY COURT, April 15 . (Before A. ABRAHA.II, Esq., Deputy Judge.) COPE V. BREWER. This was an action brought by the trustee of the New Equitable Loan Society, John-street, Tottenham-court road, to recover from the defendant the sum of 61., arrears of instalments due upon money borrowed from that society. Mr. Keene, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff. The case having been stated, The JUDGE examined the rules of the society, with the terms upon which the money was borrowed. His Hoiaour asked, was it in the form of an agreement or contract that the money was lent? He, for his part, thought it was a contract, and looking at the terms, he was of opinion that the whole thing was illegal. What was the rate of interest charged for the money lent? Why, 10 per cent. for three weeks, making 170 per cent. per annum. But that was not all. Borrowers had to pay ls. per mile to the society for the trouble of looking after the securities, and that, together with the fines for non-payment of the instalments within three weeks after they became due, with other charges, made the rate of interest amount to no less than 250 per cent. per annum. He was of opinion that the contract, if it were one, was illegal, and therefore null and void; but, as the question was one of importance, he should take time to consider his decision. CHARTIST CONVENTION. - - - - - - Th‘llelegates met at the usual hour yesterday morning, when the chair was taken by Mr. Cummings (in the absence of Mr. M‘Grath). Only 18 members of the Convention were in attendance. After the names of the delegates were called over, along letter, thanking the Chartists for their exertions, was read. It recommended them to insist that mono polies of every kind be at once abolished; to demand that the six points of the Charter be immediately passed into a law ; that the military be distznded, and a National Guard established which might be called out two or three days a week for exercise and the use of the " rifle;" that the Protestant Church be made entirely dependent upon voluntary contributions for its support; that all church lands be sold, the interest on the national debt reduced, and that the people be declared entitled to choose that form of government which was most likely to produce the greatest comfort and happiness to the greatest number. They were not to agitate for civil war, but it was evident that the motive which :influenced the present Government was self-ag grandisement. The writer cot chided by again repeating that he did not wish for a civil war, but, on the con. trary, for national peace. Mr. CUFFAY wished to know the name of the writer to the letter which had been read. The CHAIRMAN said, it was an anonymous communi cation. Mr. CuFFAY—Then it cannot be received. We receive no anonymous letters here.—(A laugh.) A number of letters were read, expressing confidence in the Convention, and one signed a " Tradesman's Daughter," which recommends that the delegates should turn their attention to the important question relating to the currency.—(A laugh.) The writer advised the members of the Convention to change all their 51. notes into gold, and thus create a run on the Bank of England. —(Laughter.) The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. THE MONSTER CHARTIST PETITION. Mr. CLARK said he was anxious to call the attention of the Convention to the report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the subject of ,the National Petition. It was represented that that petition was an attempt to impose upon Parliament, and therefore it required some explanation should be given. He believed that all petitions presented to the House of Commons were inspected by a Committee appointed for that purpose. Now, in the pre sent'instance the principal part of the signatures were not obtained until Friday and Saturday before the meeting; therefore it was impossible to count them. Petition sheets from Leeds were stated to contain 54,000, Man chester 170,000 signatures, which was taken as granted to be correct, and he believed the numbers were cor rect.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. F. O'CoNson made his report of the number of signatures from a written statement, which was handed to him shortly before he went down to Parliament, therefore he could not be blamed. It was impossible to prevent improper names being placed to public petitions, and with respect to indecent signatures he felt confident that they were affixed by enemies of the Chartists. Delegates could not be responsible for names attached to a petition. He believed similar charges might be broue,ht against every public petition which had ever been presented to Parlia ment. There might have been some negligence on the purt of those delegates who prepared and conducted the p but there was no criminal misrepresentation.— (Ilear.) A great error no doubt had been made of the number of signatures to the petition, and therefore he' thought they ought not to be ashamed to acknowledge it. They had not wilfully made a false representation to Parliament, and therefore he moved for a committee of inquiry. Several delegates stated they were of opinion there must be some mistake on the part of the Committee of the House of Commons, and expressed a wish that they could get the petition back again to examine it.—(Hear.) Mr. MURPIELD—Of course there is a mistake. What Chartist would sign the name of that bad man the Duke of Wellington to a petition calling for the people's rights? With respect to their little Queen she was a good girl, but had a sufficiently large family not to trouble herself about Petitions; her signature must be false.