The Sun. — London, England, 1835-06-12 00:00:00

41, for altering or amending the grants to the Presbyterians of Ireland, which went under the name of the Reyium Donum. Lord MORPETH said there was no intention to open the question in the present Session, but there were some points connected with the subject which would require the interfer ence of the Legislature. IRISH TITHES. Mr. SINCLAIR—It had been rumoured that the question of Irish Tithes was to be postponed ; he wished to know whe ther that was the case or not? Lord J6ilisrliFS iiil said that as the second reading of the Corporation Bill bad been fixed for Monday next, it would be impossible to bring this question forward—the day on which it was intended to bring it forward was the Friday following. IPSWICH. Mr. GISBORNE moved the Order of the Day for dis cussing the report of the Ipswich Committee. The reason why the motion which he made was not supported by a greater number of precedents was the difficulty of establishing such cases. But the case of the Camelford election was a precedent quite in point. The House in that case resolved that Callington should be taken into custody. He would call the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to an authority upon this point whose sufficiency would be admitted. It was the authority of the late Speaker of that House. When Calling ton, in extenuation of his offence, pleaded grievous bodily in jury, and his not having been served with a warrant, the Speaker replied, " You allege that you were not served with an order. It is true you were not ; but you are reported by the Committee to have wilfully absconded to avoid being so served. Do not, therefore, now hope to mislead us by so vain an excuse ; such,attempts as those shall never succeed, but always terminate, as in your case, with the disgrace a n d punishment of the individual." The question then for the House was, whether it was to proceed on its own view of the evidence or act upon the report of the Committee. In his own opinion the House ought to act on the report of the Com mittee, the recommendation of which was not to punish but to take into custody. It might be said that his motion affected persons who had not been before the Committee, but he would say in answer to that, that they had Counsel and others there to defend them. The Hon. Member concluded by begging to be allowed to omit the words " for their several and respective offences"—(loud cries of " hear, hear, hear")—in the motion which he had last night pro posed, and at the same time, to include the names of John B. Dasent and John Pilgrim in the warrants of the Speaker. The motion that John Bond, Arthur Bott Cooke, Robert Beauchamp Clamp, Frederick O'Malley, J. Eddowes Spar rowe, John Clipperton John Bury Da sen t, an d J o h n Pil gr i m be taken into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant ac cordingly, was then put. Mr. P. STE WART rose to explain the reason of his hav ing abstained from originating any motions of this nature, founded upon the report of the Committee which he had brought up to the House. He begged to assure the House that, as Chairman of that Committee, he did not wi s h t o om i t anything which mi g ht p ro p er l y have fallen within his duties in that capacity ; but the fact simply was this, that the Commit tee had not authorised him to take any steps of the kind; and he, therefore, thought it best to content himself by bringing up the report, and leaving tbe House to act upon it as they should think proper, being perfectly prepared to abide by that decision when it came. Lord J. RUSSELL said that it appeared to him, after what the Hon. Member for Derbyshire had stated, the House bad acted perfectly right in adopting the course they had done in postponing this discussion. He perfectly agreed in the sound discretion which dictated the alterations proposed by the Hon. Member in his motion, and he hoped that, in its present shape, the House would adopt it. It appeared to him a highly unjust course to draw a distinction, and to punish a man who disobeyed the mandate of the Speaker, but to allow another to go scot free who was successful enough, by conspiracy or otherwise, to evade its being served upon him ; and he was glad to find that the authority of the late Speaker bore him out in that view of the case. Sir R. PEEL rejoiced at the delay which had occurred, and he thought that the Hon. Member for Derbyshire had also good reason to be glad of it. That delay had given the Hon. Member an opportunity of referring to precedents, and of making a very important and judicious alteration in the word ing of his motion. In calling the parties to the Bar of that House, by virtue of the Speaker's warrant, to answer certain charges, they ought not to prejudge that they were guilty of 'certain offences. That would be highly untimed, and very unjust. He was glad to see, therefore, that, by the omission of the words " for their several and respective offences" from his motion, the Hon. Member had consented not to assume the Lguilt of those parties as a thing established.—( Hear, hear.) Under this view of the case, and the terms of the motion being thus amended, he could see no objection to the names of all the parties who had been mentioned in the report of the Com mittee, being included in the Speaker's warrant.--( Hear.) The authority of the late Speaker for the position that the -utfence of absconding to evade the service of the Speaker's writ was equally culpable as the refusing to obey it after it had been served, would fully justify such a course upon the facts of the present case. At the same time, however, he could not help thinking it would have been better, had the time of the Mouse allowed it, that the Ilouse should have heard the erfalence adduced before the Committee, and have formed their &wn judgment upon it. He could cite a case precisely in Taint, of certain parties who absconded for the purpose of evading the service of the Speaker's warrant. On that occa sion the House did not take the report of the Committee as the basis for their proceedings, but caused the evidence ad duced before that Committee, as taken down in shorthand, to be read at the Bar, and then, upon their own authority, and their own construction of that evidence, not the authority or construction of the Committee, proceeded to summon the par ties implicated before them. Mr. GISBORNE inquired the date and reference to the case in question ? Sir R. PE EL replied, the case of the Grantham election Committee in 1820, when the course he had described had been entered on in a case very similar to the present. He could see no objection to the House hearing the evidence read at the bar, before they proceeded to act in the present case ; while on the other hand, he did see a very serious objection against any judicial body, which the House was under the present cir cumstances, taking the authority of others when acting in their judicial capacity, when they had an opportunity of form ing their own opinion upon the merits of the case. l3efore he sat down he begged to be permitted to ask of the Hon. Mem ler what course he intended to pursue in reference to the Ma gistrates whose conduct hnd been referred to in a subsequent part of the Committee's report ? Mr. GISBORNE would rather enter upon that subject after the present motion had been disposed of. Sir R. PEEL inquired when it would be brought before the House ? Mr. GISBORNE said perhaps, after all, he had better ex plain his intentions on that subject also, particularly as be could do so in two words. He only hoped, however, that the House would bear in mind that the two cases were perfectly distinct. The course which he proposed recommending to the House in respect to the Magistrates implicated in the Com mittee's reports, would vary from that which he had already proposed in reference to other individuals connected with these transactions, only inasmuch as the words of the report of the Commissioners varied when speaking of the two classes of in dividuals The Commissioners reported that the conduct of the Magistrates, Samuel Bignold and Edward Temple Booth, Esqrs., appeared to them to be a breach of the privileges of this House. Now, he believed that the course which the House usually adopted in cases of breach of privilege was, not to take the parties into custody, but to order them to ap pear at the bar on a certain day. That was the course which he intended to propose to the House in the present case. Sir R. PEEL certainly concurred with the Hon. Member, that there was a very great difference between the charges against the two classes of persons implicated in the report of the Committee, and he therefore agreed that a different course should be pursued in reference to them. What he would now ask, however, was this question, which, without discussing it himself, he would put to the Right Hon. Gen tleman in the Chair for his decision upon it, namely, whe ther any precedents existed to show that the House had ever devolved upon any other tribunal than itself the duty of de termining whether a breach of privilege had or had notbeen committed ?