The Sun. — London, England, 1835-06-30 00:00:00

COURT CIRCULAR. The Princess Augusta left - town at 11 o'clock yesterday morning for her residence at Frogmore. Her Royal High ness entertained, the Landgravine of Hesse Homberg, and a select party, to dinner, on Sunday evening, at her residence in St. James's Palace. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Augusta of Cambridge, attended by Baroness Ahlefeldt, Sir James Rey nett, and Baron Knesebech, honoured the concert at the King's Theatre (Concert Room) yesterday morning with their presence. The Duchess of Glocester visited the Landgravine of Hesse Homberg yesterday. Thoir Royal Highnesses afterwards took an airing together in a carriage. The Landgravine of Hesse Homberg honoured Mrs. Bebb with her company at dinner last evening at her residence in Glocester-place. Prince Esterhazy, the Austrian Ambassador, gave a grand dinner last evening in Chandos-street to their Royal High nesso the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. There were present to meet their Royal Highnesses, the Count of Syra cuse ; Count Pozzo di Borgo, the Russian Ambassador ; Count Sebastiani, the French Ambassador, and Countess Sebastian' ; Count Ludolf, the Neapolitan Minister ; Baron Bulow, the Prussian Minister; the Hanoverian Minister and Baroness d'Ompteda ; Count and Countess C. Pozzo di forgo ; Lord Hill, Lady Peel, BarOness Ahlefeldt, and Sir James Reynott. Prince Jameh-ood-Deen, accompanied by Captain Melville Grindlay, and a large party of officers of the Hon. East India Company's service, visited Astley's Amphitheatre last evening. The Russian and French Ambassadors visited Viscount Palmerston yesterday at the Foreign-office. The Danish Minister transacted business yesterday at the Foreign-office. The Greek Minister had an interview yesterday with the Right Hon. Poulett Thomson at the office of the Board of Trade. A deputation connected with the West Indies had an in terview yesterday with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing-street. The Earl of Gosford and Sir George Gipps had an inter view yesterday with Lord Glenelg, at the Colonial-office. Earl Grey had a dinner party last evening at his residence in Berkeley-square. Lord Auckland had a dinner party at the Admiralty on Sa turday evening. Amongst the company were the Earl and Countess of Minto, Viscount Melville, Sir Henry Duncan, Sir G. Gipps, and Captains Beaufort, Grey, and Dundas. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF COMMONS. NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR THIS DAY. 1. Mr. Hutt,—To call the attention of the House to the grievances of British Subjects resident in Hamburg. 2. Mr. Hume,—Resolutions relating to official appointments. 3. Mr. A. Trevor,—Bill to amend certain parts of the present Beer Act. 4. Mr. Serjeant Jackson,—Bill for inure effectually preventing Clandestine Marriages. 5. Mr. Serjeant Jackson,—Bill to amend the Act for facilitating the Loan of Money upon Landed Securities in Ireland. 6. Mr. Mackinnon,—Committee to inquire into the state of the Roads under the Turnpike Trusts in England and Wales. 7. Colonel Verner,—Case of Mr. Harpur and others at Dungarvan, in December last. 8. Mr. Sheil,—Papers relating to the affairs of the late Rajah cf Tani re. 9. Mr. gondrew Johnston,—Bill respecting the maintenance of Priso ers in Scotland. 10. Lord Ashley—Bill to continue Acts relating to the treatment of • Insane Persons. 11. Mr. Rigby Wasou,—To consider Petition from Great Yar mouth. 12. Mr. A. Johnston—Address for the consent of the Crown to the introduction of a Bill to repeal so much of the Act 1 Anne, c. 9, as refers to the consent of three parts of the Heritors for disjoining of parishes in Scotland. 13. Mr. Gisborne,—That the Attorney-General be instructed to prosecute all parties who appear from the evidence taken before the Ipswich Election Committee to have been guilty of bribery. 14. Mr. Wallace,—Select Committee to inquire into the present Laws affecting Bonded Warehouses generally. Municipal Corporations Bill. 1. Sir James Graham,—To move Amendments to Clauses 32, 53, and 54. 2. Mr. Seale,—That the exemptions be only preserved to those Burgesses who may have given a valuable consideration for , . their franchise. 3. Mr. Barlow Hoy,—That no Representative of a Borough shall hold the Recordership, or act as Juiige. 4. Sir Robert Peel,—To establish a qualification for Councillors. b. Mr. Harvey,—That no person shall hold the office of Recorder who practises at the Assizes. 6. Sir Robert Inglis,—To move four additional Clauses. 7. Lord Stanley,—To move Amendments on Clauses 22, 27, 30, and 42. 8. Mr. Charles Buller,—To move Amendments on Clauses 22, 23, and 87. 9. Mr. Grote,—To move an Amendment on Clause 24. 10 Mr. Pease,—To insert Hartlepool in Schedule (B. ) 11. Sir John Wrottesley,— To move Amendments in rages 32 and 36. 12. Mr. Estcourt,—To postpone the consideration of Clause 79. 13. Mr. T. S. Duncombc,—Addition to Clause 114, That the Me- tropolitan Boroughs be considered as Boroughs Corporate. 14. Sir M. Ridley,--To amend Clause 79. 15. Mr. Lawson,—Additions to Clauses 36, 41, and 82. 16. Mr. Seale,—Amendment in page 5. 17, Mr. Borthwick,—Amendments on Clause 14, 19, and 41. 113, Mr. Hawkes,—Addition to Clause 114. 19. Mr. Rigby Wason,—That all Laws relating to Bribery and Corruption at Elections for Members of Parliament be applied to all Elections under this Act. 20. Sir John Buller,—To move the insertion of a Clause after 51. 21. Mr. Pinney,—Amendment on Clause 39. 22. Captain Berkeley,—Addition to Clause 19. 23. Mr. Herbert Curteis,—Addition to Clause 10. 24. Mr. Borthwick,—Amendment to Clause 42. 26. Mr. E. Denison—Amenment to Clause 35. 27. Mr. W. Miles to extend the boundaries of Coventry and Ply mouth. ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR THIS DAY. 1. Penryn Election Petition—Ballot for Committee at three. 2. Alunicip4l Corporations Bill—Committee. 3. Soap Duties Drawback Bill—Committee. THE LATE WILLIAM, COBBETT'S CHARACTE RISTICS, r Y HIMSELF.—" Though I never attempt to put forth that sort of stuff which the intense' people on the other side of St. George's Channel call eloquence,' I bring out strings of very interesting facts use pretty powerful arguments ; and I hammer them down s.O closely upon the mind, that they seldom fail to produce a lasting impression." THE EXPEDITION TO SPAIN.—The first batta lion of the volunteer force, under the command of Colonel Chichester, will embark this morning from the barracks of the East India Company, in the Isle of Dogs, on board the Monarch steam-ship, for conveyance to the Spanish coast. Colonel Chichester and the other officers of the battalion had 'an interview with General Alava yesterday morning, in Har 4ey-street, to receive their final instructions. The list of offi cers, exclusive of Colonel Chichester, consists of Major Kirby, second in command ; Brevet Major Tracey; Captains Mackenzie, Shaw, Harley, Talbot, Cadogan, kenyon, and Howard; Lieutenants Wallace, Noble, Montgomery, Lear tnan, Knight, Chetham, Wilkinson, and Owrie. Sir Robert Steele, who holds the commission of colonel in the Spanish service, and also that of captain in our marines, has offered his services to her Catholic Majesty. Sir Robert is now in Paris. An order will be promulgated from the Horse-Guards, requiring those officers who propose going to the Peninsula to obtain the same permission from head-quarters as when they proceed to the continent.—Morning Paper. AFFAIR OF HONOUR.—At four o'clock this morn ing a meeting took place at the North-bull, between James Haire, Esq., Chairman of the Dublin Election Commission, and J. J. Murphy, Esq., the agent for Messrs. O'Connell and Ruthven. The former was attended by Robert Johnston, Esq., and the latter by Ebenezer Jacob, Esq. After the usual pre. liminaries had been adjusted the parties exchanged shots with out effect s And Mr. Johnston asked Mr. Jacob, " If he were satisfied ?" to which, Mr. Jacob having replied in the negative, Mr. Johnston then added, " Recollect, on your shoulders rests the 'responsibility of a second shot ; but if you demand one, you Shall have it." Mr. Jacob answered—" You have insulted us, sand we must have a second shot." The parties were then placed on the ground, and a second shot was interchanged, also without effect, upon which Mr. Johnston removed Mr. Haire from the ground, without any remark or further expla nation given. —Dublin Evening Mail of Friday. We feel much concern in having to record a me lancholy and fatal occurrence in the family of the Rev. Sir F. L. Blosse, at his country residence, Wilford, near Bray, on Saturday last, when, the. nurse being in the act of playing with the Rev. Baronet's youngest child (aged nearly two years) on the window-stool of the drawing-room,' momentarily turned round to speak to one of the other children in the same room, and the poor baby lost its balance and was pre cißitated on its head to the -ground, a distance of about 12 feet. Surgical assistance was immediately called in, and al though every remedy that skill could suggest was had re course to, the little patient expired on Tuesday, after en. 