The Sun. — London, England, 1835-06-04 00:00:00

ELECTION COMMITTEES. BOROUGH OF IPSWICH. The Committee having assembled at the usual hour, The witness Pilgrim was called in, and his cross-examina tion by Mr. C. PHILLIPS proceeded with. It was true that Mr. Kelley said he would not lose the election for thousands. Mr. Kelley also said that witness was not to use expensive means unless necessary. Mr. Sparrow was present at the time. Mr. PHILLIPS—You are quite sure of this are you? I don't wish to entrap you, but I caution you that Mr. Sparrow is here. The witness persisted in giving the same answer. The wit ness said that there were two charges of embezzlement against him at the instance of Messrs. Sewell and Blake. Mr. PHILLIPS—Did you confess the charge against you to a person named Wood in Paris ? Mr. PALlsalt, who appeared as Counsel for the witness, ob jected to the question. Mr. PHILLIPS—YOU have allowed the witness to answer questions that were much more calculated to criminate him than that which I have just put. Mr. PsLmea—Oh, I know ; and they are likely to crimi nate others too. Mr. O'MALLEY—Mr. Palmer, you have no right to make such observations as these. Mr. PALMER—I am not addressing myself to you, Sir. The question was overruled. The witness, in continuation, said that he gave up all his papers to his solicitor, Mr. Jay. He never gave permission to Mr. Jay to settle the affair between himself and Messrs. Sewell and Blake, upon the understanding that he was to withhold certain papers. Mr. O'Malley was the first that spoke of Mr. Kelley settling the matter with Messrs. Sewell and Blake. The witness was then examined by the Committee, and said that Mr. Sparrow was cognizant of some of the acts of bribery which he committed.. Mr. AUSTIN—With this witness we close the petitioner's case. Mr. PHILLIPS—What, will you not call Mr. Jay ? Mr. HILL—We have closed our case. Mr. AUSTIN, in reply to Mr. Pollock, said that he could not say whether he should sum up the evidence or not until he knew if it was the intention of the opposite side to call wit nesses. Mr. Phillips pledged himself to call Mr. Sparrow. Mr. PHILLIPS—I never give pledges, as I consider them to be most unconstitutional.—(Laughter.) The Learned Gen tleman, in continuation, called upon the Committee to grant the sitting Member until to-morrow to Meet this most unex pected conclusion on the part of the petitioners. Mr. HILL objected to delay. Mr. KELLY urged that as the sitting Members were taken by surprise, it was but reasonable for them to apply for time. The CHAIRMAN said he did not see the necessity for delay, as it was then but two o'clock, and particularly as Mr. Phil lips had stated that Mr. Sparrow was in attendance. Mr. KELLY urged that it would be a great hardship if the sitting Members were forced to proceed with their case, cir cumstanced as they were. After some further discussion the the time applied for was allowed. It was subsequently arranged that, for the purpose of enabling some of the members of the Committee to adopt " a different course from that which they were thus pursuing," to use the words of the Chairman that the Committee should merely meet pro forma at half-past nine in the morning, and then adjourn until Friday. The Committee rose at half-past two o'clock. VICE-CHANCERY COURT. KEY V. MARSHALL. Mr. KNIGHT appeared in support of a demurrer. The ob ject of the bill was to restrain the defendants, who are exten sive cotton spinners at Leeds, from infringing a patent ob tained by the plaintiff " for new and improved machinery for preparing and spinning hemp, flax, and other fibrous sub tances." The defendants demurred, on the ground that the patent as set forth in the bill was void. Mr. KINDERSLEY supported the bill. His HONOR said that the proper course would be to retain the bill, and let the plaintiff bring such action as he should be advised, the defendants admitting that if the patent was good they had infringed it. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. TIIE KING V. ROBISON. This was an indictment against the defendant for publishing a libel of and concerning Lieut.-General Darling, Governor of New South Wales. The defendant, who had been a Cap tain in the Dragoons, and was afterwards an officer in the ve teran corps, was serving in the latter regiment at New South Wales in 1825-1826, during the period that Lieut.-General Darling held the situation of Governor of that colony. In December, 1826, the Governor inflicted a punishment on two soldiers, named Ludds and Thompson. the former of whom, as it was alleged by the defendant, died in consequence of it. That punishment arose from the following circumstances : Ludds and Thompson had been convicted for having gone into a shop in Sidney, and there pretended to purchase a piece of cloth, and for having then walked off without paying for it. The sentence of the Civil Court was that these men should be transported for seven years. The defendant in the libel alleged that General Darling had issued " a Military General Order ' commuting' the sentence, as he was pleased to term it, from transportation to working on the public road in irons. His Excellency accordingly directed one of his brothers-in law, Captain Dumaresq, of the Staff Corps, to manufacture a set of irons such as was never before heard of in the colony, even for the most atrocious murderers." The libel further stated that irons were faitened round the necks of the men so as to prevent them from lying cl:•wn, and that Ludds shortly afterwards died of the ill treatment he had received. The case was tried before Lord Denman at the sittings at Westminster after last Michaelmas Term, when the defendant was found guilty. Affidavits were now put in from Mr. Bannister, who had been Attorney-General in the colony, Mr. Hume, M. P., and others, justifying the statements contained in the libel ; and on the part of the prosecution affidavits from Lieutenant- General Darling, from Archdeacon Scott, formerly of New South Wales, the Secretary of General Darling, Mr. Can non, clerk in the Adjutant-Generars.office, denying the truth of the libel. The further hearing was postponed till to-morrow. THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF CARNARVON. Mr. ARCHBOLD moved for a mandamus to issue to the Justices of Carnarvon, commanding them to hear the applica tion of certain overseers respecting the liability of a putative father to support a bastard child. In this case the woman had been delivered of the child in November, but did not become chargeable at the time. She did, however, become chargeable shortly afterwards, and then the overseers applied to the Justices for an order on the putative father. The ap plication was not made in the January Sessions, but in the Easter Sessions, when one of the Justices said that the appli cation was too late, for that the Act had said that the over seer should make the application at the Sessions next after the birth of the child ; and the Justices refused the application. The Court granted the rule to show cause. BAIL COURT. SWIFT V. HAWKINS, ESQ. The plaintiff is an attorney, and brought his action as en dorsee of a bill of exchange for 2001. at three months, dated sth July, 1832, accepted by the defendant, drawn by Major Kerr, and endorsed over to him by Lady Frances Wedderburn Webster. Mr. PLATT was for the plaintiff, and Mr. HOGGINS for the defendant. Th• bill was put in and proved. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. BRADLEY V. TIUMPIIREM This was an action for falsely imprisoning the plaintiff. The defendant is an attorney, and he pleaded that he had satisfied the defendant by paying him 151. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 201. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. NICHOLS V. LIIFEVRE. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of certain goods, shipped for the account of a Mr. Le contem, a merchant at Guernsey, and consigned to the de fendant, a shipping agent at Southampton, to be forwarded to him. The goods were stopped in transitu, by a Mr. Couts, who had ascertained that Mr. Lecontem was in embarrassed circumstances, and were retained by the defendant. The action was tried before the Chief Justice, when a verdict was obtained by the plaintiff. Sir W. FOLLaTT last term obtained a rule nisi, to set aside the verdict. Rule discharged. In the case of Slater against Lefevro the Court came to the same decision. SHERIFF'S COURT. LIBEL.