—( Hear.) The SPEAKER, who was scarcely audible behind the Chair, was understood to express an opinion that the House should not be any further bound by the report of the Com mittee in this case than to take up the question of the alleged breach of privilege, with a view of deciding upon it. Sir R. PEEL, in accordance with that opinion, put it to the Hon. Member whether the House could properly proceed to summon to their bar the parties guilty of the alleged breach of privilege before they had read the evidence relating to the case, and made up their opinion whether the case of breach of privilege existed or not ? Mr. CHAPMAN said that, as one of the Committee on the Ipswich Election, he begged to say that it had not been the intention of the Committee, in saying what they did in their report, to dictate to the House, but merely to suggest to it their surmise that a charge of a breach of the privileges of the House had been incurred by the conduct of the Magistrates named in the report. With respect to the individuals who had absconded from the Speaker's warrant, it happened that two of them, Dasant and Pilgrim, afterwards appeared and gave their evidence ; the former voluntarily did so, and it therefore appeared to the Committee that in so doing he had in great part freed himself from crimination. For himself, be did hope, that, in regard to both these indi v id ua l s , th e House would act with less severity than towards the others named. Mr. GISBORNE was understood to acquiesce in the sug gestion that no motion should be made on the subject of the two Magistrates until the evidence of this breach of privilege was before the House. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that it was becoming and neces sary in every proceeding like the present to act only upon the very best evidence which could be got. But for that very reason he thought it was better in the present case to depend upon the report of the Committee. This opinion was strictly in accordance with the practice of the Courts, which always preferred an opinion founded upon evidence orally delivered, than upon a mere hearsay report of it. In conclusion, he would observe that, as a lawyer, there were no proceedings which he viewed with a more unwelcome eye, or which the country more reluctantly took up than cases of contempt. At the same time, however, he must express his opinio n , that if ever there were a case of the kind which called for visitation it was the present one. There were five or six individuals, aided mid abetted by the agents and solicitors of the parties engaged in the contest, and also, he was grieved to say, by a gentleman belonging to the honourable profession of the Bar, charged *ith avoiding, he would almost say by conspiracy, the service of the Sp e aker's warrant. The case was such that it did not ac tually coma within the reach of a criminal indictment for con , , .'-I~ spiracy, it only escaped doing so by reason Of some legal tech nicalites,:the existence of which he regretted. Lord STANLEY was very much inclined to agree with the Right Hon. Baronet's ( Sir R. Peel's) view of the case, that the evidence should be heard before the House acted upon it. At the same time he would observe that he should have opposed the Honourable Member for Derbyshire's motion if he had not modified it, by striking out the criminative words which originally appeared in it. With respect to the case of Grantham, to which the Right Hon. Baronet had referred, the circumstances of that case were he believed as follows :—The Committee simply reported that warrants had been issued for the appearance of certain parties, three in num ber, but that although all due diligence had been used by the officers intrusted with these warrants, they bad not been served. Upon this report the House proceeded to an inquiry whether the officers of the House had really used all proper diligence in the execution of their duties, and after hearing evidence at the bar in reference to this point, which was thereby satis factorily established to be the fact, the House proceeded to de clare its opinion that the parties against whom the warrants had been issued had absconded in order to avoid the Speaker's warrants, and thereupon issued other warrants to bring them before the bar of the House. These being the facts of the case cited by the Right Hon. Baronet, he thought there was a very broad basis of distinction between it and the one now under their consideration. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wagvery glad to findthat the opinion he had last night thrown out, as to the culpability of the parties in the present case, was supported by the gene ral voice of the House, and by the high authority of the Noble Lord, their late Speaker. With regard to the fact of the par ties' guilt, he considered, charged as they were by the Com mittee's report, that, relatively speaking, they stood in the same position as parties against whom a Grand Jury had returned a true bill of indictment to the Court; and who, upon that in dictment, were taken into custody. In the same way, in the present case, he thought the House would be fully justified in taking the parties accused into custody, to answer the charges which had been preferred against them. Mr. JERVIS said he had been requested by an Hon. and Learned Gentleman, whose name was prominently mixed up in the present affair, he meant the late Hon. and Learned Member for the borough of Ipswieh (Mr. Kelly,) to state to the House that all which that Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said and declared before the Committee he had done as an advocate only, and not as one in any way concerned or interested in the result.—( Oh, oh I) Mr. P. STEWART felt bound to add his testimony to the ' fact that Mr. Kelly, when opening the proceedings, declared to the Committee that whatever he said would be in his capacity of Counsel, as a lawyer in the case, and not as one having any personal interest in it. The motion, as amended was then agreed to. Mr. GI SB ORNE then said that with respect to the ease of breach of privilege against the Magistrates, he hardly knew in what form that should be brought on. Perhaps some Member of the Committee, or some other Hon. Member, when they had heard the evidence, and the proper opportunity arrived, would suggest the proper course to be adopted. An HON. MEMBER was authorized, on the part of the two Magistrates in question, to declare that they were perfectly ready to meet any sort of inquiry or decision which the House might think proper to come to on the subject of the charge against them. Another HON. MEMBER was understood to inquire what proceedings the solicitors implicated in this transaction were liable to ? Mr. P. STEWART replied (as we understood) that the only course he was aware of was a very painful one, namely to strike the names of the parties in question off the rolls. Mr. SC ARLE TT was proceeding to address the House, but was called to order, there being no question before it. Mr. S. CRAWFORD postponed his motion for a Bill to alter the Act of 3 and 4 William IV., relating to Grand Juries in Ireland. PUBLIC CHARITIES. Mr. HARVEY rose to move for a Select Committee to in quire into the state of the public charities in England and Wales, with a view to render them more efficient for the educa tion of the people and the comfort of the poor. It was more than seventeen years since a distinguished individual, who had since merged his personal greatness in the accident of rank, had brought under the notice of this House the state of the public charities in England and Ireland, in a motion which led to the appointment of a select Committee to examine into the condition of the poor, and the disposition of the charitable funds throughout the kingdom. A Bill was subseqnently in troduced of such a nature, and with such provisions as were best calculated to give efficiency to the designs of the honour able individual who brought the subject forward. It so hap pened, however, that, after that Bill had passed through this House, it was materially impaired in its importance, and nearly all its utility destroyed, in its passage through another place. A clause was there introduced into the Bill, restricting the inquiries of the Commission which it appointed strictly to the charities which had immediate reference to the educa tion of the poor, and excluding from their notice all those institutions and endowments to which visitors belonged, and which very institutions it so happened most loudly called for the salutary interference of Parliament. The Honour able Member then reverted to earlier periods in the history of these charities, and particularly to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, hi the forty third year of whose reign an Act was passed appointing Commissioners to inquire into the flagrant abuses which even then existed in their ma nagement ; and also to the time of Cromwell, when upwards of 900 Commissions were issued for similar purposes. In later times, however, these charities had been less rigidly at tended to, and their funds, in many instances, totally per verted from their