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

EVENING EDITION COURT OF COMMON' COUNCIL. Yesterday a Court was held, for the despatch of business. ACCIDENT RELIEF SOCIETY. 14i. STEVENS presented a petition from the Accident Relief Society, which was established by several benevo lent persons for giving assistance to the families of poor persons who sustained injuries from accidents during the confinement of the patients. He highly commended the objects of the Institution, and expressed a hope that the Court would grant pecuniary aid to it.—(Cheers.) Mr. W ELLS sa i d that Mr. Stevens was so witch in the habit of presenting petitions of this kind as to deserve the name of Solicitor-General to the charitable establish ' tams of the metropolis.—(Laughter.) He objected to the practice of disposing of the City's money to the sup- Port of Secretaries and other officers, under the pretence of aiding the poor, who derived but little advantage from the contributions of the Corporation.—(A laugh.) Mr. STEVE NS said that h e was proud of the distinc tion, and s h ou ld endeavour to deserve the character. A better society than that h e ca ll e d u pon the Court to assist was not t o be found. • The petition was referred to the Coal, Corn, and Fi nance Committee. gi WOODEN PAVEMENT. Petition was presented from Mr. Thomas Parkin, an -.l,:tgineer, praying t o be a ll owe d to put down his patent wooden pavement, as an e x p er i m ent, on London Bridge. _Alderman GIBBS questioned the petitioner as to the durability of the wooden pavement. , Mr. Pa r ki n sa i d that, in his opinion, it would last longer than granite. The petition was ordered to be taken into considera tion when the Report should be brought up. et _ The Re . port was then brought up, and referred back to consideration of th e Committee. CITY LEASES. A subject of considerable importance came on for dis- S uss .i.° ll , and occupi e d a great part o f th e d a y. It was unally adjourned. The opini ons o f Mr. Sidebottom, the counsel, and the C ,itY S'olicitor, w hi c h have excited much discuss i on i n t h e con tain f or some time, together with the case, the substance of the Report made to the Court, and are as follow : CASE. The Cor p o ration of London are in the h a bit of letting their ~Zu:ea a, to their numerous tenants upon lease for 21 years. Li ., le es contain all the usual covenants to pay rent, repair, as well as covenant not to assign without license, and liteXase a covenant that the Comptroller (who is the con . ..,'Yarcing solicitor of the Corporation) shall prepare all as furthernt: of leases ; and the observance of these covenants is ~ee, of by the usual proviso for re-entry. A copy of covenant and proviso is left herewith. Th e 0 ture a I fnee of Comptroller has become vacant, and the na referrne amount of the duties and emoluments of the office is to the consideration of a Committee, some of whose e se , 4 ta ! rs are desirous of omitting one or both of these cove tn .0 all future leases, and to discontinue their enforcement th l e ases already granted, if it can be done without impairing e,secnrity of the Corporation. ee ! e d ifference of opinion prevails in the Committee, and the ni_eeof Mr. Sidebottom is desired, in order that they may be d they proceed on safe grounds. „ it "The memb ers of the Committee who propose to allow the • znents to be prepared by the professional advisers of the =es, respiring, the assignments, instead of the Comptroller. 1 1; e 7And that the restriction operates injuriously, by rendering siderrPoration leases less des;rable than they would b 3 con without s uc h a clause, and that anyt hi ng w hi c h im eeet - 4 0 11 the tena n t s expense , i nconvenience , o r annoy th„ , Pro tanto, diminishes the value of the holding; and p_if th e c l ause can be omitted without affecting the secu of the Corporation, it will become them, as liberal and ialtMelted landlords, to free their leases from such a restric- Zsand that they ought not to be deterred from doing so by the (7!klration that they would thereby diminish the emoluments ;,enir officer. The gentlemen who thus argue contend that i7e seieurity of the Corporat.on will be in no respect affected by i ss i °Ption of such a course ,• for that, by requiting the patty e4ti g o n'oe a lease to procu e a license to that affect, the Corpo - latits n ean exclude inq lover persons from becoming their te *ie); a s " by keeping a proper register of the transaction (for the the Comptioller should be allowed a reasonable fee), tena n t ould always have a knowledge of who really are their ' - th They say that th e Corporation have always an ample ne for the pay men t o f th e i r ren t an d t h e per f ormance o f e 151 e o r "tits by the original lessee, and by the well known va __ the City holdings. Ventlemen who are im ressed with the opinion that both etteenares should be retained, are so in the belief that they in that t th at al the security of the Corporation. These gentlemen say we e . tb° ug l- 1, as a matter of fact, the City leases have been al ey 'e "nsieered of so much value that no danger from breach tr'auleriaut has been arPrehentled, they feel that this may not se en Z e be the case. This fact has resulted from the circum sioo the hes been the tendency of property of this descrip tion sago inereese in value.; but it is possible, amid the fluctua tUo which all property is liable, that this may not always lentd cote, aad in such an event, having to deal with so many that red tenants, it is of importance to the Corporation that sie e ,, sll ° ol d have. if possible, a better security than the mere `4 aant-of the origin a l l essee , o h o ma y ha ve Peeo m e insolvent , ittl Parted with all interest in the property. The members oei ° e . ar e in favour of retaining these covenants are of that, in point of feet, the continuance of such restric sei.