The Sun. — London, England, 1835-07-29 00:00:00

which had been expressed on this subject by the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade. He should therefore oppose the introductiou of the proposed 8111. He admitted the great extent of distress which prevailed among the hand loom weavers, and their right to relief; but he would give them relief, not in th e mo d e propose d , b ut b y a reduction of taxation, by lowering the price of corn, and by the imliosi tion of a property tax.—( Hear, hear.) In looking over the evidence taken before the Committee, it appeared that one grand remedy was suggested for the relief of the weavers, and that was an alteration of the currency ; and believing the proposed Bill to be only a step towards such an altera tion, he should give the motion for its introduction his op position. If the proposed Bill were to pass, and a mini mum rate of wages to be established, capital would be driven from the trade, and the existing misery would be immeasu rably increased. In fact, it would be perfectly useless for the Legislature to establish a minimum of wages, unless it was also prepared to pass an Act of Parliament to compel the master to continue to employ his workmen.—(Hear.) He repeated that he should vote against the present propo sition, conceiving it to be fraught with mischief to the com munity. Mr. ROBINSON said he should give his support to the proposed Bill, because all other modes of giving relief to the distressed labourers of the country had been refused by Par liament. He was ready to admit that nothing could be more absurd than to attempt to establish a minimum rate of wages; but it should be recollected that at least an equal absurdity was committed by the Legislature, when it established, by means of the corn laws a minimum price of bread. Unless the Government were prepared to say that they would relieve the poorer classes of the country by a repeal of the corn-laws, or a commutation of taxes, he should support the motion for the in troduction of the Bill. Mr. BAINES said that if the House established a minimum rate of wages for the hand-loom weavers, i t would be bound to follow that measure up by establishing a minimum rate for the agricultural labourers. He believed that the proposed Bill would have a pernicious effect on all classes of manufac turers. There was one mode of relief which the hand-loom weavers had in their own power—they ought not to depreciate the price of their labour by bringing up their children to the same trade. Mr. FIELDEN supported the motion. Mr. M. PHILIPS opposed it, on the ground that the Bill which it was proposed to introduce would afford no remedy for the distress under which the hand-loom weavers were labouring. After a few words in reply from Mr. MAXWELL, the House divided, and the numbers were— For the motion Against it Majority —BB TURNPIKE TRUSTS. Mr. MACKINNON, in moving pursuant to notice for a Select Committee to consolidate turnpike trusts, and to raise some other revenue for the roads than by toll, and to consider other matters relative to turnpike trusts, observed, there were other ways of raising- this tax than by levyin g it on th ose ex clusively who travelled along the roads, and it would be far better imposed on horses and carriages. It was objected that those who used the roads ought to pay for their being kept in good order, but the benefit of good roads was extended as much to the persons who only travelled by the steam-packet to Margate as to those whose business kept them constantly running to and fro upon them—poor men especially, such as costermongers and others, and the tax operated most unequally. The general consolidation of the trusts would effectually put an end to local jobs, and 500,0001. a year would be saved to the nation, by which means a debt of 9,000,0001., with which the turnpike trusts were encumbered, might be paid off. He begged the Noble Lord would grant him the Committee for which he sought, and which he had long asked for. Mr. F. MAULE objected to any further investigation of the subject, after the repeated inquiries that had been made into it by both Houses of Parliament. He certainly thought the principle of consolidation of great importance ; but as to raising a revenue for the roads otherwise than by toll, he must hand the Hon. Member over to his Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). It was the intention of Govern ment to bring in a Bill on the* subject in the commencement of the next session, and he therefore hoped the Hon. Member would withdraw his motion for the present, while at the same time be begged to thank him for the many hints he had given, and to which he would not fail to pay attention next session. Mr. MACKINNON, as courtesy was the order of the night, consented to withdraw his motion. In answer to a question by Mr. HAWES, Mr. F. MAULE said, that if the Bill concerning the consolidation of turnpike trusts with which he was charged passed in the next session, the Sussex mid Surrey roads would certainly be consolidated with the metropolitan trusts. If the trustees of the Surrey and Sussex roads chose to undergo the expense of introducing a separate measure for their own ma nagement, of course they might do so, but he would give them fair notice that they would be included in the general mea sure intended to be introduced by the Government. Mr. S. RICE then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate the offices of Paymaster of the Army, Paymaster of the Navy, Paymaster of Chelsea Hospital, and Treasurer of the Ordnance. The House was aware, that on the formation of the present Government he had given notice of his in tention to bring in a Bill for this purpose. His Right lion. Friend ( Sir H. Parnell) now held the three offices of Pay master-General, Paymaster of the Navy, and Treasurer of the Ordnance, under three separate appointments, and the object of the Bill was to make one appointment suf fice for the three offices. They had found from experience that the duties of these offices could be advantageously per formed by one person, and when this consolidation was effected it would enable the Government to make further reductions in the subordinate departments. In point of fact, there were not three, but four offices, which would be consolidated, because the office at Chelsea was connected with the Pay-office. The Right Hon. Gentleman then read from some papers which he held in his hand a comparative statement of the expense of sa laries paid to the heads of these departments in times past, of the present charge under this head, and of the saving which would be made by the proposed arrangement. He would only further observe, that in carrying this arrangement into effect, the Government would pay due regard to the claims of those officers who had been employed in these departments, but whose future services might not be required. Mr. HUME was extremely happy that the Right Hon. Gen tleman had at last brought in this Bill. He hoped he would simplify the mode in which this branch of the public business was conducted. Mr. B. BOY was afraid, that whatever was saved in expense by this consolidation would be lost in efficiency. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. . Mr. HUME moved for several returns.—Agreed to. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Mr. GOULB URN wished to know from the Noble Lord opposite, if it was his intention to proceed with the Irish Church Bill to-morrow, or if he then meant to introduce the Irish Corporation Bill ? Lord J. RUSSELL said he should propose that the Order of the Day should be read for going on with the Irish Church Bill in the first place. The Orders of the Day wore then disposed of. POOR LAW COMMISSION. Mr. \VALUE Y was desirous of asking when the report of the Poor Law Commissioners would be on the table? Mr. F. MA ULE said that he had received a note the other day from the head of that Commission, stating that a report would be ready in a very short time, which as soon as it was ready should be laid on the table. Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the House do now ad journ. —Adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. ROUSE OF LORDS, JULY The Eari of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Woolsack at ten minutes to five o'clock. Lord D YNE VOR presented a petition from Carmarthen, against certain clauses in the Municipal Corporation Bill. Sir J. GRAHAM, and other Members of the House of Com mons, brought up the Merchant Seamen's Registration Bill, with the amendments of their Lordships, to which the House of Commons had agreed. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL. Petitions against the Municipal Corporation Bill were pre sented from th© borough of Boston by Lord Brownlow ; from Clifden by the Earl of Devon ; from the borough of Hereford and from the town of Grantham by the Duke of Cumberland ; and from other places by Lord Falmouth and several other Peers. Petitions in favour of the Bill were presented by the Earl of RADNOR from the Isle of Ely, Wisbeach, tic. The Earl of FALMOUTH complained of a misrepresen tation that had appeared in the Morning Papers relative to a petition presented by him yesterday from Melcombe Regis and Weymouth, against the Municipal Corporation Bill. It was stated that he (Lord Falmouth) had asserted that the borough had the management of charitable funds to the amount of thirty thousand pounds, but he had not stated any such thing, and he was surprised that such an inaccuracy could have occurred. The Noble Earl then presented a peti tion from the borough of Truro against the Municipal Corpo rations Bill, and denied the statements made in the report of the Municipal Commissioners relative to mismanage ment of the charitable funds of which the Corpo ration of Truro were trustees. That report he had no hesitation in saying, contained a great deal of trash. The Noble Earl then entered into some details relative to the funds of which the Corporation of towns had the management, and gave notice that he should move that the petitioners be heard by counsel at the bar against the Bill. Petitions were then presented against the Municipal Corpo rations Bill by. Lord Prudhoe, from A lnwick ; by the Marquis of Salisbury, from Runford, by Lord Skelmersdale from a place, the name of which we did not catch. Viscount STRA NG FOR D presented the petition of which he had given notice, from the Mayor and Burgesses of Coventry, praying to be heard by Counsel at the Bar, against the Municipal Corporations Bill. The petitioners were possessed of very large property acquired by purchase, and they were also trustees of considerable property. The object of the Bill was to do away with the rights and privileges which had been guaranteed to the petitioners, in violation of that principle which laid down that no persons should be deprived of any honour or privilege without previous pro cess, founded upon enquiry in some of his Majesty's superior courts of law. There was another class which this Bill would materially injure. Upwards of 2,000 young men who at the expiration of the term of their apprenticeship would be otherwise entitled to vote as electors, would, by this Bill, be deprived of their franchise, and the electors would be reduced from 6,000 to about 14 or 1,500, which was contrary to the spirit and intention of the Reform Bill.--( Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM did not know whether the Noble ' Viscount intended to press his motion to a division, but if he did, he would beg of him to look at the 67th section, which did not prevent the petitioners from being heard by Counsel ~.~.,-.r against the Bill. His Noble Friend must recollect that two years ago a Bill was passed affecting the Scotch bo roughs in a similar way, and which took the management of the charitable funds out of the hands of the Corporations, and placed them in the hands of certain trustees for the same pur poses. The present Bill provided that the charitable funds in the hands of the various Corporations should be placed in the hands of certain trustees, and fur such uses as such funds were subject to previous to the passing of the Bill. He thought this would be sufficient to satisfy the petitioners. Viscount MELBOURNE suggested that if the Noble Vis count intended to press his motion to a division, it would be better to allow the petitions to be first presented. The Noble Viscount then presented petitions from Bristol, Harwich, Leo minster, Dartmouth, Leicester, and other places, in favour of the Bill. The Duke of C ITMBERL AND presented a petition signed by 6,999 freemen of Coventry against the Bill. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition to the same effect, from the Corporation of Rochester. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions to the same effect from Norwich, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Newcastle under-Line, and other places. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented petitions from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and other places, in favour of the Bill. Lord WHARNCLIFFE also presented a petition from Liverpool to the same effect, praying to be heard by Counsel against it. Lord STRANGFORD rose to move that the petitioners from Coventry be heard by counsel at the bar of that House in support of their privileges, and in opposition to scme of the allegations contained in the Report of the Commissioners of Municipal Inquiry. The Noble Lord proceeded to make some observations in support of the motion, but in a tone of voice which did not reach the gallery. We understood him to com plain of the manner in which the Bill would dispose of parti cular kinds of property, which had been bequeathed to Cor porations for charitable purposes. In alluded in particular to Sir Thomas White's estate, which had been given for the be nefit of the freemen of Coventry, but which, under the ope ration of this Bill, would be diverted to uses totally at variance with the intention of the donor.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord concluded by moving that the petitioners be heard by counsel at the bar. Lord MELBOURNE suggested to their Lordships that it would be utterly impossible for them to concur in the motion of the Noble Lord who had just sat down, because that mo tion was consistent neither with precedent, reason, nor prin ciple. If the Report of the Commissioners, against which the petitioners desired to be heard, imputed any misconduct to the Borough of Coventry in particular, he was perfectly ready to admit that the case would be a proper one in which to hear counsel. But this was a measure founded, not upon tne malfeasance of any particular Corporation, but upon one broad, fixed, and general principle, applicable alike to all Corporations. It was a general Bill, founded upon a ge neral principle, for the general advantage of the country. It was a Bill similar to that which their Lordships had for merly passed for the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders in Ireland, and with respect to which it was not deemed necessary that Couasel should be heard at the bar. It was a Bill similar to that which was passed a few years since for the general re formation of the representation of the people throughout the kingdom—a Bill disfranching many, enfranchising others, de preciating the value of the property of some, enhancing the value of the property of others—destructive of power and authority here, communicative of power and authority there —and yet that Bill, effecting so many changes, and variously affecting so many various interests, was passed through b o th branches of the Legislature without any Counsel being heard, or any such proposition as that of the Noble Viscount (Strangford) being made ; or if made, not for a moment listened to.—( Hear, hear.) He might advert, indeed, to another Bill, more immediately applicable to the Bill then under consideration, than either of the two measures to which he had already adverted—he meant the Bill passed towards the close of the Session of 1833, for reforming the whole of the Corporations of Scotland. By that Bill, important interests, and an immense mass of commercial pro perty in the great towns—such as Edinburgh and Glasgow— were very materially affected, yet no Counsel were heard; no such motion as that of the Noble Viscount was made ; nor if made, would it ever have been listened to. Upon these gene ral grounds, he submitted to their Lordships that there was no pretence whatever for hearing_ Counsel in the present case. —( Hear, hear.) There could be no pretence whatever for adopting such a course, unless, indeed, it were their Lord ships' wish and intention to defeat the Bill by delay.__( Cries of " No, no," and cheers.) If it were their Lordships' inten tion to defeat the Bill by delay, then they might hear Coun sel ; but if they had no such intention—if they meant to give the measure a bona fide consideration—if they meant to give it fair play—( Hear, hear)—if they meant to give it that calm and considerate attention which its importance, and the anxiety of the whole country with respect to it, demanded—they would not pursue such a course as that which the Noble Viscount had called upon them to adopt. " I respect (continued his Lord ship)—l respect your Lordships—l respect your authority—l respect your dignity—l respect the position you occupy in re spect of the Constitution. Your dignity is well assured, and your power is well settled ; but the power, and dignity, and authority of no body of men, either in these or any other times, was ever so settled and secured as to enable them with impu nity to trifle with popular opinion."