'during much suffering for three days.—Dublin Freeman. On the 13th instant, M. D—, a young man, 26 years of age, well known in the fashionable world in Paris, by his wit, his large fortune, and the splendour of his equipages, returned about nine o'clock from the Bois do Boulogne, hay ing galloped at full speed down the Champs Elysees ; the instant he reached home he was imprudent enough to call for a glass of lemonade, which he drank off at a single draught. 'lie had scarcely done so when he fell senseless to the ground, and died in less than ten minutes. ATTEMPT AT MURDER.—Mountford, the man charged with sending a tin box containing a quantity of gun powder and other combustible materials to Mr. Lad, of the Bristol road, Birmingham, with intent to cause his death, was again brought before the Magistrates at the public office, on Thursday and Monday last. On Thursday Mr. Ashley, fire works manufacturer, of Little Charles -street, was called, and stated that the box sent to Mi. Lad was admirably constructed for the purpose, and the Waterloo bang ups manufactured in a way so sure of ignition that an explosion, on opening the box, was almost inevitable. It was, indeed, difficult to account for its failure. The box contained three pounds and a half of gunpowder, of great strength, together with a quantity of hard pease; and had the explosion taken place, Mr. Lad and all persons in the house, in all probability, would have been blown to pieces ; and no remnant of the box left by which it could be ascertained how the horrible and frightful occurrence had been occasioned. On Monday last, after having heard read the various depositions of the witnesses, Mr. Williams com mitted the prisoner to take his trial at the ensuing Assizes for t . he Tunty of Stafford, on the capital charge of attempting to Glurotir 11 , 1 r. wider the fitli of Gee. IV., c. 31, sec. 11. %Amnial. prose s with t state ,ose of point not the mrpose he ivi4e le Jury, edict of )remiseg of °pi' ath, ivas AY.) by the f the de builder, )f vvhicb he price and rent he price nd rent. was in agree- oms, she e refused was bet red into, ited, she no ineg I-10 lee. I him, 139 .1 : heir joo l i wards th e he had ll ° ed to t 1364 house. tors, wer ° 7,hancerl' arrange' o 1:1 in rib° contract a the dog rr summed, ons, umed it° agst 00' [he fo11 0 ", his race'''. rs, B!t.. Tat. 1 111/ ' rs, 7st. 01) 101 b 101 b eel; en )evon.shi re ' nly 5, 84 4 tance. ow 1 - - 1 3 ;her, 5 I ° ' Cyr' , 4 to Ise on. . Mb ; ficcr 3lb ; boate' 31b. extt* 1 1 0 0 dr 2 dr 0 dr a diatanco ton 1 •••• 2 •••• 3 ~.. 4 T (Weig ht ee battleo• ThurS4 o l :o 46• IMetnOra: ict a gres'A' IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS, Jw 29. Lord DENMAN took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. Mr. BERNAL, Sir G. STRICKLAND, and several other Mem bers, brought up the Gourock Harbour Bill, the Sheffield and Rotherham Railway Bill, the Isle of Man Importation of Corn Bill, the Western Australia Bill, the Ayr Harbour Bill, and the Leeds and Selby Railway Bill, which were se verally read a first time. The Preston and Wire Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from the Me chanic's Institution 'of Cork, from the Dorchester Young Men's Improvement Society, from the lace-makers of Chard, from the inhabitants of Chard, exclusive of the working classes, and from Leamington Priors, for the Repeal of Duties on Newspapers. The NoaLs LORD stated he had several petitions entrusted to him on the subject of the Corporation Reform Bill, but he should refrain from presenting them until that Bill was introduced into that House. He would, however, take that opportunity of saying that the Bill contained two important points, which, unless altered, would render it impossible for him to give it his support. IRISH CORPORATIONS. Lord FARNHAM wished to know whether it was the in tention of the Noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Go vernment to bring forward at the present late period of the session any measure with respect to the Corporations of Ireland. Lord MELBOURNE said the subject was under the con sideration of his Majesty's Government, and he was in hopes that he should be enabled to bring the subject forward in the course of the present Session. TIMBER DUTIES. _ __..... The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition from the merchants of Liverpool, praying that no alteration might be made in the Scale of Timber Duties. AFFAIRS OF SPAIN. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved for a copy of the Order in Council by which the Foreign Enlistment Act was suspended, and also for copies of all the correspondence that had taken place between the Spanish Government and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject. He trusted that the Noble Lord would not object to their production. Lord MELBOURNE said he had no objection to the pro duction of the papers moved for.—Ordered. THE NEW HOUSES. The Earl of WICKLOW wished to know if any arrange ments had been made for their Lordships' better accommodation for the long period, probably five or six years, that the new houses would take in building. . . . Lord DUNCANNON said that he believed the new Houses would only take two years in building. He had, in consequence of the instruction of the House, seen Sir R. Sinirke, who in a letter had stated that it was impossible to increase the size of the present House in consequence of the walls being composed of chalk and other materials, but that a new and more convenient House might be built at the small expense of 4,500/. Lord BRO LTG HAM bore testimony to the extreme incon venience of the present House. Lord DUN C A NNON said he would lay the letter of Sir Robert Smirke before the Committee to-morrow. Mr. BERNAL brought up the Sugar Duties Bill, which was read a first time. THE EARL OF DEVON. Lord DUNCANNON stated that he had received a let ter from the Earl of Devon, thanking their Lordships for their vote of approbation of his conduct during the period he filled the office of Clerk of the Parliament. On the motion of Lord MELBOURNE, the Noble Earl's Letter was ordered to be entered on the Journals. Several petitions were presented on different subjects, and their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Juxm 29. The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past three o'clock. DROGHEDA ELECTION. Mr. G O ULB U R N brought up the Report of the Committee on the Drogheda Election, which declared Mr. Randall Plun kett entitled to sit for the borough, and that Mr. C. O'Dwyer was not duly elected. The Clerk of the Crown was directed to attend and amend the return. An HON. MENIIIER, whose name was unknown in the gallery, moved the second reading of the Haverfordwest Improvement Bill. Mr. SHEPHERD moved the second reading of Spencer's Estate Bill. NEW MEMBERS. Mr. VIGORS and Mr. PLUNKETT tooks the oaths and their seats, the former for the county of Carlow, and the latter for Drogheda, in the room of C. O'Dwyer. GREENWICH AND GRAVESEND RAILWAY. Mr. Alderman WOOD presented petitions from Gravesend in favour of this Railway Bill. Upon the•motion of Mr. HALIBURTON, the Newtyle and Glammis Railway Bill, and Newtyle and Angus (Cupar) Railway Bill, were severally read a third time. DUTY ON GLASS. Mr. J. OSWALD presented several petitions from Glas gow praying that the Duty on Glass might be taken off. STEAMERS ON THE THAMES. The same HoN. INlEking presented a petition from the watermen and lightermen of the River Thames, complaining of the rate at which steamers were in the daily habit of pass ing through the river, from which a great many accidents had arisen, and several lives had been lost. The petitioners prayed that immediate measures might be taken to prevent the recurrence of such accidents. Alderman WOOD had the honour to introduce a Bill upon this subject in the last session, but there appeared at the time an unwillingness on the part of the House to legislate upon the matter, and the Bill was thrown out. The time, however, was now come when something must be done, for not less than 16 lives had been lost within the last three months upon the river, and these unfortunate accidents were entirely owing to the rapidity with which the steamers nivi gate the crowded part of the river. The masters of steam vessels were liable to a penalty of 51. for going beyond a certain speed, and there was a good deal of activity on the part of the Thames Office, but the Steam Packet Companies had largre purses, and cared little