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

It never could afford an ,argurnent that from thenceforward, o i every iharose of Gtaer;ment at home, the opinions of indi viduals holding responsible situations in India should be in quired into, and their agreement or disagreement wiqi the sentiments of the ruling party in En . ) - land be taken as the , ground for continuing their appointments. To admit such a proposition would be to establish a most dangerous precedent. It was necessary that the person appointed to fill the situation of Governor- General of India should possess the confidence of the Court of Directors as well as of the Government of the day. There was another reason which rendered it most impo litic to lead the Governor-General of India to suppose that he held his office entietly at the pleasure of the Crown, or of any particular party who might happen to hold the reins of Go vernment. It would circumscribe him in the choice of offi cers to assist him in his Government. At present it was the policy of the Indian Government, wherever they found a man whose talents were suited to their purpose, at once to engage his services, without reference to the poli tical opinions he might happen to hold. But if the office of Governor-General were made a purely political office, it would be necessary that all those whom he employed should be attached to the same political opinions as himself : those political opinions of course being the same as those of the Government at home. Thus, instead of the unlimited range which he at present enjoyed, the Governor-General would have to select his officers from among the adherents to one party only. It was most important that the Court of Direc tors should have the appointment of every authority placed in their hands, and that the people of India should be taught to look up to them, and to respect their independent station. The step recently taken by the present Government was cal culated to have just the contrary effect, and to place them in the eyes of the natives of India in the worst light possible. He would urge upon the House the expediency of checking this first endeavour to make what he conceived to be an un due use of the power of the Crown. He did not call upon the Government of the present day to do more than was done by the Government of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel.) He was quite sure that nothing could justify the revocation of this appointment which could riot justify the revocation of an officer to whom the appointment was given by the Government that preceded that of the Right Hon. Baronet. But what was the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet's Government? When he succeeded to the Government, in the autumn of last year, he found in one of the Indian Presidencies an officer newly appointed, who for many years had been strongly op posed to the course of policy adopted by the Right Hon. Baronet ; but the Right I-lon. Baronet did not dream of re calling Sir Robert Grant from the Presidency of Bombay.— ( Hear.) More than that, there was another gentleman, one of the Supreme Council of India, who had not long held his ap pointment, and who had constantly opposed himself to almost every measure arid every opinion entertained by the Right Hon. Baronet ; he alluded to Mr. Macaulay. It never en tered into the Right Hon. Baronet's mind to recall that Gentleman from the situation to which be had been ap pointed. If, indeed, be had been at all disposed to do so, a very fine oppportunity was afforded. The Noble Lord, at that time the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Ellen borough) had, amongst other duties, to review several of the acts of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) and without directly censuring them, the Noble Lord certainly found acts of the Right Hon. Gentleman, which did not ap pear to bear out his fitness for the office to which he had boen appointed. He had endeavoured to bi ing the subject forward in such a manner as not to excite any angry feeling, and he trusted he had succeeded in his object. In conclusion, he begged to move—" For copies of any communications which have 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." Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said, with respect to the papers for which the Hon. Gentleman had moved, he could not dia tinctly make out whether or not he intended seriously to insist upon having them. If he did so, undoubtedly it would be his (Sir J. Hohhouse's) duty decidedly to object to their produc tion. In the first place he did so for the manifest reason that us good whatever could come from the production of them. The Hon. Gentleman, the House, and the country knew all that it was needful to. know on the subject. Thr Hon. Gentleman, the House, and the country knew full well that his Majesty's present advisers had thought fit to re commend to his Majesty to negative the appointment of Lord Heytesbury to the Governor-Generalahip of India. If there were anything wrong in that, it was quite competent for the House of Commons to come to a decision on the fact, and to say at once_ that the prerogative of the Crown had Leen abused. If the House of Commons disapproved of the act of the Mi nisters, it was for the House of Commons to express its disap proval. The lion. Gentleman need not be told—for his e 7. perience must have taught him already—that it would be ex tremely noes:lvey:kilt to produce any documents referring to contideantial intercourse between the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India and the Court of Directors. The Hon. Gentleman must be aware that if it were so, generally apeaking, upon almost every subject, mere particularly must it be so up on the subj, et to which his speech had referred. Sup , pose, for instance, if it were the fact—ahich he did not mean to sat. it was—that in consequence of smre communication which he (Sir .1, Hohhouse) had held with the Court of Di rectors he geould feel himself obliged to take a personal oh. jection to Lord Heytesbury, and that, in so doing, it had be, n his misfortune to bring forward a reason founded upon facts known to himself or to others, which might bear hard, or at - least uncomfortably, upon the Noble Lord—if that had been tie .case—he repeated he did not say it was—what would have been the inconvenience, what the impropriety of producing such do cuments as those far which the Hon. Member had moved? And here, perhaps, be ( Sir J. Hohhouse) might be permitted to quote the opinion of as great, perhaps a greater titan than any now to he found in the country—he alluded to Lord Grenville. In 1806, Lord Grenville resisted the motion of Lord Melville for the production of the papers and correspondence between the Court of Directors and the then Board of Control, re specting the recall of Sir J. Barlow from his situation of Go vernor-General, in this decisive and conclusive language— " If the private reasons and personal objections which made Ministers refuse the appointment of any individual must be made a matter of public discussion, no persons would be found to take the situation of Ministers. There might be many reasons why, without crime being imputable to an individual, - Ministers might suppose him unfit to be trusted with the inte rests of millions. If, however, in every individual case, Mi nisters were obliged to tell each individual to his face the per sonal objections they had to him—or if, which would be the same thing, their correspondence upon this subject were to he laid before Parliament—the situation of Minister would be in tolerable to any one who possessed the common feelings of a man. On these grounds, he must object to the production of the correspondence moved for."—( Hear.) That which ope rated with Lord Grenville, and induced the Ministers of that day to say that they would not tell why it was that they ob jected to Sir George Barlow being made permanent Governor- General of India, also induced hint to say, on the part of the Government of which he had the honour to be a humble Member, that unless the House of Commons should force them, by a decided vote against them, they would not consent to inform the House why it had revoked the appointment of Lord Heytesbury.