—( Cheers.) He implored their Lordships, therefore, not to listen to the motion made by the Noble Viscount, but to go fairly, and without delay, into the consideration of the Bill. The Noble Viscount had made a great many observations with respect to the Reform Bill, and to the diversion of the funds of charities to other pur poses than those to which they were originally intended. The Noble Viscount said, that Sir Thomas White's cha rity was vested in the freemen of Coventry, and in jus tice could be extended to no others. But supposing that the freemen of Coventry ought to be abolished in other respects, did the Noble Viscount mean to say that they ought to be kept up for the purpose of enjoying Sir Thomas White's charity.—(Laughter and cheers.) Surely their Lordships would not say that to fulfil the will of a donor they were bound to maintain that which was acknowledged or found to be an abuse.—( Hear, hear.) If their Lordships were to ac cede to the Noble Lord's proposition, it would be impossible to tell to what an extent it might be carried; because if it were once admitted that one corporation had a right to be heard, all would claim to be heard, and thus it would be ren dered impossible to carry the Bill through during the present session.—( Hear, hear.) The Duke of WELLINGTON agreed with the Noble Lord who had just spoken, that nothing would be more un becoming or unworthy of that House than to trifle with the property or privileges of any class of the community, or to attempt, by vexatious delay, to defeat any measure that might be submitted to their consideration. But never was there an occasion on which any such an imputation as that thrown out by the Noble Lord was more unfounded, or more undeserved : for if ever there was a question on which any body of men seemed disposed to move with all the celerity that circumstances would admit of, it was the question then under their Lordship's con sideration...--( Hear.) In point of fact, the evidence upon which they bad to proceed in legislating upon the subject had only for a few days (at least the greater part of it) been upon their Lordships' table, and he would venture to say that not one in ten of their Lordships had perused more than a very small portion of that which had been produced. He had not the smallest desire to delay the second reading of the Bill or any of the future proceedings upon the subject. Nay, if the Noble Lord had not made such a charge upon that side of the House, he (the Duke of Wellington) was prepared to come forward with a proposition with respect to the hearing of counsel, which, in his opinion, would have precluded the possi bility of any delay, whilst at the same time full justice would be done to all parties. The Noble Lord (Melbourne) began by stating that this was a measure of general policy, and not a measure embodying separate and distinct charges against in dividual boroughs. He (the Duke of Wellington) admitted it was a measure of general policy, but it was a measure of general policy founded upon the reports laid upon their Lord ships' table, and of the truth of which the parties, in many instances, complained—(Cheers), and desired that their Lordships would be pleased to hear their complaints--(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had been pleased to compare this transaction with another transaction in respect of the 40s. freeholders of Ireland. The Noble Lord forgot that the offer had been made for the disfranchisement of the 40s. freehold ers, on certain conditions, not less than two or three years be fore the measure by which they were ,actually disfranchised was carried. Neither did the Noble Lord state that it was admitted, in the discussions in that House upon the report, that the 40s. freeholders were useless, nay injurious, as members of the electoral body. That being the case, it was natural enough that they should not be heard by Counsel. With respect to the Reform Bill, it was perfectly true that many persons had been injured in their property, in consequence of the adoption of that Bill ; and it was also true that many, very many interests had been entirely set aside by it ; and although counsel were not heard :upon that Bill, any more than on the case of the Irish 40s. freeholders, and the Scotch Corpo rations Bill, the Noble Lord (Melbourne) should not forget that there were other measures, having as strict an affinity to the present Bill as any he had mentioned, upon which counsel were heard. For instance, in the case of the Bill for the abolition of heritable jurisdictions in Scotland, counsel were heard on the second reading, and on the question for going into committee. In the present instance he (the Duke of Wellington) was prepared to offer to the Noble Lord (Melbourne), in order to create no delay, supposing the House to agree to the second reading, that Counsel should be heard on the question for go ing into Committee; and he (the Duke of Wellington) was perfectly ready to proceed with the discussion the very day after the second reading should be disposed of. He must say, therefore, that the charge which had been made 'against any body of persons in that House having an intention to defeat the measure by delay, was unjust and uncalled for; and he must go further, and say that it was not quite founded upon the fact.--( Hear.) As to going into Committee on the Bill, it could not be expected that any one would prepared to do so, for some few days to come. To hear Counsel, therefore, previous to going into C omm itt ee wou ld, i n f act, be to create no delay whatever. Lord - BROUGHAM was sure no person felt more strongly than he did the impropriety of any such charge against that House as that to which the Noble Duke had alluded; but if he rightly heard his Noble Friend (Melbourne), he rather thought that his Noble Friend particularly endeavoured, fruit lessly, as it would seem, to guard himself against the very charge which the Noble Duke had brought against him, be cause he expressly said that he would impute no such desire to their Lordships as that of defeating the measure by delay, but that he wished to warn their Lordships not by any act of theirs to induce people out of doors to suppose that they were ac- tufted by such a desire. But, pass►ng from that point, he begged for a moment to call their Lordships' attention to what the result would be, if such a motion as that of the Noble Lord opposite ( Strangford) were carried. If it should sue coed, every Corporation in the kingdom would set up its right THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1535 to be heard by Counsel, and if the right were acknowledged in one instance, it must necessarily be acknowledged in all. Coventry had no greater claim to be heard than Liverpool, or Warwick, or Maidstone, or any other of the corporate towns of the kingdom, whose interests would be affected by that Bill. Sir Thomas White's was not the only charity in which corporate bodies had an interest. There was Smith's charity, and the Bedford charity, in each of which precisely the same claims might be put forward. Already there were twenty towns claiming to be heard by counsel ; accede to the present proposition, and by the end of another week there would be two hundred. In each of those two hundred cases, at least two counsel would be employed, and thus not only would the House have to listen to four hundred speeches, of the duration of each of which two hours might be taken as a short average, but there would also be all the details of evidence obtained from perhaps as many as a thousand wit nesses. It was clear, therefore, that their Lordships must either make their own sittings perpetual, or else reject such a proposition as that which the Noble Lord ( Strangford) had brought forward. There certainly was one arrangement, under which it would be possible, and perhaps advantageous, that counsel should be heard. If all the parties opposed to the Bill would consent to consolidate their opposition under one banner—select two counsel to conduct their case, and agree to abide by the result of the argument which those two counsel should be enabled to advance against it ; he was not aware that there would be any objection to the adoption of such a course. If, for instance, Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight, two of the most eminent men at that time at the bar, should be selected to conduct the argu ment, and should be admitted to their Lordships' bar to op pose the principle of the Bill, he was quite sure that any particular Corporation would be very foolish in afterwards expressing a wish to be heard separately ; because if those learned and accomplished gentlemen could not convince their Lordships by the arguments which they should advance upon the subject, he did not know who could.—(Hear, hear.) 