for a penalty of Si. They could also appeal to the Sessions, and put the prosecuting parties to upwards of 201. expense. The Act was consequently quite useless, and it would be impossible to go in a small boat upon the river, if some enactment were not introduced upon the subject. Mr. THORNLEY having been a good deal upon the river, would suggest that the boats which ply below bridge should be built upon an improved construction. They ought to have higher gunwales, or the lives of the public would not be safe. Lord S AND ON regretted that the opposition of one Hon. Member, who had moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, had thrown out the Bill. He suggested, that the worthy Alderman should bring in that Bill a g ain as it had been amend e d in C omm itt ee , an d he w a s satisfied that it would receive very general support. There ought also to be some provision for the sea-worthiness of the boats plying below bridge. _ _ _ Alderman WOOD observed that there were a very large number of boats, upwards of 2,000 (as we understood the Hon. Member), and if the suggestion of the Hon. Member fur Wolverhampton were to be acted upon, a very large sum of money would be necessary, as the owners had not the means to make the alterations . suggested _ _ . The petition was then laid on the table. Mr. E. S. RUTHVEN presented a petition from 1,000 silk-weavers of Dublin, complaining of the distressed state of their trade. CHICHESTER ELECTION. The HON. MENIBER then presented a petition from the elec tors of the City of Chichester, complaining of the bribery and corruption practised at the election for that borough. The petitioners had hoped that the Reform Bill would have put an end to these rnal-practices, which, if they were suffered to continue, the electors might as well. not enjoy the elec tive franchise, as their opinions were not represented. The petitioners suggested that the Ballot was the only remedy for these evils. A dinner had been given after the last elec tion by the Members to upwards of five hundred of the electors, and each of them received a ticket for twelve shil lings worth of beer and groceries exclusive of the dinner. He (Mr. Ruthven) thought a dinnei- a very pardonable thing —( A laugh)—but the circumstances in the case alluded to by the petitioners were of a very different nature. Lord A. LENNOX said, after what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman he did not think that he would be doing his duty unless he got up in his place, and gave a perfect denial to all that was stated in the petition, in order to connect him with any system of bribery and corruption. He never had, directly or indirectly, given any one thing that could be considered as any thing in the shape of a bribe.—( Hear, hear, hear.) -At the last election he had not even given a dinner to his constituents, and he had even given up the old practice of chairing, so determined was he not to go to any expense that was not imposed upon him by law.—( Cheers.) The Corporation of Chichester were certainly in his favour, but they were so few in number that even if they were all struck off the roll it would still leave him from 200 to 300 a-head of the third candidate.--( Hear.) Mr. SMITH, the other Member, said a few words upon the petition, but in so low a tone of voice as to be inaudible in the gallery. We understood him to say that he had given a dinner to his constituents, but he denied that one of them had received a single shilling; and he challenged the most strict scrutiny into his conduct and that of his committee during the late election. BOROUGH OF TIVERTON. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from Tiverton against the Corporation Reform Bill, complaining that the qualification for a burgess was much too low, and praying that the Aldermen might be preserved, and a high qualification required from them. An Hon. MEMBER (Mr. lieathcote we believe) observed that although he was not aware that the petition was to be presented, yet he would take upon himself to state that the petition did not speak the sentiments of the mass of the inha bitants of Tiverton. The burgesses of that borough would not be affected by the Municipal Reform Bill. Lord SANDON said that the petition was not against the Corporation Reform Bill altogether ; it only prayed for altera tions in some of its minor points. Mr. BLACKBURNE defended the conduct of the Cor. poration Commissioners. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. Mr. MILLER presented a petition from Newcastle-under- Lyme against certain parts of the Corporation Reform Bill. DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS. Mr. E. L. BULWER presented petitions from Stamford and Lincoln for the repeal of the Stamp duties on Newspapers. The Hon. Member E,tateci that, col:side! hig if he brought for ward his motion upon this subjcet on Tuesday next, he should ~r Tlit SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1835. do it under most disadvantageous circumstances, he should post pone it till the 11th August. If the House was then sitting, ha should certainly bring it forward. The Hon. Member also postponed his motion with respect to the admission of Dis senters to the Universities till Tuesday the 4th of August. they, - having full faith in his Majesty's Government, acquiesced most cordially in that arrangement. Mr. BAINES rose amidit loud cries of " Order, order." Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the Hou!e resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. CATHOLIC OATH. __ Sir R. INGLIS requested permission of the House to bring under their notice a question which was before them last Monday. They might remember that the discussion on the Catholic oath had then been postponed till the next day. He was present on the Tuesday, and he had not heard the ques tion put on that petition. He wished now to bring it under the consideration of the House, because he was anxious to stand right with respect to an attack that had been made on himself. He wished it to be most dis tinctly understood that whatever personalities were indulged in towards him, he would not be shaken from the path his duty pointed out. He begged it to be understood he was no party to the premature closing of the debate, and that it would not be thought that he had shrunk from any attack either direct or implied, or that he would ever be kept from stating hi s opinions boldly and firmly, however be might be assailed with personalities, come from what quarter they would. Mr. O'CONNELL had confined himself to the charge made against himself. Sir R. INGLIS indulged in no personalities. Mr. O'CONNELL—No personalities ! The charge made against me was perjury.—(Loud and long-con tinued cheering.) What right had a person making such a charge to complain of personalities ? He would not again reply to any such charge. He would not again condescend to state his opinion of the oath ; but when ever such a charge was brought forward, he would tell the person making it—as he could not revile in such hard language—he would tell him he was guilty of wilful lying.—( Oh ! oh I Cheers, and cry of Chair.) Did the gentle men who exclaimed so think that the charge of perjury ought to be met in any other way—(Cheers)—would they not meet such a charge in the same way ? Would they condescend to bandy words with the Honourable Member who could lower himself to make such a charge? Feeling that no man in that House was less liable to be guilty of that crime, he would not again condescend to answer it. Sir R. INGLIS.—The Hon. and Learned Member has made a direct charge against me. I call upon you, Sir, (to the Speaker) therefore, to protect the Members of this House. —(Loud derisive cheers.) He did not understand that cheer, and dared any Hon. Member who had done so to rise up and own it. Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. RETIIVEN both rose and said, " I did."—( Loud laughter. ) Sir R. INGLIS—The Hon. Gentleman has not even taken a Parliamentary course, and put the case hypothetically. I call upon you, Sir, therefore, to protect the liberties of this House. Mr. O'CONNELL—And I call upon you, Sir, to protect Members of this Ilouse from a charge of perjury. Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, amidst loud cries of" Chair, chair." After what had been said, he could not object to hear the Chair, but he must object to Hon. Members using such language. The SPEAKER—This is a very unfortunate discussion to have arisen. The words used by the - Hon. and Learned Mem ber were—" I state in answer that what has been said is false." That appeared to him (the Speaker) too strong an expression, even as it had been put, hypothetically. The use of such lan guage appeared to him very inconvenient and very undesirable, in that House. It was by no means consistent with that free dom of debate which that House claimed, and which never could be secure unless conducted withtemper and forbearance. Mr. I3AINES was about to observe that he en tirely concurred in the ♦iew taken by the Honourable Member for Boston as to what the wishes of the Dis senters were. He believed that they wished their claims to stand over until the measure of Municipal Reform had been disposed of, they being convinced that it would pro mote the redress of the grievances they complained of. The Civil Registration Bill of the Noble Lord (Russell) would, he (Mr. Baines) thought, meet the views of the Dissenters, and be perfectly satisfactory to them. IPSWICH ELECTION. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, before moving the Order of the day, begged to know from the Hon. and Learned Member who had given notice of a motion on the subject, what was the course intended to be pursued with respect to the persons con. fined in Newgate, for a breach of the privileges of that House? Mr. Serjeant JACKSON said he had a petition to present from Mr. F. O'Malley, complaining of ill health, which had for some time prevented his attending to his professional duties, and which had increased very much since his confine ment. The Hon. and Learned Member proceeded to read the petition at length, in which the petitioner expressed his readiness to be examined at the bar of the House ; that he had had nothing to do with the election, and was only profes sionally engaged in defending the return of the late Mem bers, and finally prayed to be called to the Bar, and discharged.--( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Serjeant Jackson) believed he was a very young man, who had offended more through ignorance than anything else, and he was of a highly respectable family in the sister country. Mr. D. BROWNE supported the prayer of the petition, and bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioner, whose family resided in the county which he had the honour' to represent. He thought, after having been fifteen days in. prison, the petitioner had sufficiently expiated his offence. Sir R. PEEL asked the Attorney-General if it was a tech nically legal offence cognizable in Courts of Law ? Mr. RIGBY WA SON said the petitioner had not ex- pressed his readiness to be examined at the Bar of that Hooka.—[Mr. Sergeant Jackson—He has.].:-.That had not been stated in the other petitions presented to the House. He considered Mr. O'Malley infinitely more guilty than any other of the individuals that had been taken into custody, with the exception of Mr. Pilgrim. He considered the petition of Mr. O'Malley a great aggravation of the charge, as the House would find, on referring to the evidence, that Mr. O'Malley repeatedly called upon Pilgrim, with a view to induce him net to come forward before the Commit tee. He said in this petition, that he was ignorant that he was committing a breach of the privileges of that House, now the evidence showed th‘t Mr. O'Malley was per fectly cognisant of the crime he was committing. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not consent to the motion. Mr. BAR LO W HOY said that the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down could scarcely be considered as a party en tirely uninterested in the question before the House. The most guilty man had been already allowed to escape, although guilty in the first place of absconding, and secondly of bribery and corruption. He had been advised to abscond by Mr. Jay, who had never been brought before the Committee at all. Dr. LUSHINGTON thought that the Hon. Member who last addressed the House had shown himself to be entirely un acquainted with the circumstances of the case. How was it that Mr. Jay could have been proceeded against by the Com mittee for any share which he had had in the matter? Pd grim had gone to Mr. Jay as to his professional adviser, and it was .the duty of Mr. Jay, in that capacity, to pro tect his interests in the best manner possible. Mr. O'Mal ley hatt,aeted very differently; he had not, as some parties had, committed the offence of absconding before the petition was presented; but he had committed this grave offence, that after the petition had been presented, when he had been for some time acting as counsel for the sitting Members, and had become acquainted with all the details of the case, he did, in violation of all professional duty, cause persons to absent themselves with the view of depriving the Committee of their testimony, and thus defeating the ends of justice. A greater infringement of the privileges of the House, and a more auda cious attempt to defeat the purposes of justice, never had been perpetrated. Moreover, when that gentleman came before the Committee how did he act? Did he proffer a full revelation of all that he knew? On the contrary, whenever there had been a question put to him, the answering which might have operated injuriously to the interest of the party whose cause be had espoused, he at once had protected himself by his privileges as a counsel. Mr. 'kat, UMPTRE had no wish to extenuate the offence which Mr. O'Malley had committed, for he thought it one of a very grave character. But considering the circle in which this gentleman had been accustomed to move, and bearing in mind that he had been visited with a very severe punishment in being confined for some time within the walls of Ncwgate, he would put it to the House whether they would by further extending the term of his confinement cut him off entirely from that course of life in which he had been trained up, and in which he was desirous of continuing to more? Mr. P. M. STEWART was anxious that some course should be adopted by which the time of the House might not be consumed in these proceedings. His Hon. and Learned Friend (Dr. Lushington) had stated most accurately the pe culiar situation in which Mr. O'Malley stood. That individual had acted for a month or six weeks as counsel for the sitting Members—ho knew how the Committee bad been baffled in their endeavours to procure evidence of importance—and yet when they had reached, as it were, within arm's length of a material witness, Mr. Pilgrim, who had then returned from Calais, they found that Mr. O'Malley had taken him from nut of their grasp—that, leaving the bar of the Committee, lie had gone to meet Pilgrim in the suburbs of London, and had then persuaded that person again to absent himself. Mr. C. WYNN agreed fully that Mr. O'Malley bad been guilty of an offence of a very aggravated nature, but thought that some points had been urged too strongly against him. Lord JOHN RUSSELL did feel that the case was one of the most important ever before the House, and not one merely of personal interest to certain individuals. He agreed in the opinion formerly expressed, that those parties who were guilty of aiding and abetting others to abscond were far more culpa ble than those who had been guilty of absconding themselves. (Hear.) He could not, indeed, conceive a more serious of fence against the privileges of Parliament than such a proceed ing. It was a grave offence to procure the election of any Member of Parliament by means of bribery ; it was also a con siderable offence to abscond in order to avoid giving evidence upon the subject of that bribery ; but it was an offence of a still graver kind that persons should enter into a conspiracy and league together for the purpose of keeping out of the way those witnesses from whom the truth alone could be obtained as to the practise of that corruption. If, in any one instance the House allowed such a conspiracy to be successful, they would debar themselves from all means of acquiring evidence upon all similar cases ; they would make election corn mittees a mere nullity, and cause bribery to be more sue cessful than ever it had been : therefore it was that he considered the present to be a case of more than ordinary importance, and one in which it. behoved the House to make a distinction between the treatment which they should award to the parties implicated in it, and that which ought to be awarded to those concerned in a case of a less momentous kind. With respect to O'Malley, Sparrow, and Clipperton, he thought that there was no just reason at present for open ing the gates of Newgate to them. On the contrary, if they declared a temporary imprisonment . to be a sufficient punish ment for the offences which these individuals had committed, ( he knew not bow they could call upon the Courts of justice to inflict a severe punishment upon labouring men, who were earning ten or twelve shillings a week for the support of their families, because they bad accepted a bribe of 201. or 301. in order to increase their means of affording that support. If the House ought to punish any parties at all, he believed that those individuals were the persons upon