—(Hear.) After some further remarks, which it is as well not to notice, Mr. Murfield moved that a committee be ap pointed to draw up and publish a statement which would convince the public of the pure intentions of the Con vention, and set their motives right with the world. If there was any misrepresentation respecting the petition, it arose from error, not design. Nlr. CHILD said it seemed to he the desire of the House of Commons to starve and degrade the people , Nothing that was true or just emanated from that piaci The people had hearts and souls, but they had not foo . lie thought it was not worth while to take any furtho notice of -the -niisrepresentsitionsivhich -had- beenmade respecting the National Petition. Mr. CLARK believed the Committee of the House of Commons had made a mistake as to the number of sig tures to the petition, and therefore he wished for a statement to be published, to set the conduct of the Con vention right with the public. Mr. ASHTON was certain there was quite _as much reason to believe that the petition was signed by up wards of five millions as that the number was under two • mil lions. Mr. COCHRANE said their own constituents were satisfied with the signatures to the petition, and there foie he did not see why they should trouble themselves to convince a body of men sitting at St. Stephen's that the delegates were right. Mr. C. then indulged in a violent abuse of the Members of the Commons, who, he contended, when they returned from the House half drunk, indulged in the streets in muc h more o b scene and disgustinghat language than a p peare d i n the Chart i st petition. did they thi n k o f C o l onel S i bthorp to l What wit?— (Cheers.) Mr. GRAHAM said he was informed yesterday that it was the son of a Baronet connected with her Majesty's Government who went up and down different streets and put obnoxious and indecent signatures to the peti tion. He believed such was the fact.—(Hear, hear.) The resolution that a committee be appointed to draw up a statement with respect to the signatures to the petition, in order to set the public right as regarded the conduct of members of the Convention, was agreed to by a majority of 14 to 4. Mr. Clarke, Mr. Wheller, and Mr. Graham, were no minated to draw up the statement. A report of the Central Chartist Registration Society having bees brought forward by Mr. Cuffay, and adopted, it was agreed, that as there remained a great amount of business to be done in the distribution of bills, &c., through the various districts, the proceedings should be adjourned until Wednesday morning. IMPE RIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 17. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Five o'cloek. PETITIONS. The Earl of ROSEBERY presented several peti tions praying that the society of Odd Fellows might be put upon the same footing as other benefit societies. The Earl of EGLINTOS presented several peti tions with a similar prayer. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from certain persons against the Election Recognizances Bill. Lord BEAUMONT presented several petitions from various lodges of Odd Fellows, praying for the legalization of their society. LEASES OF MINES (IRELAND) BILL. The Leases of Mines (Ireland) Bill passed through ComMittee. IRELAND. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table certain returns connected with the operation of the recent Coercion Act for Ireland. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH called the at tention of the House to the fact that arming was going on extensively in Dublin, and 'yet the Lord-Lieutenant had not put that Act in force in the city of Dublin.—(Hear.) With regard to the purpose which these armaments were intended to bring about there could be no doubt; they had already been explicitly declared by Mr. Mitchell. (The Noble Earl here read several extracts from the United Irishman, for the purpose of showing that these armaments were going on for the avowed object of levying war on the English Government in Ireland.) The students of Trinity College and the Dublia Society had offered their services to the Lord-Lieutenant, but his Lordship, while accepting their offers, had urged upon them the necessity of not arming. Now, if while arming on the part of those seeking a subversion of the empire was to be suffered thus openly to go on while those who were anxious to support the Government were prevented from arming, there could be no doubt but that the friends of order and good government would be disheartened when they found themselves surrounded by those who were armed for their destruction. They would suspect that a compromise was intended upon a question which ought never to be the subject of compromise, and vast numbers of them would cease to be true to the Government from the moment that the Government ceased to be true to itself, and the consequences would be irre trievable ruin to the empire. It was not sufficient for the Government to support the union, they must support everything connected with the union— (Hear, hear)—and they therefore ought to be pre pared to give their support to all the loyal subjects of the empire. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE could assure the Noble Earl that the matter to which he had alluded had been the subject of anxious consideration both to the Government and the Lord Lieutenant, but as the Act alluded to was to be put in force by the Lord-Lieutenant he thought that it ought to be left to the Lord-Lieutenant's discretion to decide the time, the plan, and the mode in which he would exercise these powers. It was true that the manufacture of arms was going on to a great extent in Ireland, yet still implicit credence ought not to be given to all the statements which had been made on the subject. Many of which were greatly exaggerated. The common law of the land gave the Lord-Lieute nant ample powers of seising all collections of arms and ammunition which he might have reason to suspect were made for an illegal pur pose. With regard to the answer of the Lord Lieu tenant to the deputation of those who had waited on him to offer their services, he had to state that in those instances in which he had thought it advisable, he had caused arms to be given to the persons apply ing for them. Lord BROUG-lIAM had great confidence in the Lord Lieutenant, yet still he thought it advisable that every encouragement should begiven to the loyal subjects, while discouragement should be given to those who sought to create disunion. He believed that none but agitators and demagogues desired a repeal of the union. The great majority of the property, of the good sense, aye, and of the population of Ireland, w as opposed to a repeal of the union. Still - he thought it necessary that the loyal subjects shoull be encouraged. He should like to know the composition of the body to which arms had been given, and whether or not their ser vices had been accepted. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that that body was composed of men of all shades of politics, but he declined to state any further particulars. FLECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR SCO MANI). The Earl of EGLINTON moved that "The matter of the protest given in against the vote of the person as suming the title of Lord Colvill, car Lord Colvill of Ochiltree, being received or counted at the meeting for the election of the 16 Peers of Scotland, holden at Edin-; burgh, upon the Bth day of September, 1847, be taken under deliberation by the House, with a view to direct such inquiry, and to make such order as to the House+ shall seem proper." After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL, Mr. Serjeant Halcombe, counsel for the person claiming to be Lord Colvill, was called in, and having; been informed by the. Lord Chancellor of the nature of address against n s up the resolution, was asked 4f he had anything to urge• Thepo oLearned cl C ie o n n e n s s c e l l ai then o commencedthe title. Afteran • a short time the Learned Gentleman stated, in answer to a question from Lord Campbell, that he did not object to the inquiry which the resolution sought for, and a Com mittee of privileges was then app o i n t e d, before which the claimant is to attend and endeavour to make out his title. MOl LA ALNOLONA‘LvIEENS proposed ßlLL. The Marquis ßE of that this Pr Bill should pass through: Committee s forma for the purpose of printing certain amendments of a verbal cha racter, and one which. gave a t rig happeal to the Privy Council. He should move that the of Bill be read a third time to-morrow (this day). . The Earl:of EbLENBOROUGH said an appeal to the Privy Council would defeat the object of the Bill. The foreigners in this country whom • it might be de. sirable to send away by steamerfuls were not respect• able traitors, but persons of the lowest class, and to give each the right of a separate appeal to the Queen in Council would keep. the Privy Council constantly sitting. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that if they were not " respectably traitors" —(Laughter)—they would not be able to bear the expense of such an appeal. The Earl of ELLENBOROITGII said he would not oppose the clause, as it appeared to be useless. After a few words from. Lord HOLLAND is oppo sition to the Bill, which were veryi ndistinotly heard, The Marquis of-LAN-SDOWN-E felt it necessary to say a few words after what had fallen from his Noble Friend, whom he heard with pleasure for the first time in that House, and who was entitled to its attention as the descendant of the great and illustrious name which he bore, and to the recollection of which no one was more fondly and affectionately attached than he.— (Hear, bear.) But the present-Bill was not only a less stringent measure than the one opposed by the late Lord Holland, but the circumstances under which it was brought forward were totally different. Besides, in the speech with which Lord Holland prefaced his protest, he stated, not as his sole objection to the Bill, but as a prin cipal one, .that it would favour the views of the Holy Alliance. He maintained that every socieV was entitled to prevent the interference of foreigners in its concerns. The fact that a Noble and Learne d Lord (Lord Denman) who was eminent for his attachment to the law and con stitution of this country, and who. joined Lord d Hol lan d in his opposition to the former Alien Act, ha his c pub onvic y declared within the last three days tiou of the necessity of this Bill, removed all doubt from his mind with respect to the objections en tertained by Lord Holland._ The Bill tbey were now proposing was only a temporary one, to exist for one year. He was not desirous that it should become the permanent law of the land.—(Hear, hear.) He prayed God it might never be more than a temporary cape dient,,-'which was justified by the i,tate of things exist ing-thrciughout the world.—(Hear, hear.) would in fact Lord ABERDEEN said' the Bill continue for two years, because it was for a year or to the end of the next session of Parliament. The Bill then passed. through Committee. ELECTION RECOGNIZA.NCES BILL.. Lord MONTEAGIJE proposed the second reading of this. Bill. The main object was to empower the Election C°lllllloloo, o -iiitc.,the Araliditz 4,the:_ - recr gni-- zance. As it was a Bill relating to the privileges of the other House, he hoped their Lordships would not oppose it. Lord BROUGHAM objected to the Bill on the ground that while the existing law enacted that the determina tion of the examiner of recognizances should be final and conclusive, this Bill would give a power to a Com mittee of the House of Commons to set it aside. He had no objection that the matter should be sent back to a Committee. It might be very well to alter the law prospectively, but he objected to their passing an ea post facto law on the subject. He thought the House of Commons mistook their proper course. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Lord REDESDALE supported the second reading. He thought it would be a most ungracious thing on the part of their Lordships' House if' they were to say, " You are in a difficulty, get out of it as you can ; we will not help you."