-tatilli:tes not at a , l dimit.ish the value of City leases. They as liberal liberal landlords they do not enforce either covenant tetPir:iieously or oppressively, and that the charges of the Comp• si ' o 6 l , - a e i r in ar a e n es - moderate as the charges of any private protes l'h • n• - e genttemen who are in favour of these clauses are of opi s ri'ea that they do afford the Corporatin thenome additional secu ; they look upon the covenants of oreginal lessee, not as 1 5 ;$ PPrs.mal covenants, but as covenants that run with the forv": _,and arc, as such, obligatory upon' the assignee of the ,u,ttring the time the ownership is In him. They, there th `.?lnk that by requiring the Comptroller to prepare ti on -34 :Patents, and to attest their due execution, the Corpora ,Zo will have the means at all times of knowing, and, if neces b 3 ,:i f "f Proving, who is the actual assignee of the property to fe e e voted by the covenants in case of their not being faith i_observed by the party primarily bound to keep them. filovving are the questions submitted to Mr. Sidebottom resp,e:,Cornmittee. That learned gentleman's early attention is neat ted, as the Committee will Meet on Tuesday morning to determine the business :--- sh e pot s the Corporation acqUirc any and what security by e att : n v t e;tant in the City leaiss not to assign the leases without 2d. y s • e-er ie „ there any and what security to be derived by the sh ou „ r ion from retaining a covenant that all assignments `" - be prep are d by the law officers of the Corporation ? OPINION. fromlit. I think the Corporation acquires additional seen ity thebes covenant not to assign without license, because it rese,the Corporation to see that the lease is assigned to a 1 ) 4 1, usable tenant, who, during his ownership, would be oe i zio tt ai to, pay the rent and perform the covenants in case the tos7-4,, no : e 'see should fail. Snch a covenant is become very 2d. Th and is a proper precaution. • deierv•ne_e_ovenant is certainly very unpopular, and I think tenant,4 o 7. It e xposes the affa i rs and necessities of the :eatiseltine many cases must i n cur the d o uble expense of thloe tiie eo rpO ra i t l o O n wn Priva'e solicitor and also the law officers of it Irmst it , arid I do not see that it adds any thing security of the Corporation. At the same time Co • e allo tlrne, and this vred that it is an advantage to the to I)Qtati " to know who is the immediate tenant from time 11etottaheldPwaritt of nt`hseletrpose might be answered by a covenant livered to the e,,te.nant that a minute of every assignment sw "tY-one days from the date thereof, be de- Corporation,eantrejtroller, or some other law officer of the that purpose, ue entered by hint in a book to be kept for ing h e same arid trifling fee may he made payable for enter - land, and are • The covenants to repa i r, & c., run w i th t h e that claratr obligatory on asignee4 so long as they retain Batt on for re .; If a license to assign is once given, the con. „ and the pl e-e ntry on assignment without license is at an end, Lint that—uri.oration would mil% have the benefit of the cove t; the lessee ur his a*irrns ,hoold not a. ,, sign without • ...cen se. A. R. 6IDEBOTTO it t r- ro i Q it eoln' F , i nn , 10th M ay , 1841 . 11. 7 ” DIR. SOLICITOR ON CLAUSES IN CORPORATION LEASES. To th, IMPERIAL TARLIAMEIPT. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 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 LLANI)AFF 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 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 Strangford) 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 MELBOURNE 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 balieved 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 construe don 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, the great amount of the po pulation, and the low price of wages, 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 MINTO 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 'ving 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 he 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 incompfehensible 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 FITZ WILLIAM 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 a new 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 FITZWILLIAM 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.) Lori 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 he (Lord Ashburton) then said, he would read a few soLtences 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. He 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. is Lord BROUGHAM 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 lie had been able to bring for Ward 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 Member of Parliament at that time, and never took part ill 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 ma d e use of the words his 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?--(H car , hear.) Circumstances had changed since then. He did not main grounds on - Which he (Lord Brougham) rested the opinion which he held, and whichlic, subsequently held upon Mr. Canning's Corn-law Bill, was the situation in which the landed interest was then placed. It was the state of the Poor-law. Had no change taken place on that subject ? He was unwilling to enter into this subject in any of its branches, and he was particularly unwilling to say anything in its behalf. That measure had been termed a landholders' Bill, but he Would say that it was for the purpose of improving the circumstances of the labouring population of this country themselves. 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. lie had no hesitation in saying that he was anythinc , 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 not instantaneous repeal ? Was it not pro tection to say take off so much per cent year after year until ultimately you will have taken off the whole ? Was not that protection ? Lord ASHBURTON—None. Lord BROUGHAM—WouId 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 partook somewhat of a sliding scale.