whom the infliction ought to fall. He agreed that. the cases of Bond and Cooke were somewhat, though not materially, different from those of Pil grim and Dasent, which bad been decided the other night. It was desirable to make a distinction between those parties who had come forward to give evidence, and those who had ab sconded and not at any time given any. If the cases of these individuals were to be brought forward some day this week, and a motion made for their liberation, he did not think that it would be necessary any further to detain them. With re ference to the charge of bribery, he hoped that his Honourable Friend the Member for Derbyshire would soon introduce his motion for an instruction to the Attorney-General to prose cute all parties who, in this case, had been implicated in it— ( Hear, hear.) The sooner such cases were got rid of by the House, and sent into the Courts of law, the better ; bribery was a legal offence, and could riot be better disposed of than in being sent before the legal tribunals of the country. As to cases such as that now before them, the House alone could judge of them, and inflict punishment upon those who had obstructed its justice. In conclusion, the Noble Lord said that he could not concur in the motion before the House. Mr. G ISBORNE said that it certainly was his intention to persevere in his promised motion, and he believed that it would be sufficient for him, instead of framing it to meet in dividual instances, to move that the Attorney-General should be instructed to prosecute all parties who appeared to have been guilty of bribery according to the Report of the Com mittee. He, therefore, should give notice of a motion to that effect for to-morrow. As to the matter at present under con sideration, he would only state that his opinion completely ac corded with the view of the case taken by the Noble Lord. Sir R. PE E L was understood to observe, that the Hon. Gentleman had no necessity of giving notice, but might bring on his motion instanter. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON begged to read the following certificate on the subject of Mr. O'Malley's present state of health : " Newgate, June 29,1835. " Mr. Bransby Cooper hereby certifies that Mr. P. F. O'Malley. is not in a state of health to bear further confinement, without con siderable danger of permanent injury to his constitution. " To the Honourable the House of Commons." He (Mr. S. Jackson) would, therefore, submit to the House that enough had been done to vindicate their authority, and that they might properly accede to motion made. The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but on its being re-opened after a short time, we found that the motion had been agreed to without a division. The Sergeant-at-Arms was then ordered to bring in P. O'Malley to the bar, but on its being ascertained that he was not in attendance, Lord J. RUSSELL moved that be be ordered to appear at ac bar to-morrow. The motion was agreed to. Lord J. RUSSELL observed that, with respect to those individuals mentioned in the Report, it was his wish that one course should be adopted as regarded those who were said to be implicated in practices of bribery, and another in the else of 'Messrs. O'Malley, Clipperton, and Sparrow. He was anxious to say a few words as to the mode of conducting the public business on that night. He should move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply for the purpose of giving the Hon. Member for Yarmouth an opportunity of bringing forward his motion with respect to Lord Heytesbury. If the debate on the question which he had agreed that the Hon. Member for Yarmouth should introduce to the notice of the House before it went into Committee on the Municipal Corporation Bill, were over at n sufficiently early hour, he should move that the consideration of the latter measure be entered on. He was in hopes that he should be able to move to-morrow, that the measure of Corporation Reform should be the first question proceeded with. The Noble Lord con cluded by moving that the House resolve itself into a Com mittee of Supply. Lord STORMONT put a question to Lord John Russell which could not be heard. Mr. R. WA SON rose amidst considerable noise and con fusion, to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice relative to the magistrates of Norwich, Messrs. Bignold and Booth, for a breach of the privileges of the House. He should commence by calling their attention to the Report of the Committee upon the conduct of those gentlemen. It was in these terms—" That the conduct of the magistrates, Samuel Bignold and E. T. Booth, Esqrs., before whom the said John Pilgrim was charged, appears to this Committee to be abreach of the privileges of this House."—( Hear.) The Hon. Member read long extracts from the evidence given before the Com mittee, arid referred Particularly to pages 506, 507, and 508, in order to prove that the Chairman's warrant, issued for the purpose of bringing up Mr. Pilgrim to attend the Com mittee of the House had not been attended to in the manner which its importance called for. Mr. Bignold was then ex amined before the Committee on this point : " We understand you and Mr. Booth were the two Magistrates before whom a charge against Mr. Pilgrim was brought last week?—We were. How long did that charge continue ; did it go on from day to day until last Sunday ?—lt did. Did you hear in the course of it of a Speaker's warrant, or a Chairman's warrant ? —I did. Had you at any time during it a rule nisi served against you?--I had. For a habeas corpus from the King's Bench ?—Yes. To bring him up as a witness ?—I had. When was he first brought before you ?—On the 2Sth of May. When was he last before you?-0n the 31st of May. What, then, was the termination of the proceedings, so far as you know or were concerned?—lt was communicated to Pilgrim that the Magistrates considered, so far as they had to do with him, the case was sufficiently proved to put him en his trial, but we were unable to determine on his application for bail, in consequence of being served with the rule from the Court of King's Bench, which we should put in a return to on the fol lowing Wednesday, the 3d June, and whereon we presumed the habeas would issue to take him to London. There had been an application to admit him to bail then, and you said you could not agree to that application in consequence of having received this rule from the Court of King's Bench, to which you should put in a return to show cause on the following Wednesday ?—Yes. You first heard of the Chairman's warrant at five o'clock on the Thursday evening ?—I did. Arc you a professional man ?—I am not. Is Mr. Booth? He is not. Who is the adviser of the Magistrates ? Mr. Day, the sword-bearer ;he acts as justice's clerk. Is he a professional man ? He is an attorney. Did you not inquire of Mr. Day what ought to be done on a Chairman's warrant coming ?—I had not heard of the Chairman's warrant. You heard of it at five o'clock on Thursday evening ?—Allow me to give an answer ; on the Thursday morning I met Mr. Keith at the sword-bearer's office, and he made his deposition. I am not asking about that ; I am asking about your having heard at five o'clock that there was a Chairman's warrant out ; what did you de in that extraordinary state, of affairs : what advice did you take ?—I took no advice. NO advice at all ? No. Was Mr. Day present ?—I sent for him. Did you find him ?—Yes. Although you found him you did not take any advice on what was to be done ?—No ; I acted on my own discretion as to what I thought was the proper course." The Honourable Member went on to prove, from various parts of the evidence, that the delay which took place in the disposal of the charge of felony which was preferred against Mr. Pil grim, prevented his appearing before the Committee at a pro per time in obedience to the summons of the Chairman. He should next advert to the change in the custody of Pilgrim which had taken place under the authority of the magistrates. The evidence on this ground of complaint against the magis trates was as follows: " Have the kindness to inform me in whose custody Pilgrim was when he was first taken up ?—He was taken up by two officers of the name of Kemp, and brought to my house. " Was he not in custody of a man of the name of Barnes? —He was, at the particular request of Isis solicitor, transfer red on the first evening from the custody of the two Kemps to Barnes. " How long did he remain in Barnes's custody ?—On Thurs day -night, throughout Friday, and until about between three and four o'clock on the Saturday. Then there was a change in his custody. " Why was the change of custody ?