-LEE V. SPARROW AND OTHERS. In this action Mr. Alexander Lee, the musical composer, sought to recover compensation in damages for a libel pub lished in the Figaro in London. The defendants, Sparrow, the seller, Mr. Cowie, the printer, and Mr. Strange, the pub lisher, had suffered judgment to go by default, and a writ of inquiry was executed for the assessment of damages. Mr. Hummtuv appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. THOMAS for the defendants. Mr. HUMPHREY read the libel in question, which appeared on the 7th of February, and contended that it was calculated to do considerable injury. He had never seen the publication till to-day, and a more stupid affair he had never read. Mr. THOMAS spoke for upwards of an hour on the part of the defendants. The Jury, after a short consultation, assessed the damages at 40s. The cause was not over till nearly seven o'clock. The Mediterranean and Levant Steam-Packet Company will very soon commence running their vessels. Two of the Directors waited yesterday upon M. Tricoupi, the Greek Minister, and paid him 20,000 francs, the amount of the secu rity required by the Greek Governmest to insur• that the above line of vessels shall be established. On Thursday night, the body of a man was disco vered hanging in a plantation near the Braid Hills. The un fortunate man had tied his neckerchief to a branch of a tree, and affixed his apron to it, which he had passed round his neck in the form of a noose. It is supposed he had stood upon one of the branches while performing this operation, and after it was completed, had swung himself off, as his feet were ithin a few inches of the ground.—Edinburgh Courant. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Jrzfis a. The Earl of SHAPTISBITRY having taken his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock, a number of private bills were brought up from the Commons, and read a first time, amongst which was the Deptford Pier Bill. Petitions praying for protection to, and a further endowment of, the Church of Scotland, were presented by the Duke of Gordon, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Marquis of Bute, and Lord Roden. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented Petitions from Bolton and Huddersfield, praying for an alteration in the Factory Bill. Lord RODEN presented a Petition from Newcastle, pray ing for the insertion of a clause in the Newcastle Railway Bill to prevent travelling on Sundays. Lord MELVILLE presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London against the Islington Market Bill, which he moved should be referred to the Committee. Lord BROUGHAM then postponed the bringing in of a Bill respecting the law of Marriage in Scotland for a few days. LAW OF PATENTS. Lord BROUGHAM then presented a Bill regarding the Law of Patents, which he should shortly open, and he pro posed to have it printed and stand over for consideration. His object was to prevent any of the inconveniences and hardships to which the public were exposed under the present law. By the present law, if a man took out a patent for making an article in six different ways, if only one failed the patent was void—if a patent was taken out for any invention, however origi nal the whole might be, if any one portion of it had been acted upon before, the patent was void. His object was to make the publication in the Gazette, two years after the certificate had been taken out, conclusive evidence of the patent—a dis claimer having been previously lodged with the Attorney- General, that it was not copied from any other invention. Another great defect of the present law, which he wished to remedy was the limitation of the exclusive right of the pa tentee to only 14 years, a great portion of which was too frequently spent in making a market for the patent article, or in prosecuting piracies in Courts of Law. He should also introduce a provision to entitle the patentee under certain circumstances to triple costs. After some further observations, the Noble Lord brought in his Bill for amending the law relative to Patents, which was read a first time. The Leeds and Selby Rail-road Bill, and several other Bills, were brought up from the House of Commons, and read a first time. Their Lordships then adjourned. 110 USE OF COMMONS. Jv 21. ' The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'Clock. ISSUE OF WRITS. The Return of the number of Writs issued during the year 1834, from the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, were brought up and laid on the table. REPORTS. The following Reports were brought up and laid on the table :—that, on the Birmingham Canal Navigation Bill, by Sir E. Wilmot ; on the Cart (Renfrew) Navigation, by Mr. Chalmers ; on the Winchester Market Bill, by Mr. S. Le fevro ; and that, on the Hitchen and Bedford Road Bill, by Lord C. Russell. THIRD READINGS. The following bills were read a third time :—The Leeds and Selby Road Bill, on the motion of Sir J. Beckett ; the Exeter Bridge and Ferry Bill, on the motion of Mr. Divett ; the Amesbury Road Bill, on the motion of Mr. Bennett ; Albrecht's Naturalization Bill, and Lowe's Naturalization Bill, on the motion of Mr. Brotherton; the Sandback and Congletou Road Bill, on the motion of Sir P. Egerton ; the Great Torrington Canal Bill, and the Torquay Improvement Bill, on the motion of Sir J. Y. Buller ; and the Dublin Gas Light Bill, on the motion of Mr. Ruthven. EDINBURGH WATER COMPANY BILL. Mr. FERGUSSON presented a petition from Edinburgh against this Bill. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND brought up the Report of the Committee on the Ulleskelfe (York) Inclosure Bill. Mr. POTTER gave notice that he should move that the sum paid to the Commissioner's Clerk be reduced. The Commissioner was paid three guineas a day, and the Clerk also three guineas a day—this was too much, and he should move that the Clerk's pay be reduced to one guinea per day. After some discussion, the Hon. Member consented to defer his motion until the third reading of the Bill. LEEDS AND SELBY RAIL-ROAD. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND moved the third reading of the Leeds and Selby Rail-road Bill. The Bill was rea, a third time and passed. MANCHESTER RAIL-WAY. . _ On the motion of Mr. WILSON PATTEN, the Man chester, Bury, and Bolton Canal and Rail-way Bill was read a third time and passed. CORPORATION REFORM. Colonel SEALE presented a petition from the borough of Dartmouth, praying for Corporate Reform. He bad bad the petition in his possession for the last five or six weeks, but had no opportunity of presenting it. The petition had been got up at the time other Right Hon. Gentlemen were in power. The leading part of the Corporation of Dartmouth consisted of one family of eight individuals, and they had property in their pos• session to the amount of 25,000/. The income of the Corpo ration was 1,1001. per annum, and their outgoings 7001., leav ing a surplus of 400/., and they did not show how it had been expended. Captain PECHELL presented a petition from Brighton in favour of the Sale of Bread Bill, and one from Worthing to the same effect. Mr. POTTER presented a petition from Wigan, signed by the Mayor and others, against the Bill for abolishing - Impri sonment for Debt. Sir WILLIAM FOLKES presented a petition, com plaining of agricultural diAtress, and praying for an alteration in the currency, from the county of Norfolk. TITHES. Mr. CROMPTON presented a petition from a Mr. Harris, one of his tenants, complaining of the conduct of a Mr. Fort, (we understood) the Rector of Dangis, in the neighbourhood of Thirsk. He felt that it was necessary, as he considered the case to be one of much importance, to enter into it at consider able length. The petitioner stated that, in the year 1831, he planted a field of his with cabbages. The tithes for a very considerable part of them were taken away—a small part only were left. He wished to clear the field, and took up the cabbages, which he put into ten equal heaps. He sent notice to Mr. Fort, and offered him either of the heaps, but Mr. Fort did not at that time think it proper to take them away. The petitioner wanted to put scme lambs into the field. He took away his own nine heaps of the cabbages, and again sent notice to Mr. Fort; as no attention was paid to it he let in the lambs, and they very naturally eat up the cabbages.— (Laughter.) Now, as the law stood the petitioner had no remedy but an action at law, which in fact was none at all. There were lawyers in the House, and they could inform them how much more an action would cost, than all the value of the heap of cabbages, which the petition stated con tained ten.