intended objects. Things went on in this way till 1818, when the Act was passed to which he had previously referred. In 1831 another Act, founded on the Report of the Committee of 1816, was brought in ; but here also the same fault of exclusion was continued, and the en dowments of Universities and other public schools which had visitors were exempt from its operation. There was one re port, voluminous beyond reason, drawn up with great labour and skill, submitted to the House on this subject. There was no subject of any great national interest that was not sub mitted to Committees of that House, and there was no part of the present question that bad not been sifted before them That man formed but a poor estimate of the labours of a Member of that House, who judged of him by his exhibition on its floor as a speaker. The Member who was often the most useful was the least ostentatious, as, in place of figur ing in public, making speeches, his days and nights were devoted to the scrutiny of public questions, which required much research, much patience and discrimination. They had already the twenty-eighth report in a folio volume of 800 pages, and the next report would soon be printed. These reports will be an expense to the country of about 210,0001. Each volume costa about 6001. or 7001. ; arid when the re port is completed, it will be at no less than a quarter of a million expense to the nation. Now, one great object of the Committee was to make the Commission useful to the pub lic, and it would, on inquiry, be found that this object was not effected. He ( Mr. Harvey) would not go through all the details the question presented, though all of them were important ; they were not familiar to the House, and might not be inte resting. However, lie would state some. One of them was Huntington (as we understood the Hon. Member, who, from his rapid and low tone occasionally, and his position, was very imperfectly heard by us.) Ir. that case what was done ? A suit was instituted in Chancery, in 1818, and the case was now in the Master's office. Thus a question of great impor tance to the cause of public education, and the habits and morals of the rising generation, were kept as it were in abey ance for several years. There was next the case of the Pot tingham school (as we understood.) There the estates were given for the support of five boys, to be sent to St. John's, Oxford. At the time the endowment was given, It 4s. 10d. was considered sufficient for the support of each boy in Col lege, and that sum was in proportion for each individual to the capacity of the estate. But since, the estate had in creased to 8001. a year, and yet not more than the s original stipend of IL 4s. 10d. was allowed to each boy. Now it was stated that each boy was to have his fair proportion of the estate, and that the estate was to be evenly distributed for the maintenance of a certain number of pupils in that school, yet it was contended by learned and pious Doctors of the Uni versity that no more than five boys were admissible from that school, on that foundation, and that each was to. have no more than the original 1/. 4s. 10d., notwithstanding the vastly-increased value of the property, and that the rest was to be held in trust for the benefit of the Fel lows of the College._( Hear, hear, hear.) That case was also brought into the Court of Chancery. The next case he would mention was that of the Croydon Charity, which was brought tinder the notice of the House and the public by the Noble Lord. That case, flagrant as it was, was to this hour unredressed, the master was still receiving his salary without giving any labour for it—there were no pupils. There was also the College of Pollington. The estates of that estab lishment yielded 14,0001. a year, which was now monopolised by a few persons and for the worst purposes. There a provi sion was made that no boy who had not five pounds a year could be received. Thus, then, it appeared that the rich boy who could procure education elsewhere, and who did not stand in need of this charitable aid, and who, in fact, ought in justice to be sent to other schools, was supported out of this establish ment. Was not this a grievous perversion of charity ? He would next beg to give an account of the proceedings of the Committee, and the information laid before it, which would show the country the rapidity of the progress made by infor mation. There were twenty-eight counties investigated by the Committee, and the charities in these counties were laid before them. These twenty-eight counties contained 26,751, charities, having property of various descriptions. There were six other counties partly investigated, containing 1,734 charities. They had heard much of the lack of education, of the wretchedness and ignorance of the poor, with pathetic ap peals to the country to make some provision for rescuing the people from the darkness that besets them. Now, it appeared that there were funds sufficient, if properly applied, for that purpose. In twenty-four of these counties the actual rental from land, houses, and other kinds of property was 331,7331., in connection with the charitable funds left for the purposes of education. Altogether the funds left for charitable education in the twenty-eight counties was 2,288,530/. Middlesex was not included in this return. Including the twelve Welsh coun ties, of which he said nothing, he would not hesitate to say that it would be found that there was an available capital of over five millions sterling for the purposes of education, which if properly directed, in place of being a bonus to certain indi viduals and bodies, would scatter benefits and blessings over the country. Of the thirty-three counties which were in whole or part brought under the cognizance of the Com mittee (and in the inquiry then proceeded with, the Member for Calne took an active . and prominent part) there was a po pulation of ten millions of persons—there were 2,257 infant schools, 2,311 day schools, and 982,744 children attending. This, it would be seen, following up the calculation of the re lative proportion of population and profits, that in these VIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1835. counties, containing ten millions of inhabitants, one in ten received education; not, however, from endowed schools, but chiefly from the gratuitous schools. It might be said that there were remedies at law, for the abuse of these trusts, so there were—in name. Too many of these cases were brought before the Court of Chancery, and there they were, many of them waiting for redress, eighty-eight cases have been already submitted to the Court of Chancery ; and the account of the mode in which many of these cases were dealt with would be sufficient to dispel the delusion that it was only necessary to lock the doors of the Court on the case, and propose some measure of Parliamentary Reform, in order to make every thing right. The Hon. Member proceeded to detail the history of a case brought before the Court of Chancery in 1820, for the recovery of an amount of 71. for several years, in which, as we understood, the Court only gave an order for the recovery of 421., and 61. arrear ; but from his position and mode of delivery, we could not collect the particulars satisfacto rily. A similar return was moved for in 1830, and what was the result? "Why, it was stated that the cause had been set down for hearing, but that, John Adams having died in the meantime, the suit became abated.—( Hear, and a laugh.) A fresh information, it appeared, was then filed, reviving the original suit, and making the devisees of Adams' parties, and the costs of these proceedings, and setting down both causes, amounted to—what did the House think ?—why, to no less a sum than 461. 14s. 10d. ' which actually exceeded the subject matter of contention .—( Hear. ) He would now travel on to the next year, in order that the House might see what had been done since the original and supplemental causes had been set down for hearing. On the 23d of November, 1831, the case was called on for argument ; but it was then settled, as one might suppose it would have been? Oh, no lit went off on the objection of want of 'fa rties, as two children had been born to one of the defendants pending the order for hearing, and they, it was said, were necessary patties to the suit.—( Hear, and laughter.) Well, then, the cause was ordered to stand over until these children were made defend ants by a supplemental information ; and, having come on for decision on the 26th of January, 1832, a decree was pro nounced in favour of the charity, by which an account was ordered to be taken of the annuity, due six years prior to the filing of the original information ; and the Master was directed at the same time to take the Attorney-General's costs. The Master accordingly made his report on the 26th of the follow ing August, from which it appeared that the arrears amounted to somewhere about 771., while the costs in the cause was as much as 2091. 