—( Hear.) If the House should compel them. of course they must bow to its decision, but he thought it would not fo:-ce them to depart from the uniform course hitherto pursued. If he ( Sir J. Hohhouse) were to follow the Hon. Gentleman through the whole of his speech, point ing out where he was wrong and where right, he should be departing from the rule which had been laid down as that which it was his duty to pursue, and should be throwing more light upon the subject than he felt himself justified in doing , But there were one or two points on which, without going out of the course he had prescrilA for himself, lie thought he could ana,yer the Hon. Gentleman: points in respect of which the Hon. Gentleman had stated that he considered the Board of Control to have failed in its duty. For the act of recalling, or more properly speaking, of vacating the order for Lord IHeytesbury's appointment, of course -the King's Cabinet was responsible. if there was anything discourteous or improper in the mode in which the act was done, he alone was amenable ; but he did not think that in his intercourse with the Court of Directors, he had ever done anything which could be considered as at all an encroachment on their honour, or as showing forgetfulness of their indi vidual or collective respectab.lity, as well as power. When the lion. Gentleman first approached this question, he spoke of what had taken place as of a violation of the Constitution. He had, in consequence, looked with some alarm at the Acts of Parliament bearing upon the question, to see in what point • he had violated the Constitution, but had not been able to find any.. The lion. Gentleman asked him why, on his own ac count, and on account of the Government, he had given the Court of Directors the assurance that there would be no ap pointment to supply the place of Lord William Bentinck for two months after his arrival? The reason why he had given that assurance was this. When the King's Government thought it their duty to vacate the appointment of Lord Heytesbury, they considered it right to intimate to the Court of Directors that they would not take advantage in any way of the lapse by which, according to both the old and the new Act of Parlia ment, if the Court of Directors did not appoint a Governor within two months of the vacancy, the appointment fell to the Crown. Having made this communication to the Board of Directors, he had the satisfaction of being informed by them that the arrangement was perfectly satisfactory to them.— ( Hear, hear.) He did not mean that the vacation of Lord Heytesbury's appointment was satisfactory to them, for he believed it was most unsatisfactory to them ; but he meant that the assurance he gave them was satisfactory, he having received a communication from them that his word of ho nour was sufficient for them.—( Hear, hear.) Shortly after, however, he had another letter from the Court of Direc tors, asking him whether or not his letter might not be fairly interpreted to mean that the two months should com mence to rim from the arrival of Lord William Bentinck, and not from the vacation of Lord Heytesbury's appointment ? In his reply, he said that he thought there could he no doubt about his meaning being that the two months should commence to run from the vacating of the warrant of Lord Heytesbury's appointment ; but he added, that if it was more agreeable to the Court of Directors, which he saw from their letter it would be, that the time should commence to run from the ar rival of Lord Bentinck, the Government were willing they should have the greatest latitude in interpreting his letter, and that they were the masters to say whether the two months should commence to run from the vacation of the appointment of Lord Heytesbury or not. So far from•this being a matter of charge against the Government, he thought it should be matter of praise. Mr. PRAED here gave some explanation of what he had said: which did not reach the gallery. Sir JOHN HOBH 0 T.7S E—The only thing in which there :aa the least appr,o;ee of a ground for complaint was, the eirL.-arassiug situ4tion in which the Court of Directors would filet themselves placed by the sudden accession to office of It.. qpv4tt. Intim?, that %its the main -- 'i. THE SUN, LONDON', TUESIDAIt, JUNE 30, 1835. point urged upon him by the Chairman and Deputy Chair man, v.ho, although they said they were willing to take his word, wanted to know how they were to be guaranteed against the appointments of the preceding Government? To this he had replied, that he could give no guarantee as to what would be done, but that he thought they need anticipate no difficulty if their opponents again came into power, as there could be little doubt of Lord Heytesbury being again ap pointed ; but that they might be sure of removing all difficulty by announcing every two months that they had made an ap pointment, which he, with all civility, would tell them could not be agreed to. It was no fault of his ( Sir J. Hobhouse's) that the Hon. Gentleman had dragged into the discussion the name of a Noble Lord to whom he hoped he should not give offence by the manner in which he should endeavour to speak of him. The Hon. Gentleman had asked whether there was anything about that Noble Lord to which he or the Govern ment had a right to object—whether there was any personal objection to him ? meaning, he presumed, an objection con nected with his personal character. His answer was, " None at all." How could the Hon. Gentleman ask the question ? The Hon. Member asked, also, whether there was any poli tical objection to the Noble Lord, and at this question he was equally surprised. Another question might answer it. Did the Hon. Gentleman think that, supposing the present Govern ment had been in power at the time, they would have appointed Lord Heytesbury? Mr. PRA E D—No. Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE—WouId it have been a charge then, against the Government for not appointing him ( Laughter and cheers.) Did the Hon. Gentleman really think that he ( Sir J. Hobhouse) was bound to state to him what his objections were to Lord Heytesbury, except that his appoint ment would not have been justifiable in the eyes of the present Government if its members had been at the time in office ? But he would put another question to the Hon. Gentleman. If Lord Heytesbury had, under these circumstances, gone out, did not the Hon. Gentleman think, and would he not feel himself bound in candour to confess, that the present Ministry would have been responsible for the acts of that Noble Lord? Mr. PRA ED—The late Government did not recal Sir R. Grant. Sir JOHN HOB HO U SE—Tbe cases were quite distinct, as he should presently show. Had Lord Heytesbury gone out, he would have had to receive his instructions from the present Government, and supposing he had received instruc tions from the Office he had the honour to hold, would not the Government and himself have been answerable for that Noble Lord's administration of the affairs of India? Mr. PR A ED—Certainly. Sir JOHN HOBHO USE—Then that was the real long and short of the objection.—( Hear, hear.) The King's Go vernment had to consider whether it would be answerable for Lord Heytesbury's Government in India or would not ; and not wishing to be answerable for it, the course it had to take was simple and obvious. Not only-were they justified in va cating his appointment, but called upon by the Constitution to do so, for it was one of the first principles of the Consti tution that there should in all cases be responsible advisers for every act done. This was the real cause of Lord Heytes bury not going to India.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had asked him whether or not, since he had bad the honour of being at the Board of Control, he had not seen proofs of the extreme liberality of Lord Ellenborough, and whether he had not thought it his duty to confirm several of his acts ? He ( Sir J. Hobhouse) was a most incompetent person to reply to such a question, for he had been in that office but a short time compared with the Noble Lord ; but although he might think him a fit head of the Board of Control, as far as capa city was concerned, that was a very different thing from ap proving of a nominee of his as Governor of India. Of course he objected to that.—( Hear.) He did not object to Lord Ellenhorong,h's capacity to sit at the Board of Control, but he objected very much to his sending a Governor- General to I :clia for him.—( Hear, hear.) He was willing to admit teat he had seen proofs and documents which convinced him that Lord Ellenborough took very large and enlightened views of public policy ; but that opinion, which he only gave because he was askcd for it, was quite a distinct ihing from the inference the Hon. Member wished to be drawn from it, viz., that because lie considered Lord Ellenborough an enlightened and able man, calculated to play a distin guished part in any Government, he should, therefore, confirm luis appointment of Lord Heytesbury, who had not sailed from his country. There were, moreover, some points on which he took the liberty of differing from the Noble Lord ; and the abjection to confirming his appointment was much strengthened by the singular fact that the Governor-General-received no in :tructiuns in writing on leaving this country. either from the Court. of Directors or the Board of Control. If the Noble Lord had gone to India with the verbal instructions he had re eeived from Lord Ellenborough, they might, as far as his ( Sir J. Hothouse's) opinion was concerned, have been right or :vrong, and the only mode there was of freeing himself from his apprehensions, was by giving Lord Ileytesbury his instruc tions, that was, to become the Minister responsible for his acts .which he did nut choose to do ; and therefore, with the con eurrence of the ether Members of his Majesty's Govern ment, the vacation of his appointment was advised. The lion. Gentleman had not disputed the King's prerogative. That was too bold a task for him to undertake. But he had niade use of an argument which his reading must have in- Cormed him had been had recourse to without effect in the de, imte of 1806. He stated thikt by the Act of 1784 ( Mr. Pitt's Art) the real substantial power of selecting the Governor- General of India, was meant to be vestad entirely in the Com pany, and that the whole spirit of the Act was in favour of That proposition. Now, in the debate of 1806, Lord Mei , file broadly laid down the principle upon which he (Sir J. Hobhouse) now rested, and appealed to Lord Grenville, who " - as in Parliament at the passing of the Act, to say who -her the intention of the Act was not to establish that orineiple.