—(Laughter.) He (Mr. C.) was not aware of the price of cabbages, but Mr. Fort charged 7s. 6d. for the ten which he was twice asked to remove. That demand being refused, the petitioner was served with a citation. He did not know what the citation meant, and he applied to him (Mr. C.) He advised him at once to compromise the matter —he submitted, and Mr. Fort's costs amounted to 91. 7s. 6d. —the whole expenses amounted to 151. 16s. 6d., incurred for the recovery of 75., which was considered and appeared to be an overcharge. He complained of the whole body of tithe owners, and though he was one himself he did most certainly think it very wrong that they should be in possession of such powers. Mr. A. TREVOR said, that the clergyman against whom the Petition was presented, had placed his case in his hands, and he could not but think that he had been hardly dealt with. The question was, whether that gentleman had ex ceeded the law; as to that he believed he should be borno out when he stated, that they lived in times when it would be easy to make statements against Clergymen of the Esta blished Church, and to have those statements believed. In the present times, let a Clergyman do what he might, there:were always persons to cast odium upon his character. Had Mr. Fort transgressed the law ?—that was the question—which had be done, he had laid claim to that to which he was entitled under the law. What he had done was not so much for his own benefit as those of his successors. From the statement in his possession it appeared that every species of annoyance had been offered by Mr. Harris to Mr. Fort. He had acted towards Mr. Fort who was placed, he might almost say, in the defencless position of a clergyman of the Estab lished Church, in the most unfair manner. Against such a course he must enter his decided protest. He would not trespass longer on the attention of the House, but he would merely beg to ask the Honourable Member for Thirsk, (Mr. Crompton,) and he hoped he would receive an answer, why was it that a case, which took place in 1831, was not brought before the House till 1835 ? Hon. Members might find fault with the tithe system, and desire its abolition ; but in common sense and common justice, they ought not to cast odium upon clergymen who take legal means to obtain their dues. Captain PE C HEL L -condemned the conduct of the clergy men m many instances, and he agreed that the cases were all of a-piece. Mr. RICHARDS regretted the absence of his Majesty's Ministers, which he considered disrespectful to the House. He hoped that a commutation of tithes would take place, based on fair and intelligible grounds, and which would put an end to atrocities, for which the clergy were not responsible, but which arose out of the state of the law. Mr. STRICKLAND was of opinion that the evils com plained of could not be remedied, unless the cruel proceedings of Ecclesiastical Courts were put an end to. Whole families were involved in ruin, by being cited into the Ecclesiastical Court for the most trivial debts. Mr. NICHOL said these charges against the abuses of the Ecclesiastical Courts came with a very bad grace from Hon. Gentlemen on the other (the Ministerial) side of the house. Mr. O'DWYER said the delay in brining forward these measures of Reform was owing to the changes brought about by the Hon. Members opposite. The fact was not deiced that the petitioner was cited for the trifling sum of 7s. 6d., sad was put to the expense of 151. 17s. 4d. The -Hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Trevor) said the Rev. Gentleman had acted only in obedience to the law. True, he would have his " pound of flesh," because it was law. There were two ways left to the Rev. Gentleman, to obtain his dues—one cheap and mild, the other harsh and expensive.—( Hear, hear.) He denied that Members in that House were instigated by factious motives, to asperse the Clergy.—(Hear, hear.) As one of those who never hesitated to express their opinion strongly if necessary on cases of hardship, he begged leave to TILE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1835. disclaim any desire to throw unworthy accusations upon the Clergy of the Establishment.---( Hear. ) Sir J. Y. BULLER vindicated the character of the Rev. Gentleman, whom he knew to be a man not likely to adopt harsh measures, while, on the contrary, Mr. Harris had acted in the most vexatious manner; for he sent for the tithe collector to take one cabbage on one day, and then for an other cabbage on another day, putting the cabbage he had se lected at the upper end of the field to make the collector walk over it, and then threatened him with an action for trespass. He thought this kind of conduct justified the Rev. Gentleman in making an example of this man, for the sake of his own peace.—( Hear.) Mr. BARNARD was willing to make every allowance for a Clergyman under such circumstances, but he could never pass over any vexatious proceedings. Mr. PATTEN, in answer to the observations of the Hon. Member ( Mr. Crompton) said that the defendant had boasted that he did not care about the expense, as he knew he could put the clergyman to a great deal of expense before he could establish his rights. That gentleman was not a person likely to adopt a vexatious course, nor did he believe the great majority of his parishioners would give him the least trouble ; but Mr. Harris, from motives he could not tell, had on all occasions stirred up an ill feeling towards that Rev. Gentleman. The decision might be given to-morrow but for Mr. Harris, who was the only obstacle, and had been so for four years.—(Hear.) Mr. E. BULLER bore testimony to the general kind, and amiable character of the Rev. Gentleman. Mr. CROMPTON made a few observations in reply, and the petition was then laid on the table. CASE OF MR. CHILDS. Mr. WIL S ONpresented a petition from about 200 Dissenters of Watchdale, in Suffolk, praying the House to take into consi tion the case of Mr. Childs of Bungay. As the subject had been so lately discussed, he would not renew the discussion ; he must, however, say, that he could not approve of the con duct of Mr. Childs in refusing this rate, and whilst there was a constitutional mode of obtaining redress of grievances, it was better to obey the laws as they existed, than to express dissatisfaction by a passive resistance to them. The present case, however, was one of great hardship, and therefore jus tified the prayer of the petitioners to the House, to take it into consideration. The petitioners also prayed for the speedy extinction of Church Rates, a prayer in which he could not concur.—Petition laid on the table. VICTUALLERS' LICENCES. Several petitions were presented by Mr. TANCRED, from the licensed victuallers of Banbury and other places, praying for a reduction of the duty on licences. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Mr. PHILIP HOWARD presented a petition from the letter-press printers of Carlisle, against the taxes on know ledge. amenable for it. Before Heaven he (Mr. C.) swore that the only words he used to the Honourable Member ( Mr. Hume) were—" hold your tongue." This he was able to prove by some of his Hon. Friends whom he did not see then in their places. If that were the case, he thought the House would agree with him that the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) was the first aggressor.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Charlton) admitted that he wrote the note in question. But as that was a private dispute, carried on without the walls of the House, he did not know what was the motion before it. That was the first time he had ever taken such a step, but he would rather lose his right hand, than retract one word of what the note contained. Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. RICHARDS here rose. The cries for the former were very general, and he proceeded to say that he appeared there in the character of a witness—the parties were naturally influenced by their excited feelings—he was cool; he would speak as a witness, and he trusted the House would give him credit for being an impartial one. He would speak with all the solemnity of the Hon. Member who had just sat down. He would, though it was not so, speak as if he were on his oath, and before God. The Hon. Gentleman then with great solemnity repeated the transaction as it occurred, which did not, even in a syllable, differ from Mr. Hume's account of it. Mr. ROCHE said he could so far corroborate the last Speaker as to say, that last night, in giving him an account of the matter, he mentioned the word " impertinent."