15s. But this was not all, for there were extra costs to the extent of 881. allowed, and the whole of these monstrous expenses were incurred for the recovery of the trifling sum of 71. a year. So much, then, for the zeal and utility of the Court of Chancery, which, instead of injuring the suitor by dilatory and expensive proceedings, was bound to protect his rights by the exercise of promptness as well as of justice.—( Hear, hear.) This was one case of the abuse of the funds belonging to charities • but without noticing it further, he would pass on to the case of the Brentwood schools. In that case certain estates were devised by Sir Anthony Browne for the twofold purpose of educating the poor children of Brentwood aad 12 neighbouring parishes, and allowing a sum of eighteen-pence a week to five aged persons belonging to the almshouses there. At the period this devise was made the property bequeathed was commensurate with the object to which it was to be applied. It then yielded somewhere about 1001. a year, while it now produced an income of from 1,200/. to 1,5001., and the increase, it was contended, belonged to the owner of a neighbouring estate and not to the charity, it being deemed sufficient, to satisfy the terms of . the donor's will that a grammar school—that was a place for teaching Greek and Latin—had been established, and the payment of eighteen-pence a week was made to five of the occupiers of the almshouses in question. This construction of the terms of the bequest the Attorney-General, and very pro perly too, dissented from, contending that as the funds extended the number of the recipients of the advantages of the charity should also be enlarged. With this impression on his mind, the Attorney-General caused an information to be filed in 1823 against the master and wardens of Brentwood Grammar School, and the costs of the proceedings in that cause down to 1828 amounted to no less a sum than 1641.85. Bd. But what was the state of the cause in 1828, as appeared from a return then made to that House ? Why, that it had been partly heard on the 26th of May, and was appointed for further hearing in the Easter Term following. Now, this was hopeful enough, and it might be inferred that when Easter Term came the matter would be disposed of. But was that the case ? Oh, no for it was then stated that the cause had come on for further argument, but that it was ordered to stand over until it, and a supplementary cause connected with it, could be brought before the Court at the same time.—( A laugh.) The costs of these proceedings amounted to 197/., and then a case was directed to be submitted to the Court of King's Bench, which, in 1830, was only set down for argument, although it had been prepared nearly two years before. A variety of other expensive and harassing proceedings had occurred in this suit; and, as it still remained pending, though a nego tiation for settling the matter was going on, he concluded that nothing would be done until Parliament actually interfered. He had now put the House in possession of the principal facts. What was wanted was an efficient and permanent Committee of Public Instruction, with some high dignitary of the law to direct and superintend the conduct of all legal proceedings that might become necessary for the preservation of the funds of the charities. After some further observations on the ne cessity there was for placing the moral and religious education of the people on some better basis than that on which it rested at present, the Hon. Gentleman moved, " That a Select Com mittee be appointed to examine into and consider the evidence contained in the'several volumes of reports of the Commis sioners appointed to inquire into the state of the charities in England and Wales ; to report upon the means by which, in their opinion, charity funds could be most effectually and promptly recovered ; and to consider how such funds might be most wisely and at the same time economically applied." Mr. WILK S seconded the motion. Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that he rose, not to offer any opposition to the motion of the Hon. Member for iouthwark, but, on the contrary, to give it his assent— ( Hear.) He fully agreed that it was desirable to have that which was valuable in those reports ascertained ; but with re spect t , ) the last proposition, that of " considering how the funds of charities could be more wisely and economically ap plied," he should certainly give it his support, although he wished to guard himself from expressing any opinion on it. In his evidence, given last year, Lord Brougham stated that after years of consideration he had been unable to say whether or not those funds had been applied according to the view of the founders, arid as that was the case, he (Lord J. Russell) was anxious to avoid risking any opinion on the subject, though he was, at the same time, glad the matter had been brought forward ; and, should the motion his cordial and hearty assent. —( Hear, hear.) Mr. WYSE fully and cordially sympathised in the exer tions made by the Hon. Member for Southwark to regenerate the charities of this country, and he thought the assent which the Noble Lord had given to the motion was the most prudent course which, under such circumstances, could be taken by a Minister of the Crown. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL entertained no feelings of difficulty in expressing his entire satisfaction in the course pursued in moving for the appointment of the Committee. The Committee about to be appointed, he would remind the House, would have two objects in view. The one would be more the summarily, economically, and effectually cor recting existing abuses. And here he would observe that those abuses not having been corrected must not be imputed as a matter of blame either to him or his predecessors in office. The fault was not with them, but with the system. —( Hear, hear, hear.) But to return. The only object the Committee ought to have in view, should be the en tirely fresh and better application of the funds of these charities.--( Hear, hear.) He rejoiced that the motion had been made, and was gratified at the reception it had met with.—( Hear, hear. ) The motion was then agreed to. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that the success of the inqui ries of the Select Committee must materially depend upon the impartiality of the Members composing it. He should, therefore, defer the proposition for their nomination until he had consulted the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) on the subject. the following effect :—" That the House is of opinion that the continuation of the imposition of the tax upon windows is highly inexpedient and hurtful to the health of the commu nity, and that it is advisable such tax should be repealed.— (Loud cries of " Divide" again greeted the Hon. Member on his re-occupying his seat.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appre hended from the manner in which the Hon. Gentleman brought forward his motion, he did so more to discharge his duty to his constituents than in expectation of being able to reap any particular benefit from the motion. It was very well to say repeal taxes. He should like very well to repeal them, but it must be remembered that the demands for repeal always exceeded the power of doing so. They had been asked to re peal the Malt Tax—been pressed to repeal the Assessed Taxes affecting the agriculturists—to repeal the duty on glass—to repeal the duty on paper—and to take off the taxes from newspapers ; now they were asked to repeal the window tax, and a proposition was before the House for taking off the additional duty on spirit licenses. It would be very gratifying to be able to attend to all these suggestions, but it was his painful duty to oppose them. He must ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion, otherwise he should feel compelled to oppose it. Before he concluded he had a short statement to offer to the consideration of the House. In 1820, there were 968,000 houses in London liable to the house and window rate, and producint , a revenue of 2,578,0001. In 1832, there were only 380,00ehouses rated, producing a revenue of 1,100,0001. thus making a reduction of 1,478,0001. And last year, by the repeal of the house tax, there was a saving of an additional 491,0001. He did not oppose the motion of the Hon. Member out of any feeling of disrespect to him, but on the grounds, as he had stated, which induced his opposition the other evening to the proposed method of relieving the landed interest. Colonel E V ANS thought that from the state of the reve nue there was no probable ground for expecting a repeal. Should the surplus revenue be greater than had been antici pated he trusted that the claims of the Householder would be first taken into consideration. He trusted, too, that parties letting lodgings, although a small item in a revenue account, might have their claims for relief taken into consideration. Mr. F. ROBINSON thought that no good could be ef fected until the subject of a general revision of the system of taxation was brought before a Committee of the House. Dr. LUSHINGTON had endeavoured that day to present to the House a petition upon the subject then before it, in