The Sun. — London, England, 1841-06-11 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL. yesterday a Court was held for the despatch of _business. ACCIDENT RELIEF SOCIETY. - - ;IMr. STEVENS presented a petition from the Accident OW' Society, which was established by several benevo lent persons tier giving assistance to the families of poor Persons who sustained injuries from accidents during the confinement.of the patients. He highly commended the I:_lbjects of the Institution, and expressed a hope that the Vourt would grant pecuniary aid to it.—(Cheers.) habit Mr. NVELLs said that Mr. Stevens was so much in the of presenting petitions of this kind as to deserve the name of Solicitor-General to the charitable establish !!!lents of the metropolis.—(Laughter.) He objected to tile practice of disposing of the City's money to the sup thof Sqcretaries and other officers, under the pretence eldin .the po or , w h o d er i ved but little advantage from M _ c ontributions o f th e C orpor ation.---,(A laugh.) r. STE'vENs said that he was proud of the distinc tion, and should endeavour to deserve the character. A better soese . ty than that he called upon the Court to assist Was not to. be found. The Pet'ition was referred to the Coal, Corn, and Fi nance Con araittee. A pctiti9n was WOODEN PAVEMENT. presented from Mr. Thomas Parkin, an :L ine "! Praying to be allowed to put down his patent —gen pavement, as an experiment, en London Bridge. • Alderman Gums questioned the petitioner as to the durabili ty i of th e wooden pavement. r. Parkin said that., in his opinion, it would last 4°l4 `-7er than granite. The petition was ordered to be taken into considera "hwhen the Report should be brought up. th e eon!_ll.rrtWas then br oug ht u p, a nd re f erre d back to si eration of the Committee. CITY LEASES. A subject of Considerable importance came on for ills- Znatt iss„, and occupied a great part o f t h e d ay. I t was y adjourned The • • _ pinions of M r . Sid e b ottom, the counsel, and the Solicitor, vvhich h ave excited much discussion in the rporation for s ome time, together with the case, con tain the substance of the Report made to the Court, and are its follow CASE. I st, T he Corp orat i on of London are in the habit of letting their . .„,tlaes to their numerous tenants upon lease for 21 years. 11 !I,e leases contain all the usual covenants to pay rent, repair, ~-, as well as a covenant not to assign without license, and . s 4 e i s l c ie. __i_ s e o a co.ve.nant that the Com . ptroller (who is the con .ti e ec, g solicitor of the Corporation) shall prepare all as . - Te„ II Mtents of leases; and the observance of these covenants is ter secured by the usual proviso for re-entry. A copy of the c covenant and proviso is left herewith. The. hire ° ince of Comptroller hits become vacant, and the n re 344 RIROUnt of the duties and emoluments of the office is to •'-'tred to the consideration of a Committee, some of whose etZsnltberegre desirous of omitting one or both . of these cove to 1.. e au future leases, and to discontinue their enforcem ent .. the ."" afr eadY granted, if it can be done without impairing 144%. security of the Corporation. aifference'of opinion prevails in the Committee, and L e of Mr. Sidebottom is desired, in order that they may t he satisfies,,,,l they proceed on safe grounds. The members of the Committee whcr propose to allow th e _ utn ents to b e prepared by the professional advisers of the ei r o rl l vxeqeiri ng t h e assignments, instead of the Comp d troller, 111 _7i d that the restriction operates injuriously, by r Ade re l d rP°ration lease s less des:rable than they would be c . on- 'Poses eeithout such a clause, and that anything which im- thaP,n, upon the tenants expense, inconvenience, or annoy'- that, r° aw°, diininislses the value of the holding; an 4 , 0 11 the clause can be omitted without affecting the secu tiost,t the Corporation, it will become them, as liberal and aeed landlords, to free their leases from such a restric , o, and that they oe ht not to be deterred from doing so by the t ,oeofntbsiederation that th ey g would therebeediminish the emolum ents /the their " d eer. The gentlemen who thus argue conten d t e l i i i _at s . the 'eeerity ofthe CorporatOn will be in no respect affected . by „, ssi aeleption of such a course; for that, by requiring the party tatZning a lease to procure a license to that affect , . the Corpo tan: c g exclude improper persons from becoming their tfe hia: an d hy keeping a proper register of the transaction ( or te e - the C omptroller should be allowed a reasonable fee t so Y would always have a knowledge of who really are their ao,,t n . t '• They say that the Corporation have always an ample eh e '''itY fer the payment of their rent and the performance of .1„ the t its by the ci-iginal lessee, and by the well known vat. " 0 Cit hold ings. .- Genii,. Y esme awe who are impressed with the opinion that both nants should be retained, are so in the belief that they tisatasaeititlhoeu;ehc,uarsit of the Corporation. These gentlemen say ois considered oaYfm s a o tte m r a o e f fact, the City leases have been al °fh val ue that no danger from breach Aiee_nteeant has been leprehended, they feel that this may not ~,_gYs be the caee. This fact has resulted from the mecum -4.,i7ce ghat it has been the tendency of property of this descrip lie 4 i n to increase in value ; but it is possible, amid the fluctua -I„t° w hich all property is liable, that this may not always tem - e a , e, auf in such an event, having to deal with so many the red tenants, it is of importance to the Corporation that eoj e s , h `ndd have if possible a better security than the mere eitie e- 'nt of the original lessee, ' who may have become insolvent tehoParted with all interest in the property. The members opi t e are , le favour of retaining these covenants are trie of tio ns °n tuat, in point of fact, the continuance of such Jes te t e., does not at all diminish the value of City leases. They as- ele t.ttat as liberal landlords they dp not enforce either covenan t . tr oller or oppressively, and that the charges of the Corp Coe"' are as moderate as the charges of any private pro.es- T al 'fla n. • .11155:1,ekgentlemen who are in favour of these clauses are of opi • tit "'at they do afford the Corporation some additional secu- Y; th ree l , eY look upon the covenants of the original lessee, not as -Personal covenants, but as covenants that run with the 4 : e a nd are, as such obligatory upon the assignee of the le iu- t lu t rie th • time the ownership is in him. They, t he ' ,: m t 4 hk g th ‘ t hy requiring the Comptroller to prepare tiola'reenentas, and to attest their due execution, the C . (.4 orpora 'ate . ', 14 have the means at all times o f k now i ng , an d, if neees- be Provin g , w ho i s th e ac t ua l ass i gnee o f the property to fulli 4freete se d by the covenants in ca=e o f th e i r no t b eing faith h' obrved by the party primarily bound to keep them b y the fe?llowing are the questions submitted to Mr. Sidelinttor . n 'eque,t.`°temittee. That learned gentleman's early attention . is nex t to e : l it Is the Committee will meet on Tuesday morning li t. eietermine the business:— the e0 ...-mes the Corporation acquire any and what security by %e el : s ee:ant in the City leases not to assign the leases without rpor s there' any 2d. / and what security to be derived by the lit te l e aetion from retaining a covenant that all assignments be prepared by the law officers of the Corporation ? sons x lst i v OPINION. think the Corporation acquires additional seculity llatlesseti.eevenant not to assign without license, because it ,_lakpoo,ihr Corporation to see that the lease is assignedto be a 41Q ued to ° tenant, who, during his ownership , . woul d trigew less Pay the rent and perform the covenants in case th e %in to , .ee should fail. Snch a covenant is become very deg 2d. ei end is a proper precaution. e e , This covenant ' s- edly so is certainly very unpopular, and I think eenan t Ito • It exposes the affairs and necessities of the eOnste t i o h ? ,l Many cases must incur the double expense of th e Co t '' cqvn private solicitor and also the law officers of to tit rP ration and dth t it adds any thing it e Security of Coro see a F oortpi e l o i v is a t tiori n e ki , the poration. At the same time rive snowed that it is an advantage to the et thrhee, and t h is w who is the immediate tenant - fro . m ve t n i a m n e t 3 heule P4rt C 't the leered' t‘vittilhl: tw l' u 'llese might be answered by a to teaant that a minute of every assignment er t Y - one days from the date thereof, be de t%ntrporatioe, to., "Mtroller, or some other law officer of the in t rPose, 0. ,,,; be entered by him in a book to be ket for 151 %1 th e 'P ;irta, T h e fee may be made payable fo r . enter thatd eahltearteer.obi; covenants to repair, &c., run with th . e i h at° 7 on as-ignees so long as they retain and tnhf°' re- entr a licens e to as, , ign is once given, the con. Slant theatentriatf " a "iwriment without license is at an end, li e I en would only , have the bene fi t of the cove- Cens e , e 3 see ur his ass igns )' should not assign without Li neola'. / A. R. SIDEBOTTOM. ilitP °aT o; N n t ri ) lo th Alay, 1841. T It• soeierroa ow mums IN CORPORATION 0 Ihe w oe , LEASES. .. c. rteirrin.t.irezpeen:::tirpnfoUolbmeee,or.mrsrnit tee of the Corporation of London, and Clerks. . , .. . Fraill.olStdebettorri a e uenc e to your direeti . ons, I submitted of the Cor eisetsi, ,a di veosing witii: Upon the . exp d Y th at ._ ad I herewith transmitertain the restrictivecl i a e u n f e ses in the City case, with p i ee d etle eisns opiniont i ie to you a copy o opinionray own Point e ' that a difference orefon. prevailed in the Come Point, / i d ' l d having expressed th e (Ise leined it right • impressions upon the t te in . as impartially as possible, to s a diee e , e sue grounds of the co ft' • ' • ns entertained by arka h . nt raembers of the Committee, n Jeting o.pinio introducing rents o f__ own . f without any inailureonforioiltiv, witbintbaevou..r h ot the views of either. I have al l , it" cousgered the whol ' e n V o f the C ommittee tolvn and feu I reference to Mr. Sidelios t u to jee , t uponi sobservations, and merit s ,lcon- Preei o ea nhot find any reason to m ' f the opinion I had In usly delivered in the C re . ceoe from oommittee. lice es rnY judgment the covenant i ag ains t assigning without „ lid x ' t i• and the eaven a t Comp troller shall prepare tenestet the execution n o t f ia a t . th a e si 11 gnments should both be to beer operative, and both be en s foreed, or they ought both raised thenePntlged from the leases altogether. The objection of eainst these covenants is, that they diminish the value z tod te„ b n i Y leases by creating additional expense, annoyance, d tle, e, an thit after all thay cannot be usefully enfoiced : Net, l e . r e t, a n d it would surely be undesirable to retain cove (3bleie`'ato-e' t hough voluntarily entered into and apparently e ' (1 0 li ' .. 