—( Hear. ) Mr. RICHARDS' impression of what had passed was somewhat different from that of the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Bath. The Hon. Member then stated the conversa tion as he heard it, which was exactly the same as that stated by Mr. Roebuck, except, in the opinion of Mr Richards, Mr. Hume was the first who used the words " impertinent fellow." Mr. PLUMPTRE was immediately behind the Member for Ludlow, and heard what passed, and his impression was the same as that of Mr. Richards. The Member for Ludlow did not make use of the term " impertinent fellow," but he said to the Hon. Member for Middlesex, in a sharp and rather overbearing tone, " Hold your tongue, Sir." Lord STORMONT also heard what passed, and believed that the Hon. Member for Middlesex was the first to use the offensive term of " impudent " or " impertinent fellow." Mr. HUME explained that he wrote a letter last night to the Hon. Member, telling him he should bring the matter before the House. Mr. R. TREVOR did not hear the Hon. Member for Ludlow make use of the words " impudent fellow" to the Hon. Member for Middlesex. Lord MAHON corroborated the statement of the last speaker. Mr. STRUTT heard the Hon. Member for Bath give the same account of the affair last night, as he had now given. Mr. WAKL EY, without making any remark upon the character or tendency of the conversation, thought himself bound, in justice to all parties, to state that when the Hon. Member for Ludlow said, "If you will not hold your tongue, I will make you," the Hon. Member for Middle sex replied, " You are either .an impudent or an impertinent fellow."—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Mr. MILES thought he had heard the word " impertinent" bandied between both the Hon. Members.—( Laughter. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was no question before the House it was called on to discuss. As long as he had been in the House, the mere reading of evidence from one side of the House and the other, on words spoken dur ing the period of noise and excitement, and of considerable irri tation between the two parties, however it might rest between them, was not a question the House had to deal with. If there was a question raised as to a breach of privilege, that was a question they would take into consideration; but in the case be fore it, he was at a loss to know what good purpose could be an swered by a desultory discussion. He would not state a word upon the conversation of last night further than this, that whilst he must deplore that a conversation bad occurred be tween any Members, that affected the feelings of other parties, it was not in respect of conversations occurring in this House, that it became the duty of the House to inter fere, so long as the conversation was private. With respect to any act done that interferes with the freedom of debate or the privileges of the House, let that question be brought forward and the House would entertain it. With the best feelings to all parties, he could not but say, no person could doubt that misconception had arisen. It was, however, a satisfaction to observe that Hon. Members who concurred and differed in politics had come forward to state, without reference to politics, what they believed the facts to be. —( Hear.) But all the Hon. Members who had spoken ap peared to have a great difference of recollection as to the words which were actually spoken ; and it appeared also that the Hon. Member for Middlesex and the Hon. Member for Ludlow had a very different impression on their minds as to what had occurred. Under these circumstances there could be no doubt that language had passed between those Hon. Members which was to be regretted ; but he doubted whether the House could interfere in any vague recollections of what had passed. If, indeed, there had been any appearance of an intention of either of the parties to proceed to a breach of the law or of the peace, then, indeed, the House might be called upon to interpose its authority. But as there did not appear to be the slightest apprehension of such an occurrence, he could only regret that the House had been put, unnecessarily, to the trouble of listening to the matter as far as it had gone. Mr. O'BRIEN differed from the view taken by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. He thought that if an Hon. Member said to another in the House " Hold your tongue," the House had a right to interfere, and express its opinion on the subject. Mr. O'C 0 NNE LL said the House had heard a variety of conflicting statements, all exhibiting more or less discrepancy of detail. In his opinion, however, the man who distinctly said that he heard such and such words used, was a much more competent witness upon the subject than those who merely said that they did not hear them, and, moreover, that they did not hear very distinctly what had been said on either side. It was quite clear that under such circumstances as these, a man could not be very certain as to the words alleged not to have been said.—( Hear, hear.) Now the Hon. Mem ber for Bath had positively declared that he had heard dis tinctly the obnoxious words, " You are an impertinent fellow," used by the Hon. Member for Ludlow. The Hon. Member for Finsbury heard the expression " We want no Republi cans" from the same Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Somerset said that he thought he recollected hearing the words " Impertinent fellow " bandying about between the Hon. Members for Middlesex and Ludlow. But let it be recollected that the Hon. Member for Bath was nearer the Hon. Member for Middlesex than the Hon. Member for Somerset was. What was of most importance, however, was that the Hon. Member for Ludlow had denied having used the term " impertinent fellow," to the Hon. Member for Mid dlesex. Now this he (Mr. O'Connell) believed, according to the strict code of honour, to amount to the strongest retracts tion of offensive words which it was possible to make. As such it was the utmost apology which a gentleman and a man •f honour had a right to expect. When a man denied having used words (which, however, he might recollect to have used, though at a time when he was not master of himself), those words, according to his (Mr. O'Connell's) knowledge of the rulos of honour in such cases, were bound to stand for nothing, as if absolutely they had not been used at all. After this re tractation on the part of the Hen. Member for Ludlow, there fore, of the offensive words, " You are an impertinent fellow," he thought the Hon. Member for Middlesex was bound to accept it as a sufficient apology, and in consideration of it, to withdraw for his own part the obnoxious words which he had applied to the Hon. Member for Ludlow. .He thought the words " Hold your tongue" might very well be passed over. —(Oh, oh.) Now, if upon this suggestion, the Hon. Mem ber for Middlesex would withdraw the words he had used, then, he thought, the Hon. Member for Ludlow should recal his letter, and so the affair would terminate amicably. He really thought the House, after the discussion had proceeded so far, could not allow the matter to rest in its present un settled state ; and if the parties could not be brought to ter minate their differences in some amicable manner, he (Mr. O'Connell) should feel called upon to move that both the Hon. Gentlemen should be taken into custody by the Sergeant at Arms.—( Hear.) Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he had been requested by the Hon. Member for Middlesex to attend this evening to state what he recollected hearing of this conversation which took place iu his ( Sir R. Peel's) neixhbourhood in the House last night. He recollected perfectly that the Hon. Member for Middlesex rose for the purpose apparently of making some explanation ; and he ( Sir Robert Peel) saw very plainly that the Hon. Member rose labouring under feelings of great irri tation. Seeing this, he ( Sir R. Peel) interfered, and said to both parties, " Don't go on, don't go on." He said this not for the purpose of preventing explanation between the parties, but because he apprehended that under the circumstances the explanation which might take place would not be of a very satisfactory kind. He was apprehensive, he confessed, that some word or expression might escape from either of the Hon. Members which in their cooler moments they might regret, and therefore it was that he was anxious to prevent their carrying the conversation further. With regard to what had ac tually passed, as far as he (Sir R. Peel) had heard it, he cer tainly did not hear the word " Republican" applied to the H on . Member for Middlesex by the Hon. Member for Ludlow. —(Hear.) As to the words " Impertinent fellow," he did hear them used by the Hon. Member for Middlesex, but not, as he believed, addressed to the Hon. Member for Ludlow, rather in speaking of him ; that is, the Hon. Member for for b hear.) Middlesex,This offensive remark es- Nulitddlesex said to the Hon. Member for Bath, " He's an im pertinentcaped the Hon.u nder the impression that something still more exciting had been said to Memberea r ttributed to the Hon. Member for Ludlow ; but as himself by the Hon. Member for Ludlow. The same expres sion was a that Hon. Member had to all intents and purposes denied fellow.''