which his constituents, though favourable to the motion, did not think it proper to press it upon Ministers in the present ad vanced state of the session, and under other existing circum stances. His constituents only wished that their claims to relief should have a fair consideration with those of other classes of the community. They wished that Ministers would take off those taxes that pressed the most on natioual indus try, and hoped that they never would be induced to invalidate the national credit. _ _ Mr. FE CT OR, as an enemy of direct taxation, would cer tainly press the motion to a division. Mr. T. ATT WO OD thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to abolish the tax, and find the means of providing a substitute. Why should not the Right Hon. Gentleman borrow the money as well as his victims ? The Hon. Member then went into the currency question and into the price of wheat, amidst the cries of " Question," and " Divide." After a few words from Mr. RUTHVEN and Capt. PECIIELL Sir S. WHALL EY replied, and expressed his consent to withdraw the motion. The cry for a division, however, was very general, and the House divided. For the motion Against it Majority 188 THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF SCOTLAND Sir W. RAE rose, in pursuance of notice, to move that a select Committee should be appointed, in order to examine into the numerous petitions that had been presented from Scot. land, praying for the building and endowing of places of public worship adequate to the accommodation of the people of that country that were of the faith of the Established Church. It was his duty to state to the House the extreme anxiety that was felt throughout all Scotland upon this important subject. According to the last report to the House by the Committee it appeared that 385 petitions had been presented from Scotland in favour of the Established Church, and in the year that had since elapsed 200 more had been presented, so that there had been, in fact, more than 600 petitions presented from Scotland in favour of the Establishment. This was a num ber totally unprecedented from that country upon any one subject that had occurred since the Union. Such, then, were the strong and almost universal feelings of Scotland upon .this most important point. He begged also to re mind the House that the people of Scotland had them selves subscribed 65,000/. in furtherance of the object they had in view, and all they called upon his Majesty's Minis ters to do was to aid their exertions. The population had increased nearly double in Scotland, while there was no pro portionate increase in the number of places of worship. In Glasgow there was a population of 224,000 souls, while there was only accommodation sittings there, in places of worship connected with the Church of Scotland for 77,000 persons. In , Edinburgh there was the same deficiency, and in an equal proportion throughout all Scotland. What was the baneful effect of this? Why, a lamentable increase of crime before unknown in Scotland, namely, 'twenty-five fold in the last twenty years. The General Assembly of Scotland had at last roused the country to a sense of this great evil, and he could not believe that any Government would refuse assistance toss ards so deirable an end. All that was asked was that some aid might be given to enable the places of worship to be thrown open to the poor, as well as to those who were able to pay for seats. The object of the petitioners was to secure re ligious instruction to the poor, and he could not think that a body of English gentlemen would refuse such a boon. 1,000,0001, had been granted to sustain the clergy of Ire land, and it could not be credited that one portion of the com munity of this great country would be preferred to another, It was a mere matter of whether the poor shall be instructed in Christian prayer or not, in a country proverbial for its ho nesty, sobriety, morality, and industry. He should conclude by moving that the petitions on this subject be referred to a Select Committee to report thereon. Mr. PRINGLE rose to second the motion. All they asked was to provide accommodation for the poorest classes who were unable to provide it for themselves. There were extensive districts in which additional churches were neces sary, and where the people were too poor to build them. It was the bounden duty of a Government to provide the means of religious arid moral instruction for the people. The Church of Scotland had not sufficient funds to provide the necessary accommodation. The funds might be ample in some parishes, but they were not transferable by law to the use of other parishes. The Hon. Member concluded by seconding the motion. He was scarcely audible in the Gallery. The LORD ADVOCATE said that, considering the great increase of crime, and the great evils arising from the want of sufficient accommodation, which must have been long known to the Right Hon. Baronet who brought forward this motion, it appeared extraordinary that he should have so long delayed it; that he did not bring it forward in the first, second, third, or fourth week, after the meeting of Parliament. The evils which it was now proposed to remedy might not have been known to others, but they were known to the Right Hon. Baronet. Why then did he so long neglect the sug gestion of some legislative remedy ? He did not mean to deny the respectability of the petitions. There were 382 petitions in favour of a grant, but, considering the eloquence urged in favour of it by some of the most able and distin guished of the clergy, the surprise was that there was not a petition from every parish in Scotland—from 554 in place of 382. If there was no petition on the other side, the case would be much stronger. It was, however, a peculiar circum stance that not less than 79,000 persons of the same religious belief sent in petitions against the grant. This did not arise from difference of creed. The Member for Selkirk, the other night, presented a petition in favour of the grant signed by 200. Ho (the Lord Advocate) saw a petition from the same county, signed by 600 against the grant, expressing surprise at such a proposition, and stating that there were already ample means of religious instruction. How could a Committee of that House ascertain whether the 200 or the 600 were in the right ? The evil complained of was one of long growth, and arose from the union of parishes. It was long in progress. Why was not some remedy sooner applied? He did not deny the existence of the evil, but a Committee up stairs was not the best mode of inquiry into it. By the law of Scotland a church, however small it might be, and however the population might have in creased in a parish, could not, as long as it was kept in repair, be enlarged. This, as well as other points in the petitions, de manded inquiry. Particular reference had been made to the church accommodation in Glasgow. There was great dif ference of opinion upon that point, such as could not be inves tigated or settled by a Committee of that House. It ought to be inquired into upon the spot. The House ought, in the first place, to take steps to ascertain the nature of the evil, and, that being ascertained, to devise the most effectual remedy. They were told, the only remedy was a grant of money. It should be recollected that there was a numerous body of Dissenters in Scotland. He would not say they were so numerous as those of the Establiihed Church, but certainly they were not so wealthy.—( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") The liberality of the Dissenters was fully admitted by the supporters of the grant, and, after all their liberality, and the spirit of accommodation they displayed, would it not be right to respect their feelings, and not call upon them without further inquiry, and against their opinions, to pay a tax of this kind ? They were told that if there were a Church Establishment at all it ought to be supported. He did not think this a wise argument, and many members of the Church of Scotland, when they saw the disinclination of the Dissenters, refused to press the matter by petition on the attention of Parliament. Would they now peril the Church of Scotland, which so long had proved itself most useful, and most efficient, by forcing forward a measure of this kind against the opinions and incli nations of the Dissenters? There was nothing he more de sired than that the Church of Scotland should stand unim peached in the opinions of the whole people. A Committee of that House was not a fit mode of inquiry. The grant should be proportioned to the urgency of the case, and how could a Committee determine that ? To enter upon such an inquiry at so late a period of the session would be quite nu gatory. Parliament ought not to decide without full and careful investigation, and for that purpose the best way, in his opinion, would be to appoint a Commission to inquire into the funds at present applicable to religious instruction in Scotland, and the means of affording accommodation for that purpose to the poorer classes, whether belonging to the Church of Scotland or to any other religious