'fo such an arrangement he (Lord Brougham) should not be opposed • but he did most per e mpt or ily o bj ect to t h e mot i on then under the consideration of the House, because it seemed calculated by a side-wind to get rid of the whole subject. The Earl of RIPON had heard with satisfaction the manner in which the Noble and Learned Lord had vindicated their Lordships from the charge that there existed on their part any desire to interpose any unreasonable or unjustifiable delay in the early and immediate consideration of the Bill. For his own part he (Lord Ripon) thought that nothing would be more unbecoming, more absurd, or less creditable than the adoption of such a course ; but it did not follow from that that there might not be circumstances in the case which would make it advisable and just for their Lordships to give some hearinc , to the petitioners who appeared before them and ho had therefore heard with great satisfaction the suggestions thrown out by the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham), by which, as it seemed t o hi m , j us ti ce m i g h t be done without the interposition of any inconvenient delay. If, indeed, the effect of the proposition made by his Noble Friend on the right (Lord Strangford) were to be that they should hear counsel from every borough which should petition against the Bill, it must be obvious that the labours of the House must be inter minable. But it appeared to him that there would be no im proper delay, if they were to accede to the proposition of the Noble and Learned Lord, which, judging from what had fallen from the Noble Duke, would not be objectionable to him. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would be induced to adopt that proposition. But if it were right and practicable to take that course with respect to the principle of the Bill, he thought it would be equally right and equally practicable to do the same with regard to those peculiar objections on which so many of the petitioners relied. It appeared to him to be of the utmost importance that those parts of the Bill should be argued which affected, not the political rights, but the pecu niary interests of the parties. Lord FALMOUTH agreed with the Noble Lord who had just sat down, in the distinction which he had drawn between the hearing of Counsel merely on the principle of the Bill, and the hearing of them on those particular parts of it which affected individual interests. Why were the petitioners to be deprived of the right of being heard in opposition to the charges brought against them ? They were British subjects— they had a right to be heard ; but, said the Noble Viscount (Melbourne), " We have nothing to do with the charges con tained in the Report —we legislate generally." That might be true enough ; but in point of common sense and common reason, he asked, on what was the Bill founded? Was it not founded on the Report of the Commissioners, setting forth the very charges of which the petitioners complained ? With re spect to the evidence taken before the Commissioners, he could not speak of it with any patience. He had looked into that evidence, and he would venture to say that a mass of grosser exaggeration and misrepresentation never disgraced the table of a legislative assembly. He was willing to accede to the proposition of limiting the opposition to the principle of the Bill to the argument of two counsel ; but he still thought that the petitioners had a right to be heard upon those points which affected their individual interests. The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought that if the House wished to do justice to those whom it proposed to disfranchise, it ought first to hear them • and, in his o pi n i on , th e p art i es ought to be heard before the principle of the Bill was recog nized by their Lordships, as it would be after the measure had been read a second time. Lord WHARNCLIFFE observed, that the last portion of the observations which had fallen from the Noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government, certainly held out a threat against the rights, privileges, and independence of that House. It was too clear not to strike every one of their Lordships, and he was sure it would be equally obvious out of doors. An attack was made by the Bill on the actual property of the Corporations who were affected by it; and, in his opi nion, they had an unequivocal right to be heard in defence of that property. Delay was by no means his object, and he was quite aware that if Counsel were to be heard in every case, it would be a virtual defeat of the Bill. But he thought that they might all be called upon to state their cases, and that their Lordships might then determine what cases should be de fended by Counsel. That would save the appearance of de nying the right, and yet would not waste their Lordships' time. He rather wished that his Noble Friend near him had postponed his proposition until after the second reading of the Bill. The Earl of WINCHIL SE A protested against suffering a Bill to pass into a law which would not only at once af fect all the existing rights and privileges of the individuals against whom it was directed, but would in its consequences affect every species of property. It was under a strong sense of the duty which he owed to his countrymen that he ap peared among their Lordships that evening. The eyes of the whole naiion were fixed upon their Lordships, and at no for mer period had every individual Member of that House a more important duty to perform. From the bottom of his heart he declared that if the Bill only went to extend certain privileges on constitutional grounds to a greater body of his countrymen—if it only went to correct abuses which had crept into existing institutions, he should be far from opposing it. But it was founded on a principle to which he could never consent, namely, that any portion of his countrymen might, without sufficient evidence of the necessity of the case, be de prived of any propeaty or privileges which they enjoyed. More especialy he objected to the destruction of the privi leges of the freemen, whether derived from hereditary descent or acquired by the painful toil of an apprenticeship. He would divide the House on that question. Lord BROUGHAM thought that something like the course which he was about to suggest might enable their Lord ships to do justice without subjecting themselves to any undue imputations. It was founded on a precedent in 1808, when a measure having been brought into Parliament affecting the interests of five great trading communities, viz., Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, London, and Birmingham, those commu nities agreed to consolidate their claims, and to be heard by one counsel. He (Lord Brougham) was the counsel em ployed; and he remembered that he occupied only about an hour of their Lordship's time, and only about two hours of the time of the then House. A similar precedent might be found in 1746, the year after the rebellion. What he sug gested was, that the Bill should be read a second time, s u b silentio, if their Lordship's pleased ; and that the Committee should be put off until a period when counsel might be prepared to attend. The Duke of CUMBERLAND (as we understood his Royal Highness) had no objection to such a proposition, if it were distinctly understood that their Lordships did not concede the principle of the Bill by acceding to it ' • but that the principle of the Bill s h ou ld b e st ill open to discussion on the Report, or on the third reading. He by no means wished for delay ; he was only anxious that justice should be done. Lord LYNDHURST did not understand that the peti tioners wished to be heard by counsel against the general principle of the Bill; he understood that they wished to be heard against the charges which the Bill contained against them.--( Lord Melbourne denied across the table that there were such charges in the Bill.)—Why the Noble Viscount could not have read the Bill. The preamble stated that " divers bodies corporate had, partly by neglect and abuses of the charters granted and confirmed to them," &c. Now these bodies corporate wished to be heard by counsel, not against the principle of the Bill, but against the allegations and charges against them which it contained. They said that those allegations and charges were founded on garbled evi dence, and that they were false. Here was a Bill of disfran chisement operating on a hundred and forty corporations. If counsel were to be heard, which he contended they ought to be, some precise understanding ought to be come to with respect to the extent to which they should be beard. In the case of Coventry the objection was not to the principle of the Bill so much as to its details. He had had some communica tion with the parties interested ; and they asserted that there were facts connected with the case which, if allowed to come out, would cover with disgrace the individual on whose report the part of the Bill which affected them was founded. The Duke of WELLINGTON enumerated about six to eight corporate bodies, among which we caught the names of Marlborough and Hereford, as wishing to be heard against the Bill by counsel; and Bristol and Liverpool, as wishing to be heard against the Bill by their recorders. If the House were pleased to