—(A laugh.) He must say he was rather astonished that his 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 had taken to himself a much greater de gree of blame 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 and other articles. He begged their Lordships' pardon fbr going into these subjects, but his Noble Friend seemed to think it incumbent on him (Lord 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 t 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 WINCHILSEA 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 Mii;quis 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 the subject 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. He 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 as they would under the present Administration with its principles of free trade. Lord BROUGHAM 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 ilitS•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 STANHOPE the conversation dropped. A messenger from the House of Commons brought up the Insolvent 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 COMMONS, June 10. 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 4:)f 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 Mr. W. PATTEN, the Blackburn Town Moor, and the Blackburn Improvement Bill, were - -'rally read hird and • -A. severally read a t, time, and passea. On the motion of Mr. KEMBLE, the Hawkhurst Junction Road Bill was read a second 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 tin der more happy auspices. The Hon. 111:;mbi - r 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 \Veedon, in the county of Buckingham ; from 300 females in the Potteries ; and three other petitions front 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 ; 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 rious 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 in the Corn-laws. The NO - ble 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 and 300 pe titions from different parts of the country in favour of the total repeal of the Corn-laws. - The Noble Lord also for the repeal of the Law of Patron _ _ presented petitions - _ snlage in Scotland, for the liberation of Mr. Baines, and the abo lition of Church-rates ; and also for the introduction of an improved system of regulating railroads. The Tinsley and Doncaster Road 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 Hox. MEMBER presented a petition from Hunting don against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Sir J. GRAJTAM 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. HOBROUSE 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 j liberation of Mr. Baines. BOROUGH' OF NOTTINGHAM. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented .a petition from the borough of Nottingham, giving further contra fiction to the statements contained in the petition of Mr. Cox. The Hon. Member requested that the petition be read at length by the clerk at 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, and 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 ; and 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 Commiltee 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. Duncombe) 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. LANGDALE 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 'lnfant 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 judgment 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, anti might be referred to by any Hon. Member. Mr. WODEHOUSE gave notice for 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 AIORPETH 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 electors of the county of Hertford—is that a copy in your hand ? Mr. Storey—lt is. The SPEAKER—PIease to deliver it in. You may withdraw. Mr. Store' delivered in the co ,y and withdrew. Mr. T. DUNCOAIBE 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 Messrs. Fry, 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 the grievances of the 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 Ponce to furnish a copy of the Register. He coubl.sec 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 R. INGLIS said he thought t 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. HUMS said he thought the difficulties which bad been thrown in the way of using the register were highly culpable. He never saw a practised lawyer give evidence in so discreditable a m anner.—(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 - - - be expense of the P that it should be printed at the expense of the House, and doubtless there were one or two examples of that course. 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 ha, 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 electors of Hertford world 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 abuse. Mr. T. DITNCOMBE said after what had been stated by Hon. Members he would withd raw t h e mot i on. — (C r ies of N o , no ," from Sir E. Sugden.) showing general acquiescence, will rather go to st•engthen than mpaar its supposed validity. Dumpor's case, decided in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and reported by Lord Coke, is the authority upon which Mr. Side bo:tom correctly lays down the law that" if a license to assign is once given, the condition for re-entry on assigning without license is at an end ; but this case, though reluctantly admitted as authority, has always, upon principle, been questioned by lawyers. Lord Manstields in Doe v. Bliss, 4 Taunton, says, " The prdfession 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 lirummell v. M'Pherson, 14 Ves:y, 175, says, " Dumpor's case always struck nic as cx traordinary ; 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 in 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 restrictise cove nants adopted by modern conveyancers be brought to the test of judicial decision, they will be held successfully to e vade the doctrine established Dumpor's case. The Comptroller is the cfficer upon whom the responsibity of advising the Corporation in matters of conveyancing properly devolves, and had that office been 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 tro=t I shall be excused for the length of this Report. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your most obedient servant, Cil RLES PEARSON. The Court adjourned at a very late hour without coming to any decision. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM TILE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—The pelf and patronage-loving propensities of Toryism were last night manifested by the party ex pectant, with an effrontery worthy of those halcyon days when Pitt and Dundas dispensed pensions and sinecures to their suppporters with a generosity truly disinterested ; a conduct which their successors in office imitated, at the cost of the country. Reform at length unkindly came, like " a nipping frost," and cut off the fair fruit which their hungry partisans hoped to pluck as their share of the public plunder. It is worthy of remark. that the old virus, which was so active in the veins of the Tories of former days, is still possessed of its ancient properties. No sooner is there a faint pros pect of office, than immediately the " patronage" which pertains to it is the most prominent idea con nected with its possession. The country's good is but a third-rate consideration. First, ourselves ; secondly, our supporters and dependents ; then---Las subordinate to, and only as the means of promoting the more worthy ends and aims of the former—such measures as•will best accomplish the principal objects for which office is to be sought. Such Toryism ever has been, and such it will remain. We were not, how ever, prepared for so shameless an exhibition of its un changed voracity as that afforded last night by the charac teristic proceeding of the party on the Administration of Justice Bill. This Bill, as our readers are aware, was intro duced on the recommendation of the Law Commissioners, as a measure essential to facilitating the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery. It proposed to abo lish the Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, and to appoint two additional Equity Judges—thus ob viating an acknowledged and extensively felt grievance in the administration of justice by the Court of Chan cery, in which causes are frequently detained for years before they are decided ; the suitors, in the mean time, are exposed to ruinous delay and expense by the dilato riness of the process, and the justice of the country is brought into disrepute by the loud and general com plaints of these manifest defects in its judicial adminis tration. On the House proceeding with the report of the Committee on the Bill, Sir E. Sugden rose ; and, after gravely remarking—as a justification of the motion he was about to submit—" that a Government situated like the present ought not to have placed at their disposal two new and valuable judicial appointments—appoint ments which ought ever to be free from the least taint of undue favour, of bias, or forethought, and from any suspicion that those who gave the appointment thereof sought to strengthen their interest"—moved the introduc tion of a clause "toprevent the Bill from taking effect Wore October." We confidently appeal to that sense of j ustice and propriety, which is innate in the breast of every man who has not succeeded in quenching the " light within" by devotion to party, or a blind indulgence of dis honesty or sensuality, whether a more flagrant abandon ment of justice—a more indecent disregard of propriety, was ever, shown in the ample history of party conflicts, than is supplied by this proceeding. It stands alone, un paralleled, as a display of the extremes to which the headlong impulse of a party, impatient of office for the sake of the patronage it confers, will urge its leaders. STANDARD.—Ministeis have, as far as in them lies, deprived the public for ever of the benefits of a Reform which they themselves recommended as not only good, but necessary, and for no other reason but that they are not to have the patronage to be created by that measure. Can there be, then, any doubt that their pri vate advantage, and not the public good, was the motive for proceeding with the measure in question? Again, they complain that the disputed patronage would be takenfroui them, because it would be reserved for the Ministry of next October—a plain acknowledgment that they cannot hope to be Ministers in October. Lastly, what is to be thought of men who defeat their own good and ne cessary law, avowedly because Parliament has resolved to transfer to their successors certain paltry advan tages of patronage which they had provided for them selves ? We can conceive no more gross or profligate acknowledgment of the spirit of faction than this ; but we are contented to leave the matter for the public judgment, merely reminding the people that this is not the first, or the fifty-first case, in which the na tional interests have been sacrificed to the interests of the party in office. The Irish tithe anarchy, continued for more than three years, is an instance instar om nium. As to the compliments, we think unnecessarily, paid to the Lord Chancellor, we must enter our protest against being thought to subscribe to them. We cannot forget Lord Cottenham'sinsult to one of the truest and most high-minded men living—the Duke of Newcastle. The Chancellor may have generally done little mischief, be cause he is a feeble person : but the spirit of the mischief and the spite of faction were sufficiently manifested in the case referred to, to prove that it has been, not the want of will, but the want of ability, to which the com paratively small amount of his Lordship's transgressions is to be assigned. Akto his legal appointments, they may have been generally good, because the bar is almost universally Conservative ; and, therefore, he was relieved from the possibility of a factious bias, if he had not descended to select objects too low in merit and reputation for so weak and timid a man to dare to present to the public. His legal appointments may have been generally good, but the merit of that circumstance belongs to the bar, for enough of them have been bad to show (with his Lord ship's other conduct) that all were the worst he could venture to make them. COURIER.