—( Hear.) Lord Grenville afterwards said, " He had been appealed to personally as to his recollection of the intention of the Legislature in passing the Act ; he should, therefore, declare most solemnly that it was as clearly in his recollection as if the transaction was of yesterday, that it was certainly intended that his Majesty's Ministers should have the power of recal at their own discretion."—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman, appeared willing to allow that proposition. What complaint, then, was there against the Government for having exercised its discretion in this instance? There was none ; and the Hon. Gentleman had not been able in his speech to make out any cause of complaint. He would here take the liberty of making a remark upon one circumstance which he was sure must have struck the Hon. Gentleman in his consideration of this subject ; it was that those best ac quainted and most intimately connected with India had not thought it worth while to take any special notice of this recal of Lord Heytesbury. The lion. Gentleman must be aware that it was in the power of nine East India Proprietors to call a Special Court for the purpose of considering any subject of importance ; but although the vacation of Lord Heytesbury's appointment had taken place two months and a half back, no Court bad been called for the purpose of considering it; and on Wednesday last, which was the first opportunity the Pro prietors had of taking the slightest notice of the matter, so little attention did it attract, that he was informed by an eye witness, there were no more than 20 Proprietors present beside the Directors, when an ex-Director gave notice, on the part of an absent Proprietor, that he meant on a future occasion to bring the subject forward. If, then, those most interested in the affairs of our vast eastern empire had not thought themselves called upon to complain, what right, or perhaps more properly s - waking, what just pretext for complaint could the Hon. Gen tleman set up ? The lion. Gentleman had said that the course taken by the Government would be injurious to the authority of the Court of Directors in India. Perhaps that effect might, to a certain extent, follow, as it might have followed from reading the accounts of the great discussions which took place in the House in 1833, when the King's Government were op posed on all the important parts of this Bill by influential members of the Court of Directors, and when the King's Go vernment carried the Bill through the House in spite of them. But if it were necessary that a cordial sympathy should exist between the head of our vast empire in the east and the King's servants at home, it was better that the Court of Directors should receive that shock, such as it was, than that the cordial sympathy he spoke of should be destroyed. The Hon. Gen tleman had stated (and he believed correctly) that it had I:een h;therto supposed that the appointment of the Governor- General involved uo political feeling. However that might be, he had the authority of a very distinguished member of the present Court of Directors delivered in a letter written in 1833 in favour of' the doctrine, that the Governor-General must have the confidence of the Administration at home. Mr. Tucker, in his dissent to certain parts of Mr. Grant's (now Lord Glenelginew India Bill, said, that although he thought the councils of India should be appointed by the Court of Directors, yet that the Presidents themselves could not be. His words were these—" We do not exercise the same inde pendent power in appointing the Governors of India. His Majesty's Ministers must, for obvious reasons, be parties to such appointments. These high functionaries have generally been political characters of distinction connected with the Ad ministration, and they must possess the confidence of the na tional Government."—( Hear, hear.) These were the words of Mr. Tucker in 1833. If, therefore, Lord Heytesbury had gone out, the anomalous precedent would have been esta blished of a Governor-General leaving England for India in whom the Government of the day had no confidence,— ( Hear, hear.) Did the Honourable Gentleman mean to say that that would be right? He could not say so. For his own part, looking to the complex manner in which India was to be governed, they would have set a precedent liable to the most pernicious abuse, if they had allowed to proceed to India a man who, whatever his private charac ter might be—whatever his capacity might be, without the approbation of the Government in concert with whom he was to act. The Hon. Gentleman stated that the Right Hon. Baronet lately at the head of the Government acted in a man ner very different from the present Government, and instanced the cases of Sir Robert Grant and Mr. Macaulay. But was there any similarity between the two cases ? Was the Right Hon. Baronet responsible for the appointment of Mr. Grant or Mr. Macaulay ? Certainly not ; and had Lord Heytesbury been on his passage to India when the present Government came into office, he was far from saying that he should have been ready to advise his recall. With respect to Mr. Macaulay individually he would say, with all respect for both sides of the House, that he thought it might be quite as well for them that that Right Hon. Gentleman was not recalled.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) But really what had Mr. Macaulay done that Lord Ellenborough should take credit to himself for not re calling him ? When the Hon. Gentleman asked what Lord Heytesbury had done that the present Government did not confirm his appointment, be should have been prepared to show that there was ground f o r recalling Mr. Macaulay before mak ingit a matter of boast that he was not recalled. It appeared that there had been a difference of opinion as to the construc tion of a clauFe in the Act of Parliament, and that he had siisned papers both in a legislative and executive capacity. Cord Ellenborough, on learning this, took counsels' opinion on the point, and had for answer, that the Act of Parliament did not pbrmit Mr. Macaulay to gt iz any way except as 4 legislative member of the Council, and that a power of inter ference on his paat as an executive member was not sanctioned by the Act.—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") There were however, some doubts as to the correctness of that construe- tion, and when the matter was before him ( Sir John Hob house) three or four days ago, he was not quite sure whether some precise order should be _sent out to prevent any mistake in future. But that Mr. Macauley had committed any gross error, of a nature that would justify his recal, he denied ; and he denied any merit to the late Government for not re calling him,—( Hear, hear.) He would only briefly refer to ' the manner in which Lord Heytesbury's recal was made, and for which, as he before stated, he alone was responsible. If there was any thing improper in it, he was sorry for it ; but he believed there had been no want of courtesy on his part, and no informality of which the Court of Directors could justly complain. It was his interest, as well as his pleasure, to keep well with those Gentlemen with whom he had the honour of conversing once a week. But the Honourable Gentleman said that the fact was communicated to the Court of Directors without those previous long conferences which took place when Sir George Barlow was recalled from India. There was not, and for the best of all reasons, that the only question in this case was, that we had no confidence in Lord Heytesbury, and no arguments of the Court of Directors could have persuaded us to have confidence in him.—( Hear.) He was not aware that it was necessary for him to trespass any further on the attention of the House. Certainly the King's Government might have taken a different course, and might have shrunk from the responsibility of appointing a per son to this high office. By doing so they might have conci liated their political opponents under the mask of candour; and might have taken credit for forbearance, but which, when the truth came to be told, would only have been imputed— and fairly imputed—to the fear of giving offence.