accede to the proposition of hearing two counsel on the whole case, the Bill might be read a second time now, and the motion for going into a Committee be fixed for some day in the latter end of the week, on which day the counsel might be called to the bar. Lord ELLENBOROUGH could understand how the different parties might agree to be heard by two counsel against the general principle of the Bill ; but could not un derstand how they could agree to be heard by two counsel against its numerous and distinct details. Viscount MELBOURNE, in signifying his assent to the proposition of hearing two counsel, begged their Lordships to be pleased to recollect the situation in which he stood when he addressed them early in the evening,. He had not then heard of any such proposition. All that he knew was, that a Noble Viscount, in presenting a petition from a particular corpora tion, moved that the petitioners be heard by counsel. He had been charged with throwing out threats against their Lord ships, because he had felt it to be his duty to address to them a strong admonition against the adoption of a course which, in his opinion, would prove exceedingly prejudicial. The Noble Duke frequently addressed strong admonitions to him (Lord Melbourne), which he always took in good part; and certainly, therefore, he considered himself entitled to remon strate against any conduct on the other side of the House which appeared to him to be ill-judged and unadvisable. His opinion as to the inexpediency of hearing counsel remained as he had already stated it. At the same time if, under the pro posed modification, it was the feeling of the House that coun sel ought to be heard, he would support the proposition. But to hear counsel on every particular case would be a useless and an interminable proceeding. He did not believe that it had been proposed with a view to delay ; but undoubtedly the de lay which it must occasion would be fatal to the measure. To any fair and moderate proposition, he repeated that he would not object. The Earl of MANSFIELD said that if the Noble Viscount was only inclined to do justice, there was not the slightest wish on his (Lord Mansfield's) side of the House for procras tination. But they contended that in all cases in which the interests of individuals or of communities were implicated, no legislative measure ought to be adopted without in the first place affording the parties concerned an opportunity of stating and proving in what manner they were unjustly affected by it. The petitioners in the present case claimed to be heard against the Bill, not in its legislative character, but as affecting them in its details, which they characterized as partial and unjust. They declared that they had reason to complain of the ground on which, according to the preamble of the Bill, they were charged with neglect and abuse; and prayed to be allowed to defend themselves by counsel against the imputation ; nay, to support that defence by evi dence; nay, to show also that the manner in which the evi dence in the Report of the Commissioners had been obtained was irregular and partial. Under such circumstances, he was at a loss to understand how their Lordships could say to coun sel, " You are at liberty to argue against the principle of the Bill, but you must not touch upon its details. Considering, however, that there was a Committee from the several Cor porations now sitting in London, he thought that the Com mittee might advantageously compress their claims into a single statement, and then entrust the advocacy of them to two counsel ; and he hoped there would be no addition to the number of Corporations requiring to be heard by counsel, al though, if there were, he could not see how their Lordships could impose any limit. The Earl of HARE WOOD could not see how it would be possible for counsel to avoid touching on the particular inte rests of particular places. That would certainly lead to de lay; but it would only be that delay which would be just, and which the corporate bodies affected by the Bill had a right to expect. The House would, he was persuaded, do its duty, by endeavouring to protect the people from a violent and un precedented measure, required by no necessity whatever. With respect to what had been said by the Noble Viscount re specting admonitions, it should be considered that an admoni tion from one Noble Lord to another, and an admonition from a Noble Lord—and that Noble Lord at the head of his Ma jesty's Government—addressed to the whole House, were two very different things. Lord PL UNK ET said, it had been contended that this was a question which related to property vested in indi viduals, and that the measure should not be passed without first hearing at the bar the parties who were interested in it. Now he could cite a case in which a hundred Corporations, with rights vested in them infinitely more valuable than those now in question, were deprived by the Legislature of those rights without having been previously heard in their defence. At the period of the Union with Ireland, a hundred Corporations in that country were absolutely disfranchised—for the attainment of a measure, which, although he at the time dis approved of it, he now trusted would be considered a final one, never to be disturbed—a hundred boroughs in Ireland, each of which sent two Members to Parliament, were disfranchised by the Irish Legislature, without having first beer, heard by counsel. Was not that a case in point ?—( Cries of " No, no.") He should be glad to hear why it was not. To some of those boroughs, and only to some, compensation was given.—( A Noble Lord observed, "To every one.") Certainly not. His Noble Friend had justly disclaimed any idea of throwing out a threat to the House. He (Lord Plunket) was unable to see the distinction which it had been attempted to take be tween admonishing a single Lord, and the whole body. Humble as he was, he felt himself entitled to give advice— whether valuable or not was another question—as to the course which they ought to pursue in their legislative capacity, with reference to the opinion and feelings of the country. It was with great satisfaction that he heard the Noble Duke and the other voble Lords who acceded to the proposition to confine within reasonable limits the claim of the corporate bodies to be heard by counsel. But, if the opinions which he had heard from other Noble Lords were acted upon, it would be impos sible to bring the matter to a conclusion. It was undoubtedly true, that every corporate body which had petitioned to be heard by counsel was equally entitled to be so heard. The proposition of the Noble Earl, that the Committee of persons, delegated from the Corporations, sitting in London, should compress their claims into a single statement, and entrust the defence of the whole to two counsel, was a good one. But another Noble Earl had maintained that the cases were all es sentially different; and that the arguments of counsel which were applicable to one case would not be applicable to the rest. Why, it every day occurred that counsel divided their plead ings into several distinct heads. If that were to be the course pursued on the present occasion, the proceeding might be brought to a close within a reasonable time. Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI contended that the illustration of the Noble and Learned Lord, derived from an Act of Parliament, which Act that Noble and Learned Lord had at the time characterised in the strongest terms of disap probation, was wholly inapplicable to the present case. The Noble and Learned Lord asserted, that at the period of the Union a hundred corporate bodies in Ireland had been treated by the Legislature as it was now proposed to treat corporate bodies in this country, without allowing them to be heard by counsel in their defence. The disfran chisement of the boroughs in Ireland was a measure similar not to this Bill but to the Reform Bill; because it deprived the parties concerned of the right of being represented in Parliament, and did not touch a single particle of their property. There was another fact connected with the Noble and Learned Lord's illustration. Sharing, as he (Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci) did, in the hope expressed by the Noble and Learned Lord that the measure of the Union would be a final and undisturbed one ; and satisfied as he was that the preservation of the Union was indispen sable to the peace and prosperity of both countries, he could not help reminding the Noble and Learned Lord that a sum of no less than 15,0001. had been paid to every one of the Cor porations alluded to by the Noble and Learned Lord, to re concile them to the loss of their Representatives in Parliament. Having said thus much on the illustration introduced by the Noble and Learned Lord, he felt that it would be unfitting on his part to dwell on the general argument, except to say, that although he was anxious that the petitioners should be heard in defence of their just claims, he should look upon such a means of defeating the Bill as most unworthy, and as a course of proceeding to which no consideration could induce him to be a party. The Earl of FALMOUTH could not consent to confine the hearing to such Corporations as had petitioned. It should be remembered that some of the Corporate bodies were three or four hundred miles off; and that some time would elapse before they could be apprised of what had occurred. The Earl of WICKLOW thought that their Lordships would not be called upon to attend to any further petitions which might be presented by Corporate bodies, praying to be heard by Counsel ; because the measure had been so long in agitation, that the various Corporations whose interests were affected by it, had had ample time to petition the House on the subject.