persuasion ; also into the resources now applicable to the building of churches. It might be objected to a Commission that it would occasion d e l a y. The same objection would apply with equal or greater force to a Committee, for every witness to be examined be fore such a Committee would have to travel up to London, a 204 distance of 400 miles. The delay that took place in former Commissions could not arise here. Sir G. CLERK said he had listened with great regret to the speech of the Learned Lord who had just concluded, which, while it admitted the existence of the evils complained of as in connection with the Church of Scotland, was calcu lated to destroy all the hopei entertained by the people of that country for their removal. Did the Learned Lord recollect that the measure now proposed by his Right Hon. Friend was one specially referred to in the Speech from the Throne on the opening of the present session 2—( Cheers.) Did he further recollect that no dissent, as respected that reference, was ex pressed in the address of that House in reply to that Speech? —( Cheers.) Again, did the Learned Lord recollect that at various periods since the year 1818, when grants of money were made to the Church of England, it was distinctly intimated that similar, though smaller, grants would be made to the Church of Scotland if it could be shown that that Church re quired such aid. It was alleged that the motion of his Right Hon. Friend was one for the immediate granting of public money. It was not so, it was simply a motion for an inquiry, which might be most satisfactorily instituted by a Committee of the House. He objected to a Commission on two grounds, first, because it struck him as a novel mode of carrying on the Government of the country, and, secondly, because it struck him, from the speech of the Learned Lord, that such a Com mission as he proposed was not likely to recommend anything that would meet the exigencies of the case.—( Hear, hear.) Every one in Scotland ought to have religious instruction brought home to his own door. He had now stated the chief grounds on which he thought that small endowments for building chapels in Scotland ought to be allowed by the Government. At present the poorer classes in Scotland were excluded from participating in religious worship, because they were in want of sufficient church accommodation. The sum required would be comparatively small, not more than 10,0001. He considered that there was no class of the community that would object to have that sum raised. He was in favour of an inquiry above stairs, and he objected to the proposed Commission, as he was assured that the effect of it would be not to allow the grant. He hoped the Noble Lord op posite (Lord J. Russell) would afford some hopes that a grant of the sort required would be allowed by the Govern ment.—(Cries of " Question.") The LORD ADVOCATE said a few words in expla nation. Mr. C. FERG US SON considered that there were suffi cient grounds to induce the House to accord the grant sought for, though he had no wish that any additional burthens should be placed on parties who did not wish it. It was of vast im portance that the poorer classes in Scotland should not go without religious instruction. The chief principle involved in the .question lay between those who were in favour of a Church Establishment in Scotland, and those who were averse to any such establishmedts. The poor people in Scotland did not ask that churches should be built for them, they only looked for some assistance. As the facts connected with the question were disputed, and as it would be impossible to ascertain them through means of a Com mittee, he should vote for a Commission. Mr. WALLACE said that there was a great deal of pro perty belonging to the Church of Scotland, which could be rendered available for increasing the places of public worship, and for this reason he felt that the Commission would be the proper course. Mr. G ILL ON would meet the question with a direct ne gative. He spoke the opinions of an important body of Dis senters when he stated that it was their opinion no set of men should be taxed for the moral or religious instruction of others. On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the debate was adjourned. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'Clock. WINDOW TAX. Sir S. W HALLE Y said, that although they had been in formed early in the session by the Right Hon. Baronet, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the surplus of the revenue would in all probability amount but to 250,0001., yet, as they had, on behalf of the agricultural interest, been re quested to concede no less a sum than five millions, _and for other interests to give up other taxes, he considered it his duty to persevere, in accordance with the wishes of a numerous body of his constituents, in his motion for the repeal of the • Window Tax. Both he and they had the fullest confidence in his Majesty's present Ministers.—(Loud cheers.) He was anxious, however, to bring before the House the claims of the middle classes, and the right they had to relief from the first available surplus. That there would shortly be such a surplus he did not entertain a doubt. So soon as the energies of the country were again brought into activity, and a breathing time was allowed from politi ca l ag i tat i on .—( L ou d c h eers from the Opposition benches)--and those reforms were perfected by Ministers that had been so well commenced, and which he believed they would perfect—the country would then rapidly recover from the excitement into whi c h i t h a d b een p l unge d, and increased prosperity would be the consequence. He be lieved that never in the history of England was the country more rich, prosperous, i and flourishing a t h ome, or more re spected abroad, than t had been since the pas s i ng o f th e Reform Bill.—(Loud cheers of derision from the Opposition. ) The Hon. Gentleman then alluded to the ferment created in the country by the introduction of the h ear th tax, w hi c h had been mainly instrumental in the expulsion, of the Stuarts, and asserted that the window tax was of a character almost equally obnoxious. The Hon. Gentleman then entered into history of the scheme of Mr. Pitt in 1784, for taking off a duty on tea, and fixing it on those houses where the inhabi tants, by a calculation, were presumed to be the consumers of tea. The Hon. Gentleman then illustrated his subject by an anecdote of a grocer who blocked up his w i n d ows w i t h tea chests, and labelled them as " Pitt's work s ," vo l . 1, vo l. 2, and so on. The repeal of the window tax, he proceeded to say, would produce a deficit of 1,200,0001., and he thought that, as in one department one million of mo ney h a d b een saved in one year, 1,200,0001. might, by proper economy, be saved in another. He thanked the House f or t h e pat i ence with which it had listened to him, and expressed his fullest confidence in his Majesty's Ministers. He did not express that confidence as a party man--(Loud cries df " Oh, oh") — but because he perceived that they were a liberal Mi n i stry , an d he knew that economy must be an essential ingredi en t i n suc h a Ministry. On no other principle . could they stand—( Hear, hear)—and stand they would, in spite of the powerful Oppo sition on th e o th er s ide—in spite of the plots concocted fur their downfall—they would stand, and shatter to pieces the rittikS of the Opposition. He then submitted his motion to LIST OF THE MINORITY - Of 18 (Tellers included), who voted that the Window Tax should be taken off. Lewis, W Richards, J. Rundell, John Scholefield, J. Turner, W. Wakley, Thomas Brabazon, Sir W. J. Bulwer, rt. L. Fielden, J. Fleming, Admiral Halse, J. Holborn, Lord Humphery, J. Walker, R. Whalley, Sir S. Williams, W. TELLERS. Attwood, T. Fector, John Minet PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY. EIGHTH CONCERT. The last Concert for the present season of this celebrated Society took place on Monday evening at the King's Concert Rooms, Hanover-square. In the programme on this occasion the instrumental compositions were the Sinfonia Eroica (No. 6) of Beethoven, a double quartette by Spohr, the overture to Les Deux Journees and Die Zauberflote, the respective com positions of Cherubini and Mozart ; to which must be added a MS S. Sinfonia, by Mr. Potter, the conductor for the even i ag, and a new concerto (also M S S.) for the pianoforte in D minor, by Henri Herz. The vocal part of the scheme con sisted of the highly elaborated and scientific scena in D minor, from the opera of Fidelio, sung by Lablache ; and a dull and profitleis selection from the theatrical absurdities of those choice worthies (musicians they are not) Bellini and Donizetti. Of the Eroica Sinfonia we surely need say little. If after hearing it almost annually for twenty years the auditors of last night are yet deaf to its glorious fugues, melodious and yet simple phrases, profound and enharmonic transitions; and, lastly, al though not least, its immortal Marcia Funebre, of course, no thing we can write will avail either them or the composer. The gentlemen who