—I am very happy to be able to answer that inquiry. Barnes came to me in the justice's room, and produced to me a document which had been just placed in his bands, he said, by a stranger; on pe rusing it, I found it to bear the signature of the Hon. Chair man, and I said I would speak to him about it very shortly. What o'clock ?—About four o'clock on Saturday. I sent for the town-clerk, and requested him to advise us on the serving of a document on the chief constable, the import of which we wished him to consider. The chief constable was requested to show it to him, and he said, Oh, sir, the gentleman (I know not who it is) who placed it in my hands, has withdrawn it :' I thought it rather singular, and he said, I believe I am not to be served again.' I said, Can you look around; is he in the room ?' He found him out, and brought him to me. I said, I wish you would show the town-clerk the paper you have served on the constable, and have withdrawn.' He did show it him and myself, and Mr. Booth considered the circumstances very remarkable ; and on going to dinner at five ?'clock, we determined to re-place the prisoner for that hour in the custody of the two officers who had first apprehended him —the two Kemps. " You withdrew him from the custody of Barnes because the Chairman's warrant ' had been served on him ?—The circumstance of the Chairman's warrant being served and withdrawn, there appeared some mystery. " From the circumstance of the Chairman's warrant being served on Barnes, which would naturally enough have in duced Barnes to bring Pilgrim up here, why should you transfer him ; was it to prevent his being brought up here ? The circumstance of its being withdrawn created a mystery on the subject ; we considered ourselves responsible for the custody of the prisoner. " Did that mystery make it necessary you should change the custody of the prisoner ?—The room was full of auditors, and we felt it necessary to take every care that the prisoner should not be taken away. " Then you and the other magistrate took Pilgrim from the custody of Barnes to prevent his coming here ?—I do not say that. " I understood you to say, correct me if I am wrong, that the Chairman's warrant being served on Barnes, you not knowing any thing about it, conceiving yourself a nswerable for the roan, and to prevent Barnes putting that warrant into execution, you transferred him to the custody of the two Kemps ?—ln order, certainly, to consider the subject, we placed him in custody of the two Kemps, that the prisoner might not be— " Might not be brought up here by Barnes ?—Might not be brought away from us. " Did you conceive the Chairman's warrant was worth ► nothing at all ?---T had censiderahl , . doubt whether the Chair- CORPORATION REFORM. Mr. LE ADER,presented a petition from Bridgewater, in favour of the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill. He wished to inform the House that the Mayor was requested to call a public meeting, but, as if he was desirous that his last act should be as illiberal as all the other acts of the Corporation had been, he refused to call the meeting.—(Hear.) But a public meeting was convened, and at that the present peti tion was agreed to. On the first day it isy for signature, it received one of the names of a member of the Corporation, and the only one out of twenty-four—the only one who had sufficient public principle to sacrifice his own private in terest for the advancement of a great public object. The rest of the signatures were those of rate-payers. The petitioners prayed that the 64th clause might be amended, that the present trustees may be obliged to give up their trust to the new council, without reference to any future ap pointments, and that a clause be introduced to guard against the improper appropriation of Corporation funds. Colonel TYNTE bore testimony to the respectability of the names attached to the petition, and supported the prayer. Colonel P. THOMPSON presented a petition from five hundred Burgesses of the town of Kingston-upon-Hull, praying that as in the Act for amending the representa tion of the people in England and Wales the rights of the existing burgesses were to be preserved during their lives, so a like reservation might be made in the Municipal Cor poration Reform Bill. They did not pray that where amendments and alterations are made in their existing rights, any should be preserved for their amusement ; but they did pray that, after having enjoyed the rights of burgesses, they should not see them put into the hands of others, and themselves deprived of them. If it were replied that the means of obtaining those rights were easy, he should answer in their names, the concession of them was so much the less. He supported the petition, because first it was earnestly pressed upon him to do so ; and secondly, be cause he did not see that it would not have been a con cession that might have easily occurred to the framers of the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The petitioners wished their rights to be preserved, and he was surprised after that had been attended to in the Reform Bill, to find that there was an in tention now to disturb their rights in that particular.— (Cries of " Hear.") He supported the petition on the prin ciple that Members were bound to support the views of their constituents, for it could not be denied that burgesses had a right to send men to Parliament who would support their prin ciples and advocate their interests. LOWER CANADA. Lord SANDON presented a petition from Lower Canada, complaining of certain grievances. He said he would not detail the contents of the petition, which was couched in respectful language, but merely bring it up, hoping that the subject would be fully considered. Mr. J. E. DENNISON presented a petition from Quebec signed by 5,700 inhabitants of that city. The Honourable Member stated that the petitioners did not wish to press their prayer at present, but would leave it to the Commissioners. the Deputies having acted in a conciliatory manner. Mr. O'CONNELL had been requested to support the petition presented by the Noble Lord, but he was bound to say that he totally differed from the petitioners, for they claimed that the minority should rule in Canada, while in every other country the majority enjoyed that privilege, through their representatives. They requested an increase of the executive Council which in his humble opinion was less than useless, for if it could only act in conjunction with the Governor it was un necessary, and if they opposed him, it would be an infringement of lawful authority. They wished the Legislative Council to be appointed by the Crown ; but he thought the Legislative Council, as well as the Legislative Assembly, ought to be elected. He should not say more upon the subject, especially on the appointment of Lord Gosford, a nobleman who, under the most trying circumstances in Ireland, exhibited so much good sense, good feeling, sound judgment and impartiality, that he was best suited to go to a place where animosity, passion, and party feeling prevailed; whose mind was superior to the prejudices of party, and who was what he ought to be—a proper arbitator between those who were engaged in contentions ; and lie did hope that the po pular party would not fall into the error of hastily falling into the hands of his enemies, but that they would give him a fair trial before they made a party against him.—( Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK, which were to tally inaudible in the gallery, the petition was laid on the table. POOR LAWS. Lord M A HON presented a petition from Halsted in Essex, complaining of some of the provisions of the Poor Law Amor.dment Act. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Mr. C. FERGUSSON presented a petition from Kirkcud bright in favour of the grant to the Church of Scotland. SHIPPING INTEREST. Mr. O'CONNELL rose to present a petition, which was highly interesting to the shipping interest, as re garded the salvage laws. It was the petition of Mr John Munster, the Danish Consul at Belfast, and the facts set forth in it were very interesting, as relating to the Court of Admiralty in Ireland. A Danish vessel met with some damage in putting into the harbour of Do noughadee, and was assisted by a person of the name of Mae Queen who, however, cut the hawser, and endangered the vessel. As soon as the vessel was secured, in spite of his assistance, he laid a claim for salvage. The case came before the tribunal of magistrates, and proceedings took place, the vessel being detained some weeks. The magistrates were about to declare an award of 5/. When the pursuer saw this, he went to the Custom-house and got the vessel seized by the Court of Admiralty. He was ordered to find a libel with sureties. On the 18th of June he was to find the libel, but instead of that he sought and obtained further time till the next court day, the 20th. He got on the 20th further time to the 25th, then to the 27th, and then to the 29th when he filed the libel, but gave no sureties. He got time to put in his sureties till the 15th of December, the Court re fusing all this time to release the vessel. A motion was made to dismiss the libel on the 9th, the Court granted the motion on the 11th, but the vessel was not released till the 23d of July, having been detained all that time at an expense of 151. a-day. He never knew a case of greater cruelty and hardship, and that, too, proceeding from a Court of Justice. The vessel was detained two months, and the Costa thus putting off and mocking the parties, at lengfh decreed that the sum of thirty pounds, which the owner of the vessel had been compelled to pay into Court, should be divided between the Court and the Attornics. They gave to the defendant 6/. ls: ; to the Marshal 41. 