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He took it for granted that a majority of that House were sufficiently convinced of the necessity of some measure of Corporate Reform. It was, therefore, evident—the principle of Corporate Reform being admitted—that no arguments of counsel could induce the House not to allow the Bill to be read a second time. Whilst, then, he expressed it as his own opinion that there was no necessity that counsel should be heard on the principle, he felt bound to admit the fairness of the proposition which had been made, and which seemed to meet with the approval of both sides, that two Counsel should be heard on the principle of the Bill, with reference to the representations contained in all the petitions already presented But he considered it perfectly consistent with propriety, and conformable to the rules of the House, to grant the prayer of the petitions already presented, with regard to hearing Coun. sel, without acceding to that conveyed in any other petition which might hereafter be presented. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was of opinion that they should first decide that Counsel were to be beard. After they decided that, they might then determine as to the clas sification of the topics which they (the Counsel) should insist upon. The Earl of HADDINGTON was by no means disposed to have his own discretion tied up, and he should be very sorry that their Lordships should be tied up by any pledge that they would not grant the prayer of any petition which might hereafter be presented on this subject to that House. It was, he thought, natural to suppos e th a t quest i ons m i g h t ar i se , fresh matter might be stated, and new means taken, which their Lordships would be perfectly justified in taking into their consideration, but which were not touched upon in any petition already presented. The Earl of WICKLOW, in explanation, remarked that he was not for shutting out the consideration which might im peratively call for their Lordships' attention. All he had said was that by granting to their full extent the prayers of the petitions which had been already p resente d, w i t h respect to the subjects to which Counsel should be allowed to address themselves, they would act in a way which was sanctioned by every principle of fairness and justice. The Marquis of SALISBURY perfectly concurred in the propriety of hearing only two Counsel with regard to the principle of the Bill, and hoped they would extend that in dulgence as to the details of the measure if a case of necessity were made out for their doing so. Viscount MELBOURNE felt no hesitation in agreeing to the proposition that Counsel should be heard, it being of course distinctly understood that there shall be a fair determi nation on the part of the House to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible, and to discountenance any unnecessary de lay.—( Hear.) The course, then, :which he understood to be agreed to was this :—That on Thursday and Friday next Counsel should be heard, with the anxious hope that their speeches should be limited to those two days, and that on Monday the whole principle and the detail s o f t h e measure should be discussed on going into Committee. Lord BROUGHAM suggested that the motion of the Noble Lord opposite, which referred merely to the borough of Coventry, should be withdrawn. With respect to the hour at hich their Lordships should meet on Thursday, he thought twelve o'clock would be a good hour, though he himself had no objection to meeting at the earlier hour of ten o'clock. There was one other point on which he wished to say a word, as it might he imagined from what had that night occurred that he had in any way differed from his Noble Friend (Lord Melbourne), or that he countenanced delay in the slightest degree by the proposition which he had submitted. The im pression which he had originally formed was now, he found, turned into a certainty, for it was ascertained that the progress of the measure would be forwarded by the course now taken, because, instead of the Bill being now proposed for second reading, and the debate on it occupying to-night and to-mor row night, and the postponement of the Committee being, in consequence of the fatigue and weariness which would, no doubt, follow so protracted a discussion, determined to be moved to Tuesday or Wednesday, the Bill would, by the pre sent arrangement, be committed as - early as Monday. The Dule of WELLINGTON did - not see thit there was any necessity for his Noble Friend's withdrawing his motion respecting Coventry. He did not see that it at all interfered with the motion that the Bill be read a second time. With regard to the second reading of the Bill, the course which should be adopted depended of course entirely on the feeling of their Lordships. If their Lordships wished that the second reading should pass without discussion he had no objection to accede to that proposition, provided that it was clearly un derstood that the principal of the Bill was not now agreed to, but reserved for discussion by Counsel. Without that re servation he did not think it would be right to agree to the second reading of a Bill of such a nature, and not discuss the principle on which it was founded.—( Hear, hear.) After a few words from the Duke of NEWCASTLE and the Earl of WESTMORELAND, Lord AL VANL E Y said that he considered the discussion of the principle of the Bill for two days by Counsel would be a perfect waste of time, and derogatory to the character of their Lordships' House. Surely his Noble and Learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) and his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst, as we understood) were perfectly competent to argue the principle of the measure. Lord BROUGHAM assured his Noble Friend that, in sub mitting the proposition which he had laid before the House, he did so from no anxiety to hear the arguments of Counsel ; ho had quite as great an aversion to them as the Noble Lord possibly could have. Indeed he might be fairly supposed to be more sick of them than his Noble Friend, inasmuch as he had, during, his life, heard a repeated number of them.— (Laughter.) But a great number of their Lordships, and the parties themselves whom this Bill affected, did not feel satis fied that the measure should be taken into consideration with out Counsel being heard. Therefore it was that he had pro posed the suggestion with reference to the hearing of Counsel. He understood, however, that these Counsel should be allowed to make two speeches, which were not to be confined to the principle of the Bill merely.—( Hear.) The Bill was then read a second time ; Viscount Strang ford having withdrawn his motion. Viscount STRANGF ORD then moved that the Corpora tions which had petitioned to be heard by Counsel should be so heard. The Duke of NEWCASTLE then said that he had a question to put to the Noble Viscount opposite, which he con sidered of some importance. He was anxious to know whe ther the Noble Viscount would have any objection to lay on the table of the House the Minute Book kept by the Court of Commissioners sitting in London ? He had reason to believe that this Minute Book would relieve the House of a consider able difficulty arising from what he was going to call the blun ders, but certainly from the mistakes, contained in the Report of the Commissioners. Viscount MELBOURNE answered that the Minute Book was kept merely with a view of managing and directing the officers of tho Board. He could not therefore agree to the production of such a document. Tie Duke of NEWCASTLE observed that he did not see why such a book should not be produced. There was a clause in the Poor Law Act directing that a minute book should be kept, and all the proceedings of the Board should be entered in it. He wished to know, then, whether the Noble Viscount would produce the minute book of Corporate Com missioners ? Viscount MELBOURNE was understood to answer " No." The Duke of NEWCASTLE—WeII, then, let it go forth that the Noble Viscount refuses to produce the document. The