--( Hear.) By so doing he had no doubt they might have gained a little tem porary and insincere applause from those who were their con stant and conscientious opponents; but they would at the same time have incurred—and fairly incurred—the censure of their warmest friends and confidants.—( Ministerial cheers. ) But this course he thought would have been unworthy of any Administration at any time ; but in these times he thought it would be peculiarly so ; because it appeared to him that for men engaged in a very great and perilous, and he trusted also honourable enterprise, to delegate duties of the highest importance to any but men who had not only a political, but a personal attachment to them, was a feebleness not only foolish, but fatal.—( Loud cheers.) That was his conscientious opinion ; for after having yielded (as had been formerly the case) at the outset of the grand struggle in which they had engaged to difficulties of their own creation, in a manner not only injurious to their interests, but also to their character, they would in all probability have dropt from concession to concession, until at last, after losing every remnant, not only of power, but of character, they would have fallen, and de servedly fallen, under the bitter scorn of their enemies, and the contemptuous pity of their friends. For himself—he knew not what other Gentlemen might feel—he would sooner fail in an honest enterprize, surrounded by sincere and ardent friends, than owe a precarious success to the cold co-operation of persons who were at the best but doubtful and mistrustful allies—( Cheers) ; and he must take the liberty of adding, that he could rather console himself under defeat with the one, than he could reconcile himself to victory with the other.— (Loud cheers.) These principles of Government, if they be correct at any time, are peculiarly correct at this particular time ; and he thought that amongst many things worthy of notice, and which would descend in the page of history to posterity, relative to the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet who was lately at the head of his Majesty's Government, was the declaration of that sentiment in which be declared and upheld the necessity of a cordial attachment between men leagued together for a good purpose, and in which he overthrew that miserable pretence of consulting " measures and not men."—( Cheers.) He trusted that the present Government would act upon that principle. He trusted, that having commenced by this step ( which he ad mitted did seem to be a hardship, for lie owned that that was his first objection to it, and that he felt that it looked as if par taking sometimes of personality and of political animosity-- but fee ing the necessity of actin.- upon this, to him incontro vertible pr he trusted that), the Government with which he had the honour now to be connected would persevere in it, and that whenever they were imperiously called upon to do so, they would act in strict conformity with the principle upon which he had now justified Lord Heytesbury's supercession. Ile was quite sure that by so acting they would be supported, not only as far as the authority of Parliament went, but would be backed by their own consciences as well as by the ap proving voice of their country.—( Cheers.) He was obliged, therefore, to oppose the production of these papers. Mr. S. HER BERT supported the motion. Mr. HOGG followed, and observed, that the entire speech of the Right Hon. Baronet was a justification of the conduct of tie Government in the rescinding of Lord Heytesbury's ap pointment, on the ground that it was a political appointment. f he Right Hon. Baronet said, that he should be responsible fir the conduct of the Governor-General, and therefore was justified in the counsel he had given ; but there was en ob vious distinction l between the refusal of art appointment, where no appointment had taken place, and the cancelling of an appointment which' had taken place. , He (Mr. Hogg) would contend that the appointment of a Governor-General . which had been sanctioned by the Crown, ought not to be rescinded, except for gross misconduct or gross ineapacity. If the appoiutrnent of Lord Heytesbury was rescinded on either of these grounds, the fact ought not to be concealed, but should be made as public as possible. He would mention the case of the appointment of Lord William Bentinck by Mr. Canning. Two governments had intervened ; that of Lord Gaderich, and else the Government of the Drake of Wel lington ; Lut neither one nor the other of those Govern ments interfered, and yet the appointment of Lord William Bentinck was not exactly the one which the Duke of Wel. lington would himself have made.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that the conduct of the present Government tended to lessen the respect due to the Court of Directors : it was certainly contrary to precedent ; and would manifestly impair the efficiency of the civil service and the influence of our Go vernment in India.—( Opposition cheers.) Mr. R. CUTLAR FERGUSSON said that his Hon. Friend who had just spoken, had addressed his arguments en tirely to the question of the recal of a Governor-General from India, Is hereas the question before the House was not one re specting the recal. of a Governor, but merely as to the vacat ing of an appointment.—(Hear, hear.) He should be ex tremely sorry to say anything that could take away from the respect due to the Court of Directors; but although he did not attach any blame to them, or to the late Government, for the appointment of Lord Haytesbury, yet lie did not think that their authority would be impaired by the exercise of the power possessed by the present Government over that appoint ment. This was a particular case. It was not a question of recal. They were now at the commencement of carrying into effect a system totally new in the government of India; and which system was established by the persons who were now his present Majesty's Ministers.—(Hear, hear.) It was, there fore, but safe and right that those persons, beii.g now in power, should select an individual most in their confidence, and whom they knew to be most friendly to that new system which they had established there, for the purpose of carrying the objects of the new India Bill into complete effect.— (Cheers.) Under the whole circumstances of the present case, considering that the appointment was not complete, and that Lord Heytesbury never had been sworn in, he.contended that the Government would have failed iii discharging a duty towards themselves, and incurred a responsibility they were not bound to incur, if they had continued in office a person in whom they had not confidence, and failed to propose an indi vidual in whom they had confidence, to carry into effect, when the proper time for so doing should arrive, the great objects the Government had in view.—( Cheers.) Mr. BUCKINGHAM, from long experience and know ledge of the subject, bore testimony to the accuracy of the general principle, that the persorr appointed as Governor-Ge ral of India, should be one in whom the Government could repose the highest and most unlimited confidence. It was perfectly obvious that the President of the Board of Control would have to answer for the acts of the Governor-General in that House. Was it not reasonable then, that he should ap point to the office some individual in whom he could place entire confidence ?—( Hear, hear.) The Governor-General of India had, at the present moment, duties of a far more im portant nature than usual to discharge. Mr. CR E S SET PE L HA M strongly reprebattel the can celling of Lord Heytesbury's appointment. Sir ROBERT PEEL said the Right Hon. Gentleman, he thought he might correctly state, had rested this recal on the single ground that he had not confidence in Lord Heytesbury on account merely of a divergence of political opinion.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Now he wanted to examine the Right Hon. Gentleman's argument, and he must say in the outset, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had not convinced him that this was a just exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said in effect, " I have not confidence in Lord Heytesbury, and that is the ground on which I refuse to sanction the appointment. I will not let Lord Etlenborough nominate my Governor-Ge neral of India." Why, if this argument were well founded, it went to this extent—that they must introduce into India all the colours and shades of political difference in this country; and set an example which, derived from the fountain head and extended to the chief offices of Government, would tend to in troduce into India, for the first time, party di ssens i ons an d p art y differences ; and thus weaken the control which England pos sessed over the dominion of that part of the globe.