1" the parties, might with impunity be broken. 'I At e - '` ) . Pretend for a moment to question the law laid . down at it apte ' d eb, tom rerrardinct. the covenant against assignmg, e ‘ulvi ' c ' a " In the City leases. ' I, however, entertain a strong is to ction , that the covenant andproviso might be so worded e oott relify t h e license to assign, and render the condition a ai„.kesul,ne co.ndition, and in that ' case the Corporation would sigttil'eta, h a Condition, in their own hands the power of limiting the as wile we t, of their leases to tenants of approved responsibility, ret;airt!uel remain liable to the covenant for payment of rent, steh the pe em i se _ , s and the other covenants which run pettoi,(ll24.,d, until discharged from such liability by a similar lee th e e o n to assign their interestin the term ; but even supra- Qfc eeto,, , venant to be so drawn, in my opinion it could not be , ass'iuS enforced without continuing the covenant requiring; s eoee errrients to be prepared h and ' executed in the pre het. , , and attest •d Comp troller , 3-, s n on " a l of the L y, the or some p erso n En, _ .a. e Corporation. liett oro 7 "'Mg the most respectful deference for Mr. Side eeive tha n opinion in this and all other matters, I humbly con iv,. .efor the plan of registration suggested tierut for the latte r . ho ld 3e. covenant, would not meet the necessity o f The Corporetion d ' is,.. o e's of their lease s . ' names of this t, would to know the . .: 4 ' , eCUritr also . • not as a matter of information merely, ligui neot „.._ , . , and the knowledge of the fact of the as p the omit he of no value unless they had at their com- Petty ae requisite legal proof to sustain an action aeainst the toitted eepting the assi lament f h ' c t "°- kb , whit e the g . or a breac of covenan co i i " " e ° ttf th ease reniained in his ownership. In the antis __ .. e. original aesignment, which remains in the the Co I t he assignee this legal p r oof could only bo given tae ass mptroller, or other ffi d rat 'grien as • o cer of the Corporation, attesting • t in th e a witness, and by the production of the it hail be albsence of the original, and after notice to produce _ or been given. be ll e, h the clauses to whic h ey e nn d in Subslan . objections are now raised are to n private proprietors ce in the leases of most public bodies, and "opted t h of considerable house -property have bee n e m •; but the modern ki,v,rel"rded in th efl, c ovenant e net to assign has manner I Lotto ntly to get rid of the legalatebefore adverted to, so as Publ' lll. Instea of .difficulty raised by Mr. Side r le bodies and odu adopting this modern covenant, some ,etsriirnended by Mr igntoneatt assignment a defeazanee, as Ire ;n et.. saerne object : and man landlornr,vteoY a an vo cg, :lc: accomplish e i acuity, sle ,u . _ , ,to grant any license to landlords, s theassign, he to the • `.alive Chao,toting an under-lease upon each sue- Set. r 'Ate be ownership. These expedients, how , ~,. expenses which do not attach t i I'D Par o aeegninerits txt.. b y the s7 ^ mntroller, and they are on that account of th e objectionable. 1 am not aware that the legal effect h es :vmeeleni covenant and proviso to which I have adverted l iken ed er undergone the consideration of a court of law ; I arn tray f to think it has not ; but as tt, his been extensively in '' r hnne yeary, kW, hat not been Ine:qioned, that fact, showing general aquieicence, will rather go to strengthen than nom its supposed validity. Dumpor's cas , , decided in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and reported by Lord Coke, is the authority upon which Mr. Side- Lo,tom co. rectly bye down the la.,v that " if a license io assign is once given, the condition for re-entry on assigning without license is at an end ; but. this ease, though reluctantly admitted i as authority, has always, upon princip:e, been questioned by lawyers. Lord Mansfield, in Doe v. Bliss, 4 Taunton, says. " The profession have always wondered at Dumpor's case ; but it has been law so many centuries that we cannot reverse it now." And again, Lord Eldon, in Brummell v. 111Therson, 14 Vesey, 175, says, " Dumpor's case always struck me as ex tralrdinary ; but it is the law of the land." The Judges, while, however, they have recognised as law the principle upon which Dumpor's case was decided, have done every thing na their power to defeat its application to any case not, precisely similar. The form of the covenant in the City leases does render the cases similar, and on that account there is no doubt but that in many instances the covenant not to assign without license is rendered practically inoperative; but I venture to think, should the validity of the restrictive cove nants adopted by modern conveyancers be brought to the test of judicial decision, they will be held successfully to evade the doctrine established in Dumpor's case. The Comptroler is the officer upon whom the responsibity of advising the Corporation in matters of conveyancing properly devolves, and had that office beers full I should have ab stained from making the foregoing remarks. As, however, the Corporation are now without a responsible adviser in that department, I trust I shall be excused for the length of this eport. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your most obedient servant, CHARLES PEARSON. The Court adjourned at a very late hour without coming to any decision. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. ASCOT HEATH RACES—YzsTERDAT. Yesterday was the " grand" day of the meeting, and with a slight qualification, the adjective has seldom been more cor rectly applied; the weather was delightful, the dust immense, and the multitude great,—the presence of the Sovereign, with a brilliant Court, imparting a grandeur to the ensemble which no other race course can parallel. For those wholook for totals this brief proem will suffice, but as there is a certain class of readers who look for items, we will enter a little into detail. Be it known then, that in anticipation of a visit from the Queen and her Illustrious Consort, swarms made their exit from the metropolis by the various modes of conveyance now in vogue, and that the rail and the road were in a bustle from an early hour in the morning. The " Great Western," as might have been expected, drew immensely, but not to such an extent as altogether to supersede coaches and port-horses; the difficulty and expense of getting from the Slough terminus to the course had weight with many, and properly so, as in reality very little saving of time or money was effected by those who gave steam the preference. Another inducement to " take to the road" was the meanness of the Railway Directors, who, having ruined every posting establishment on the line (a source from which a good Plate was always available to the races), and established a monopoly without making compensation to its victims, have from the first refused to contribute to a Meeting from which they annuaLy derive several thousand pounds. As the races were advertised to commence precisely at half past one o'clock, an early arrival was essential to those who were anxious to obtain " good places ;" accordingly, by twelve o'clock, clouds of dust, almost darkening the sky, gave evidence of the coming throng, and called into play all the energies of those to whom its disposition was entrusted. The Grand Stand absorbed nearly all the higher class of visitors; but many per sons of rank, determined to look royalty in the face, and at the same time enjoy their luncheons in the old-fashioned way, took their stand within the carriage inclosure, setting at nought both heat and dust, with the certainty of being at least one hour later off the ground than their neighbours, and thereby encoun • tering the dangers and confusion incidental to the journey home. The foot people poured in by thousands, but by the good-humoured firmness of the police all were packed as well as could be expected, where two were constrained to squeeze themselves into a space in which one would have been barely comfortable. It is almost superfluous to add that every stand was full, that thieves and thimble. riggers abounded, and . . that a powerful body of the A division of the police, under Superintendents May and Grinsell, and Inspectors Pearce, Hughes, and Partridge, were kept in constant and vigorous employment. At twenty minutes past one the approach of the Royal pro cession was heralded by the, shouts of the spectators, and an axone was immediately formed, up which it passed amidst the most enthusiastic cheering. Exactly at the half-hour her Ma jesty reached the stand, and on her appearance at the window immediately after, was greeted with every possible demonstra tion of loyalty and regard; similar feelings of attachment were displayed towards her illustrious consort, whose appearance, we are happy to say, gave a contradiction to the late reports. In the carriage with her Majesty and the Prince were his Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge. In the others were the Duke of Sutherland, Duke and Duchess of Bedford, the Marquis of Westminster, Marquis of Exeter, Earl and Countess of Erroll and Lady Ida Hay, Earl of Albemarle, Lord and Lady Robert Grosvenor, Countess of Charlemont, Earl of Uxbridge, Viscount and Viscountess Jocelyn, Lord Kinnaird, Sir Henry Wheatley, Lord Poltimore, Lord in Waiting ; Honourable Sir William Lumley, Groom in Waiting; Lord Alfred Paget, Equerry ; Sir Edward Bowater, Equerry to his Royal Highness Prince Albert; Mr. George and Honourable Mrs. Anson, Hon. Charles Murray, Lady Barham, Lady in • Waiting, and the Hon. Harriet Lister and Amelia Murray, Maids of Honour. Lords Segrave and W. Lennox, and several other noblemen, had the honour of joining the distinguished party at her Majesty's dinner party in the evening. In addition to those included an the list of her Majesty's visitors, there were present the Duke and Duchess of Beau fort, Duke of Rutland, Marchioness of Clanricarde, Earl and Countess of Lichfield, Earl of Chesterfield, Countess of Albe marle, Earl of Somhampton, Earl Aboyne, Earl Jersey, Earl Verulam, Earl Wilton, Ear] of Pembroke, Earl Mil. town, Earl Rosslyn, Lord U. Bentinck, Lord Kelburne, Lord Maidstone Lord Somerton, Lord E. ItusselL Lord J. Fitzroy, Lord G. Paget, Lord C. Paget, Lord C. Manners, Lord An.: dower, Lord Macdonald, Lord Drumlanrig, Lord Tenterden, Sirs Minto Farquhar, John Shelley, Francis Collier, B. Hall, W. W. Wynn. Colonels Peel, Wemyss, Westenra, Synge, Hall. Honourahles—General Grosvenor, G. Anson, J. Mac donald, H. Baring, Petre, G. Fitzroy, A. Villiers, J. Vil liers, R. Grimston, Paulett, Charles Forester, and many others whose names have appeared in our former report. A few minutes before two, after one false start, the race commenced for The Grand Stand Phte of 1001. (handicap); once round and a distance. Lord Albemarle's Janus, 4 yrs, Bst Mb. (Robinson) 1 Mr. Osbaldeston's ch f by The Colonel out of Galatea, 3 yrs, bst 131 b..... Mr. Wright's Folly, 4 yrs, 7st 121 b Mr Bradford's Quicksilver, aged, 7st 101 b ... Mr. Shelley's Hellespont, 4 yrs, 7st 91b Sir G. Heathcote's Tonquin, 3 yrs, 7st 61b Mr. Pettit's Emotion, 3 yrs, Est 21b Betting.