—( having used it, it was as if it had never been uttered. Under the circumstances, he really thought that in order to obliterate all unpleasant feelings on the subject remaining on the minds of the parties, the course proposed by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was a reasonable and just one.—( Hear.) He could not conceive that any good could result from adopting any Co other course.—( Hear.) lonel E V AN S said that he quite concurred in the recom mendation of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He certainly could not concur, however, in the opinion expressed by the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exche quer), that on mere technical grounds the House should get rid of the discussion of such a question.--( Hear.) As the case stood the disavowal on the part on the Hon. Member for Ludlow of the words " You are an impertinent fellow," had certainly done away with all offence that could possibly arise out of them. But there were the words previously used by the Hon. Member for Ludlow, of " Hold your tongue," with respect to which he felt sure that, if the Hon. Member for Ludlow w ould declare that he meant nothing offensive by them, the H on. Member for Mid dlesex would be prepared , in retu rn, to offer every satisfactory explanation of his part in the ' co nversation. Mr. CHARLTON said that he concurred in what had THE CHURCH. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented five petitions from Pres byterian bodies in the North of Ireland, complaining of the large sums paid for the support of the Clergymen of the Es tablished Church in parishes where there were few or no mem bers of that Church. The petitioners also prayed for the ex tinction of tithes, and an increase of the Regium Donum. The Hon. Member thought this was a sufficient answer to the charges brought by the Right Hon. Member for the University of Dublin against those members who advocated the extinction of tithes in Ireland. Mr. F. SHAW had never cast any imputations upon the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland, either in that House or elsewhere. Mr. DOBBIN supported the prayer of the petition, which came from a most respectable body of men. After some observations from Mr. Jackson, Sir R. Bate son, and Mr. Sharman Crawford in reply, the petition was brought up. Mr. FERGUS presented petitions from Kircudbright, Fife, and several other places, for and against the grant for the endowment of the Scotch Church. Lord ST ANL E Y presented several petitions in favour of the Scotch Church, from Glasgow and several other places. STAMP RECEIPTS. Mr. EW ART pursuant to notice, presented a petition from Liverpool, for the repeal of the Stamp Duties on receipts. Lord SAN DON supported the prayer of the petition. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented three petitions from Edinburgh on the same subject. THE CHURCH. Mr. RICHARDS presented a petition from Knares - borough, praying for protection to the Established Church of Ireland, and that no measure may be passed to alienate Church property. Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the County of Down, with a similar prayer. Mr. HARDY gave notice that he would move the omis sion of the 52d clause of the Registration Bill, which re stricts Barristers from acting in the Revising Barristers' Court. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. HUME rose to call the attention of the House to a series of circumstances that took place last night, because he felt it his duty to support the orders and regularity of the proceedings of the House. Although it was probitisle that during the number of years he had sat in that House, he might on some occasions have been betrayed into a warmth of expression, he never when satisfied he was wrong, considered it beneath him to avow it.—( Hear, hear.) On every occasion he had bowed to the authority of the Chair and the House, becauma he knew that one is not always the best judge of his own conduct, which those around looked on in a cooler temper. It would be recollected that late last night, or rather early this morning, at the close of the debate, the Honourable Member for Ludlow persevered in addressing the House, contrary to what appeared to be the wish of the House.—( Hear, hear.) In al lusion to what had fallen from the Noble Lord, the Member for Lincolnshire, that Hon. Member said the Ballot had entirely failed in the United States. At that moment, he ( Mr. Hume) remarked to his Honourable Friend, the Member for Bath, who sat near him, with the recollection of what had fallen from the Noble Lord—" Such a thing is not true,"—in a tone scarcely more than a whisper. The Hon. Member for Ludlow, who was behind him, stopped, and addressed himself to him (Mr. H.) saying— " Hold your tongue, Sir 1"—( Laughter.) He, told him he was not speaking to him, upon which he replied again—" Won't you hold your tongue Sir ? If you don't I'll make you I" (Laughter, and cries of " Hear.") He continued—" You are an impertinent fellow, and we don't want Republicanism here."—( Laughter.) He ( Mr. Hume) replied, " You are an impertinent fellow," but he refrained from using his hands, out of respect to the House. Nothing more passed then, and he (Mr. Hume) having some motions for Returns to make, re mained in the House until he was called out by another Hon. Member, who put a note into his hands, which was from the Hon. Member for Ludlow, and was as follows :—" House of Commons, Tuesday Evening--I heard you make use of the words impertinent fellow' while I was speaking. Believing that you meant them to apply to me, I am desirous to know imme diately, whether you did so or not." He told the Honour able Gentleman who conveyed the note, that he did make use of the words but in answer to the gross attack which the Hon. Member had made upon him, and that he considered that it was the duty of that Hon. Member to make an apology to him.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") He returned to the House, and remained three quarters of an hour until the House adjourned, and on his way out he was again met by the Honourable Gentleman who conveyed the note, and who told hiss that the Honourable Member for Ludlow was not at all satisfied, and that he had better appoint a friend to negotiate upon the matter-4 Loud laughter.) He told the Hon. Gentleman that he had no other answer to give, and that be had most reason to be dissatisfied.—( Cries of Hear, hear.") He thought no more of the matter, because be considered that the warmth into which the Honourable Member had been betrayed might, in the course of the night, be sobered down, and that he would think differently. However, he (Mr. Hume) received this morning the following note, which had been published in the papers of the evening : " Sir,—l have just been informed by my friend, G. W. Forrester, that you refused to give any answer to my letter, cc to enter into any explanation, or name a friend to whom he might refer. Under these circumstances, I regret that lam reduced to the necessity of publicly declaring that you have shown yourself wholly unworthy of the title of a gentleman. " L. CHARLTON." Thinking that he might have possibly made some mistake, and said something wrong, he wrote a letter to his friend, the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, who had heard all that passed between them, determined, if he were satis fied that he had committed a mistake, that he should not hesitate in making reparation.—( Loud cheers.) He re ceived from his friend an answer fully corroborating the view he (Mr. Hume) had taken of the subject.