Earl of WICKLOW observed that with respect to the hour at which their Lordships should meet on Thursday, he thought it would be the best course to meet at the usual hour, of five o'clock. After a few words from the Duke of CUMBERLAND and the Duke of NEWCASTLE, The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE was of opinion that it would be best that his Noble Friend Viscount Melbourne should move on Thursday that the House go into Committee on the Bill ; and upon that motion being made that Counsel should be heard at the bar. This suggestion having been adopted, the House then ad journed. LIST OF THE MINORITY Who voted for Mr. Maxwell's Motion for leave to bring in a Bi] for the Rel Alsager, Richard .Arbuthnot, flo:i. H. Archdale, General Attwood, Attwood, T. Bolden), Henry G. Boling, W. Brocklehurst, J. Brltherton, J. Campbell, Sir IL Cavley, E S. Cole, Lord Dykes, F. L. B. Euston, Earl of Fiehien, J. Finch, G. ief of the Hand-loom Weavers. Fleetwood, H. Scholefleld, J. Forbes, W. Spiers, Alexander Hallyburton, D. G. Steuart, R. Hardy, J. Stuart, Lord Dudley Hayes, Sir E. Tennent, J. E. Jackson, J. D. Wallace, R. Lewis, 1). Williams, W. Lowther, H. C. Wood, Alderman Lucas, E. Young G. F. M`Catice, John TELLERS. Mackinnon, NV. A. Maxwell, J. Pigot, R. Gillon, W. D. Plunkett, Hon. R. Robinson, G. R. Ruthven, E. Ruthven, E. S. PAIRED OPE. Wakley, Thomas Bowring, Dr. COURT OF ALDERMEN. Yesterday a Court was held. The Court was not opened until a question relative to the Cab and Omnibus Bill now in Parliament was disposed of. INSANE PRISONERS. From the Newgate list of insane persons confined in that prison it appeared that seven men and one woman were now within the walls of Newgate. A long conversation took place on the subject. The impression made upon the public was, that if the Government persevered in calling upon the City of London to maintain and keep at its expense all persons sent to Newgate from the Central Criminal Court, upon the ground of insanity, the Magistrates would pass such persons to their several parishes or counties. It was stated by some gentlemen of experience below the bar, that the annoyance occasioned by 'he insane to the other wretched prisoners was dreadful. VIOLATION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE MAGISTRACY. Sir P. LAURIE rose to address the Court upon a subject, in his view, of very high importance. He meant the inter ference of a Bill in Parliament with the privileges of the Magistracy. At the last Court it had been determined that he, the Recorder, and Remembrancer, and such of the Mem bers of that Court as were Members of Parliament, should be requested to wait upon the Secretary of State to remonstrate with him upon the unconstitutional nature of the clauses, which, as far as regarded Newgate, transferred the power of regulating prisons from the Magistracy t o th e S ecretary of State, through the very suspicious medium of inspectors. Ac companied by the Recorder and Remembrancer, b u t not b y any of the Parliamentary Members of the Court, he had on Friday waited upon Lord John Russell, and stated to his Lordship the grounds upon which it would be expedient to exclude Newgate from the general regulation. His Lordship however, had given them no reason to suppose that the excep tion would be made, although he stated that Bridewell was exempted from the operetion of the Bill. He, however, promised that any suggestion which those whose who waited upon him might make should be attended to, but he could not see why Newgate, which was maintained by the City, and which was always intended as a prison for persons before trial, and not for punishment, could be at at all excused from the general sentence which his Bill passed upon all the prisons of the country. He trusted that a resolute opposition would be made to a measure of so obnoxious a nature, and he hoped that the Recorder, who who was so well qualified to state the grounds of opposition, would propose a clause likely to effect the object of those who wished to preserve the privileges of the Magistracy of the City.--( Hear.) The RECORDER stated that he had drawn up a clause to the effect proposed, and should propose it when the Bill was under discussion. The Bill provided that the rules of the prison should be submitted to the Secretary of State, and dis tinctly invested that Minister with the absolute power of re gulating all the gaols in England. The Recorder then read a clause, which he had drawn up, exempting Newgate from the operation of the new Bill. After a few more observations upon the subject, the mem bers of the Court who are Members of Parliament came to a determination to endeavour to prevail upon the House to agree to the Recorder's clause.—Adjourned. MARKET INTELLIGENCE. (From the London Neu, Price Current of last Evening.) COFFEE.—Brazil Coffee fell 2s. per cwt. last week. Or dinary to good ordinary, 48s. to 51s. ; one lot, 535. ; Ceylon advanced Is. per cwt. ; good quality, in small parcels, 635. to 645. In the British Plantation descriptions there was great heaviness, and the large proportion offered were taken in, but no reduction in the prices could be stated. There were no public sales of Coffee this day, but there is some request for colory British Plantation which has lately been so much neglected; an advance of Is. per cwt. has been obtained. SUGAR.—The demand for West India Muscovades conti nued steady and extensive last week till towards the close of it, when the request subsided, and the market had a languid appearance, but the late advance in prices was fully main tained; the estimated purchases 3,500 hhds. and tits. By public sale this day 101 hhds. Barbadoos Sugar all sold at full prices ; low mid. to fine yellow 58s Od a 635. The stock of West India is now 28,382 hhds. and trs., being 10,664 less than last year. The stock of Mauritius 79,558 bags, being 28,446 less than last year. The delivery of West India 3,339 hhds, and trs., being 172 less than last year. The delivery of Mauritius 4,876 bags, being 1,392 less than the corresponding week of 1834. This forenoon several holders of West India Sugars asked a further advance of 6d. to Is. per cwt., but it has not been com plied with ; the purchases this day are estimated at 400 hhds. and trs. Tho asking higher prices seems to have an opposite effect, the market is dull, and rather lower ; dry bown Jamaica, 545. to 555. In the Refined market there was little change last week, the grocers continued to pay Is. to 2s. higher ; large Lumps 795. and 80s., equal to 395. for Crushed. This afternoon tho shippers have been obliged to submit to - taloa the high prices given by the Grocers ; 795. has been givem 1u Lumps. MAURITIUS.—The public sale on Friday of 8,414 bags Mau.. ritius sold at fully previous prices, but there was no briskness in the trade. EAST INDlA.—Several rather large parcels of East In dia sold Is. higher last week ; Java rose 2s. per cwt. ; Bengal is. higher. FOREIGN.—The inquiries after Foreign Sugars continue : the sales are white Havannah 385., yellow 325., in considerable parcels; white Pernams at 315., with 13 lbs. tare. A parcel of yellow Havannal sold this afternoon a 323.6 d. Average price of Sugar 11. lls. 11p. per cwt. Rum, BRANDT, AND HOLLANDS.—There are few sales to report in Rum, the inquiries continue, but there are few par cels left in first hands; the prices remain nominally the saline; proof Leeward, not to be had under 2s. 2d., and very poor • parcels of 30 over Jamaica offer under 3s. 3d. IRISH PROVISIONS.—New India Beef and Pork, not au,' in the market; prime new Mess Beef 51. 10s. per tierce; diitto Pork 21. 17s. 6d. per barrel ; prime Bacon ditto 50s. to 545. per barrel ; prime old Mess Pork 525. 6d. to 545. per barrel. There is an improvement in the demand for Batter since last week; prices are little varied. Bacon remains much the same. BUTTER. BACON. Stock. Delivery. Stock. Delivery. 1835 10,100 firks 8.300 firks 11,300 bales 3,075 bales 1834 19,600 5,066 10,400 2,865 The Imports of Butter are Irish 3,215 firks. Foreign 2,375 tasks; Bacon 4,564 bales. TALLOW.—The Tallow market is very firm, and rising in price ; the Russians evince no inclination to sell at the present currency. WINE AND SPIRIT num.—There are extensive official details published of the Wine and Spirit trade, by an eminent Wine Broker ; they are very interesting but too extensive for our insertion. It appears that the consumption of Wine in Great Britain increases, and the use of ardent spirits has fallen off: total increase in the consumption of wine in 1834, is 298,595 gallons. Total decrease in the consumption of Spirits in 1834, 313,665 gallons. COTTON.—The accounts from Liverpool state the Cotton market to be very dull at that port. The sales are about 500 bags since Friday, at prices id.„ to Id. per lb. lower than the late highest prices. OlLS.—There is a steady demand for Fish Oils for export at firm prices. In Linseed Oil there has been a good busi ness doing at 41s. 6d. for present delivery, and a trifle under that price for future delivery. Olive Oil nominal. WooL.