16s. ; to the Judge and register, 41. 35., ; and handed over the re maining 151. to plaintiff's attorney. The petitioner complained bitterly of this proceeding, and he complained that, in addi tion, his own proctor sued him for 241.—( A laugh. ) Mr. RUT fl VEN supported the prayer of the petition. The Admiralty Courts in Ireland were worse than even the Ecclesiastical Courts. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would take the subject into thciir consideration, and introduce some measure to assimilate the salvage laws here and in Ire. land.—( Hear, hear. ) POOR LAWS (IRELAND). The HON. and LEARNED MEMBER then presented a petition from Dublin, very numerously and respectably signed, referring to the destitute condition of the poorer classes in Ireland, and praying the House to take into its consideration the question of -a system of Poor Laws for that country. He (Mr. O'Connell) had been long opposed to the introduction or poor laws, but necessity had at length overruled his objections, and he felt that it would be impossible for the country to go on much longer without some system of poor laws. Some of the worst landlords in Ireland w ere, he believed, opposed to poor laws, and he (Mr. O'Connell) still thought the principle ex ceedingly dangerous, but the practical mischief was so great that something must be done. The Hon. Member fur Waterford had introduced a Bill upon this subject, the details of which he (Mr. O'Connell) did not quite approve of. They had been told that the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners would be .laid upon the table of the House within a month—that month had nearly expired, and he hoped the Report would be shortly in the hands of Hon. Members ; and if no other person took up the subject, he (Mr. O'C.) should certainly introduce a Bill for the establishment of a system of Poor Laws in Ireland. The Hon. and Learned Member then presented a petition from,a place, the name of which we did not hear, in favour of the hand-loom weavers. SUGAR DUTIES. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the third reading of the Sugar Duties Bill. Mr. THORNLEY said the country had a good right to complain of these duties. He trusted another year would not be allowed to pass P.ithout the duty on East and West India sugar being assimilated. _ Tile Bill was then read a third time and passed. DISSENTERS' GRIEVANCES. Mr. WIL K S said there were three motions on the paper for this week connected with the Dissenters' griev ances—the first was with respect to their admission to the Universities, which had been postponed till the first of August ; the second was the Bill of Sir Robert Peel with respect to Dissenters' marriages ; and the third was one which he and the country thought of much importance—it was with respect to Civil Registration for births, marriages, and deaths. These had already been postponed, in order to allow the Municipal Reform Bill to be got on with, on the understanding that the Ministry intended to bring forward a measure combining all these questions at a very early period of the ensuing Session. He wished to ask the Noble Lord (I Russell), whether that was the course in tended to be taken ? Lord J. RUSSEL L said he thought that it would not be possible to have introduced any measure on the subject mentioned by the Honourable Gentleman, with any hopes of carrying it into effect this session. He had paid great attention to the Bill introduced by the Right Honourable Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel.) He found that those among Dissenters with whom he had consulted, were anxious to have introduced amendments of such a sweeping measure as must have given rise to a very lengthened discussion, and there would have been little chance of passing it this session. The government had therefore deter mined not to proceed with that Bill. His opinion wasthat the first measure with regard to the relief of Dissenters was an estab lishment of a civil registration of births, deaths, and marriages. —( Cheers.) Government had determined to proceed very early next session with a measure upon that subject. After a mea sure of that sort, he did not apprehend there would be any great difficulty in framing an act with respect to the marriages of Dissenters, and the settlement of the question of Church rates. The Government were determined to proceed with those measures very early next session. —( Cheers. ) Mr. WIL K S said he had not put these questions, without consulting a great number of the Dissenters then in town, and man's warrant did apply in a case of a prisoLer b9.ft , re us on a felony ; and on being further advised— " Did you take advice?—We " What advice ?—We sent for the recorder. " What day did you send for the recorder ?—On Saturday evening. " After you received the rule nisi p—Yes ; both doeu• ments were shown to the recorder. " You did not send for the recorder until you got the rule nisi?—Yes ; I think we sent for the recorder on the first service of the Chairman's warrant ; he did not come until we had both documents in our hands; it was only about three quarters of an hour." The Hon. Hon. MEMBER, who n-as very imperfectly heard, concluded by stating, that he did not think that any one who had read the evidence could deny that the conduct of the Magistrates was strongly reprehensible, and be should conclude, therefore, by moving, " that Samuel Bignold and E. T. Booth, Esqrs., be taken into the custody of the Ser geant at Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly." Mr. W. WYNN thought that there was no precedent for the course proposed to be pursued by the Hon. Member for Ipswich, and he hoped that the Hon. Member would see the propriety of abandoning his present motion.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. STEWART objected to the specific motion of the Hon. Member for Ipswich, because it appeared to him that the decision of the Committee did not warrant it. At the same time, he felt it his duty to move an amendment to the motion of the Hon. Member, which he believed would meet the wishes. of all parties. He was persuaded that the impression made on the Committee was precisely that stated in the report, and he was equally convinced that no one who heard the evidence with an impartial mind could come to a different conclusion.— ( Hear, hear.) Therefore, without going into any details which were already before the House, and which would speak for themselves,. he was anxious that some further information should be afforded to the House on the conduct of the Magis trates on this occasion. This might, he conceived, be effected without touching upon, - oe extending too far, any of their pri vileges by the motion which he would submit, and which was to this effect—that Messrs. Bignold and Booth be requested to attend at the bar on Friday next.--( Hear, hear.) Lord STORMONT said that the anxious wish of the Ma gistrates was to have their conduct fully and closely examined. He should, therefore, accede to the motion as a matter of course. Mr. S HE IL was under the impression that these Magistrates belonged to the city of Norwich only. He had,:•however, on reference to the evidence, perceived that they were county Ma gistrates. This being the case, he should, if no other Member &(1 so, move an Address to the Crown, praying that they may be removed from the Commission of the peace. Mr. SCA R LETT remarked that the subpoena of the Court of King's Bench would not justify the Magistrates in releasing Pilgrim from custody when he was subjected to the charge of felony. Lord J. RUSSELL proposed that the parties should at tend on Saturday, at one o'clock.