-3 to 1 agst Janus; 4to 1 agst Hellespont; sto 1 agst Quicksilver; 6 to 1 agst Galatea ; and 6 to 1 agst Emotion. Janus made all the running, followed very closely by Quicksil ver,the Colonel filly having the third position to the Grand Stand, where she passed Quicksilver, and made a push for the Plate, without effect however, as Janus held his lead to the end, and won cleverly by a length. Sweepstakes of 30 soya. each, 20 ft, for two year old colts, Bst 51b ; and fillies Bst 21b ; winners 31b. extra. T. YC. 3 subs. Mr. Shackel's Meal, by Bran, (Buckle) walked over. The Windsor Forest Stakes of 50 soya, each, h ft, for 3 year old fillies, Bst 41b ' • the winner of the 2,000 Guinea stakes, Derby or Oaks, to have carried Mb extra. Old mile. 5 subs. Mr. Treen's Una, by _Glaneus (Conolly) I Duke of Grafton's Eorence Lord Albemarle's Minaret Betting-6 to 4 agst Florence, 2to 1 ag3t Una (t), and 2to 1 agst Minaret (t). Florence made play at a good pace to the distance, where Una went up, left her in a few strides, and won easy by two lengths. The Gold Cup, by subscription of 20 sous. each, with 200 added from the fund ; 3 yrs. 6st 1011) ; 4 yrs, fist sib ; 5 yr 3, 9st. ; 6 yrs, and aged, 9.t 31b ;m.& g. allowed 31b. From the Cup post on the new mile, once round and in, about two miles anti a half. 15 subs. Mr. Ramsay's Lanercost, by Liverpool, 6 yrs (Noble) 1 Duke of Rutland's Flambeau, 5 yrs . . Mr. Pettit's St. Francis, 6 yrs 0 Sir G. Heathcote's Bokhara, 4 yrs Sir. Ritisdlle's Bloomsbury, 5 yrs Mr. Wigram's Teleta, 4 )4 s . • 6 Betting-11 to 8 agst St. Francis, 9 to 4 agst Blooms busy, 4to 1 apt Lannercost, 11 to 1 agst Flambeau, and 25 to 1 asst Bokhara Lanercost rendered a long description un • ticcesary by taking 111: lead, making all the running, and winning by a length cleverly, without having been headed, the pace good only for the last mile. Behind him the race was contested with much spirit. Flambeau followed the winner for half a mile and was then passed by Teleta, who lived only round the top turn; St. Francis took her place arid held it to the strahrht running, where he was joined by Flambeau; Bolt hara reaching them at the distance; a splendid race home ended in a deal heat for second between Flambeau and St. Francic, Bokhara not being a length from them ; the others were beaten off. Sweepstakes of 100 soya. each, h ft; colts, Bst 71b; fillies, Bst 41b, out of mares that never bred a winner previously to the July meeting, 1838. New mile. (8 Subs.) Mr. H. Combe's he Nob, by Glaucus.... ...... ...( Rogers) '1 Duke of Bedford's Oakley 2 Betting 2to lon Oakley. The Nob made the running, and after a beautiful race from the distance won by a neck. The Winib.r Town Plate of 501. ; 3 yrs, 7st 41b; 4 yrs, Bst 411) ; 5 yrs, Bst 101 b ; 6 yrs, gat ; mares and geldings allowed 31b; the winner to be sold for 1001. T.Y.C. Mr Greville's Pickwick by Camel, aged (Nat) 1 Capt. Gardner's Dismal Jemmy, 4 yrs 2 Air. Westbrook's Decision, 3 yrs— Mr. Scott's Abel, 5 yrs Lucas's Traitress, 3 yrs Betting-2 to lon Pickwick and 3to 1 agst Decision. Dismal Jemmy made the running to the distance, where Pick wick ran by him, and won in a canter by a length. The Buckingham Palace Stakes of 200 sovs. each, h ft; for three yrs old colts, Bst 71b, and fillies, Bst 31h ; untried mares or stallions allowed 31b ; if both, 51b. Swinley Course. (5 Subs.) Lord Westminster's Van Amburgh, b 7 Pantaloon (Scott) 1. Lord Exeter's Cesarew itch, Betting-8 to lon Van Amburgh, who made a waiting race of it to the distance, where he went in front, and won in a canter by two lengths. Her Majesty ant's Prince Albert left the Heath after the Nob's race, at five o clock, but the day's sport was not brought to a conclusiqp until after six. The Worklngton Stakes for this day have been divided into two Classes as follows : FIRST CLASS. st. lb.! st. lb. Arctic, aged 9 6iLlns, 3ps 7 10 Camelion, 3 yrs 8 13ILaunehaway, 6 yrs ....:. 7 8 Carnelino, 5 yrs ...... The Corsair, 5 yrs Knight-of-the-Whistle, Abel, 5 yrs 3 yrs . _ Factory-Girl, 4 yrs 8 3Minaret, 3 yrs Ben Brace, 3 yrs 7 12' Hellespont, 4 yrs 6 9 SECOND CLASS. st. lb. John O'Gaunt, 3 yrs ... 8 12 Silis'ria, 3 yrs Cesarew itch, 3 yrs ...... 8 5 Muley Moloch, 3 yrs 7 4 Carlew, aged 8 2 Decision, 3 yrs . 7 0 Folly, 4 yrs 8 0 Hampton, 3 yrs 6 10 Spangle, 4 yrs Variety, 4 yrs 7 9La Gitana, 3 yrs ... ...... 6 0 Windsor, 3 yrs ....... Sultana, f 3 yrs 7 7 The list promises ple st. lb. :nty of good sport. ADDISCONIBE, JUNE 9.—We hear that a full front of Choumara's system of fortification, beautifully execu ted in sand by . the geneemen cadets at Addiscombe, on a scale of half an inch to a foot, will be completed by Friday, the 11th instant (to-morrow), for the inspection of the Chairman and Court of Directors on that day, which is fixed upon for the Midsummer examination. \%o give the announcement as it has rescind us, for the information of such of our military readers as may feel disposed to avail theraselv, a of the oppor tunity of seeing the largest works :ever co ns t ruc t e d on this vu4:ll and deservedly celebrated system. s" , VTR STN, LONDON, rnmAy, JUN IMPERIAL. PARLIAMEI HOUSE OF LORDS: Junc 10. Their lordships assembled at a Quarter to Five o'Clock. Messengers from the Commons brought up the Lon don and Greenwich Railway Bill. Lord DUNCANNON moved the third reading of the Court-house (Ireland) Bill, the Militia Ballot Suspen sion Bill, the Assessed Taxes Composition Bill, the Vaccination Bill, and the Ordnance Survey Bill. Agreed to. The Tithe Composition Bill was read a second time. The Sugar Duties Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition from 48 clergymen of the diocese of Bath and. Wells praying for an alteration of the sth and 6th of William IV. which prevented marriages in a certain degree of affinity. The Right Rev. Prelate said he was not an advocate for the measure. Lord STRANGFORD would ask the Noble Lord at I the Head of the Admiralty whether any vessel had been sent out in order to ascertain if possible what was the fate of the President steamer. He (Lord Strang ford) understood that the Portuguese Government had done so, and however much they had to complain of them in other respects, the fact did them much credit. Viscount AIELBOURNE requested the Noble Lord to wait for a few minutes, till his Noble Friend the Earl. of Minto was in attendance. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from Mon trose, and other places in Scotland, praying for a settle ment of the Church of Scotland question. He did not mean to enter into any details of the question at present, but he thought the first thing that ought to be done was to obtain a compliance with the law as it at present stood. That he believed was the feeling that prevailed in that and the other House of Parliament. RAILWAYS IN IRELAND. The Earl of DEVON presented a petition from Ire land, containing the signatures of several persons pos sessing property to a very large amount, and from al most every part of the country, in favour of the construc tion of railroads in Ireland, which the petitioners firmly believed would tend more than almost any other measure to promote the prosperity and develope the resources of the country. The petition .was signed by upwards of 50 Peers, 40 Baronets, 39 Members of Parliament, and numerous Gentry of property in Ireland. In that opinion he cordially concurred, and as a person connected with and interested in its prosperity, he was most anxious to see such a measure carried into effect. He understood that a Bill for the establishment of railways in that country had been lately introduced into the other House. With out pledging himself to the details of that or any other plan he should give it his best attention when it came under the consideration of that House.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL would give the petition his best support, because Ireland required the advantage of railroads as much, if not more, than almost any other country. In the first place, tlip great amount of the po pulation, and the low price Mvages, would enable them to construct these railways at one half the expense of those that had been formed in England. In addition to that the landlords were so anxious for their construction that they would give them land for nothing ; and the materials were in every part of the country in the greatest abundance. He had no doubt, therefore, that the railways would pay in Ireland ; and if they only started with low fares, as in Belgium, and other parts of the Continent, there was no doubt that Railways would ultimately pay in Ireland. The subject was one well worthy of the consideration of their Lord ships.—(Hear, hear.) THE PRESIDENT STEAM-SHIP. The Earl of MIN TO understood that before he en tered the House a wish had been expressed by a Noble Earl, to know if any steps had been taken by the Ad miralty to relieve the President steam-ship, in the event of her being still at sea. He was sure the Noble Earl would not doubt the intense interest with which they had watched, and had endeavoured to obtain all the information in their power, and to have the best advice from persons of expe rience on the subject to discover the fate of that vessel— (Hear, hear)—but they had been Compelled to come to the conclusion, having . exhausted all their sources of information and inquiry, that they could tak no measures which would be calculated to afford the slightest information or relief. Another report had been circulated in the newspapers that day, which was calculated to raise again, he feared, very false hopes. It was stated . that a large steamer in distress had been seen in' St. George's Channel. He (the Earl of Minto) had been employed that morning in following, up that subject, and he had no doubt whatever that information of that sort had reached town, but at the same time lie felt bound to say that he had no reason to believe that that report was well founded, and he feared that it was one of those most odious and incomprehensible attempts to take ad vantage of hopes which might be excited with reference to the money market.