form the orchestra of the Philharmcinic Concert go through the performance of Beethoven's Sinfonias -in a manner which we conscientiously believe not to be equal led by any band on the face of the earth. Beethoven, how ever, in writing specially for this band has proved too much for its strength and capabilities. The Sinfonia in D minor (No. 9) is the most extraordinary and wonderful specimen of the mighty genius of the composer, and was entrusted to the Phil harmonic band for its production to the public. It dropped from their hands a lifeless corpse, and has since undergone the vilest and most rancorous abuse from the heads of the profes sion. We truly believe that there are not three individuals connected with the Institution who have the slightest idea that this composition stands amongst the high efforts of musical genius in Germany, as the Paradise Lost does amongst the poetical literature of our own country. The pure and beauti ful, high and exalted, spirit of the poet and metaphysician (for Beethoven united both these characters in an extraordinary de gree) breaks forth in every page of this truly inspired produc tion, and although there are a host of passages utterly incom,. prehensible to the million, we trust there are yet those in this country who can enter into the joy of its author, his deep, hid den, and holy thoughts, his lovely and perfect images of bles sedness. To such as these its study is one intense feeling ;or as Goethe strangely, but expressively, calls it, the terror of delight. No band but the Philharmonic could do justice to this composition ; no band is at this time more profoundly ig norant of its merits, or less prepared to execute it properly. Mr. Potter's MSS. Sinfonia deserves but little commenda tion—the melodies are deficient in originality, and although there is much noise in the instrumentation, there is but little real weight or volume of sound. Added to this, there is an absence of feeling, and a perpetual restlessness and uneasiness of feature which in our opinion is destructive to effect. Henri Herz is a most extraordinary mechanist upon the pianoforte, but his pretensions to the character of a composer are of the most slender description. To us this gentleman's performance of his MSS. Concert was a truly melancholy exhibition, And we were grieved to see so much great talent in execution thrown away upon such utter poverty and worthlessness of thought and invention. The Coda upon the dominant of the relative major of the tonic (to speak technically,) which oc curs in the first part of the opening movement, appeared the best writing in the piece—the working up of both hands con trary ways, and a judicious employment of the flat ninth, ren dered it very effective. The Pastorale movement, founded upon a semi-Swiss, semi-Irish melody, pleased us but little; and the blossom of a fugue upon the old church subject was but school-boy writing. We recommend this gentleman to study Beethoven ; and in the later works of his contemporary, Czerny (of Vienna), he may perceive the important and bene ficial results of such a determination. Owing to this, Czerny, from the mere " Punch and Judy" exhibition of his instru ment, has placed himself high in the list of the classical com posers of the age. Auber and Donizetti appear to be the French models of the day, and they are miserable substitutes for Spohr and Beethoven. In the several performances of Cramer, Moscheles, and Herz, at these concerts during this season, it is not a little curious to observe the results of the mode of education each have received, and bow immeasurably in all the stern sublimity of epic writing the pupil of Albrechtz berger and Beethoven surpasses his contemporaries.* Spohr's new quartette for eight stringed instruments is not the best specimen of his learning or genius. Many of the sequences have become thread-bare in his hands, and his mannerisms were perpetually occurring. The movement in E major is the most to be commended. Mr. Mori fiddled his part as if he was performing a composition of his own—instead of recollect ing that his part formed only one of eight real and distinct me lodies, and that the audience had a right to hear them all equally well, in order to judge correctly of the author's work. The unmeaning trash and nonsense sang by the Italian gentry reflects disgrace upon the Directors of the Institution. Surely it is not necessary to the existence and comfort of Mademoiselle Grisi that she should exhibit herself and her endowments at the expense of the credit of the Society ; perhaps Mr. T. Cooke might be induced to write her such an exercise as would not be offensive to the ears of the amateurs who fre quent its performances. Mr. Cooke and a score of other gentlemen we might mention, would readily supply her with a much better specimen of vocalization than that wretched po lacca which the Italian Maestro has, to his own discredit, and the annihilation of his fair fame and reputation, placed in her hands. Gallantry towards the lady forbade that expression of feeling which was very spiritedly exhibited towards Rubini at the close of his execution of another miserable tissue of unmean ing passages, the work of Donizetti. Lablache's fine scena from the Fidelio of Beethoven was a complete failure, owing to the performance of the accompaniment ; another instance of the advantage of a public rehearsal. In reviewing the performances of the season, there is not much upon which to congratulate the Directors., The princi pal features of the season have been the new Sinfonias of Maurer and Spohr. With the exception of the overture by Moscheles, the home manufacture has not equalled in talent many of the youthful specimens brought forward by the So ciety of British musicians. We cannot refrain from expressing our astonishment that the Directors should imagine the inte rests or the credit of this association should require the conti nued performance of such things as the operatic movements from the Norma, and I Puritani of Bellini, and the Anna Bo lena and Marino Faliero of Donizetti. La Donna del Lago, Otello, and Semirarnide are severally nuisances in a concert room, but the Directors have departed still more widely from good taste, in preferring the bad imitations of Rossini to the works of this Maestro himself. THE MARKETS. ;ORN MARKETS DURING THE W: COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING THE Wheat. ! Barley. l Oats. Beans. P ease. Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to s. S. to a. a. to s. a. t° Abingdon .» 54 60 30 34 22 30 38 - Andover. 35 49 ,28 34 28 - 33 - Birmingham-...... 56 58 130 40 16 22 - 33 - Bridport 38 50 132 36 26 30 - Cirencester -.-.-. 31 48 1 '24 32 23 27 - 40 -- Faringdon.....--. 54 06 136 40 26 34 - 46 Guildford 38 54 28 35 20 30 - 46 42 58 ,26 32 '23 26 - 43 Hereford ----- 50 56 120 32 124 27 - 46 - High worth 42 60 ;32 42 •28 134 - 5 1 ; Maidenhead --- 50 68 34 44 '22 30 36 37 -1- Monmouth- —.... 33 42 29 34 122 30 34 - Reading 30 53 22 36 128 32 - 40 -" 36 50 j3O 33 '23 '2B 36 45 Southampton --- 54 58 !33 40 28 32 - 42 -• Stroud . 3'; 44 128 _36 20 21 - 46 - Tewkesbury 36 -1 26 - 2.2 32 - 44 Uxbridge ----- 40 48 128 32 jl7 28 - 40 Wantage---- 30 57 24 :30 19 32 34 .42 •-"' Warminster ....... 32 52 28 36 23 27 34 40 Windsor --.. 59 - 21 24 - 35 •- ...- Worcester 3;; 48 !30 32. 24 29 - 40 DEVIZES CORNMARKET.-June 11. d. -Per Sack. s. d. s. d. Per Quarter. s. d. s• Best Wheat.... 2O oto2l 0 Barley 3O to of; ‘ 0 Second l7 0 19 0 Oats 94 0 3. ` 0 94 Thirds l4 0 16 0 Beans (per sack)... 20 0 . 4 574 Sacks of Wheat sold/ Flour (per bag)..... 30 0 0 17 10 at the average of Bread (per ga11.)... -Per Sack. Best Wile/IL Second Thirds 574 Sacks of Vs at the averag, .VIZES CORN s. d. s. ..20 d. 0 to 21 0 .. 17 0 19 0 . 14 0 10 0 Acat sold/ 17 10 ;e. of LEEDS CORN MARKET.— June 9 Wheat, Norfolk and Stiftlilk, 601 b. - York. and Lincoln. 601 b. Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Grinding Beans Oats, Potatoe Eng. 911 t o 1 r 0 21284 :id . tt • tti : 32723l:::t i ° l le . Mealing, For. 12d. tol3it Shelling - • 111 4 Rapeseed, English, :25'. to 275. - l'o re i gn,--I.tc:____,...-i-•--I...lier' LIVERPOOL CORN EXCHANGE.—June 9 WHEAT, English, White, per 70th. - Red 6 8 --6 Scotch, Welch, and Manx Irish, White 5 9 - Red 5 4 Foreign 6 9 . . OATS, English, Welsh, and Scotch, per 451 b 3 2 - Irish - Foreign BARLEY, English, Malting, per Imp. quarter 27 8 --- Scotch and Irish, per 601135. ---- Feeding 3 H BEANS, English, per Imperial quarter 42 0 - Irish, &c. - Foreign PEASE, English, per I inperial quarter 42 0 - Foreign FLOUR, English, per 2801b ‘ ' 37 0 - ' - Irish OATMEAL, English and Irish, per 2401bs 27 0 IN DIAN CORM, per 4401 b. RYE, per 'roper al quarter MALT, per Imperial quarter . . . IMPORT or GRAIN for the Week ending June 8 .J. Wheat. 1 Oats. Barley I Flour. OA." Qrs. O rs. Qrs. !Foreign, Brle.l Irish, &c. Sake I t , .6 5 367 , 3,452 261 I 2,796 a MARKETS. Per lb. d. to Per Bushel, CHELTENHA. s. d. to s. di 6 Wheat Barley 1 I Oats 2 6 3 3 Veal reme 5 0 7 0 Lamb Hay 3/. lss to 41. 10s. Ott per ton. _______„...----' LEWES MARKET.