--(No, no.) After a few words from Mr. Wynn, Mr. Blackstone, - and Sir J. Wrottcsley, Mr. C. Buller gave notice that he. would to-morrow move that Mr. Keith be ordered to attend on Sa turday. Some further conversation ensued, in which Mr. Stewart, Mr. Wodehouse, Mr. Hug,lies Hughes, Sir R. Peel, the Solicit , :,r-General, Mr. Pease, and Mr. C. Buller, parti cipated. Eventually the motion before the House was agreed to; and it was also ordered (as we understood, but from the number of speakers, and the low tone in which the conversa tion was carried on, it was extremely difficult to collect even the tenour of what passed) that Mr. Meney, Mr. Pilgrim, and Mr. Barnes, be also ordered to attend. LORD HEYTESBURY. Mr. PRAED then rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for copies of any communications which had passed between the Board of Commissioners for the affairs of India and the Court of Directors of the East India Company, on the subject of the revocation of the appointment of Lord Heytesbury as Governor-General of India. When the Hon. Gentleman be came intelligible to us, he was stating that in October last a difference existed between the then Government and the Court of Directors of the East India Company, with reference to the appointment of a Governor-General of India in the room of Lord William Bentinck. On the Ist of October, in the course of a correspondence between the Court of Directors and the Board of Control, the Court of Directors suggested that Sir Charles Metcalfe should be continued in the autho rity of Governor-General of India until a successor to Lord William Bentinck should be appointed. The then President of the Board of Control, however, stated that Government declined to approve of the continuation of Sir Charles Met calfe in the possession of that authority, and that it was their decided opinion that in the existing state of affairs in India no time ought to be lost in appointing a successor to Lord Wil liam Bentinck. A change in the Government soon after took place. By the new Government, in January, 1835, the ap pointment of Lord Heytesbury as Governor-General of India was approved of, and that approval was notified to the Direc tors of the East India Company. It scarcely became him, holding the situation which he at that time held, to speak of the Noble Lord who was at the head of the Board of Control at that period, but be would unequivocally declare his convic tion that the only motive by which Lord Ellenborough had been actuated in selecting Lord Heytesbury was that he was a fit man for the situation. Between Lord Heytesbury and the then President of the Board of Control there was scarcely a perscnal acquaintance : no motives of improper partiality could, therefore, be imputed to his Noble Friend. He would fear lessly assert, therefore, that Lord Ellenborough was wholly free from any imputation of that kind. When the present Mi nisters came into office, in April last, the appointment of Lord Heytesbury was declared to be vacated. No opportunity was afforded to the Court of Directors to take the subject into con. sideration, and to give their opinion respecting it. He would now state the reasons which, in his mind, ought to induce the House of Commons to take an early opportunity of investigat ing the subject. In the Act of 1833 it was provided that if, after the vacating of the Governor-Generalship, the Directors of the East India Company failed to recommend a successor to the Crown in two months, the appointment of that succes sor should lapse entirely into the hands of the Crown. He understood, however, that it was the intention of Government to count the two months, not from the vacating of Lord Heytes bury's appointment, but from the period of Lord William Bentinck's return. If that were really the intention of the Government, he (Mr. Pracd) maintained that it would be an anomalous and unconstitutional proceeding, and would be placing the East India Company in a position which they had never occupied before, and which could not fail of beings„: most injurious to their interests, as well as to the good govern ment of the great empire of India. Under these circum stances he had mentioned, if the Court of Directors were to recommend any successor to Lord Heytesbury, they would do - so with the knowledge that the appointment, whatever it might be, would not be approved of by the Government. Was there any reason whatever which could enable a Govern-. merit fairly to object to the appointment of Lord HeytesbuitY? Was the Right Hon. Baronet ( Hobhouse) sure that because Lord Heytesbury was selected by a Government professing a different line of policy from that pursued by the Right Hon. Bart. and his colleagues, that the nominee of that Govern ment could not be a fit servant of theirs ? He appealed with confidence to the Right lion. Baronet (Hobbouse) himself upon that point. Was there in Lord Ellenborough's adminis tration of the affairs of India anything of such a nature as led the Right Hon. Baronet to think that any person appointed by him would necessarily be unfit to take part in the Govern ment of India ? The very - first measure of that Noble Lord was the reduction of a lucrative office established by his im mediate predecessor, and of which his immediate predecessor had undoubtedly contemplated the continuance. Beyond that he recommended the disuse of a foreign language in the Courts of law, the discontinuance of the practice of paying the Judges by fees, and finally he recommended the abolition of the expensive establishment of the Bombay Marine. Then, with respect to patronage, he would give a single instance of the manner in which patronage had been dispensed by Lord Ellenborough. Within the course of a week after the ap pointment of Lord Heytesbury, Lord Ellentoreugh received an application on behalf of an officer, requesting the Noble Lord to make interest with Lord Heytesbury to give him some situa tion under his Government in India. Lord Ellenborough at once inclosed the application to Lord Heytesbury, adding, in a note by which it was accompanied, these words :—" I assure you that in transmitting to you these applications from others, the farthest thing from my desire is to influence your judgment in the selection of the fittest persons." Again, he would ask, WV there anything in Lord Heytesbury's personal character which could induce the present Government to object to his appointment ? Lord Heytesbury had filled high and re sponsible situations under his Majesty—he had been much before the public eye-aahis integrity and ability were uniry peached, even by his political adversaries. He (Mr. Praed) maintained that difference of political opinion was not a rea sonable or a sufficient ground for this exercise of the King's prerogative. He did not deny that the power was vested in the Crown—he did not deny that anything bad been done which the Act of Parliament did not authorize ; but he ques tioned the propriety and discretion of the manner in which the prerogative of the Kitig and the powers of the Act of Par liament had been exercised. By the Act of 1784 it was clearly intended that the appointment of Governor-General of India should be made not by the Crown, but by the Court of Directors, subject to the approval of his Majesty. The Act of 1813 renewed the same powers, and he begged the House to observe that the political power thus continued to 7 1, the Court of Directors was reserved to them in much more -• distinct terms by the Act of 1833. By the 'last- named Act the Legislature took from the East India Company all their commercial privileges, deprived them of their character of ' merchants, and left them exclusively the governors of India. If, therefore, it was deemed wise before that they should ex ercise this power with respect to the choice of officers and servants, it must necessarily be more desirable now, when they existed for no other purpose than that of governing India. Since the passing of the Act in 1784, when this power was first vested in the Crown, there was not a single precedent for the exercise of it in such a manner as in the re cent case of Lord Heytesbury. He might perhaps be told that the case of Sir George Barlow, in 1306, was analogous to that of Lord Heytesbury, but a moment's investigation of the two eases would show that there was no analogy whatever between them. What were the circumstances of Sir George Barlow's case? Lord Cornvallis died holding the Governor-General ship of India. In the difficulty—the almost impossibility of obtaining an immediate successor to Lord Cornwallis, Sir George Barlow was temporarily appointed. This appoint ment was declared as never intended to be permanent. But even supposing it to have been permanent upon further consi deration of Sir George Barlow's fitness, the 'Government of the day recommended the Crown to exercise its prerogative and to withdraw him from the Government. But there was this striking difference between the case of Sir George Bar. low and the case of Lord Heytesbury.' The same Govern moot which recommended the appointment of Sir GeOrge Barlow, recommended the revocation of that appointment... • ( Hear.) Its, revocation might bare been wise or unwise, but *44 • •a - #llllll