—(Hear, hear.) If a vessel had been seen under such circumstances it was impossi ble but that some authentic information on the subject would have reached the Admiralty before the present time. It appeared to him that no exertions of theirs could be of the least service, but if they were the Noble Earl might rest assured that they would have spared no exertions for such a purpose. Lord STRANGFORD thanked the Noble Earl for the information. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition very numerously signed from the town of Swansea, pray ing their Lordships to institute an inquiry into the ex isting restrictions on commercial intercourse. The Noble Marquis said he should lay a Bill on the table of the House to-morrow for renewing the existing law relating to usury for one year. Earl FITZWILLIAM presented petitions against the present Corn-laws from Yorkshire and other places. Lord -MELBOURNE presented a petition for the abolition of Church patronage in Scotland. The Earl of DARTMOUTH presented a petition from West Bromwich in favour of the Corn-laws. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from Bradford in favour of Church extension. The LORD CHANCELLOR laid upon the table a Bill for the better administration of justice in the Court of Chancery, and explained some of its details. Lord BROUGHAM expressed his regret that the Bill relative to the new Vice-Chancellor's Court would . not pass this year, owing to an accident that had taken place elsewhere. Earl MOUNTCASHEL presented a petition from the North American merchants of Liverpool, praying that no alteration be made in the present timber duties, for if such were the case their ships would remain void and useless. Earl FITZWILLIAM would remind the Noble Earl that the proposition of the present Government was not at all anew one, as it had been brought before 'Parlia ment nine years ago, when the present Lord Spencer was Chancellor of •the Exchequer. He (Lord Fitzwilliam) would ask the Noble Earl ►whether it followed that be cause the ships could not be wholly laden with timber, that there were no other things to make up a cargo? The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said if there were other things he should like the Noble Lord to point them out. Earl FITZWILLIAM said that if these ships were not employed in carrying timber from Canada they would soon find employment in bringing timber from other places. _ Lord COLCHESTER said the Noble Earl, having stated that this measure would not throw the sailors out of employment— Earl of FITZWILLIAM—No, no, I did not. Lord COLCHESTER would tell the Noble Earl then, that the timber from Norway and other places, was always brought in the ships belonging to the country from which the timber was _ brought. He (Lord Colchester) would inform the Noble Earl that the ships employed in the colonial timber trade, were not fit to bring any articles that would be injured or spoiled, by which they were therefore totally unfit to carry such articles as corn.—(Hear; hear.) Earl FITZWILLIA)I thought that if the ships were not fit to carry goods that would be damaged by wet, they must be very bad ships.—(A laugh.) Lord COLCHESTER—At any rate they employed sailors, and brought profit to their owners.—(Hear.) Lord ASHBURTON presented a petition to the same effect from South Shields, and he would take that op portunity of alluding to what the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) had stated on Tuesday, and in con firmation of what lie (Lord Ashburton) then said, he would read a few ser_tences from a very eloquent speech, delivered by the Noble and Learned Lord, upon the then existing distresses of the country.—(The Noble Lord then read an extract from a speech of Lord Brougham, in which he (Lord Brougham) advocated a protective system of duty on corn.) He (Lord Ashburton) thought the Noble Lord could not, after what he had just read, complain of what he (Lord Brougham) facetiously termed his (Lord Ashburton's) sliding scale of opinion. He (Lord Ashburton) would not reproach his Noble and Learned Friend for having changed his opinions ; on the contrary, he thought great praise was due to him. lie did not for a moment blame his Noble Friend for having . changed his opinion since 1815. But he would advise the Noble and Learned Lord not to throw stones when he had so many windows of his own. Lord BRO U GHAM said he took the arguments his Noble Friend brought forward against him, in good part, and he must say that he was rather disappointed, from what he had stated the other night, that he had been able to bring forward so small a discrepancy in his conduct now and in 1817. The Noble Lord had made an attack upon him as the enemy of the Corn-laws, of which he (Lord Brougham) had previously declared himself the champion. Now, in the first place, he would state to their Lordships, that his Noble Friend had alluded to the year 1815, when the Corn-law debates were brought on, and his Noble Friend had referred to something that he (Lord Brougham) had said on the debate on the Corn-law Bill. He (Lord Brougham) had said that that was utterly impossible, because he was not a 11Iember of Parliament at that time, and never took part in that debate in any one of its stages. Now, with respect to the opinion that he entertained in the year 1817 on that subject, his Noble Friend was kind enough to state that it was no charge against a person if, after twenty-four years, he thought fit to change his opinion. But that was not enough, it ought to have led him to another observation, and that should have been, that the party should have had twenty-four years' experience.— (Hear, hear.) At the time, perhaps, he had m a d e use eh of the words dos Noble Friend had just read. They were used at the time the original law was about to come into operation. But was it matter of course that after twenty-six years of experience, when it was found that measure had failed to alleviate the distress of the coun try, that his opinion should change, and that he should think protection a measure not required?—(Hear, hear.) Circumstances had changed since then. He did not mean as to the distress of the country; but were the land holders in the same position now, and was the country in the same position in which it w a s in 1817 . —. (I - fear,hear.) He thought if his Noble Friend stat ed a few more of the observations he had made on • the subject, he (Lord Brougham) would almost venture to say that one of the main grounds on which he (Lord Brougham) rested th.e opinion w hich he held, and which he subsequently held upon Mr. Canning's Corn-law Biil, was the situation in which the landed interest was then placed. It was the state of the Poor-law. Haa - no Change taken place hp that subject ?He was unwilling to enter into subject in: any of its branches, and he was particularly unwilling to say anything in its bdnilf. That measure had been termed a landholders' Bin, but:. he would say that it was for the purp ose o f improving the circumstances of the labouring pop u l at i on o f t hi s country th emse l ves . That was the main and grand object of that great mea sure, which at the same time conferred benefits on other classes of the community. He considered that the land owners having been relieved by that Bill made of itself a most material difference in the question of protection due to the landed interest. He had .no hesitation in saying that he was anything rather than a person pe remptorily or in any sense of the word denying protec tion to the landed interest. Was it no protection to say gradual and hot in s t an t aneous repea l ? • wa ; g.it not pro tection to say tak e o ff so muc h per cent. year , a ft er y ear until ultimately you will have taken off the whole ? Was not that protection ? Lord ASHBURTON—None. Lord BROUGHAM —Would the Noble Lord rather have a total repeal at once ?—(Hear, hear.) Now, as to what his Noble Friend had said with respect -to the attack he (Lord Brougham) had made upon him for his changes in opinion —he had said certainly that the preju dices 'of his Noble Friend were not of a very fixed prin ciple, but parttiok somewhat of a sliding scale.—(A laugh.) He must say he was rather astonished that hi.:., Noble Friend should have shown so much soreness-on the subject, If his Noble Friend merely -- changed his opinion with no sinister motive—with no motive of interest without the possibility of being interested—if there had been such a change, why should he be so very sore on account of the remarks he (Lord Brougham) had passed upon him—a mere passing remark—a kind of parenthesis. — (A laugh.) He (Lord Brougham) must say that his Noble Friend h a d ta k en to himself a much greater de gree of blarnef than he (Lord Brougham) had awarded him. But with respect to the other parts of his Noble Friend's speech, in which he tried to draw him into a discussion, he .would say that he differed from those with whom he had long acted, whose great knowledge of the subject—whose intimacy with the details could only: be equalled by their devotion to the cause—the question of slavery. He differed from them, and he did not.. He could not go the length to say that the emancipated negroes of the West Indies should be treated with a greater degree of protection than others, for the sake of what was called the system of the working of the emancipation, which had been tried, and which he (Lord Brougham) denied to have been tried as an expe riment. He (Lord Brougham) could not see why they should exclude sugar the .produce of slave labour, and not exclude cotton andotherlirticles. He begged their Lordships' pardon for going into these subjects, but his Noble Friend seemed to think it incumbent on him (Loyd Brougham) to state his opinions on them. The. Earl of WINCHILSEA would tell the Noble Lord that no reduction had taken place in the burthen of the landholders. He did not approve of the continu ance of the powers of the Commissioners, nor did he think that out-door relief should always be refused to able-bodied labourers. Lord PORTMAN allowed that the question of the Corn-laws was undoubtedly more or less connected with the Poor-laws. He did not wish, he should say, to in troduce any material alteration in the Poor-laws by bringing back the former pernicious system. He thought that the present law could not be carried into effect with out the assistance of the Commissioners, although he should not much regret to see the Assistant-Commis sioners done away with. He did not often • see them at their duty, and he thought the law could be worked in dependently of their services. The Earl of IVINCHILSEA did not wish to dispense with the services of the Commissioners for the