—June I. a. Per Quaver. s. d. to s. ti. Per Quarter. g. d. Is 6 Wheat, White ... 40 0 43 0 Oats 2O 0 0 8 Red 31 0 33 0 Oil Cake...ll/. vs. per 11_22.../u"-- Barley HULL M A RKET.--Jane 2. na, 40 0 . Wheat, Old 365. 375. 4''5.......New 344. . , -- -- Foreign....., ....s. —s. —s. —s. In bond... —s• _,,,.. Oats, Poland 2ls. 235. 25s 01d.... .... .:21s. wi• „m s , Small or Feed.... —s. 18s. 20s , ...41...—. -- Foreign —s. —s. —s • ...4 ms s. 1 92 0 . Barley, Norf. & Sof. 2Bs 30s. 325. Linc. & Wold --S. 3 . 5 . .4, -- Foreign _.,.....5... a. Beans ....... ..„...... ....... 355. 365. 38s. Foreign —6. —4 '345. Pease, White... Tares —s. —6. --s. Foreign —8 — 4 ..... Rapeseed. in bond none Free, per last 90L......,:...---• SOUTHALL CATTLE MARKET.—June 10 A. 's O f ; The supply of Beasts, Sheep, Calves, and Porkers, to this .- -1 0 1 toi ,- ,, ket was moderately good. There was a moderate attendance ?tic" and country buyers, and the trade was dull, at the following per stone of Sib. to sink the offals : . eid Beef , 5 ' 0 I Mutton 3 0 4 0 Pork 3 0 of • Lamb .4s. 10d. to ss. 10d. A rti°n Beasts, 204; Sheep, 3473; Calves, 79; Pigs, 40. A great the supply left the market unsold RKET.—June 10. ROMFORD MA. r. d. to ( '; 4 a. .1. reef glutton 3 0 4 0 Pork 46. ll'd to bs 10e1. Suckling Calves, 10 amb s. to 3ns ; Quarter old Store Pigs. ft' to PIL Mulch Cows, with their small Calf, 11/.os. to 15L ty. ...... Supply moderate, al kd trade rather dull HAILSHAM MARKET—June 10. 41. Beef 3s. 8,1. to 4s. Oct. Veal 3s. 3(. t ° 4 3 I Mutton 3 2 4 0 Pon 3 0 Lambs... Supply good, and trade very dulL CHICHESTER MARKET.—June 10. Beef 3s d. to 4s Od I Veal Mutton 3 4 4 0 I Pork Lamb 4s. Bd. to 53. . Supply of fat stock moderately good, and trade 334 s6d rather&l. dull 41• LONDON ORPHAN ASYLUM.—The subscribeas t."" the London Orphan Asylum dined together yesterday London Tavern, to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ips il i ; tution, and to urge the claims and merits of the charity din, the benevolence of their friends and the public. Althodi a this anniversary was not graced by the presence of the D o, " of Wellington, who presided last year, and although the DLIV of Buccleuch, who was announced as the chairman on this or casion, was not present, and although no noblemen of vet; exalted rank were present, yet the company assembled , i n P a t i of wealth and respectability, was of the highest class. Gair b- e „ Byng, Esq., M.P., was the chairman. The s ubscriPt' ° o f announced by the Secretary, in the course of th e busine n , he evening, were very encouraging ; they amou nted to ne r 1,8001. IRELAND.—QUEEN'S COUNTY.—Addresses fr.°l/1,0 the inhabitants of this county have just been p resented the King, and to Lord Mulgrave, expressiv e of their sf a t tisfaction at the overthrow of the Tory Governrnen of their entire confidence in the present Reform Mow stration. ANOTHER STEAM BOAT ACCIDENT.--- pa st MORE LIVES LOST I—On Wednesday night, about er ten o'clock, a wherry, containing six passengers, and a f g e ised man named John Poet, belonging to Bankside , was C-Fstiod off the West India Dock, Limehouse, owing to the ag we re of the water caused by the steamers, and four Skil f ul y ow l drowned. It appears that the waterman, a very ek, i n man, was returning to London with six members er,"'; e fety three men and three women, and had proceeds ' e n d in 110' far as the Dock entrance, when four steamers 11 5 , s the water' succession at full speed, and caused a great swell ' n b e OP" Poet endeavoured to get out of the swell, but befell The P Bs ; effect this his boat was filled with water, and sun k. hosts or sengers screamed aloud for assistance, and several - t er off, but they only succeeded in saving three of the .y e' w bo namely, the waterman, and William Mills and his. 7beq were conveyed in an exhausteif state to the Horn and v,teolee, Limehouse, where a medical gentleman promptly attend and succeeded in restoring animation. Thew al e , $ taken to his own house in Southwark, where he now I rp ollg very precarious state. Yesterday the attention of the 11, ci Magistrate at the Thames Police-office was called to t st gei eumstance, and the worthy Magistrate said he hoped t b . s 0 ,11 tion of his Majesty's Government and the Legislatur e r ive be called to the evils of rapid steam navigation le tU' o f life , Four accidents, two of which were attended withl°jelly of had taken place since Sunday. The evil was re' frightful nature. ------=--- BIRTHS. no. T. On the 9th inst., at Anglesey, Hants, the lady of the of V. Fosbery, of a so n.. I A ' On the 9th inst., the lady of P. Persse Fitzpa t ric k ' Sudley Lodge, Bognor, of a daughter. _ . - - MARRIED. 01,P4 .• On the 9th inst., at Beaconsfield, Robert Crook V 4 ll/00 01 ' of Hillingdon, to Mary, second daughter of Nathaniel Esq., of Beaconsfield. LAO: On the Bth inst., for the second time, at Artharet, neldfigr. town, Cumberland, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, to A llif fj ,;et. Grant, daughter of Lieutenant-General Sir Colquhooo,", he see°, On the 3d inst., at All Saints, West Ham, Raymorlo , vow son of John Henry Pelly, Esq., of Upton, 'sees , youngest daughter of Joseph Fry, Esq., of the same Place-0 1.,S000,1: On the 9th inst., at Edgbaston, near Birmingham) . 1 , ° , ;01 V 11 Esq., of Hampstead, to Emma, second daughter of Willi" Esq., of the former place. hclesc °ll On the 10th inst., the Rev. Edward Pope, Ar c . „ Jamaica, to Augusta, second daughter of Thomas Blgb' Beddington, Surrey. On the 10th inst., at Marylebone Church, Augustus, ratrileir6 son of Thomas Vigne, Esq., of Woodford, Essex, t°„k-pis ce ' youngest daughter of Benjamin Dislabie, Esq., of Regent's-park. William On the 10th inst., at St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, 0 1 Ferrar, Esq., of the Hon. E. 1. Company's Bombay 16 _„ t' tablishment, to Sarah, youngest daughter of David 9r'' , South-place, Finsbury. xfoo ll, On the 9th inst., at St. George's Church, BloomsborP elo7 ' , Marie Louis Robert Ali de Boulogne, to Elizabeth Bricile;oiev daughter of the late Thomas Forman, of Coombe Park, and of Pyndaryn, Merthyr Tydvil, Glamorganshire. 0 0 ;5 On the 11th inst., at St. Mary's, Bryanston-5 4 1°`', I ghtr" Dodd, Esq., of Montagu-square, to Georgina, eld est. A A the late Joseph Sanders, Esq. gobl; On the 11th inst., at Christ Church, St. Marylebolle , , t he White, Esq., of Leeds, Co Susanna, second daughter °' - John Finch, Esq., of Hendon, Middlesex DIED. Ch‘ rels On the 7th inst., aged 10, Edward Robert, second son efabso" Tindal, Esq., Agent of the Branch Bank of England , ii ir f 0 0 ' 5- On the Bth inst., in Green-street, Grosvenor - W r "' •id Watson Smyth, Esq., aged 87. p lc, P sl On the 9th inst., in Cornwall-terrace, Reg - ent's - s r i li t iess,', Carruthers, Esq., M.P. for Hull, after a short but sever, e „,; e , P" . On the sth inst., in Beaumont-street, Portland - P'' - ' Joo ... b Elizabeth Grosvenor. r On the 9th inst., at Reacting, Mary Ann, the wif e d .d Maskell, of Fore-street, Cripplegate, solicitor, aged 30 ' fou nt ' On the 7th inst., at Narford Hall, Norfolk, Andreae lets Esq., O in his 65th year. iiir 03 ' n the 9th inst., at Mitcham, Surrey, Mr, T. S. ° ' of Warren-street, Pentonville, aged 23. , ideil t' On the 7th inst. at Tunbridge Wells, in his 56 th I.7";Glig' - de . General Francis Hepburn, late of the 3d Regiment of r ° ° Ge rtro On the 9th inst., at Stellenburgh, Tunbridge well s, son, 0 ' Marion, the infant daughter of Colonel Christopher Ovule s goer" On the 3d inst., Mrs. Ann Pickering, late of S te P neJ aged 8 the Bth inst., at Brighton, Dr. James Weir, Jos" Spector of Hospitals. On the 4th inst., at Ablon, near Paris, John Bunn, Escl London : Printed and Published by th e of 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 11., Strand , +.4 of Middlesex. T" That a C at their Hi June, 18 3 5 evening, fa in the morn CMSSON Th• For] tiou which the 3d and India Stoe upon applic • cretary's 0 to have tho THE That the Company,_ on Wicorri "noon, is M from the C By-Laws, of the Com For tl A' 74 PLEET-S at half-past visions of SIX DIR who will g( One or: other by t 1,0001. anc • 1 June 11, GENJ riIHE co lIAMBI and Saturd and Saturd From from when NICOLA' May. St( HAGEN ROTTI every Wed returning Fares, Chi Virti L ARTIFIC other LIG MONS No. 60, to RESI MINERA the Facuit fills up till LEAST Ilmo s t ENAME resting all most exer EXTIL LOOSE from nee+ other cam Incorrodil ARTII BEAUT` month, I without I brance of walled, re from the purposes CUL AT] YOUNG rnaining out and re Charge fl 0 C DI hece' energies of Medici Mon, that stomach a condition, head, the therefore, require to the frame Mr. G praetit ion liver, hav 'ration, is the great , bilious P theory ' ) !nation, f and Live] througho Cockle highest n noble an( Afanchest Roscomn Hartland Bath SDI Bangor, Sir (,era Fludyer, Smyth, 1 Dr. Mill Prepai London ; Druggist preparat know, t purging scrofuloi when to fully to of labou 0 B S April 11 to so m new dis , to their Ve, - ified the xiev Lio n; e' abadei vatives Let, hip' tittide, stone's tone to ticated, its effica own exi OBS in canni testy, a allowan inad and Se' ~~ ,-