—(Hear, hear.) Lord CAMPBELL said that but for the present Bill the petitioners in the eight cases now pending would clearly have a right to proceed under Sir R. Peel's Act, which made the certificate of the examiner of recog nizances final. Against this certificate the Bill gave an appeal, to the most objectionable of all tribunals—the Election Committee. After the proper officer, Mr. Booth, had declared the recognizances in certain cases good, the House had no right to assume that they were bad, as was done by this Bill. The question was one which ought to be referred to a court of law ; and on that ground he felt that the present Bill was objection. able in principle, and would support the motion that it be read a second time that day six months. Lord STANLEY, while admitting that there were grave objections to the Bill, thought it the only method of escaping from a dilemma and supplying a cases omissus in the former Act, which had not been antici pated at the time it was passed. The main consideration for their Lordships was how to do substantial justice between the petitioners and the sitting Members and to carry out the intention of the Legislature. The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred in thinking this a most objectionable measure, contrary to all the rules of law and principles of justice. The existing Act prescribed all that was to be done by petitioners. They had strictly complied with the Act, and it would be most unjust to require them to do more. The Earl of DEVON denied that the Bill would affect any parties who had complied with the provisions of the existing Act. They had not so complied, but, by an oversight of ,the officer had obtained a certificate that they had done so. Lord DENMAN said the examiner of recognizances had performed the duty imposed on him by Act of Par liament, and to attempt, by a new Act, to set aside his decision, would open a wide door to abuse. He felt bound to oppose the second reading of this Bill. tord - BROUGHAM said a few words in explanation. The House then divided, when there appeared-- For the second reading Against it Majority for the second reading —lO The House then adjourned at Half-past Eight o'clock HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 17. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock. NEW MEMBERS Mr. TOWNLEY for Sligo, and Mr. CuRTEIS for Rye, took the oaths and their seats. THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passed : Folkestone Waterworks Bill. North of Scotland Fire and Life Assurance Company (Incorporation of company) Bill. Worcester New Gas Light Company (Additional Capital and Amendment) Bill. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS. The reports on the following Bills were further considered and. agreed to : Patent Galvanized Iron Company (incorporation of company, with powers to hold lands, to raise money by loan, and to purchase letters patent) Bill. Tadcaster and Halton Dial Turnpike Road (diver sion, &c., of the road in the parish of Tadcaster) Bill. PROTECTION OF THE CROWN AND GOVERNMENT. Lord C. MANNERS, presented a petition from Loughborough against the Bill for the better protec tion of the Crown and Government. Col. TIIOMPSON presented a petition from Sun derland, praying for an extension of the elective suffrage, &c. The - Earl of MARCH presented petitions against the duties on attorneys%certificates. Mr. COWAN presented petitions from various parts of Scotland against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. Mr. H. BERKELEY presented petitions from Bristol, complaining of the decision aof the Court of Arches and the Privy Council in the case of a person named Banes, against clergymen seceding from the Established Church and becoming Dissent ing clergymen. Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from Dublin praying for a repeal of the legislative union. Sir J. YARDE BULLER presented a petition from a place in Devonshire praying for the restora tion to their families of Frost, Williams, and Jones. Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON presented a petition from Clitheroe, signed by upwards of 1,000 persons, against the Bill for the better security of the Crown and Government. Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from St. Pancras in favour of the People's Charter. Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from Glas gow against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. Mr. HORSMAN presented petitions in favour of the alteration of the law with respect to ecclesiastical courts, and in favour of the Health of Towns Bill. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Penrith, praying for the general enfranchisement of all church property, and a better provision for spiritual destitution. Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from Lymington in favour of the Health of Towns Mr. BRIGHT pres e nt e d a petition, signed by the chairman of a public meeting, held at Manchester, at which the greater number of persons present were shopkeepers, who had recently enrolled themselves as special constables. They stated that they believed that the discontent existing in the country arose from the consciousness among the working classes that they had no voice in the legislature, and they prayed the House to pass a measure similar iu its principles to those embodied in a document called the People's Charter. Dr. BOWRING presented a petition against the Bill for the better security of the Crown and Go vernment. Mr. BERNAL wished to correct a mistake which had occurred in the reports of the proceedings of the. House. Some newspapers had stated that he had presented a petition from the Mayor and Corporation of the city of Rochester, against the Bill for the better security of the Crown and Government, whereas the petition which he had presented was against the Health of Towns Bill. WEST INDIAN COLONIES. Mr. HUME said, as the Committee had not yet presented their report, he begged to postpone his motion with respect to these colonies until after the recess. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. Mr. HUME—Sir, I beg to give notice that after the recess I shall call the attention of the House to the representation of the people—(Hear, hear)—a n d take the sense of the House upon the question. DERBY. Mr. EVANS moved that the Clerk of the Crown be directed to issue a new writ for the election of two burgesses for the borough of Derby, in the room of the Hon. Edward Strutt and the Hon. Edward Frederick Leveson Gower, whose election had been determined to be void. Mr. MACKINNON Jecunded the motion. Mr. ELLICE opposed the motion. He said he -was a member of the Yarmouth Election Committee, before whom it was proved that great corrup. tion had existed for years among the freemen ; and the House, at the suggestion of the Committee, passed with acclamation a Bill to disfranchise the corrupt freemen of that borough. The House had, therefore, affirmed the principle that a body who had so acted did not deserve to be longer entrusted with the elective franchise. He had taken the trouble to look through the evidence adduced before the Derby Committee, and he was quite prepared to say that the corruption in the two cases was precisely parallel. The evidence upon which the House claimed the right of disfranchising the freemen of Yarmouth was to be found in this instance, and the H ouse wou l d be doing an act of injustice it it disfranchised them and allowed the freemen of Derby to go free. Sir J. HANMER said 'it was exceedingly diffi cult to oppose a motion for issuing a new writ for the return of representatives for such a borough as Derby. He supposed that in all England there were very few towns which had greater or more essential claims to be represented in that House than the borough of Derby. It was an ancient borough, and possessed all the rights that prescription could give to it. It stood upon one of the great lines of communication, and was a very industrious and populous town. It stood in the immediate vicinity of a large manufac turing district, and altogether Derby had as good a right to be represented in that House as anv other town in the kingdom. But, independently of these considerations, it was exceedingly diffi cult to oppose the issuing of a new writ after what took place the other evening in reference to Bewdley, and he certainly did not intend to oppose the issuing of the writ on this occasion. Still, how ever, he could not suffer this motion to pass by with out calling the attention of the House to the present state of the law in reference to these matters. If the House persisted in issuing writs for these corrupt places, and visiting all the sin upon the heads of the gentlemen who should be _returned for them, and none upon the heads of the electors, they never could get rid of these abuses. This -borough had long been represented by a gentleman wh o was largely connected with it, and who was highly respected •• by • Oil P44th _Pk Yet although he had taken every means in his rower to have the law of 1842 observed, what had teen the result ? Why he was petitioned against and the Committee appointee to try the merits of the petition, discover that the grossest corrup tion prevailed amongst t he freemen of the borough. Now he did call upon honourable gentlemen and the Noble Lord at the head of the Govyrnment to turn their attention to this state of things, and see if some remedy could not be provided for the evils.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") No doubt there were a good many Chartists, and he had little doubt that these abuses would have a strong tendency to augment that body. At all events, seeing these corrupt freemen rolling in the gutters in a beastly state of drunkenness, must naturally create discontent amongst those poor and industrious inhabitants of towns who were not in the enjoyment of the franchise.—(Hear, hear.) Ile did not rise now to oppose the issuing of the writ, but to entreat the Government to turn their attention to a subject which more than any other at the present moment required the consideration of the Government. He reserved to himself the right, after he had heard the discussion that he had no doubt would take place on the motion, of either voting for it or against it. Mr. HUME opposed the issuing of the writ at present. He had on a previous occasion sug gested that in all they, cases where bribery had been proved to have taken place the writs should be sus pended till all the Election Committees had been disposed of, and that then they should be referred to a Committee appointed for the purpose of con sidering them.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that the case of Derby was almost a parallel one with that of Great Yarmouth, and he did not see why the same course should not be pursued, as had been adopted with respect to it. He should vote for the suspension of the writ until cn inquiry l ad taken place. The Earl of LINCOLN said that he should most certainly vote with the Hon. Member for Montrose in favour of the suspension of the writ. He thought it a most unconstitutional proceeding to suspend the issue of any writ unless the House had some definite object in view.—(Hear, hear.) His reason for voting for its suspension was, that he indulged the hope and strong conviction that, as soon as the case was brought under the notice of the Go vernment, the Noble Lord would take this question in hand, and in some form or other take care that justice shcu'd be done in the case, as well as in those which the Noble Lord had already taken up with so much spirit. He had read the evi dence given before the Committee in this case, and so far as he could form an opinion on the subject, he thought that, it would be most unjust for the House to disfranchise the freemen of Great Yarmouth, and to take no notice whatever of the long-continued mal practices of the borough of Derby. By some means or other the proceedings of the House with respect to the issue of new writs had the appearance of partiality or inconsistency, but he did not think that it was now too late for the House to retrieve in some measure its character, and hoped that scree means would be devised to provide that when a special report was presented to the House, on the corruption of any iserough, measures would be adopted to provide uniformity in its proceedings with respect to such cases. Evident testimony had been borne to the admirable manner in which the law relating to con troverted elections had operated in the inquiries before the Committees. The decisions of those Committees had been considered by some persons as some what too severe, but that was a fault cm the right side, and if the House did not treat the reports of such Committees with impartiality, great evils would result.