present ; but he thought that they might, after a few years, work the law without their assistance. He acknowledged the distresses of our labouring population, and he would wish to diminish or relieve it by a sound system of emigra tion, which was a subject he hoped to see soon taken up by the Legislature of the country. After a few words from Lord PORTMAN, The Marquis of SALISBURY did not wish to see our labouring population—the sinews of the country — banished, under a system of emigration, to foreign lands. He was persuaded that the country itself was amply sufficient for the sustenance of its inhabitants if its resources were properly cultivated. With respect to the Poor-laws he could not approve of the system of granting out-door relief to able-bodied labourers. - Earl STANHOPE should observe, on -- tilesUbject of the Poor-laws, that the change in the former system had been brought about for the purpose of diminishing the burdens upon the country. But the fact was, that the expenses of the existing law exceeded the expenses of the law for which it had been substituted. In Bradford and its neighbourhood the increase had aMounted to 501. per cent. An appeal was now about to be made to the people, and he trusted they would indicate their sense of the nature of the present Corn-laws in language which no one could mistake. He placed great confidence in the good sense of the people, and more especially in the good sense of our labouring population, who unfortunately were not represented. He would repeat an assertion he had made on a former evening, that he would rather be governed by the Chartists than by the present Administration. Be was not an advocate of the doctrines of the Chartists ; but at least under their principles the rights of labour would not be trampled under foot' DS they would under the present Administration with its principles of free trade. Lord BROUGIUM said that the principal object of the new Poor-law was that of benefiting the labouring population themselves. It had no doubt relieved the land of an overwhelming burden, but that was not the only grounds nor the principal grounds upon which it had been passed. Earl FITZWILLIAM observed that the increase of poor-rateS in Bradford could not have arisen, as was sup posed by the Noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope), from the new Poor-law. It arose from the distress prevailing in that as well as in other manufacturing towns, and that distress had been occasioned by very different causes. After a few words from the Earl of STRADBROKE and Earl STAMIOPE the conversation dropped. A m 'per from the House of Commons brought up the Insole lt t Debtors (Ireland) Bill, the New South Wales Bill, the Australia Bill, and the Clerk of the Peace (Lancaster) Bill. These Bills were each read a first time. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COIIIMONS, June_lo: The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Mr. BERNAL brought up the Report of the Com mittee on the Canterbury Pavement Bill. Sir G. SINCLAIR brought up the Report of the East Retford Court of Requests Bill, and the Gainsborough Small Debts Bill. On the motion of Sir J. Y. BULLER, the Totness Small Debts Bill was read a third time, and passed. On the motion of M r . W. PATTEN, the Blackburn .Town Moor, and the Blackburn Improvement Bill, were severally read a third time, and passed. On the motion of Mr.. KEMBLE, the 'Hawkhurst Junction Road Bill was read a secon d time, and leave was given to the Committee to proceed with the Bill on Friday, and to report the same day. Sir R. INGLIS, in presenting several petitions in fa vour of Church Extension, stated that it was his inten tion not to bring forward his motion on Church Exten sion during the present Session, and expressed a hope that in another Session it would be brought forward un der more happy auspices. The Hon. Member then pre sented 164 petitions in favour of Church Extension ; also petitions against the College of Maynooth froM parishes in Somerset; and petitions against the JeWs' De claration Bill. On the • motion of Mr. KEMBLE the London and Greenwich Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. W. EVANS presented petitions from North Der byshire in favour of the revision of the Import Duties. Mr. VILLIERS presented petitions for the total re peal of the Corn-laws ; a petition from Bilston (a district within the limits of the Borough of Wolverhampton), signed by 4,600 of the inhabitants ; from the operatives of Stalybridge ; from the inhabitants of Stourbridge (who state that submission to bad laws cannot be expected, and should not be required) ; from Grandleborough, Chalfort, St. Giles, Lower - Win chendon, Beaconsfield, Ellesborough, and Weedon, in the county of Buckingham ; from 300 females in the Potteries ; and three other petitions from Henley and Shelton ; from Southmolton, in the county of Devon ; from the 'Unitarian Congregation at Walsall, and from the -Friendly Benefit Societies and spur makers in Walsall t .from the superintendents of the. Sabbath schools at Stockport ; from two hundred householders in Blackfriar's-road ; from 73 female householders in Bow ; from Little Church-street, Mary lebone, and from 263 inhabitants in the Waterloo-road. Mr. BROTHERTON presented 16 petitions from va riOns parts of the country, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. The Earl of DARLINGTON presented a :petition from Shifnal, and two other places in the county of Salop, praying for no alteration!? the Corn-laws. The Noble Earl also presented a petition from East Preston, to the same effect. _ Mr. G. PALMER presented petitions from Essex, to the same effect. The petitioners believed, if any altera tion in the Corn-laws took place, it would be more injurious to the labourers themselves than to any other class. Lord MORPETH presented between 200 an d 300 pe titions from different parts - of the country in favour of the total repeal of the Corn-laws. The Noble Lord also presented petitions for the repeal of the Law of Patronage in Scotland, for the liberation of Mr. Baines, and th e abo lition of Church-rates ;. and also for the introduction of an improved system of regulating railroads. The Tinsley and Doncaster Roal Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. BAGGE presented twenty petitions from :Norfolk in favour of the existing Corn-laws. Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, against-running the mail on railroads on the Lord's Day. An Hos..Mulinta presented a petition from Hunting don against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Sir J. GRAHAM presented a petition from the inha bitants of Milford, praying that the claims in favour of Milford Haven as a steam-packet station might be inquired into before the Select Committee. Sir J. C. ITOBTIOL: SE presented several petitions from Nottingham in favour of the measure of her Ma jesty's Ministers for an, alteration of the Corn-laws ; also a petition from a congregation of Dissenters of the same place, for the abolition of Church -rates and the liberation of Mr. Baines. Mr. CREASWELL presented a petition signed by nearly three hundred of the principal br ewers , h ote l and inn-keepers of Liverpool, complaining ff of the hard ship of brewers! barrels being distraine and sold for their customers' rent, and praying to be relieved by a Bill of exemption. Tr; IM:7 BOROUGH OF NOTTINGHAM. Mi. T. I)ii:NlCol\ll3Epre,..ented;l7;tiion from the borough of Nottingha - m, givutg further contradiction to the statements contained in the petition of Mr. Cox, The lion. Member.requested that the petition be read at length by the clerk a: the table. The petitioner stated that the aSsertions . of Mr. Cox of his being ap pointed one of a numerous deputation to wait on Joseph Goddell was totally untrue. That Cox repeatedly declared that he was in the habit of re ceiving sums of money for the services rendered by him • to the late sitting Member. That he (Cox) was the con necting link between the Chartists and the Conservatives. That the petitioners were ready to prove that voters were induced to vote for Mr. Walter in consequence of the overtures made to them by Cox. The petitioners also prayed for a full inquiry into the conduct of Cox with reference to the practices set forth in the petition. Mr. WARBURTON presented petitions from Dor chester and other places, praying for an alteration in the Corn -laws. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN presented a petition from Rathkeale; in the County of Limerick, against any alte ration in the Corn-laws. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Dunfermline, signed by 3,236 inhabitants, comprising the Provost, many of the magistrates, the whole of the clergy, and almost all the householders, praying for the adoption of principles of free trade. The petitioners stated that they considered a protecting duty of Bs. a quarter on corn as a tax which the community ought not to bear. Also five petitions from Walsall, and twelve petitions from the me tropolis and its neighbourhood, praying for an alteration in. the Corn-laws. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON presented petitions from Waterford, Clonmel, an& a place in the county of Tip perary, against any alteration in the present Corn-laws. Sir CHARLES GREY presented a petition from Teignmouth, signed by near 3,000 inhabitants, in favour of a revision of the import duties ; also a petition from a congregation of Baptists, praying for the abolition of Church-rates ; an d a petition from certain Roman Catholic inhabitants of Teignmouth, complaining of al leged hardship towards the Catholic Bishop of Gibraltar, and of his imprisonment. The 'petitioners prayed for in quiry into the subject. Mr. BUCK presented a petition from Devonshire against a fixed duty on corn. Mr. , BROTHERTON presented a petition signed by 14,000 inhabitants of Newtown, in Montgomery, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. ROUND presented petitions from various parishes in. Essex, praying that no alteration might take place in the Corn-laws. The Westwood Estate Bill was read a second time. Mr. H. T. HOPE presented a petition in favour of Church Extension. On the motion of Sir E. KNATCHBULL, the order of the day for going into Committee on the Parish Con stables' Bill, which stood for to-morrow, was ordered to be discharged. MISTAKE IN THE DIVISION LISTS. Mr. LAW HODGES said that the printed Division Lists could only be valuable on account of their cor rectness. Now on the division on the motion brought forward by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, praying the House to address her Majesty for the release of political offenders, he (Mr. Hodges) found his name on the list as having voted with the ayes. Now the fact was that he had not been in the House at all, and conse quently had not voted ; and he thought it but right to state, that had he been present he should have voted with the noes.