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said, " If Lord Heytes bury had left England I would not have recalled him, but the appointment is incomplete ; he has not sailed." Was this con sistent ?—( Cheers.) If want of confidence in Lord Heytes , bury justified the revocation of his appointment, how could the Right Hon. Gentleman have permitted Lord Heytesbury to remain in die government of India, supposing him to have left this country before the Right Hon. Gentleman's accession to the office he held ? There was no distinction between the case of an appointment in which the individual bad not set out, and one in which he was actually exercising the functions of his office in India. He quite agreed in the principle laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that it was not right or proper for a Government to continue in high executive offices at home the persons who bad been appointed by their predecessors; but admitting the principle to its fullest ex ; tent, he would contend that it did not apply to India. It was a neutral territory, in which politics ought not to enter. The Act of 1784, which established the power of recal, was passed under peculiar circumstances. After the House of Commons had expresied in a resolution their opinion that Mr. Hastings ought to be recalled, and after the Court of Direc tors had sanctioned his recal, the Court of Proprietors refused to confirm it. Mr. Fox expressed his opinion that the Court of Diieetors had the power to insist on his recal - without the sanction of the Court of Proprietors ; butt as the Court of Di rectors hesitated to exercise it, the power given by the Act was originally established. The intention merely was to reserve to the Crown the power of Mauling for de,Jioqueney, not for the purpose of insuring the appointment of a partisan in political opinion.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had only been enabled to refer to one precedent, and that was the case of Sir George Barlow, the circumstances of which were so pe culiar that it was in fact no precedent at all. The case of Lord Minto, who sailed in March, Mr. Perceval being appointed in April, was precisely similar, except so far as the indivi dual hardship was concerned, to that of Lord Heytes bury. They had the power of sending out a swift-sailing vessel to prevent his being sworn, and entering upon the administration of his duties. The case of Lord W. Bentinck appointed by one Government, and retained after two changes, who did not sail until a month after the Duke of Wellington's Government had been appointed, was a second proof of the ratification and confirmation of the princi ple that, provided the Government had confidence in the ge neral integrity and experience in public life of the individual appointed, they did not contract any personal responsibility by continuing him in office.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to consider he put a con clusive question when he said, " Would I have appointed Lord Heytesbury ?" Certainly not; but then he ( Sir Robert Peel) might put another question, and ask, " Would I have appointed Sir Robert Grant or Mr. Macaulay ?" ( Loud cheers from the Opposition.) One word on the bearing the course pursued must have on the policy of this country in India. It was impossible to conceal the peculiar circumstances under which our dominion in India was preserved ; it was recom mended to eighty millions of people—the inhabitants of those vast regions—not by any participation in our political creed—not. by any admiration of our civil institutions—t rested merely upon their general confidence in our Govern ment, and the native inhabitants were kept in awe by the belief that there was complete unity among the foreigners who presided over the destinies o f their country. Intro duce party dissensions, let the people of India be sepa rated by the same animosities that agitated this country, and the secret of our strength was lost. It would tend also to weaken the Royal authority in India if it were known that the Royal sanction being given to an appointment meant merely the ap probation of the existing Government.—( Cheers.) When the East India Company was stripped of its authority, and deprived of its commercial functions, its political functions were preserved, and the Company retained as an intermediate body in India, on two grounds—first he presumed from the force of prescription, and, secondly, be cause, in a constitutional point of view, the patronage of India was too enormous to be exercised by the Government of Eng land. How could they expect a body existing only by opinion to retain its character or preserve the exercise of its political functions, if they reversed its very first act under its new constitution.—( Cheers.) On those grounds he trusted the Right Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his opposition to the motion. Mr. VERNON SMITH contended that there was a very wide distinction between recalling the individual appointed and cancelling his appointment. The former proceeding, certainly, would involve considerable disgrace ; .but the lat ter, as he conceived, rested on a very different footing. The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to the case of Lord William Bentinck ; but to have made the analogy complete, he should have told the House whether that Nobleman enjoyed the confidence of the Duke of Wellington. As to Sir Robert Grant, he conceived that the case of Sir Robert Grant at Bombay was very different from that of the Governor-General of India; and with regard to Mr. Macaulay, he apprehended that no Gentleman would seriously contend that the case of that gentleman's appointment could be brought to bear upon the present—( Hear, hear). In spite of the calm and tempe rate tone in which the subject had been introduced, he could consider it as nothing but a party motion, brought forward for party purposes.—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches— " No, no l" from the Opposition.) He really could not help thinking that the present motion originated in a feeling of anger and disappointment that the present Administration should have displayed so much vigour in one of its first acts. —(Cheers. ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The real question which the Hon. Member for Beverley wished to propose to the House was, after all, whether the present Government should or should not have the power of refusing to intrust very high political functions, extending over a great portion of the globe to a person in whom they had not political confidence.—(Loud cheers.) That the Hon. Gentleman should think Lord Hey tesbury worthy of all political functions was extremely natural on his part—Lextremely natural on that of the Right Hon. Baronet ; but he thought it would be rather strange and some what imprudent if his Right 'Hon. Friend knowing Lord Hey tesbury's political opinions, and not having any particular rea son to place political confidence in him, were to retain him in the office to which he had been appointed, forward instruc tions to him as Governor-General of India from time to time, and make himself responsible for his acts.—(Cheers.) Was it not notorious that, for years past, the Governors-General had always been chosen on account of their political senti ments Hear, hear.) Did not Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville take care, in the appointments which they made, that the per sons chosen should have the .same general political senti ments and views with the Government from which the ap pointments emanated? Why did 'Mr. Canning appoint Lord Wm. Bentinck, but because his general political views ac corded with his? He thought that the present Government were perfectly justified in cancelling the appointment of Lord Ileytesbury, and sending out another Governor with new in structions, and who will he ready to put in practice their gene ral opinions and views. It was of peculiar importance, indeed it was the only safe course which could be adopted, that this of important functionary tiie G orirn s c h i ? t uLd ( b li o a a r e h r e s a o r n . who ) Nv h i t a n d r t e h s e i permanent appointments, it might, perhaps, be proper that they respect to dente o should be continued; but as regarded the Governor-General ship, he considered that the Government would be betraying themselves and the country, if they did not appoint a person whom they could have confidence.—(Cheers.) The House then divided, when there appeared, Ayes Noes Majority for Ministers CORPORATION BILL. 179 . 254 On our re-entering the Gallery we found the House in Committee on the Corporation Bill. Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed the consideration of the 10th clause for the purpose of considering further the alterations which had been suggested. The 11th clause was then moved. Colonel SIBTHORP proposed an amendment, to the ef fect that every elector should be made liable to the payment of all borough rates, parochial or otherwise, for the period of six months from the period at which any shop shall have been opened by him for the purpose of a sale, show, or trade in the said borough. He contended that some security was neces sary for the resident tradesmen, to prevent the influx of fo ,reigners, Radical adventurers, and the satellites of men flung by chance into power. Mr. A. TREVOR said that the amendment of the Gallant Colonel was the only thing that could prevent the influx of the tag-rag-and-bobtail from other, parts of the country, who would inundate the respectable and old settled inhabitants of the town—fellows who were not worth the qualification, and who, if they got it, would turn it to the worst uses. Hon. Members could not make black white, nor could they make alien adventurers useful citizens in any town. The proposi tion contained in the clause was little short of an abomination —it was mischievous in principle, and would be so in its re sults. Colonel SIBTHORP said a few words which were not heard. The clause was passed without opposition. Clause 12 was then moved. Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the last day for the payment of the rates should, according to the suggestion of Sir R. Peel, be deferred from the last day of Au gust to the sth day of September, and that the final revisal should take place on the 15th of September. After a few words from Lords STORMONT and J. RUSSELL, the amendment was inserted. The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. On clause 13 being read, Sir J. GRAHAM said he had to propose an amendment to this clause. The duty of forming the lists of voters was con fided by the Bill to overseers, but the experience of the Reform Act had proved that unpaid officers seldom performed their duty otherwise than negligently. At all events their Work was generally full of imperfections. To obviate this evil, and to provide against a passage in the clause before the Committee, which would have the effect of conferring household suffrage in place of rate-paying suffrage, he should propose— " That the town clerk be empowered to examine the validity of all claims to be inserted in the burgess roll, to make objec tions where he shall see just cause, and to sustain such objec tions on the revision of the list before the Mayor." If that amendment were adopted, he meant to add another— " That the cost of making and sustaining these objections by the town clerk shall be paid out of the borough fuhd." Lord HOW ICK said'he WAS not quite sure that there was not some force in the objection of his Right Hon. Friend, as regarded the inconvenience likely to arise from the circum stances mentioned by him; but he was satisfied that there wer e -none which the town councils had not power to remedy. The amendment was, however, open to the objection of giving the ruling party in the council for the time being the power of opposing the registration of unfriendly votes ; inasmuch as the town clerk was always a creature of the corporation, and the majority governed his actions. In his opinion it would lead to the grossest partiality and injustice if the town clerk had a power at the public expense of seeking out and supporting de fects in votes. He should therefore oppose the amendment. Mr. HOWARD was opposed to the amendment, and in favour of the original clause. Sir J. GRAHAM said that if it were desired to have the duty now imposed on the overseers gratuitously properly per formed, there should be a paid officer, responsible for its due performance and removeable for neglect of it. M r . MILES supported the original motion. From his knowledge of overseers, he thought no grounds for probable charge in respect of the present clause lay against them. Mr. C. BULLER opposed the amendment. The creation of a paid officer would have the effect of neutralising public activity ; and that anxiety now so laudable to see matters right would be at an end. Mr. PLUMPTRE supported the amendment. Unless a re sponsible individual, regularly and sufficiently paid, were ap pointed, he was sure there would be gross mistakes and great neglect. , The amendment was ultimately withdrawn. Sir J. GRAHAM proposed another amendment, to the effect that, instead of the words " every person's name in the overseers' list," as it stood in the clause, there should be sub stituted, " every rate-payer within the borough." Lurd J. RUSSELL was understood to agree to the amendment ; hut ho spoke in such a low tone that we cannot vouch for the fact. VITAXI3I.IRTON objo'cted to it. It gave a fatility fur raising objections against votes, and none for allaying them. Sir J. GRAHAM complained that when he sought the extension of the franchise, his Hon. Friend opposed him. Sir J. CAMPBELL saw nothing in the amendment to make it objectionable. It did not appear very important to him whether the voter was in the overseers' lists, or in that of the rate-payers. Mr. GROTE said that every rate-payer should be on the burgess roll. If the rate-payer had an interest in objecting to votes he had a similar interest in being on the roll. Mr. BAINES said he thought the machinery of the Bill was already rather overcharged than otherwise. If the present amendment were carried it would make it the business for life of every person in the borough to attend to registration, which would become so exceedingly laborious . a duty that an exactly k contrary effect to the one desired would result ; parties would give up attending to the matter altogether, and the elective franchise would thus degenerate into a sort of universal suf frage.—(" Oh, oh," from the Ministerial benches.) He did not know whether he was right in applying the word degenerate to this, but certainly he thought universal suffrage would result. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he could see no as signable motive for this amendment. If a person were a rate payer he must in ordinary course become a burgess. Sir J. GRAHAM explained. Mr. BL ACKBURNE said if this amendment were car ried, every person who had rateable property in the borough would be liable to be included within its operation, whereas if the evidence of the Burgess Roll were adhered to, here was some ostensible test to go by. But it had been said by way of inducing the Committee to agree to the amendment, that it was of little practical importance. If that were the case, why press it, why not rather have the Bill as it was? Mr. P. HOWARD thought they had in the present case better copy the principles established in the Reform Art. which provided that a voter only could take objection to ano ther party's claim to vote. Mr. PEASE said a few words in favour of the amend ment. Mr. H. HUGHES said that although it was provided that a qualification of three years' rating was necessary to the rights of freedom, he did not see that any provision was appended to enforce the production of the rate books, in order to establish the fact of the three years' rating. Mr. JERVIS said that the term rate-payer was very loose and general. and might lead to mistakes. Lord J. RUSSELL said that although he had not felt dis posed to object to this amendment in the first instance, because he did not consider it a very material one, yet, having since heard so many objections raised against it, he should recom mend his Hon. Friend not to press it. An Hon. Gentleman opposite had complained that that there was no provision made by the Bill to enforce the production of the rate books, in order to prove the fact of the three years' rating. If the Hon. Gentleman would look on a little further, he would see that a proviso was made, whereby the mayor might call on the over seers for the production of the books, with the view of decid ing upon a disputed case. Mr. H. HUGHES said he was perfectly aware of the pro vision referred to by the Noble Lord ; but that did not em brace all that he meant, namely, to enable any person who might be seeking for an objection to a vote, to call for the books, in order to satisfy himself of the fact before he pro ceeded to raise an objection in the matter. Sir R. PEEL said he should be sorry if the Right Hon. Baronet consented to withdraw his amendment, and he was sorry that the Noble Lord, who at first consented to it, had afterwards altered his mind upon it. He had hoped to have been able to have gone along with the Noble Lord in making this Bill as perfect as possible. Now, as to the principle of tho amendment, he thought it a very fair one. It was very pro perly provided that persons only of a certain standing in the borough should be entitled to vote for the persons by whom their affairs were to be managed ; but still every other person who had paid rates even for a shorter period, should be en titled, he thought, to object to the qualifications of those who did vote, and thus indirectly taxed him, if he saw fit. The amendment was then withdrawn. After a few verbal amendments, and some desultory con versation between Mr. Estcourt, Mr. Grote, Lord J. Russell, Capt. Pechell, Mr. Borthwick, Lord Stormont, Mr. C. Bul ler, &c., the clause, as amended, was agreed to. On the next clause being rend, Lord J. RU SSE LL..said that he was anxious that the duty of revising the lists shleira not be left entirely to the Mayor. —(Hear, hear.) By a subsequent part of the Bill, the bur gesses were entitled to elect three auditors, and he was abort now to propose an amendment to be inserted in the present clause, directing two of these auditors to sit with the Mayor when occupied in revising the lists. Mr. W YNN made a few remarks which, owing to the noise of Members leaving the House, were inaudible. Mr. P. THOM SON • thought that the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman did not relieve the difficulty which he wished'to remove. _ _ . Mr. GO ULBURN said a few words, which we regret we could not hear in the Gallery. Mr. BORT El WICK submitted whether the amendment he had first moved would not better remove the objections than the course which the Noble Lord wished to pursue ? The function bed better altogether he left to the Recorder. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished the Honourable Member to recollect that a great many of the boroughs would havo no Recorder at all. Mr. BORTFINVICK thought that it ought to be taken entirety out of the Mayor's hands. . Mr. C. BULLER would wish the lists to he revised by the Revising Barristers. There would be only thirty-six of the whole number of boroughs that the Revising Barristers would not visit. Mr. C. WYNN contended that the Mayor was a political officer that never would have credit given to him for a purity of election. Lord J. RUSSELL, under the feeling of the House, would ,consent to postpone the clause. He only wished to remind the House that the employment of the Revising Barristers would entail a great expense on the country, and render the Bill more complex. He was of opinion that there ought to 'be a Board of four or five persons to act as a Commission of appeal. Sir J. GRAHAM contended that the Mayors of borough's were quite incompetent to the duty. Where there were Re corders he thought that the duty ought to be performed by them, and where there were not, it ought to be left to the Re vising Barrister. The clause was then deferred. The SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and the House proceeded to the other Orders of the Day. ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES BILL. After a short conversation upon this Bill, in which Colonel Percival, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Aglionby, and Mr. Sheil took part, the gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place, and the Bill passed. The House adjourned at Two o'Clock. LIST OF THE MINA Of 175 an Mr. Praed's motion for " Copies e which have passed between the Board of Affairs of India and the Court of Direc Company, on the subject of the revocati of Lord Heytesbury as Governor-General Alford, Lord Feilden ' W. Alsner, Richard Finch, G. Arbuthnot, Hon. H. P F oett, Sir W. W. Ashley, Lord Forbes, W. Ashley, lion. H. Forester , Hon. C. Bagot, 'Hon. W. Forster, C. Baillie, H. D. Freshtield, J. W. Baillie, Joseph Gaskell, J. M. Balfour, T. Gladstone, T. Baring, T. Gladstone, W. E. Baring, H. B. Glynne, Sir S. E. Bateson, Sir R. Goodricke, F. L H. Bell, M. Gordon, Hon. W. Beotinck, Lord G. Goulburn, H. Bei hell, R. Goulbutii, Mr Serjt. Blackburn, John I. Graham, Sir J. It. G. Blackstone, W. S. Greene, P. G. 13,1i.ng, W. Griniston, Lord Bonham, Francis It. Grimston, Hon. E. Borthwick, Peter Halford, H. Bram-ton, T. W. Hamilton, Lord C. Brownrigg, J. S. Hanmer, H. Bruce, C. L. C. Hardinge, Sir H. Bruen, Francis H ,wkes, T. Buller, Sir J. B. Y. Hay, Sir J. Burrell, Sir C. M. Hayes, Sir E. Calcraft, G. H. Henniker, Lord Campbell, Sir H. Herbert, Hon. S. Castlereagh, Viset. Herries, J. C. Chandos, Marquis of Hill, Lord Arthur Ch plin, T. Hill, Sir It. Chapman, A. Hogg, J. W. Chichester, Arthur :tope, Hon. J. Chishvlm, A. Hype, H. I'. Clerk, Sir G. Hallam, Lord Clive, It. H. Houldsworth, T.. Codrington C. W. Hoy, J. B. , Compton, h C. Hughes, H. Conolly, E. M. li . Ois, Sir It. H. Cooper, E. J. lrton, S. Corbett,'. G. Jackson, J. D. Corry, H. L. Jermyn, Earl Crewe, Sir G. Jones, T. D'Alhiac, Sir C. Jones, Wilson Dare, R. W. H. Kearsley, J. H Darlingion, Earl of Kirk, P. Dick, Q. Knatrhbuli, Sir E. . Dottin, Abel Roos Knightb.y, Sir C. Dowdeswell, W. Law, lion G. outfield, 'l' D. Lawson, A. Dugdale, W. S. Lefroy, A. Duilehnike, W. Lewis, W. I East, James Buller Lincoln, Earl of Eaton, Richard J. Lowther, Viscount Elley, Sir J. Lowther, H. C. Elwes, J. Lygon, Colonel Entwistle, John Mahon, Lord Eslcourt, T G. B Mandeville, Vise. Fancourt, C. S. J. Marsiaad, 'l'. )RITY of any Communications Commissioners for the tors of the East India ion of the appointment of India." illeynell, H. Miller, W. H. Norreys. Lord Palmer, R. Parker, M. N. Patten, Wilson Peel, Sir It. Peel, NV. Y. Peel, Colonel Peel, Edmund Pelham, John C. Pemberton, T. Penruddock, J H. Perceval, Colon 1 Pigot, IL Plunkett, Hon. R. Pollen, Sir John Praed, J. B. Price, Richard Price, Samuel Grove Printle, A. Rae, William Reid, Sir J. It. Richards, John Rushbrook, Robert Ryle, J. Sandon, Lord Scarlett, Tt. C. Scourfield, W. H. Sheppard, T. Sibthorp, Colonel Sinclair, G. Smith, A. Stanley, E. ' ,Stormont, .Viscount , H. C. Icent, J. E. ' °toss, Colonel Thompson, Trench,Sir Frederick Trevor, lion. A. Trevor, Hon. U. It. wisp, Horace Tyrrell, Sir J. Vere, Sir C. 8., Bart. Verner ' NV. Vesey, Hon. Thomas Vivian, John Ennis Wall, B. Walter, J. Weill, G. E. Whitmore, I'. C. William, It. Williams, T. P. Wodeliouse, Hon. E. Wynn, lit. Hon. C. Yorke, Elliot Thos. Young, J. Young, Sir W. L. Don Miguel is at present living at Porto d'Anzio, a small unhealthy village on the coast of the Roman States. What his views are in choosing such a place for his residence at this time of the year, it would be difficult to predict. MR. BECKFORD'S NEW WORK, " A Visit to the Convents of Alcobaga and Batalha," is at length before the world. The brilliant wit, the peculiar grace of expression, the humour, and the poetical fancy of the writer, here find capital subjects for their exercise. The pretended austerities and real indulgences of conventual life—the splendour of the Portuguese court, and the luxury and beauty of Portuguese scenery, solicit, by turns, the vivid illustration of the pen of the author of " Vathek," who has seasoned his pages with abundant and racy anecdotes of •the''great personages, ecclesi astical and secular, with whom he enjoyed` fattilitr intimacy. ROMAN COINS.—The 7: tiiernendenia. thunder storm on Monday se'nnight, laid• open, to. view in one of the small valleys near the Middle Bank. Copper Works, a pot or urn of Roman coins, consisting' of Victorious, Gallienus, Claudius Gothicus, Tetricus, Tetricus Czes, Posthumus Quintilius, Marius, and Solonina, many of theM in perfect preservation. Mr. G. G. Francis, of this town, has 'upwards of 130 in his possession, and we are informed it is his intention to deposit them in th'e Swansea Museum. Tho vessel containing them was of an oval shape, about 8 inches long, 4 inches wide, and 4 deep, licit it was unfortunately broken either by the rolling stones or the person who first discovered it.— The Cambrian. THE MARKETS-(THIS DAY.) HAY MARKETS.—(At per Load of 36 Trusses.) CUMBERLAND. _ Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay £4 0 to £4 5 Sim Meadow Hay 2 15 4 0 Useful Old Ditto 4 10 4 15 Fine Upland Meadow and Rye grass Hay Clover Hay 3 15 5 15 Oat Straw '1 IS to £2 2 I Wheat Straw 2 6 tl 8 , r-. _ _.- SMITHFIELD Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay .£3 15 to £4 0 New Meadow Hay Useful Old Ditto 4 10 4 15 Fine Upland Meadow and Rye-grass Hay Clover Hay ,extra fine - 5 15 Generally ~...... 4 0 5 10 Oat Straw ,!..1 18 tl X 2 0 i Wheat Straw 2 0 2 5 lIUNGERFORD. Coarse Meadow Hay • £4 0. to £4 6 New Meadow Hay 3 10 3 15 Useful Old Ditto - . 4 15 Fine Upland Meadow and Rye, grass Hay - 5 5 Clover Hay -) 10 'tat Straw £1 18 to £2 0 I Wheat Straw 1 t ~.2 4 PRICE OF BREAD. The highest price of Bread in the bletropoli; i$ 7d. for the 4lii. Loaf There are others who sell from a halfpenny to three half-pence birlow that rate. PRICE OF S Per Cwt. New English lied Clover42s. 50s. 53s D.tro Ditto s. --s. --s New Foreign Ditto —s. —s. --s. Old Ditto Ditto 4 . 's. 50s. Us. New White Clover 'ills. Ws. his. Old ifitio I)itto NOW Trefoil lSs 20s. 225. 0,4 Ditto —s. 14, 17s itib Grass 14,. Iris English Carrawaty —s 6Os 65s Foreign Ditto —s 3Ss. 62s Coriander —s !Os 12. s itapeseed, lEtighih r:ne per La• PRICE.) OF 1- K . , (p 'r C:!oice.. ditto Kent Bags Sussex Pockets Superfine ditto • Old Duty lai' :EDS.—Ju ,, e 2•J Per Quarter. St. Fein q2s. 363. Qs. Rye Grass .js 3113.,455. Pacey Grass.— ........ --5. ;OS. &.. Linseed, for feeding —s.-ISs.Ys. Ditt.o, for sowing —s. 7+ fa,' SOs. Ditto, for crushing —e. 50s. Nis. Canary —s. 444 •iDs. Herne : l2s Per Bushel - White Mustard Bs. 0. , rd. 6J. Browil Ditto fares 4s 6d. Od. 40! 44 Fore: 'o —.! HOPS —June 29. 5 O.