---(Hear, hear.) Mr. Strutt, in his address to the electors of Derby, had stated that he was entirely ignorant of the proceedings which were pursued before the Committee, and he did not think that it would at all tend to check these corrupt practices if the House merely confined its punishment to the unconscious Members, and continued to reward those persons whose malprac tices had brought such result about.—(Cheers.) No doubt the individuals who received the bribe were now looking forward to a new harvest.—(Hear.) There were four candidates, he understood, now in the field, and he hoped that they would each of them fully resolve to discourage a repetition of these practices. He therefore most earnestly trusted that the Noble Lord would take some further measure with respect to the borough. He believed that the number of per sons bribed at the last election was not less than 400. Mr. CHILDERS wished, as the chairman of the Committee, to say a few words to the House. The Committee reported that the evidence adduced before it was not such as they could rely on, and Mr. Holmes, whose evidence had been much commented on, was a person upon whose testimony the Committee entered with considerable suspicion, as it appeared he was formerly agent to the Whig candidates, but at the last election for the Tories. The Committee con sidered that the franchise should be taken from those freemen who bad taken bribes. There were 500 freemen, 200 had been proved to have taken bribes ; but 1,500 of the electors were entirely free from any charge of the kind. The bribery was not direct, but consisted in the payment of certain parties who had votes for their services, and the practice having grown upon them, had become almost proverbial. The Committee thought it desirable to disfranchise the freemen who had so acted, but they did not consider that they could place implicit reliance upon the evidence that was adduced before them. He was not prepared (as we understood) under these circumstances to oppose the issuing of the writ. Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the House should support its sessional orders. They should inflict punishment where it was due, and thereby uphold the respectability of the House. This was the first session during which Committees of the House had gained the credit of acting fairly with respect to re turns petitioned against. The general opinion enter tained, out of doors w a s t o th e e ff ect t h at they haddone their duty. It was said that the recent Members for Derby were ignorant of the practice that prevailed of paying electors for whatever services they performed. Why, the very fact of the existence of such an abuse of the trust reposed in them showed that they were no longer fit to be entrusted with it. If sufficient information had not been obtained on the point further inquiry ought to be made , arid if the electors were as corrupt as they were stated to be, they ought to be disfranchised. If the Government declined to do so the House should take the matter up. In fact there ought to be a public prosecutor appointed to deter mine whether cases of this nature should be prose cuted or not. That would be the most con stitutional mode of acting, and not at the expense of the candidate, but of the public. Whenever a prima facie case was made out to show that further inquiry ought to be instituted into these corrupt practices, it ought at once to be gone into. Who was there that was not acquainted with the venality of freemen of boroughs ? In one borough that he was connected with, he saw at the last election but one freeman brought up to poll in a helpless state of intoxication, and while these corrupt practices were allowed, to prevail who could wonder at the di scon t ent manifested by the non-electors?—(Hear, hear.) He should therefore vote for the non-issuing of the writ, if Government were prepared to prosecute the case further ; but if Government or some Honourable Member were not, he did not think it would be right upon his own judgment to vote for th e suspension of the writ.—(Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL said, with regard to the par ticular case, it seemed that the Committee came to the resolution that only certain freemen had been bribed, but there was sufficient evidence adduced before them, which led to the impression that an extensive system of bribery had prevailed amongst the freemen of the borough, and they pro perly found that the two gentlemen who bad been re turned could not retain their seats.—(Hear.) Now, with regard to this part of the decision of the Com mittee, he could not agree with the Noble Lord opposite, haw n resultsnanounjust duu sdh bveaei enotgwd t fo h ue a madi t rnt such adhekexeaedpc tee r sdslreeieuevptneooeert of bribery as , tst o syb r emno:rfue s because cautious these e e ns s ee e v v ecri e nyo r e mfomu h bti i vut g i tro h een l e y ss; bwriibth whiceryahndComtrmeiattteg.s in the present Parliament would inevitably make it the interest of all parties in future to avoid these acts of corruption, or they might lay themselves open to being disfranchised. This feeling would naturally nduce electors to take care that such a return was made in their behalf as could not be set aside ; and, therefore, the practice of visiting these acts of bribery and corruption upon the Members themselves was of great public importance.—(Hear.) The Committee appear to have found in this case that an extensive system of bribery had prevailed amongst the freemen of Derby. He understood the Honour able Chairman of the Committee to state that the bribery affected a considerable number of the 500 freemen of the borough, but only a few of 1,500 ten pound householders, and he really did thi n k , looking at this state of things, that it was right that a further inquiry should be instituted into the case.