--( Hear.) The Hon. Member referred to the notes that had been taken by an Hon. Member (we believe Mr. Roebuck) of what had taken place, from which it appeared, that in consequence of some observations of Mr. Charlton in his speech with respect to the Ballot, Mr. Hume made some observations to an Hon. Member near him, which caused Mr. Charlton to say, " Hold your tongue, Sir, if you want to say • anything you may reply to me." To this Mr. Hume said he would not hold his tongue, as he was not amenable to him ; to which Mr. Charlton replied, " I will make you --you are an impertinent fellow, and we want no Republicans here." As this House might not be aware of all the future circum stances he would detail,—then Mr. Roebuck rose to call the Hon. Member to order, at the same time as he (Mr. Hume) did. Mr. Roebuck gave way. The Speaker was then calling order. The Right Honourable Ba ronet below ( Sir R. Peel) said he thought such interruptions improper, and he (Mr. Hume) believing th a t th ose obser vations were applied to him, he sat down.--( Loud cheers.) Such being the facts, he put it to the House in what situation an Hon. Member would be placed, who was liable for such an interruption, to be told by an Hon. Member, either in a passion, or for the purpose of notoriety, that he was to be called out, and liable either to have a ball sent through his own body, or to send it through the other's ?—( Hear, hear.) He considered he had a just ground of complaint against the Hon. Member who published the correspondence that ensued, and he thought it better, and it was the course be always pur sued, to settle disputes in the House that originated in the House. He said he had no intention of offending the Hon. Member. Mr. CHARLTON did not feel himself prepared to bring his case before the House in the same way as the Hon. Member. It was sufficient for him to say upon the honour of a gentle man, and in the strongest language the rules of the House permitted, that what the Honourable Member had stated was not true. On the honour of a gentleman, he repeated he never used the expression " impertinent. " The Ho nourable Member (Mr. Hume) did not deny that he employed the expression " impertinent." The least that can be expected from Gentlemen in that House was that courtesy should be extended to them, and no interruption should at all events be given by those who would not be fallen from the Hon. and Gallant Member for Westminster, Bill, and entered into some details to show that the polls at and he had no hesitation in declaring most solemnly that he elections need not be kept open longer than one day. meant nothing offensive to the Hon. Member for Middlesex in Mr. EWART seconded the motion, and said that the Town saying " Hold your tongue."—(Hear.) This he declared Clerk of the borough he represented told him 11,000 voters most solemnly, as a gentleman and a man of honour. Now, might be polled in one day. with respect to the word "republican," or "republicanism," The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not oppose the with regard to which much diversity of opinion appeared to be principle of the Bill. He thought the poll might be taken entertained by Hon. Members who heard him, and which the in one day—but he hoped that the Hon. Member would post- Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth said that he pone the measure, as it would be better to engraft it on one of had not heard used, perhaps he (Mr. Charlton) could explain the general measures about to be proposed respecting regis how the mistake and this diversity of opinion had arisen.— tration by the Honourable Member for Middlesex and by his (Hear, hear.) The fact was, the words, "We want no Re- Noble Frend the Secretary for the Home Department. He publicans here •" or, "We don't want any Republicanism here," doubted the policy of introducing the present meas ure as a formed part of speech to the House, and were not at all single one. A single clause introduced into the Bills re addressed to the Hon. Member for Middlesex.—( Hear.) That ferred to would effect the object the Hon. Member had in was the - reason, perhaps, why the words were recollected by view, and it was of great importance that they should have one some of the Hon. Members who heard the conversation, and general act to which they might all refer. not by others.—( Hear.) Mr. W. DUNCOMBE also thought that the Bill might Sir E. CODRINGTON said that the matter was one be embodied in one of those before, or about to be before, the which might have been very easily settled if they had begun House, especially in that Bill for the better registration of he with the beginning and not at the end, in discussing it. The ters. He had great doubts as to the policy of limiting th fact was the Hon. Member for Ludlow complained of an of- poll to one day only, particularly in counties. It was ex tensive expression on the part of the Hon. Member for Mid- tremely questionable whether all the electors could be brought dlesex ; and the Hon. Member for Middlesex, it appeared, up to the poll in one day in wide and populous districts, like had made use of that offensive expression when labouring the one he had the honour to represent. Under these cir under the impression that the Hon. Member for Ludlow had cumstances it would be advantageous, in large districts, to said something offensive to him. It was in consequence of allow the poll to remain open for the same period as at that supposed offensive expression, on the part of the Hon. present. Member for Ludlow, that the Hon. Member for Middlesex Mr. BAINES said that in the West Riding of Yorkshire said what he had said. If the Hon. Member for Ludlow had there were 17,000 voters. On a late occasion the total num not said what was supposed of him, the Hon. Member for her polled was 16,000, of whom 13,000 were polled in one Middlesex would not have said what he did say. Under these day. It would be a great benefit to the country to have the circumstances, the Hon. Member for Ludlow having denied elections take place in one day, for, generally speaking, or or withdrawn all intention of offence, the whole affair in his ruption took place on the night between the two days Of (Sir E. Codrington's) opinion fell, most satisfactorily, to tho polling. ground.—(Loud calls for Mr. Hume.) Mr. AGLIONBY concurred in the observations of the Mr. HUME rose, and said that he certainly should not Learned Attorney-General, and thought that if more genera l have used the words which he had done if he had not, at the measures on the subject were not proceeded with, the present time, distinctly understood the Hon. Member for Ludlow to one might be carried into effect. If polling were to be li have made use of offensive terms to himself (Mr. Hume). mited to one day there should be a new and more speed , ' As the Hon. Member for Ludlow had denied having made mode adopted than the present one of taking the poll. use of the expressions he (Mr. Hume) had fancied him to Dr. BO WRING said that he approved of the principle of have uttered, he (Mr. Hume) had no hesitation in saying that the Bill. It would be a great improvement of the law; and , the words he had used he had spoken in error, and under a wishing to see its provisions extended to Scotland, he should , wrong impression, and therefere he wished that he had not when it got into Committee, move the omission of the clause used them.—( Hear, hear.) restricting its operation to England. Mr. O'CONNELL—Then, of course, the Hon. Member The LORD ADVOCATE was quite ready to say that for Ludlow can have no objection to withdraw his letter. the extension of this measure to Scotland would be highlY. a d " (Loud cries for Mr. Charlton, who was observed to be talk- vantageous to that country, but he should like some provisioe ing earnestly with an Hon. Member near him, which caused to be made in it to prevent the taking of unnecessary oaths• a slight pause to ensue. Mr. O'Connell then continued)—lf He should also wish it to contain a provision by which those the Hon. Member for Ludlow had any hesitation in withdraw- voters who might be in attendance at the booths at four ing his letter, he (Mr. O'Connell) should certainly persist in o'clock, should be allowed an opportunity of voting, otherwise the course he had intimated, and move that he be taken into great injustice might be done by this excellent measure. the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Colonel SIBTHORP disapproved of the principle of the Mr. CHARLTON said he rose under very peculiar cir- measure, and thought that a matter so important should not cumstances. He was willing to bow to the opinion of the brought forward in so thin a House. He thought the tw° House, and accept the explanation of the Hon. Member for days for polling quite necessary. the Middlesex, in full satisfaction of the offence which had been Lord MORETH expressed himself favourable to given.