- 5 10. to Cl. O. 6 Os 7 to 01. Ob, 01. Os. 0 0, to 0 isr, ni Os 4 , 1 p• t 0 51. 5; ss. 5 101. to , CV, 0. d at I'lo,oool. WiIITECHAPEL. HAY MARKET --Arne 27 Hay sos sl to 100 s 'll Clover 9ss •d to 115 s IV Straw . ISs d to 45s d PRICE OF OIL Rape Oil, brown, per ton, 50 10;.IRefined,51 . IN.—Linseed Oil, 451 QS Lin , eed Oil Cake at the Mill, (1000 10 , 105.—Rape Cake, per tun, Si IN. PRICES OF Per lb d. to d. Crop Hides, 30 to 40lb each 11 13 - -40 50 121 16 --50 60 000000 .• 13 17 Bull Bides butts, Vitriol - English. l4 - r oreign Foreign Hides lO 12 Dressing Hides Shaved ...„ i 3 16 Be,t S•tddlers Hides Horse Hides, English • If rounded 21 ti LEATHER Per lb d. to d. Horse Hides, German ...... 14 12 Spanish .—.. . 17 CalfSkins,3o to 401b.(doz )•14 21 40 54 , *l7 24 —5O fi e *2l 2s 70 190 +l3 21 Seal Skins, large 11 15 -- small lli 13 Kips Basils 8 13 Bellies Shoulders 7 12 to 4d per lb more PRICE OF RAW FAT, per stone of 141 b. Price of Tallow (as stated by the Tall,w Melters PRICE OF TALLOW. Town Tallow 4os. tid. Yellow Russia White —s. Od. Soap Ditto —s Od. Melting Stuff' Ditto Rough l7s. (Id , SOAP, &c per I I2lb. Yellow Soap —s. Od. Mottled —s. ed. Curd s Graves l4s Good Dregs ss. Cd. PRICE OF CANDLES. The price of good Store Candles in the Retail Shops is as follows: Candles. per dozen, s. 6d. ; inferior, 6.i'. —Moulds, Ss Od. Sixpence per dolen discoiwt for ca,l). Per Ton Adair s COAL MARL s d 17 6 Berniharn Main l6 0 Chrster Min l6 9 Felling Main l6 0 Holywell lB 0 Ditto Reins Ord 's 11.1100 l6 0 Pon top Windsor 17 6 Russell's High Main Sout , ll partl - ey Tan field 18 9 West Hartley IS 0 Howard's NCtherton Main ... 17 3 I,langenneyh Coal Walls End Bell and Brown 19 0 Walls End Bewicke and C 0... 19 6 Shipc Arrived since MINING INI Quantity of Copper Ore sold Quantity of tine Copper Average Produce Amount of Sale, 15,121 r. 12s. Od.- REVIEW IN HYDE-PARK.—Yeslerday morning a vast concourse of spectators were attracted to Hyde-park, to witness the review of the two battalions of the Coldstream re giment of Foot Guards, under the command of Colonel Mac kinnon. Shortly after nine o'clock the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Hill, accompanied by Field-Marshal his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, Lords Combermere, Fitzroy Sourer= set, Frederick Fitzclarence, and a numerous staff of general and other officers, entered the ground, when the regiments passed in slow and quick time, headed by his Royal Highness as Colonel-in-Chief, wearing the uniform of the regimen!. after which they went through several evolutions, firing in lines, solid squares, and by companies, which was done with the greatest precision. The excellent band remained for a considerable time after the regiments were marched to their respective barracks, when they performed several overtures. to the delight of a numerous assemblage of personages. Arlo.. ther review will take place on Thursday morning neat, of the Ist or Grenadier regiment of Foot Guards. A THEATRICAL BALL.—The repairs in our theatre have led to a singular discovery. A cannon ball, shot from the imperial batteries when Valenciennes was besieged in 1793, lodged in the ceiling of the theatre, breaking one of the beams, yet was prevented from falling by a thin bar of iron which ran along the beam. Thus, during 42 years this pro jectile has been hanging over the heads of the audience of the theatre held by a bit of iron, thin at the first, and now eaten away by rust.—Echo of Valenciennes. - - A young woman digging in a field at Sandrupt, near Bar-le- Due, in the Meuse, lately turned up a large ancient vase of clay, and called her father, who, on breaking it, found it to contain 1,450 pieces of silver, weighing together nine pounds and a half. He immediately took his treasure to silversmith at Bar-le-Due, and sold it for the intrinsic value of the metal. The purchaser, however, will make a better bar gain by disposing of the different pieces to antiquaries. The greater part bear the effigies of Philip, father and son, and Gordian ; but there are also some of the Emperors, Conarno dus, Pertinax, Severus, Caracalla and Geta, Heliog a b u lus, Alexander, Maximus, Decius, and Gallus. There are likewise several of women, as Otacilla, Etrucilla, Julia Augusta, Julia Mammea, and Faustina. One only is of Vespasian. The name alone remains, the rest of the legend being effaced, by age. On the reverse is the representation of a sow. This piece, the most valuable of all, perhaps, from its antiquity, and rarity, was unfortunately cut in two by the silversmith, in order to ascertain that it was silver. Still it has found an amateur purchaser. BIRTHS. On the 28th inst., in Bryanston-square, the lady of William Teevan, Esq., of a daughter. On the 28th inst., on Richmond-terrace, the lady of David Ro bertson, Esq., of a son. On the 28th inst., at the Vicarage House, East Ham, Esaia, the lady of the Rev. William Streatfield, of a son and heir. On the 29th inst., in St. James's-place, the lady of Robert Snow, Esq., of a son. On the 27th inst., in Park-crescent, the lady of Charles Passett Burnett, Esq., of a daughter. On the 27th inst., at Michael's-grove, Brompton, Mrs. J. S. Scrimgeour, of a son. On the 26th inst., in Brunswick-square, the lady of John Davis, Esq., of a daughter. On the 26th inst., the lady of the Rev. J. FOrshall, ofa daughter. On the 26th inst., the lady of Hampden Gledstanes, Esq., of daughter. MARRIED. On the 23d inst., at Marylebone New Church, the Rev. Henry Clutterbuck, vicar of Kempston Bras, and third son of Peter Clut terbuck, Esq., of Stanmore, Middlesex, to Louisa Butler, the beau tiful and accomplished niece of Colonel Crighton, of Gower-street. On the 27th inst., at Cartmel, Lancashire, John Harrison, Esq., of Upper Holloway, London, to Elizabeth, elder daughter of the late Isaac Hall, Esq., of Newton, near Cartmel. On the 2Sth inst., at Alverstoke, the Rev. W. K. Clay, Curate of 131unham, Bedfordshire, to Mary Anne, second daughter of Rear- Admiral M'Kinley. On the 15th inst., at Birmingham, Mr. David Thompson, malt ster, of Mushroom-hall, near. Oldb ury, _aged 17, to Miss Grace Vernon, late of Hill-top school, in that neighbourhood, aged 41. DIED. On the 29th inst., of scarlet fever, Georgiana Caroline, the wife of Sir Jacob Astley, Bart. On the 2Sth inst., at Gower-street, Bedford-square, in his 84th year, William Beckett, Esq., many years one of the Magistrates for the county of Middlesex and the Liberty of Westminster. On the 27th inst., in Duke-street, Mrs. Elizabeth }lather, is her 93d year. On the 27th inst., Sarah, the wife of B. Blake, Esq,, of Gun nersbury-lodge, Ealing. On the 23d inst., at the house of John Slack, Esq., of Lawton, near Warrington, Miss Ellen Slack, daughter of the late William Slack, Esq., of Manchester, in her 22d year. On the 24th inst,, Mr. Thomas Coats, of Oxford-street, aged 52. On the 24th inst., at Streatham, Miss Ann Core, aged 30. On the 23d inst., at Findon, Sussex, Mrs. Anne Bishopp, the widow of Henry . Bishopp, Esq. On the 26th inst., at Esher, Surrey, Mr. John. Paine, in his 90th year. On the 22d inst., in her 81st year, Mrs. rarker, of Gosford street, Coventry. On the 24th inst., aged 101 years, Seth . 1 . 195 e, Esq., Melton Mowbray. On the 14th inst., in her 91st 'year, Mrs. Martha Barlow, of River-street, Sheffield. On the 20th inst., at Totnes, Mr. James Gilbert, iron-founder , aged 87. On the 23d inst., at Fernhill, in the parish of Shaugh, aged 8 7 . Mr. J. Maddock ; and on the same da y , at Nethershaugh, in the same parish, Mr. John Lillicrap, aged 85, the two oldest farmers its the parish. On the 23d inst., at Wolverhampton , in his 93d year, Mr. Francis Lycett, formerly of Bentley House, near Bromsgrove. On the 24th inst., at Mendham, Suffolk, Mark Hunter, Esq., of Artillery-place, Finsbury-square, to Anna Murray, youngest daugh ter of Andrew J. Mackenzie, Esq., of York-place, Portman-square . On the 25th inst., at Leamington, Thomas Dyer Edwards, Esq., of Sydney, New South Wales, to Martha, eldest daughter of Thos. Sharp, Esq., of Leamington, Warwickshire. On the 25th inst., at North Creake, Norfolk, Captain the Hon. Charles Beaumont Phipps, of the Scots Fusileer Guards, brother and Steward of the Household to his Excellency the Earl of Mul grave, Viceroy of Ireland, to Margaret Anne, second daughter- he of the Venerable Archdeacon Bathurst, and grand-daughter of t Lord Bishop of Norwich. London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No -112; Strand, at The Sun Office, No, 112, Strand, in the owity of Middle's'ex. Per Ton s. d. Walls End Gosforth Walls End Heaton l9 6 Walls End Hilda IS 3 Walls End Hotspur l7 9 ....... Walls End Killiiigworth Walls End Newmarch l7 6 Walls End Pean•th l6 3 Wall End Perkins l7 0 Walls End Riddell's Walls End Hetton 3 Walls End Lainbt,in Wails End Stewart's Walls End St. Helen's Tees l9 8 Walls Em 4 West Hetton Walls End Elgin l9 0 East :narket-clay, 56. 'EL LIGENCE. Tons,Cwt. Qrg. 0 ,449 0 . 11 908 5 0 8« •Average Standard,loll. 18s. Od. ,