—(Hear, hear.) It was rather an im portant motion, and had been decided by the Speaker's casting vote, and he thought it right to draw the atten tion of the House to the subject. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was very glad the matter had been mentioned, because the Hon. Member for Birming ham (Mr. Scholefield) who had voted with the ayes, had complained to him (Mr. T. buncombe) that his name had been altogether omitted from the division lists. It appeared, therefore, that the one name had been substi tuted for the other. Mr. HUME said that it was only surprising the accu racy with which those lists were generally made out, and this solitary example of a mistake only proved their-ge neral accuracy. Mr. HODGES had not brought the subject forward with a view to cast imputation on any person, but merely for the purpose of putting himself right. Mr. LANGI)ALE had some time since moved for a return of the number of infants who had been given into the guardianship of the Infants' Friends Society by the Lord Chancellor, under the Infant Prisoners' Act last Session ; that return had not yet been made, and he moved that it be made forthwith, - - The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member must bring forward his motion at the time of public business. Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented ten petitions from different bodies of the working classes in Manches ter, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. WODEHOUSE gave notice that on Tuesday next he would move " that a humble Address be pre sented to her Majesty, praying that she may be gra ciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before Parliament, through the medium of her Ambassadors, or other diplomatic residents abroad, copies of all regu lations established in foreign factories, together with such explanations in detail as the nature of the cases will admit, describing the character of the food used therein, the wages paid therein, whether in specie or in kind, &c., in order to enable Parliament to form a judgimmt as to the degree in which the usages of other countries are at variance with the tastes, habits, and engagements of the manufacturing population of Great Britain. The Hon. Member also moved for a copy of the Report made by Mr. Addington, when our Minister in the United States, to Mr. Canning, which was referred to by Mr. J. B. Smith, in his evidence be fore a Committee of the House ; also extracts from the Report of Mr. Hickson, a Commissioner appointed to inquire into the state of hand-loom weavers, in which that Report was alluded to, in order to show the places and passages which were at variance with the Report itself. Mr. HUME would submit. whether it was right to print any extracts. Who was to make them ?—for any one could make them to suit his own purpose. The do cuments alluded to were already on the table of the House, and might be referred to by any Hon. Member. Mr. WODEHOUSE gave notic e f or Tuesday-. Mr. HUME said many returns had been ordered to be laid on the table—he trusted that the different Depart ments would take care that they were produced before the close of the Session. Lord MORPETH said no doubt directions would be given upon the subject. HERTFORD REGISTRY. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the Order of the Day for calling in the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Hert ford to the bar. Mr. Storey, the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Hertford, then appeared at the Bar, with a large book in his hand. The SPEAKER (addressing him) said—You are ordered to attend this day with a copy of the register of the ele2tors of the county of Hertford—is that a copy in your hand ? Mr. Storey—lt is. The SPEAKER—PIeasQ to deliver it in. Yon may withdraw. Mr. Storey delivered in the copy and withdrew. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he should like to have that copy of the registry printed.—(Oh, oh.) He did not know that the House would, consent to it, but he had a right to ask the question. He would take the oppor tunity of observing he did not think they had dealt with the Clerk of the Peace too harshly on this occasion.. He thought it right to state, that after the order of the House, he had referred to several of the principal law stationers in London to know in what time they could furnish a copy of the Finsbury list of electors, containing 13,000 folios, and was informed by M e s srs . F r y, law stationers of Gray's Inn-lane, that it could be copied in two or three hours, in which time they would engage to get it done.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore he thought they had not been too hard upon the Clerk of the Peace, in ordering him to produce a copy this day.—(Hear, hear.) He should be content whether this question was referred to the Printing Committee, or the House should decide whether the copy should be printed or not. The House would remember that the copy was ordered to be laid on the table, to redress th e gr i evances o f th e electors of Hertford, but there were no means of re dressing those grievances except the register was printed. It was the duty of the House to protect the elective franchise, and he thought the exercise of that franchise had been impeded by the delay of the Clerk of the Peace to furnish a copy of the Register. Ile could see no use in the copy lying on the table. Moreover, his motion was not un precedented. In 1834 the Hon. Member for Dublin had moved that the Register of Carrickfergus be printed, and it was printed by the order of the House. He therefore moved that this copy of the register be printed. Sir IL INGLIS said he thought the question which was put to the Clerk of the Peace referred to the time in which he himself, with the assistance of his clerks, could make a copy of the register. Any professional person must be aware that by cutting,: the register to pieces, it could be accomplished in three hours. With respect to the motion before the House, he be lieved that if the register were printed, not more than ten copies would be sold ; and if the Honour able Gentleman pressed his motion to a division, he (Sir R. Inglis) would certainly vote against it. Mr. HUME said he thought the difficulties which had been throWn in the way of using the register were highly culpable. He never saw a practised lawyer.give evidence in so discreditable a manner.—(Hear, hear.) Now that the register was obtained, means must be adopted for placing it in the hands of the electors. It appeared to him to be absolutely necessary that the register should be printed. The Hon. Member had proposed that it should be printed at the expense of the House, and doubtless there were one or two examples of that courses As Chairman of the Committee with respect to the printing of local papers, he thought a document of this nature should be allowed to be printed at the expense of the parties. He held in his hand the list of the electors of Lincoln, which had been laid on the table of the House upon mo tion, which hart been printed at the expense of the parties ; and he had also a statement of the expense of that printing, from which it appeared that the expense of printing a sufficient number of the returns for the effectors o Hertford would be 1461. He thought if this document was to be printed, it ought to be done at the expense of the parties who asked for it. He hoped therefore that his Friend would not press his motion to a division, because if he did he could not support him. At the same time he must say that he thought there ought to be some remedy for the Ouse. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said after what had been stated 1 ) y Hon.. Members ,, he would withd raw t h e motion.— (Cries of " No, no, from Sir E. Sugden.) The SPEAK 4R, after putting the question, declared that the noes had it. The motion was then negatived without a division.. Mr. HUME pyesumed that the parties might print the document at their own expense. After a short conversation, in which Sir R. Peel, Mr. lltime, and Sir E. Sugden took part, Lord FIOWICK said that he thought it would be un just to the electors, that they should be called on to bear the expense of having a document of this kind printed, which ought to done at the expense of the county. An Act, ought, in his opinion, to be passed without further delay, by which it should be obligatory on the Clerk of the Peace of every county to provide a register, at an expense of 2s. or 35., for every person who might demand one ; and that for every delay which the Clerk of the Peace might be guilty cif in furnishing the required copy, a penalty of 51. or 101. should be imposed. That, he thought, would provide vremedy in such cases as the present. The conversation here dropped. -CHURCH EXTENSION. Mr. BAINES having understood that it was the in tention of the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, to give some intimation with respect to his motion for Church Extension, he wished to ask the Hon. Baronet what was his intention on the subject. Sir R. IL INGLIS said he had presented 161 petitions that day in favour of Church Extension, and he had noti fied at the same time to the House that it was not his intention to bring forward the question in the course of the present Session. He trusted he would be enabled hereafter to bring it forward under happier auspices. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL the New South Wales Bill and the Western Australia Bill were each read a third time, and passed. On the motion of Lord MORPETH the Houses of In dustry (Ireland) Bill, and the Insolvent Debtors' (Ire land) Bill were severally read a third time and passed. The Clerk of the Peace (Lancaster) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Report on the Dog Carts Bill was brought up, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to morrow. DANISH CLAIMS. On the Order of the Day being read for the bringing up the Report on the Danish Claims, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and said, that after the very able and eloquent speech of his Learned Friend last night, he had cer tainly expected to have heard some arguments from Hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of this motion. As, however, they had abstained from entering into the question, he should not go into all the dif ferent grounds which had been so well disposed of, but he would tell the House that it became their duty to think very seriously before they i took the step of addressing her Majesty. After the question had been so fully discussed, the House would allow him to suggest that, in point of form, the address to which they had agreed was bad—in fact, that the House was about to ask her Majesty to do that which she could not do. The address requested her Majesty to ad vance a quarter of a million, and they engaged the honour of the House to make it good .at a future period. Now he would ask any gentleman in the House, how her Majesty could legally comply with that request ? There was no legal power in the Crown to do so, and the only answer that could be made to such an address was, that the Crown had no power to comply with its request. If the House would listen to him for a few moments, he would satisfy them that the Crown had no power to advance any such sum of money out of any funds whatever. IN o doubt precedents could be shown for such a course—no doubt that at a time when the Crown had large sums at its disposal, it was in the power of'the Crown to make advances on the faith of the advance being repaid by that House. But they had curtailed and most properly he thought, with the concurrence of the Crown—they gradually reduced those funds at the disposal of the Crown until there re mained nothing but the Civil List which was necessary for its own expenditure, and a small sum of the civil contingencies which had been granted for only six months. Now, that being all that was at the disposal of the Crown, he would ask the Honourable and Learned Member, (Mr. Cresswell) or even the Honourable Member for Kilkenny, how it could be expected that the Crown could make such an advance ? He was bound to tell the House that if a Treasury Warrant, signed by her Majesty, and countersigned by himself, were issued, and he were to take it to the Exche quer, the answer would be that there was no legal means by which it could be paid ; that her Majesty had nopower to issue such a warrant ; that they could not pay any sum of money, unless they were directed to do so by a Bill passed by that House, and concurred in by the rest of the Le gislature. Now, without going further into details, he would call upon the House to take care that they did not ask her Majesty to take a step which was against the law. The House had always been most properly jealous on the matter,—the House had always looked carefully, so as not to allow either the Executive or the Crown to put its hands in the public purse without regulations and restrictions ; and .he would defy the Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite to tell him out of what funds the Crown could advance the money. It was true that with regard to sums of small amount the Crown might advance them out of its hereditary revenues, or out of the Civil Contingencies. There was the case of Mr. Farmer.—(" Hear," from Mr. Cresswell.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not appear to understand the peculiar distinction there was in the case. Mr. Farmer had a claim against the Post-office, and the House had addressed the Crown praying it to pay the sum claimed to Mr. Farmer. But what were the circumstances of the case ? A contract had been ente re d i nto , as h a d been alleged, between the Government and Mr. Farmer relating to the collection of the Post-office revenue. But in that case there was a specific provision in an Act of Parliament authorising the Crown to pay the expenset4 attendant on the collection of the Post-office revenue out of the revenue itself ; yet, although there was a specific Act of Parliament authorising the payment, at the, time the application wa s th oug h t so i rregu l ar that the answer of the Crown was that when the means were provided the money should be paid. Such was the answer given to the Address of the House, although legally the Crown had the power to do it. That was the course which had been' pursued in that case in which there were means of payment, but here there were not any means whatever provided by which the address could be complied with, and he trusted that the House, in its anxiety to remedy a sup posed injustice to certain parties, would not place the Crown and itself in the position of asking her Majesty to perform an act which by law she had no power to do. He thought it more fair to bring forward this objection, which had struck him since yesterday, at once, and he should be glad to hear what answer the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, or the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, could make to it. Mr. HUME said—lt is true, Sir, that her Majesty has no money but what this House affords to her. The object of this motion is .to enforce what the House has more than once acknowledged to be an act of justice, and I ask the Right - Hon. Gentlemen why they voted against the Government, and carried their vote, for granting the first class of Danish claims ? It is true that the House, against the wishes and efforts of the Government, voted that the first class of the claims should be paid. The same course was pursued with regard to the second class of claimants; and the only dif ference between those twoGovcrnments and the present is, that those two Governments acted in obedience to the orders of the House of Commons, put those claims in the estimates, and why does not the Ri g ht H on . Gentle man do the same ? There are various ways in which that could be Clone. Take th e case which happened a a few months ago. I objected to an address to her Ma jesty, praying that she would take means to settle 2,000/. a year Lord Keane. I divided against the motion, but I was in a minority— the House of Commons ' decided against me. Was this objection taken then ? If the objection is a proper one, the case of Lord Keane is open to precisely the same objection. What I understood by that vote was that it simply asked her Majesty, if she approved of the object of the vote, that she would give directions to her Ministers to bring in a Bill for the purpose of carrying that vote into effect. That was done in the case of Lord Keane, and why is not the same course pursued in the present instance ? Is there any difficulty whatever in adopting the same course ? or does the Right Hono u r a bl e Gentleman say that whatever the House of Commons may de termine Ministers will not adopt it ?—(Hear, hear.) The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said the same, but still he adopted it. Money had been paid .on the same ground, and it therefore appeared to him that the objection was utterly unworthy of her Majesty's Government when on two previous occa sions they had paid similar claims. The first class of claimants was immediately paid, and the second class was paid also, although the Chancellor of th Exchequer said that he would never consent to it. The question is, whether - her Majesty's Ministers, after the expression of opinion by the House, five times repeated, are determined to prevent its being car ried into effect. If so, the only course that re mains is for the Honourable Gentleman to ask leave to bring in a Bill to carry out the intentions of the House, and pay the money. I submit to her Majesty's Government, that having acted in two cases in obedience to the address of the House,_ they ought to do so Majestyon the to orreesefusnte herooo asioit' and e to Hou c s o e un ha s d el co h m e e r consent w d hen to the resolution by a majority of 540 against per 5. I submit to them that that is not a be coming course to adopt towards a majority of the House of Commons. The Government have w ad i n sh iit o teA h tl e ia H t aousewhy, majorityof one is su ff ic i en t to test t h e then, should they advise her Majesty not to accede to that which, in the course of Justice, this House has thought proper to recom mend ? — (Hear, hear.) I am not aware of any other mode, if Ministers refuse, than bringing in an Act of Parliament and compelling them to adopt the course the House de sires to be pursued by that Act. I will state an instance of a parallel case. A claim was made on the East India Company —the Company declared that the claim was good, but it was• not satisfied. Leave was then asked to bring in a Bill—that Bill was brought in, and a sum of 22,0001. was paid, not of public monies, but of the money of the East India Company to the indivi dual in satisfaction for his claim for justice. Various other instances have come to my knowledge, and might be stated. I submit to the Government, that after repeated indica tions of the opinions of large majorities of this House, they should not be stopped by technicalities from carry ing those opinions into effect.—(Hear.) Mr. CRESSWELL said the Right Honourable Gen tleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) com plains of me for not answering the Right Ho nourble the Solicitor-General when - this resolution was first proposed. I should certainly have done so, particularly after the good-humoured piece of mis chief which the Right Honourable Gentleman directed against me, but I thought it would be more consonant with the form of the House, as the motion was put from the Chair. that some one should oppose it before I said any thing in its favour. Now with respect to the objections stated to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I call upon the House to adopt an address to the Crown, asking her Majesty to do that whi!li by law she has no power to do, I frankly state that I am ciriYen to this course by the MORNING- EDITION. persevering opposition of himself , and his pre decessor to the wish of the House.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore I thought I was justified —nay, Sir, I think I was bound in justice to those on whew behalf I have undertaken this question, thinking them justly entitled to the compensation which they ask— I considered that I was bound to bring it before - this House in every shape which the form of the House made legitimate for the purpose of following out that successful motion which I made four years ago in behalf of these unfortunate sufferers. And I cannot help thinking that the Right Hon. Gentleman has not been quite correct in his solution of the case of Mr. Palmer. He was well aware I should relyupon Mr. Palmer's case as a precedent. Undoubtedly, before I troubled the House, I was bound to look for some precedent, and I found one in. • the • case of Mr. Palmer ; in that case- I found an address to the Prince Regent praying his Royal - Highness to direct certain sums to be paid which the House pledged itself to make good. The Right Honourable Gentleman says that that is no precedent, because the Prince Regent had the power by Act of Parliamentthat funds were, already at his disposal by Act ofTarliament, and he was authorised to pay the money out of the Post-office revenue. If so, how came his Royal Highness's advisers to bring back this answer,—that they would order the money to be paid when funds existed?