—The Wool market is perfectly quiet, no pus-chases are reported, there being no Wool in the market. SILK.—A public sale took place on Friday evening, con sisting of 549 bales China raw Silk, and about 100 pks. Brutia and other sorts. China Silk sold 20s. 6d. to 21s. Bd., about 50 bales choice quality brought 235. to 235. Bd. ; a great proportion bought in. Since then there is a. pretty steady demand at corresponding prices. The new crop of Italian Silk is now comi ng i n t o th e mar k et ; t h e opening prices for the best descriptions are 265. to 275. INDIGO.—There have been no purchases since, nor is it likely, on account of the bad system of buying in such quan tities of Indigo, to support the market prices, and allowing the trade afterwards t o p ic k th e parce l s at withdrawing prices. SPICES.—There are no alterations in Spices worth reporting. TOBACCO.—The only sale of Tobacco is about 50 hhds. low Virginia for Flanders about 4d. per lb. A cargo of Kentucky has appeared at Market, for which very high prices are de manded. RlCE.—There is no alteration in Rice. HOPS.—The estimated duty on Hops advanced from 195,0001. to 200,0001. SALTPETRE.-The declaration of three sales for to.morroW prevent all business in Saltpetre. COCHINEAL, &c.—By public sales this day 100 bags Mexi can Cochineal, silver, good dry grain, all bought in at 7s. to 7s. 2d., foxy 6s. 10d. ; 15 bags Mexican black, ail bought in at 9s. ; 135 bags Honduras silvers, foxy and ordinary 6s. 9d. to 75., mid. to ord. bright 7s. id. to 7s. 6d., one lot to Is. ; one bag very fine Honduras black sold at 9s. 10d. ; of the Honduras all sold but about 20 bags, on the whole a shade lower than the last public sale; 43 serons Guatemala Indigo; low and good Cortes 3s. 6d. to 3s. 11d., mid. and good So bres ss. 4d. to 4s. 9d., full prices ; 53 tons Red Sanders Wood, all bought in at 6/. 12s. 6d. ; 17 bags Cochineal Dust, all bought in at 4d. to 7d. per lb. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS. Per Quarter. Boston. Gainsborough Grantham Grimsby Horncastle Lincoln Spilsby Stamford York Wheat. . to s. - 40 42 46 38 42 38 44 36 4l 33 38 33 39 46 50 Barley. S. to S. 26 33 32 33 28 32 24 58 2. 6 31 22 27 27 30 24 30 Oats. 1 Beans. s. to s. I s. to s. 21 39 ..... - 20 —3) 24 28 VS 4C 20 24 36 42 18 24 36 42 24 28 39 42 21 24 36 40 20 25 40 41 15 22 28 43 IRISH MARKETS. KET , NOTE for the WEEK E: Pease. S. tO 11. :NDING dl 26 0 - 0 14 0 16 6 15 0 I 16 6 01. per sai 15s. Cd. t, I Is. 6d. ti ss. Od. ti 'LY 24 12 6 Per S I Of 0111 KILKENtsTY Whcat (perbarrel) 20s Od, to - 4'2s. Od. Barley jell- • 9 6 Oats . 0 10 0 Flour (per bag) lO 0 26 0 Butter (per cwt.) t.o 0 84 0 Bacon Pigs '2s 0 25 6 Coals 1 0 1 1 Average. 24 '2 13 1 12 10 13 94 16e. 6J. 138. 6d. 88. Od. DUBLIN MAR From 362 Wheat, per barrel 20 stone 22 0 0 Bere l6 stone — 0 0 Barley 723 Oats l4 stone. )2 0 12,816 Flour, per cwt..— '8 stone 5 0 578 Oatmeal .*, 8 stone ll 0 Sold to Bakers bnly. 11,750 Cwt. Flour - 11 3 Average price of Wheat and Flour 35,1 Receipts of Flour, 11,4761 Firsts . Sales of Do. 13,816 Seconds from Thirds PRICE OF DREAD. Quartern Loaf 7d. I Half Quarter] CORK MA RKETS.—JuIy :15. Wheat (per 205t.)...15s Od. to 21s. Odd Oats (per 14st.) 10s. 6d. to 13s. 6d, Barley (per 16st.) —l2 0 14 6 i Flour (per cwt) 5 0 15 0 Oatmeal (per cwt.) 1 S. Od. to 14s. Od. Beef, sd. to (xl. • Mutton, sd. to 6d. ; Veal, 6d. t o 88. ; Pork, 2d. to lid. ; Fresh Butter, 10d. to 12d. per lb. PRICE OF BUTTER. To the Merchants. To the Country First Quality 6Bs. s9s. Second fs 56 Third Fourth 54 45 Fifth 46 37 Sixth CLONMELL MA It KETS.-Vuly 24. Cwt. s. (1. s. (1. New Butter Oatmeal 13 4 14 6 Rendered Lard 0 32 0 Per 26 0 24 0 Per I s. d. s. d• Hides (raw) 32 oto 32 6 Bacon Pigs 25 0 26 0 Heads 19 0 0 Flour, Second 0 --Household.-- 0 I Frour,Thirds IS 0 20 U darrel. Fourths 12 0 13 0 Barley 11 0 12 6 Coals 0 3 6 stone. 1 I Tallow (rough) 4 6 Potatoes 0 11 ..... MARKETS. Rapeseed 20 0 Bere 11 0 Wheat - 0 10 Oats 0 9 Beef (per lb. Mutton 0 4 0 5 Pork 0 2 0 3 Veal 0 6 0 8 Fresh Butter 0 10 1 0 Salt Ditto Potatoes (per 5t.)... 0 2 0 3 (ADVERTISEMENT.) —T. COX SAVORY, G o ld sm ith, &c., 47, Cornhill, London, informs the Public, that he has a considerable variety of SECOND-HAND GOLD WATCHES, any of which he offers at EIGHT GUINEAS each. They have all been carefully overlooked, and are warranted.—Watches pur• chased in exchange. BIRTHS. On the 25th inst., the lady of the Rev. J. H. Sparke, of a son. On the 26th inst., Sirs. Luke James Hansard, of Marlborough. , road, St. John's Wood, of a son, still-born. MARRIED. On the 23th inst. at St. George's, Hanover-square, Lieutenant- Colonel the Hon. John Finch, broth er t o t h e E ar l of Aylesford, to Katharine, daughter of the late Alexander Ellice, Esq. At St. Mary's, Marylebone, S ara h an d Charlotte, daughters of N. Micklethwait, Esq. : Sarah to John Miles, Esq., of Bisterne: Hants ; Charlotte to Francis Le Strange Astley, Esq., brother 0 1 Sir Jacob Astley, Bart.. On the 28th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, John Gur don, Esq., second son of T. T. Gurdon, Esq., of Letton, Norfolk, to Lady Ormsby Rebow, widow of the late Sir Thomas Ormsby, Bart., and only child of Lieut.-General Slater Rebow, of Wiiyenline Park. On the 15th inst., at St. George's, Exeter, Mr. Joshua Stokes, of Sidbury, to Mrs. Ann Drake Paltridge, of Exeter. It is not a little singular, and will certainly afford an argument for fatalists in favour of their sy s t em , th at t h ese parties, who are now getting in years, were acquainted in their youth, and about to be united in the bonds of wedlock ; a difference, however, took place, and they parted. After a while each got married, and in the lapse of years became single, when the courtship was again renewed, with precisely the same result as before—a quarrel and second separation. Each again got married, and having become once more single, they re solved to put it out of the power of caprice, or aught but death, to separate them more, by indissolubly uniting themselves in the silken bonds of Hymen. DIED. On the 20th inst., at St. Germains-en-Laye, in her 61st year' Mary Dorothy, th e on l y d aug h ter o f t h e Rev. Dr. Torkington, , Stukely, Huntingdonshire. On the 25th ult., at Ridgway Castle, near Southampton, the seat of James Eade, Esq., Frederick Stretton, Esq., aged 26. On the 27th inst., in Thavies Inn, Mrs. Catherine Bruce, widow of the late Robert Bruce, Esq., aged 86. On the 26th inst., at Peckham, Surrey, Elizabeth Grace, only daughter of George Trimmer, Esq. On the 26th ult., at Portsmouth, Frances Emily, only daughter of the late Sir Francis Milman, Bart. aged 47. On the 22d inst., at Brussels, in his 75th year, the Rev. Mark Drury, M. A. On 'the 26th inst., in Abingdon-street, Westminster, Ann& Maria, relict of John Kempson, Esq., late of Blackheath, Kent. On the 27th of April, at the Cape of Good Hope, W. L. bertson, Esq., of the Bengal Civil Service, and eldest son of Colin Robertson, Esq. On the 16th inst., in Burns'-street, Dumfries, Mrs. Ann Burns, aged 63, wife of Mr. Robert Burns, eldest son of the Bard. She was interred, on Tuesday, in the mausoleum, where lie the remains of her great relative. On the 23d inst., aged 86, Mrs. Manning, of the Old Rope Wal k, Portsea. On the Bth inst., at Skirbeck, aged 81, Mr. John Simpson, et Ingoldmells, a member of the Wesleyan Methodist Society for up' wards of 50 years. On the 3d inst., aged 93, Mrs. Wilson, wife of Mr. Richard Wilson, Hessle, and late of North Ferriby. On the 25th inst., at Lenton, aged 84, Mr. Thomas Bailey , senior pastor of the Scotch Baptist Church, Park-street. Lately, at Newcastle-on-Tyne, Mr. Richard Goodlad, paper, stamper. He was a native of Conisbro', near that town, where he_ has left property t o hi s brother, nephews, and nieces, all in bomb circumstances, to the amoun t of between 30,000/. and 40,0004 ln her 100th ye ar , a t St ans b atc h , Herefordshire, Mrs. Eli za beth Fletcher. London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG,, .of bt -112, Strand, at Th e S un Offi ce , N o . 1 12 , S tran d, i n - tbecouarl of Aliddlesex ° TAw AI }Kni g h t , , County which pri A FRI 9 1 Warwi nip then Manor of t ore Lan( These ] Salt, dee( Partiet said blast tondon • Runt and and C ox, ampton-s1 a nd the p July 2C CON? :P RI tb MITE]) do hereb One 0 , 4 be Killing ales int WINE... Bi SUGARI Wn*AT \ ~.............: PEAs SOAP -05;, Li LT. viti P an t Pies of oks (not 1 P a tties te n together • heMoe• day of d ent for I ' e ;tery enders of ""fted to qsio-n e d with 'Co e f P h nr t THE PIS ( \wit Rundr nen Eli: tvening. °PEN ,11.11r1.--"-------60, eve f vit e eirl e ip t i bti E l b o llj v n i ownstructed erai C ar 3 ' st ° lll of "4 ba c k ag R ail of tl i:°o43 facin 11.°14 t itanAdra C L A 811 Growth St. Julien the Lalitte °., very 0 -"••=,-=.......