— (Hear, hear.) He did not, however, agree with his Hon. Friend the M em b er for Cockermouth that the duty of instuting a further inquiry ought to devolve upon the Government. In 1819, when he was an independent Member of the House, he in stituted an inquiry with considerable advantage into one or two cases of corruption, in reference to tghe the franchise, and if th e N o b le Lord opposite, or some in e r N sl e sa c ,oy o ue m d: l d other Hon. Member wou ld apply his attention to this case he should feel o himselffsa this m j n u f 3 e t wri the the Rouse t d b du ue to dee ? k Vl e e i mending f•a that hear.) the i A ss t uin hereafter become a questionorriouhsewwritslenshgoulad bteimsuespen time, ded, soursptehneseinond of these N of the session would creep upon them and they might break up without those places where corruption had beert . :o . oyed to . , exist having any repretentative Atilt ee I heard the stat ements of the Sir R. PEEL iev- head of the Government Noble Lord at the as th e y agreed enti re with great satisfaction,. on the subject . with his own views t t o be issued until thought the writ ought no, d ace . lie •rej cieeu further inquiry had taken 1. , an opportunity greatly that there was now le ncies tha t the . afforded of teaching large constit , ishment would same measure of justice and pun adopted with be dealt out to them as had been r.) Many respect to small ones.---(Hear hee that prac persons had run away with the notion boroughs did d es t n h o a t t had partakeb ee been carriedof the n on character an y t e e a r rs o i r f t • sri b it e o rY v ; and he thought that the time had . yes arrived when they should be told that such pra';',._ would not be allowed in future.—(H ear, bear ) je t rni: practice that had existed was that t by Act of Parliament to be bribery:, se this c a head-money, a practice that had been degelli a r e ecil d . according to the report of the Committee on ~: sea i n that practice had - been most extensively praeLl Ave t anythe borough opinion of as De t r o by. to be pursued he would not vote . I °' he Bill to disfranchise the borough at o nce,. b ut to the ne cou woe would vote for the appointment of a cornr i k ho ed go to Derby to inquire into the subject. . 13 iss i o e the Government, if they thought that conl P ! l i c t at was required in the case of Sudbury, they vv°,_, T. to Mr. W. EVANS said that lie was the la wrsoeuldthanot,„ h: scerteie once adopt the same course with respect to D st e in re o l i object to inquiry, but as he could not.° . of that there was any intention to opnese the writ, or to institute any inquny, he consideredssue writ be 1 fr. it to be his duty to move that the the otP e- Unless he felt asssured from one party i n that some steps would be taken to promote An', i t his• into the subject, he should most certainly feel • duty to divide the House upon his motion. , t the, Sir R. H. INGLIS said that he believed Ore l / large majority of the electors of Derby were en , frost the issurb free from the charge of bribery. He did not thie. l ‘, 4o o. the report •f the Committee that more than elg_" 4io o persons were implicated in the charge. The q u h e e i tteir then which the House had to decide was wiector6 the House would punish all the innocent e, of the borough for the sake of punishing tne._:tute-i guilty parties. He thought, therefore, that the v _ the course for the House to adopt would be to allow writ to issue in the usual manner. h Mr. STANTON said that, althe tt g number of electors proved to be g uilty Of ve ry bery and reported to the House was small, still it must be borne in mind th at t t wo of the witnesses stated that there were at leasviritll. hundred persons who had received bribes. pod respect to the other portion of the electors he ben l i t:) , that it was a constituency of which a n y ro d, nourable Member might be justly t tra tf for the Learned Counsel of Mr. t h a t had been instructed by that gentleman to state boa the whole expenses attending his recent eleet . i :. )l 6l l eset not amounted to 5001.—(Hear, hear.) He " 1 .,,h05a think that there was any Hon. Member tea return had been contested whose expenses had te a one to so small a sum as that. Mr. COLVILE thought that it wel l Iv most unjust to deprive a large borough 0 1 a Derby of its right to be represented I n e ieet House in consequence of the bad conduct e tee persons, for it was only nine persons who We? ported by the Committee to have been Fd r ` ha d Mr. MACKINNON explained the course be adopted with respect to the issuing of the Writ th Dr. BOWRING read a statement to s hoW two hundred of the electors were bribed. h o da 14 , - Mr. A. STAFFORD suggested that as the J o the Government and of the Hon. Member for •ee ne t thy were quite full, perhaps, as the Right Hon. Bart "d Member for Tamworth had no party to lead,_ , ,,,t a ffiar 6 _, otherwise quite unoccupied in respect to publi c he would have no objection to take charge or i'" rt iett• sure for purifying the borough of Derby, larly as he had uttered such magnanimous sentielen the subject of purity of election. f th osll ' Sir G. GREY agreed that it was the duty lees more p , 0 , , who opposed the issue of the writ to charge the l n,;;o o . with the task of conducting some inquiry with a v" bringing in some measure for purifying the bor ot te Derby. The Government certainly could ne t b e est, itself with such a task. A commission might ;140-I"' pointed to go into an inquiry on the spot with thss He hoped that some Hon. Member would fed it 7 . i nf his duty to come forward with a specific proPe'teiest that purpose. In the meantime he would vote at -`D4 the immediate issue of the writ, although he vial .,?" -- 4, prepared to suspend it for an indefinite period. oil": Mr. F. O'CONNOR did not think a case for tu , chising Derby bad been made out. Os . Lord INGESTRE said that all the writs now oe pended ought to issue, subject to an inquiry ihr;str . guilty practices of the voters, and then a Bill havt . l3 44 ex post facto effect ought to be passed, for disfraneo'', all those freemen and voters who had taken bribes- Mr. EVANS expressed his willingness to with a" his motion. Mr. COLVILE claimed the right o f dividing' the House. The gallery was then cleared, and the House dividEdf when there appeared— • For the issue of the writ 43 Against it 199 Majority SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEI N. On the gallery being opened, j e t Secretary for Forei g n Aff a irs:—Whether any cooeac,. Mr. WILSON p u t th e following questions to the s cation has been recei v ed fr o m the Danish Governrain‘ on the subject of the entry of the Prussian troop Holstein, and with the object of soliciting th e inter ° n d ference of this country by mediation or otherwise; 'ta;., whether any information has been received by the „0 . , vernment of the expected blockade of the Elbe, aho- c® the Germanic Confederation continue their interfereni„ between the King of Denmark and his subjects in 11.3 0 ,1 stein; and whether any steps have been taken , ! thr, what, by his Governm e nt, t o sec u re an amicable se:ibi; ment of the existing disputes between Schleswig-go, tein and the Government in Copenhagen. The lute Member said that th e merc h an t s trading wit° -- t he burgh were in a s t a t e o f apprehension 1 " t the mouth of the Elbe s h ou ld be blockaded by ea Danish naval forces, and th ere were ver y good r el i t & for their fears, considering that Altona, Wh ich o i 3 te adjoined the free city of Hamburgh, was a Danish ogle Clement. He had another question to put to thete-,,t 'to Lord, of which he had not given previous notice, w - h o which perhaps the Noble Lord would be able to gine an answer. By letters received that morning " tl ijet peered that the Prussian troops had crossed the its, into the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein, which did not the long i to the Germanic Confederation and also ths t me in and Brunswick troops had crossed the ra te' in order to join the Prussian forces and to co- 0 1 3 ,%w with them in suppressing the disputes between the 'Ye sian and the Danish people. Id the Noble Lor d -e ' ceived any co n fi rmat i on o f those letters ? of Lord PALMERSTON sa id t h at the G ove rnine° - e h, her Majesty h a d rece i ve d severa l commun i cat i on s fro tin. Danish and Prussian Governments upon the sub,j e t e h oae question, and he wa s i n commun i cat i on with bet", powers, to w h om h er M a j esty ' s Governmen t had or mated a de s i re th a t th e i r good offices s hould re " t he ployed i n b r i ng in g t h e diffe rence existing betwe e. Prussians a n d th e D anes to a sat i s f actory an d arn leWe e cio• e ' conclusion. It had been intimated to both those- A n-fa' vernments that if the good offices of Great Britsia_ . c l.o be of service in this respect, her Majesty's Mi'mThet would gladly employ them, He was - in - hopes tre this offer would be accepted. Nothing could be 03 a e deplorable than to see the peace of Europe endaeb.:Lett by a question of such a nature as that at issue bet" h "ia • the Prussians and the Danes, and he entertained a -° 0 that this danger might.be averted. With respect to fi ts o l e ' . intimation having been received that the Danish ‘; t t vernment would resort to naval operations, it Tva i ., sl : l o o probable, if hostilities did continue, thati the - 1 -','"" t h; being strong at sea, would endeavour to eripPle.,. o .. Prussian commerce, but if, as he hoped, peace was 'Elbe, tallied, the interruption to the commere of the 7. e e. referred to by the Hon. Member, would not take P' The He had not received any official information of Prussian troops ha v i ng crosse d ' t h e f ron tiers of two duchy of Schleswig in a. hostile manner, but it W il id certainly not improbable that such an occurrence ° n u - st have taken place in conf orm ity t o th e i n f o rmation SP had been received. Y Fi! . Mr. DISRAELI said, th a t by a f o r mer treat t land bad guaranteed t o th e crown o f D enma rk the fiee grity of the duchy of S c hl esw i g -H o l ste i n as a part e' t he Danish kingdom. H e w i s h e d to k now w hether - $0 Court of Denmark h a d ca ll e d upon t h e Neble Lor d fulfil this guarantee? , d i et Lord PALMERSTON was understood to rel ll l, "had the guarantee stipulated under the treaty of 17 11 "- - ," been called for on the part of the Danish Governm ee '' of must, however, be recollected that the interfereatieith questionthe view that f a c t ohnaqduaersits,e arisen but between e o e r n d t e h r e the Germanic Confederation had not been offered. vial and the inhabitants of Schleswig-Holstein, • PROJECTED PAUPER PROCESSION' goo. Sir J. Y. BULLER begged to ask the Right" sny Baronet opposite whether he couldgive the Roue° f information on the subject of a g si°ll P ejected proces 00 100,000 paupers, to be headed by Pr Mr.bran' C. oc , Easter Monday? tpoanseisthtleGaonveiriiuwo.rerti, s c a e petitioni ve a andletter from address Alr . r Sir G. GREY said that three weeks ago he bae h r o e to C a C. pb e ro o ed c sy h e n r Cochrane, n f t e ;p a eh t t a iet t ri i office, accompanied by that it was his intention to the "I' ll ' 13' come down to a the 24th of April,• in order to place it in his 11; 06 : n ol address thereupon, informed Mr. C. Cochrane that ra te d to ress of the nature referred to might be Pr" - i,a ohim in the usual course .by himself* attended joa few persons, but that no such document, scoot:00°1'0e by a large number of persons, would be receiVed• ba bad also informed Mr.,C. Cochrane that it would, 13 C ) efo "convenient for hini•to receive any deputation or ad i .u.',44 during the Easter week. lie (Sir G. Grey) . had' ~e s l et! letters from variOus Poor-law unions,' 'stating - tui t t . t he ongangert!itticcirlYin3": ters addressed by Mr. C. Cochrane to persons u.beo name of Jones; and others of the name of Stett b s di ai been received at the workhouses, in the hope that 'T oe would find same one of these names In tbe worl d ?.. n as 'to Those letters stated that the petition of.the prior o ur be presented' by the writer •on Easter Monday, 6 ,7, r e. panied by 150,000 paupere, and he hoped - those 11 ' ceived them would Make every n e-deavourta accorrefor. the_ procession. Bince that, ha had-rise:J*o' 11 . C l4ll -4 9 Y tion Oat it was MieCoebriemee - ntetttteu- txeres 0 eree , - e - , siteh`pioceeding - as the deputation 'tear THE 'SUN, LONDON, TUESDA 1 EVENING, APRIL 18, 1848.