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Middlesex Bill, and thought it would be a decided advantage to take said that he had used the words complained of when labouring the poll in a single day. o d under a wrong impression, and that he wished he had not use Mr. WARBURTON also supported the Bill, and said them. He (Mr. Charlton) could only say that he wished the that, as the y did not know how soon the y should be sent t Hon. Member for Middlesex had said as much last night when their constituents, it was important that some such mess applied to on the subject. If he s had said so, he (Mr. Charl- should p ass without dela y . ton) would not have written the letter which he had done.— The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he had no de ( Hear, hear.) As, however, the Hon. Member for Middle- sire to prevent the passing of the Bill during the present ger sex had deferred this explanation till now, the utmost he (Mr. sion, and the only ground upon which he could propose iis ° Charlton) could say was that he felt sorry his letter had ever Postponement, was that the object which it was intended been written.—( Cheers.) effect might be accomplished by the introduction of a c lause into another Bill that was already before the House. , , e The SPEAKER said that the affair having now come to Mr. BLACKSTONE entirely agreed that it was desira ble a satisfactory termination, he felt bound to say, for his own to have the poll taken in a single day, for a second day only part, that any decision the House might have arrived at on the tended to encourage briber subject would have been incomplete if it had not been brought Mr. CA YL E Y coneurre y d . that the second day afforded .8 to the termination they had just witnessed. He could not , aecided advantage to the candidate who had the longest purl" concur, therefore, in the suggestion of the Right Hon. Gentle and, therefore, he should give this Bill his support. man the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the matter should Mr. PEASE thought that voters should be allowed to vote be dropped in an undecided form.—( Hear.) where they resided and not where their property was situa COLONIES. He agreed that this Bill would be a great improvement. „ Mr. F. BUXTON asked a question of the Hon. Secretary Mr. O'BRIEN wished to have the provisions of the 0 for the Colonies, which, however, was quite inaudible, owing extended to Ireland. to the rush of Members from the House. Mr. O'CONNELL supported the motion. Sir G. GREY replied, but was equally inaudible from the Mr. HARDY also supported the motion.. His object w a a g a same cause. _ ___ _ that the poll should proceed. The objections could be m a - BUDGET. at the time when the vote was given, and beard afterward°' when the only question which could be raised would be as t° the identity of the person to whom the objection was filaol the The second reading was agreed to, the other orders day disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'Clock• Colonel SIBTHORP inquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he would be prepared to bring on his finan cial statement? The Hon. and Gallant Member also gave notice of his intention to move certain reductions in the sala ries of public officers receiving above 8001. per annum. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was unable to fix the precise time when he should bring for ward the Estimates of Ways and Means for the ensuing year, and therefore ho would not lead the Hon. and Gallant Mem ber into error upon the subject. SABBATH OBSERVANCE BILL. On the motion of Sir ANDREW AGNEW, that the Sab bath Observance Bill be taken into further consideration in Committee, Mr. WARD said that if this Bill were persevered in, he would move that the further consideration be deferred to that day six months. The Bill was already pronounced to be so objectionable in its principle and provisions, that he would resist its further progress. Why, if it interfered in one case, not interfere in all? Why not prevent travelling on the old railroads as well as on the new ? Wh) not close all shops in discriminately ? Why not punish the rich as well as the poor ? The Hon. Member, after dwelling on the unchristian and im politic character of the Bill, restricting the enjoyments of the poor, and tolerating those of the rich, put his motion. Mr. C URTE IS seconded the motion. Bills of this kind were calculated to bring religion into disrepute, and were even scoffed at all over the country. It was as absurd and unfit for a Presbyterian to dictate to the Protestants, respecting the ob servance of the Sabbath, as it would be for Mr. O'Connell to attempt to introduce'here the Catholic ceremonies of the Con tinent. Mr. POULTER said his object was to make the Bill as unobjectionable as possible. Sir S. WHALLEY opposed the Bill. Sir R. BATE SON supported it, and said it had the con currence of a great portion of his constituents. Colonel SIBTHORP was strongly opposed to the Bill, as being a great hardship on the poor. Mr. GOULB LT RN was of opinion that the Bill should be suffered to go into Committee, to be there amended if pos- , sible. That was the understanding when the Bill was last under discussion. Mr. TREVOR thought the Bill should be further con sidered in Committee, as in its present form it was highly ob jectionable. Mr. Bulwer, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Warburton, and some other Members whose names we could not learn, recapitu lated the objections so often urged against the Bill. Lord Morpeth and Mr. Baines wished the Bill to be recon sidered in Committee, with a view to make several improve ments in it. Sir A. AGNEW replied, amid loud cries of " Question." Mr. WAK LE Y opposed the Bill, contending that, instead of protecting the poor, it was calculated further to oppress them. The House then divided , when the r e a pp eared—. Noes . 54 Ayes Majority against the Bill ROMAN CATHOLICS MARRIAGE BILL. \ Mr. LYNCH moved the second reading of the Roman Catholics Marriage Bill. Colonel PERCE VAL thought himself bound to oppose the second reading of this Bill to the utmost of his power, considering that the law is Ireland should continue as it now exists. He maintained that repealing the Act in question, the purport of the Bill before the House, would give the Ca tholic clergymen an undue advantage over the Protestant, and would have the effect of encouraging abduction and fa cilitating improper marriages. He concluded by moving as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day LIST OF THE MINORITY Of 45 ( Tellers included), wh• voted in favour of the ra-eontraitille° of Mr. Poulter's Lord's Day Bill. Freshfield, J. W. Sibthorp, Colonel Gus lug, H. D. Strickland, Sir G. Hardy, J. Steuart, R. Ingham, R. johnstone, A. Johnstone, J. J. H. Keatsley, J. H. Wilmot, Sir Eardief Martin, J. Young, G. F. Maxwell, J. Trevor,vweieaym, Williams, A' A. i. A .. Young, J. Morpeth, Viscount ThLIARIA. North, F. Poulter, J. S. Perceval, Colon 1 Pryme, G. Phillips, C. M. PAIRED OFF. Plumptre, J. P. FOR. Price, Samuel Grove Bateson, Sir R. Pringle, A. •o•txn: Richards, John Nagle, Sir R. Agnew, Sir A. Alsager, Richard Laines, E. Balfour, T. Paring, F. Bei hell, R. Bowes, T. Brocklehurst, J. Brodie, W. B. Chapman, A. Clerk, Sir G., Bart. Collier, J. Crewe, Sir G. L illwyn, L. W. Finch, G. Forbes, W. Forster, C. MR. GOULD'S DICTIONARY OF PAINTERS.- - This work has long been a desideratum. The various gal leries and auctions of paintings continually brought under the public eye, the increasing numbers of collectors of paintings, Ind the spread of a more pure taste in all that concerns the appreciation of the higher departments of art, renders it a very advantageous addition to our modern list of publications. Any person visiting galleries for the purpose of purchasing, or of criticism, will find, by taking this work in his pocket, an easy means of reference to the distinctive merits of the various artists, as well as to the nicer shades of distinction which cha racterise the various schools, either in colouring, design, or execution. The biographies of the various artists appear to be very carefully and skilfully digested. Many of them are. interesting in point of mere amusement. They are p receded by a clever introductory treatise on the founders and charac teristics of the various schools of painting, with a condensed disquisition on the progress of engraving, sculpture, and archi tecture. HORRIBLE ACCIDENT ON THE TRAM-ROAD.