—(Hear, hear.) I think Mr. Palmer's case does present a prece dent for this, but whether it does or not, I shall certainly persevere in my motion and divide the House, in order that I may have a decla ration on the part of this House, whether they do or do not coincide in the propriety of making compensation. And now I will endeavour to meet the arguments of my Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and if I had. heard them for the first time last night —if that had been the first occasion of this matter being brought before the House, when my Hon. and Learned Friend got u p and told me that he thought I was under some misapprehension, that I had mis conceived the facts in reference to this subject, and had drawn false conclusions from the premises that I had advanced, I should have been very apt to suppose that I was in some error, if the matter had not been fully discussed on three several oc casions. In listening to my Honourable Friend afterwards, I found that he had been extremely diligent in reading what had passed on former occasions, and put all the scattered fragments of argument into .a connected form last night ; y et , i n truth, he had recounted nothing new ; not one single argument, nothing in fact was added except one or two dates, and as I think the Hon. Member for Bridport laid some stress upon those dates, I beg his attention to one or two, which were not mentioned by the Solicitor -General. On the 27th July, as stated by my Hon. and Learned Friend the expedition sailed. At that time an embargo had been laid upon all Danish vessels. Danish vessels were afterwards seized and brought in. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman has stated that on the 16th of August a proclamation was issued by the Danish Go vernment stating that they considered hostilities had then commenced. Now I beg to draw the attention of the House to a proclamation which was issued by the Commander Of the Ilritish forces before Copenhagen; and let us see what was stated by the Commander of our own Forces as to there being war or not, because the whole. case has been rested by my Hon. and Learned Fsretnedd.. upon the fact of th ese s hi ps an d vessels being What was the proclamation issued by thit'eommander of the British Forces on August 16, the-Wry date given by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General)? I thirill they then 'said that they came to the i)anish shores no; as enemies—" We come to your shores, inhabitants of Zealand, not as enemies, but in .self:- defence, to prevent those who have so long de stroyed the peace of Europe --to prevent you, from turning the course of your navy against us."—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, had said that if a weak man, having a deadly weapon in his hand, met with a strong man, and upon his attacking him, and his using that weapon, it was wrested from him, was it to be said that he was to be entitled to compensation ?—(Hear.) I should say yes. What right, I would ask, have we to take, Danish vessels without giving compensation to them ? I have shown that the commanders of the British ves sels had disclaimed being at war in August, 1807 ; what was said? Why. that because of the acts against the Danish property theßritish nation were bound to compensate there, 6o justly was that felt by the British Government that in Septeniber it was thought necessary to issue a State paper in order to justify the proceedings of the Government. So the matter rested ; but before that what took place on the 7th of September ? The Honourable and Learned Gentleman said these parties were very incau tious after these proceedings in sailing up the Baltic ; but on the 7th September, when the stipulation of Copenhagen was sanctioned, it WAS stipulated that all hostile acts should cease, and that nothing like war took place 'till November. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said this doctrine was new in the House—that heretofore it had been conceded that there was war at that time. Now, for my own part, I may say that I have never conceded any such thing, for on the very first occasion on which I brought this question before the House I said that there was no war. In war we might give other nations the opportunity of making reprisals, but those things becam e d e bt s o f t h e S tate,and ought to be paid by it. But when it was a case o f S tate necessity it became much more important. My Honourable and Learned. Friend has quoted the opinion of Sir James Macintosh, an opinion always entitled to great respect, which Was given in this House, that the parties who had goods or debts that were confiscated were entitled to compensation on this principle,. that if the subjects of this country were injured in a_Foreign State by seizure of their property, if the Government did not obtain re dress, the Government were bound to make compensation. Now, Sir, that may be very true, but I do not find that principle was ever enunciated in this House till it was used by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, when that office was filled by Lord Monteagle. It was a very convenient argument, in deed, for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the princi ple was first made use of by Lord Monteagle, as Chancel lor of the Exche quer , in 1834. It is a principle which was n ever h e ld by Lord Althorp ; nor was it ever mentioned till introdUced in debate to answer the claims with respect to the seizure of goods and ships, • which was brought before this House. When an Hon. Gentleman tie guardian of the public purse gets up and says that this act was done during the war,' I say, grant that we were at w a r, s till we are entitled to hav e our claims attended to; and if there was no war, we are also entitled to be pro tected against such a seizure. I say the principle was never acknowledged by the Government until it suited the purposes of Government, in _ order to defeat the claims a d vance d. -B ut we have several in stances which were treated of by the Hon. and Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, when an ap plication was made with respect to the state of affairs in the Baltic after the attack on Copenhagen. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) said that those applications were made to the Admiral who is dead, and therefore that no informa tion could be obtained on the matter. But one of those ap plications referred to by the Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Ham lets was made to the Admiralty, and not to the Admiral I believe that the insurances were made in order that the dock-yards might be supplied with the produce of the countries bordering on the -Baltic.—(Hear, hear.) The Government at the time encouraged seamen to go up the Baltic, in order to bring home goods. It was said there was extreme imprudence in going up the Baltic at the period alluded to. What imprudence could there be in so doing ? Those who sailed there had in formation to the effect that all hostilities had ceased — that they might go in perfect safety. The lion. and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) asked me for my proofs. I have had recourse to two or three authorities bn the subject, which I mentioned on a former occasion. I beg the lion, and Learned Gentleman's attention to the Third Book of Grotius, De Jure Belli, and the Second Book of Vette], chapter 18. I there find the following passage Those who have given occasion for reprisal s are bound t o grant compensation to those who have suf fered by the m ." (Th e H on. and Learne d G e ntleman , then quoted a pw h om assage from Grotius to the effect that was the duty of a State to compensate those on .10 reprisal s h a d fallen.") I think that those passages . w that as the se i zure of the Danish property was in itself friendly opposed to th e l aws o f nat i ons , t h ey b ein g arney.o t or Power, and they not having denied us done us any wrong, for which they had goods't sect.l think com pensation, when we seized on their that under n t d h e e r r t e h s e po se n c si irc bili tu t n y s o ta f n t e h e e s had been de- If, under these circumstances, compensa attacked merely because they would not and their armaments, their capital was bombarded, not liable for the mended from the Danes, they would say tthhaestntrhree3n- surrender rd their been were citizens slaughtered, and they consequences Nvwe areteli eof upont e - e a r ; , consequences of such a state of t There is but one other topic to which I shall advert. The Hon. and i L o e r arn of e t d he G E en x t e l h e e m ci a u n e , r, an h d ad th sa e y were ; but whet id tees of the public purse. Yes ' fund ?—(Hear, hear.) Righti that le they Hon. the ere C th h e an tru cel s: had they done with the Lord Chancellor, an expres sion fell from him which, in my had been in dispute b honour. A large sum n th en at te t r h in e g m in o to ney a of In of o r n .f e i:mtbeck. The Attorne3 e tween parties of the name trust General stated hat upon the was gone, and t 'On on the subject. " But," said Lord Brougham, t w he as ee no cas us ie e n i dis eautsestshe money is gone, it is not gone according to law. It ought to be here to abide the result of the suit ; and I will not allow you to put that in argument." I, too, say, that when there was a trust fund, it s h ou ld b e used for the purpose of that trust. On the last oc casion when I had the honour of submitting the subject for the consideration of the House, I read to the House a letter placed in my hands by my friend Mr. Wilberforce. On a former occasion, when a discussion had come on in the House respecting the detention of the Danish vessels, and the claims of our subjects, Mr. Wilberforce had voted with the Government, and in favour of the detention of the vessels. A remonstrance, however, had been addressed to him upon the subject, and he had then stated that he had acted with great re luctance, but he could not resist the argument that those vessels would constitute a trust fund for the purpose of making compensation to those among our own subjects whose property might have been seized by the Danes. I say, therefore, that was a trust fund ; and though it had become a trust fund some thirty years ago, and was not applied to the pur pose to which it ought to be applied, that forms no ar gument against the claimants, and they have not by their neglect, or by a want of due notice, lost their title. I trust, then, the House will sanction the motion to which I have called its attention. Whether the House adopts or rejects this motion, I have done my duty. The House will make its decision upon its own respon ibility, and it reap with it to rescind or abide by the decision it 11114 on so many occa s ions afready (vine to