--- On Tuesday evening last the Dowlais locomotive steam tranA going down to the Basin, met the Penydarran trams ne ar Pont-pwll-yspig, by the Quaker's-yard. The driver of the locomotive slackened his steam ; and the driver of the Pell2- darran trams drew back to a parting and unhitched his I ° ll , —. One of these horses got his shaft entangled in his 0 10 t , r , a- ill g ; and dragged it over the plate. Two women riding, a nd Penydarran tram, alarmed at this, imprudently jumpe d fell under the Dowlais steam trams. One of them, tr ot her a wife of Daniel Hopkins, a collier, was killed on the spot : the le g had a child three months old on her lap—the child fell b et- l e g the plates and escaped—the poor mother has had her via , amputated near the hip. The case of the woman viho elea killed is most pitiable ; and presents an almost unp arall instance of successive visitations. Her first husband, a 11313° 0 f known at Merthyr as Edmund the Archer, a parishioner( . Llantrissent, was killed by a fall under ground, at Cyfir ti Te her son, about seven years old, was accidentally shot band," last riots, near the Castle Inn, Merthyr; her present hu Daniel Hopkins, was dreadfully burnt at Merthyr, ab ett „ t •t, fortnight ago, by an explosion of powder, while sinking a 1 0 and is now in a deplorable state. She was herself veil 0 advanced in pregnancy. The poor woman whose leg s f amputated is since dead.—Merthyr Guardian. BIRTHS. On the 30th ult., at Wakehurst-place, Sussex, the lady of • 1•1111 Fairlie, Esq., of a son. T On the 31st ult., at Egglescliffe, Durham, the lady of • Waldy, oi a son and heir. On the sq lit inst., Mrs. W. K. Jameson, Denmark-hill, of daughter. On the 27th ult., at Bridgend, Greenock, the lady of Campbell, Esq., of Tobago, of a daughter. so' l ' On the lst inst., Mrs. Samuel Lowell, of Pudding-lane,? i • .f S On the Ist inst., Mrs. Edward Thompson, of Salters' t'" - daughter, still-born. six months. Mr. O'CONNELL supported the second reading of the Bill on the ground that the Act relating to Roman Catholic marriages in Ireland, as it at present stood, gave no protection to any party, while it did a positive injury to the innocent issue of a marriage celebrated by a Roman Catholic clergy man between two persons, one or both of whom were not of his own creed, by rendering them illegitimate. Mr. SHAW supported the amendment, on the ground that the Act now in existence, which the Bill of the Hon. and Learned Member for Galway went to abolish, was the only protection against improper marriages in Ireland. Dr. LUSHINGTON expatiated on the evils arising out of the present state of the law, and supported the Bill, maintaining that it did not go far enough, but that as far as it did go, it would produce very beneficial effects. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON opposed the Bill. Lord MO RPETH assented to the Bill. The present state of the marriage law in Ireland required alteration. Col. SIBTHORP complained that Ministers were ab sent from the House when such a subject was under discussion. MARRIED. e A• On the 2d inst., at St. Mary's, Whitechapel, Mr. Ge °r g t r of Wallis, of Old Broad-street, London, to Mary, third doug h e Mr. J. T. Ilsley, of Whitechapel High-street. , of On the 2d inst., at St. Pancras, William Metcalfe, D 5(1 ..a, riolf."' Fitzroy-square, to Mary, second daughter of William D. - O Esq. ppe , of Ur Gower-street. n the 2d inst., at St. Mary's, Stoke Newington, Thos. L o a 1 1: Alaltby, Esq., to Emma, second daughter of Philetus Richar Esq., of Chisvvall-street. f rod On the 2d inst. at Kensington, Thomas Parsons, Esq-, ° cester, to Ann, widow of L. T. Ventouillac, Esq., late Pro'e s rtbe French Literature at King's C o llege, an d elde s t daughter o late C. Looe, Esq., of Old Bond-street, London. g ibe James the 2d inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square the f t 136 James Daubeney, Rector of Publow, Somersetshire, and son °, to Rev. Andrew Daubeny, of Blackwell-house, in the same courna.. Eleanor, only (laughter of Lieut.-General Brown Clayton, lington Hall, Lancashire, and grand-daughter of the late Sir x' Clayton, Bart. Mr. SHE IL said that under former Administrations Minis ters were often absent upon questions of equal importance. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Wednesday. INNS AND ALE-HOUSES AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. HAWE S moved the second reading of the Inns and Ale-houses Amendment Bill. DIED. On the 23th ult., in Marlborough-street, Bath, Sarah E lls relict of Lieutenant-Colonel Noble, 67th Regiment. , n oel , On the Ist inst., in his 22(1 year, Mr. Robert Charles be rt a Pupil of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and second son of 1 1° Sky O nner, Esq., of Mortimr-street. On the 30 th ult., at Tot e tenham, Ann, eldest daughter of theist. John Chaplin, Esq., in her 46th year. Egg° On the 26th ult., at Turnham-green, Charles Broughton , formerly of the Audit-office, aged 76. naafi On the 31st ult., James Al e x an d e r Myer s , Esq., First Secon d in the King's Remembrancer's office, in his 81st year. bon' At Bath, the wife of •J. H. Hele Phipps, Esq., of Le i g h house, near Westbury, Wilts. in hi. On the 30th ult., in Euston-square, Mr. John AvelinV 21st year, son of Mr. George Aveling, of Great Marlow, d- On the 28th ult., Mr. James Scott, of Albion-wharf, 11° street, Blackfriars, in aged on relict On the 2d inst., Ldon-street, Fitzroy-square, Sar„t.', 3 oY' s of the late Captain William Story, of the East India Service. ace John • On the 27th ult., in Burlington-street, Brighton, ""• Finnie, aged 74. On the 25th Nov., at Bancoote, Captain Benjamin i'` l " gs 17th Regiment Bombay Native Infantry. On the let inst. ' at Brompton-row, in his 25th year , only son of Mr. M'Alpine, late of Threadneedle-street. King-strut' On the 2(1 inst., Mr. Samuel Daniel, aged 60, of I ‘ ina ° -1 Westminster. Sir A. AGNEW opposed the Bill, and moved that it be read that day six months. After a few words from Mr. Hawes, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Strickland, Mr. POTTER said that the Hon. Baronet (Sir A. Agnew) was mistaken if he thought he had the sense of the country with him in his views as to the best means of keeping the Sabbath. After a few words from Mr. A. Chapman, Mr. A. Johnson, and Mr. Plumptre, Sir A. AGNEW withdrew his amendment, and the Bill was read a second time. sammamm.m... .••••••••••••••, g London: Printed and Published by INIURDO YOUNG, 112, Strand, at The S uit Offi ce , N o . 112, Strand, in the 0"" of Middlesex. HULL MERCHANT-SEAMENS' BILL. Mr. HUTT moved the second reading of the Hull Mer chant- Seamans' Bill. Mr. BETHEL said a few words in opposition to the Bill, and moved as an amendment, " That it be read a second time that day six months." Mr. A. CHAPMAN supported the amendment. Mr. G. F. YOUNG supported the Bill. Mr. PRYME said a few words in support of the Bill. Mr. BETHEL said he would not divide the House on the question. After a few words from Mr. G. F. Young and Mr. Hutt, the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Tuesday next. _ _ - LIMITATION OF POLLS BILL. Mr. ELPHINSTONE moved the second reading of this ~. • L° The ANT Tater; 13j1 tircisely at The Right Anderson, Ashurst, W, Hedford, J. Hlacket, Jot bousfield, Ji Burchfield, B urn, Henr Clark, John . Cook, Crawford, \ buncombe, French, Dal French, J. Gall owa y, A ,Gregg, Willi Grote, Geor Harmer, Jar Harms, G. ] Harney, D. Haw, B. I Reppel, G. Bill, M. D. Holmes, J. ] J Ohnson, Rii Jones, Samu Kingseoto, Knight, Cha Lainson, Jot Lains on , He Lupton, Joh 1 r Star-tour N.8.-Ax take place at eoranaence at lIS fl RA CLOTHIN( CARRIERS Three Years nation at the Security vi luvi the Tend /east be deli •'clock, on \I received. THE IN That as, in it ie indispens be cleared wi Posited therei Ilosold, and ehants wh el house three 4 ouse rent an of December next, shall hi tust be remc on or before toMpleted. ROY. iiHE ] Admii& SURRI HER M( ~HER RIER ROYA THE FI Entire vvinbTii; CESDAY, ti °ther Prizes t he best speci o heart's- Plants ileart's- ease, The Garde e ach Day, by The full bai Florists an Lists ahe L EST IR most Which never ; w holesale ani P RANKS ar Qty. ING' cUT of the beet Iv Silver. Silver. THOMAS ( AI FUR tear Oxford-! ketured STC find 100 table is offering bloat eeonomi ON;. DILLY . Pro IN CO RROI e UT WIRE h O and °ate t heir professi• tt oPobs, resp i e neral, that With their eel 4 : 11 Y reeomm t perati on o f ] ~,n e slightest p RTH in tj ` TOLE or w ire wire or °the 4r tieulating The Facul t esttlt of the I 3 2; GREA