—The Ministry made a vigorous attempt last night to lay in an extra stock of patronage, in the shape of the Bill for the appointment of additional Judges in the Court of Chancery, the immediate passage of which .was earnestly urged upon the House. The appa rent motive for this indecent haste was generally set down in the legislature, as we apprehend it will be by the pub lic at large, not withstaniliug the anxious disc laimers of the lofty-minded Lord John, as part of a deep-laid design for acting upon the ensuing elections ; that is, for tam pering with leading electioneering interests by the display of two new judicial prizes in hand, sup-. plementary to all the ordinary fallings in of places and pensions, with the uncontrolled disposal besides of sundry funds coming under the convenient deno mination of secret service. Sir Edward Sugden, however, acted the part of Marplot to the scheme and spoiled it for present use ; upon which peevish Lord John threw up his brief and moved the postponement of the third read ing to that day three months, a course equivalent to its entire abandonment. Sir Edward strongly rebuked the delays and chicane by which the Bill, which was not ob jected to in any quarter, was first needlessly procrasti nated and now pressed forward with precipitation so cal culating. the ritr o h . _ _ rs ipful Committee of the Corporation of London, il l reli , ect to Officers and Clerks. Gentl e ~,,.. to ai r. iillni—ln obedience to your directions, I submitted S 'delvitt Pnrat ion d i atom a case upon the expediency of the Cor - , lemes, au tspensing with certain restrictive clauses in the City that ge ,1 1 herewith transmit to you a copy of the case, with man's opinion thereon. vis pind ritle , t, • 1 ,, r-• . nl i tte, ing that a difference of opinion prevailed in the Corn .'" Po I deem having expressed my own impressions upon the the,,ase the grounds of the conflictieg opinions entertained by 5 . 1,141,_ " , t members of the Committee,_ without introducing any ( I , , - a,r e, nts of my own in favour of the views of either. ' - ~•,_•u uformity with the wishes of the Committee I have t, ,;. 11, .rely considered the whole sabject upon its own merits, and 7: ..r In reference to Mr. Sidebottom's observations, and 1 eon , LATE SIR DAVID WILKIE, R.A. ,j„, . ~,vr ' _g__! cannot find any reason to recede from the opinion I had This distinguished artist, it appears, enjoyed a very Hood w i .:` r evton4y delivered in the Committee. ,a-rs i„ state of health dnring the yen months he was travelling througt. sk+4.. ' li e : mY and the covenant against assigning without Germany to the Turkish capital, during his sojourn there, a. , -- ento;an the covenant that the Comptroller shall prepare his subsequent excutsioes to Smyrna, Jerus•lem, the i t - 7 tti d attest the execution of all assignments, should both be ether parts of Palestine and Egmat, in all which pl ices the . ttelidered operative, and both be enforced, or they ouoht both plague h sit been fa- some time carrying cri its ravages. At , e , ll e expunged from the leases altogether. The objection -1 1. 1 "(1 against these covenants is, that thq diminish the value Alexandria Sir David and his comp Hann (Mr. Wood ei the City leases by creating additional expense, annoyance, burne) lived for some weeks at Wagliorn's hotel, which the latter gentleman describes as one of the chi :nest and iar" trouble, and that after all that' cannot be iiseftitlyenfoiced : most comfortable hotels with which he is acquainted. „.' This were so, it would surely b'e undesivable to retain cove- Waghorn's servants, both male and female, are ft om 'Eng !? , s t i 'i 3 whic though voluntarilo entered into and apparently laud, so that our travellers are, as it were, quite at home ootiaatory upon the parties, =gilt with impunity be hrok. n. in many essentials connected with our British ideas of f ,I do not pretend for a moment to question the law laid down comfort. Sir David and his friend left Alexandria in the alt w Y Nlr Sidebattom regarding the covenant against assig,ning, steamer Oriental, which had ekan bills of health, and on the 11 Is it M'pears in the City leases. I, however, entertain a strong 26th of May arrived at Malta, where they anchored for a few t t a e 0 n Ict 1 on that the covenant and proviso might be so worded hours for the mail and some passengers, but did not land. kt e s ori t( t ) i qu!tlify the . license to assign, and render the condition a When they left Malta no one complained of being unwell; ......., alwanuing shavencoditien, and in that ' case the Corporation would but the following day Sir David did not come to table,and k- R si - excused himself on account of a slight fever which he thought ~.._ , „portent of their leases to tenants of approved responsibility, would subside if he kept on low diet and did not exert 44,7. Li 42__.w.coeild remain liable to the covenant for payment of rent, himself. On the 31st of May, at night, the Oriental en 'Tsa.cPtfin. g the premises, and the other covenants which run tered Gibraltar bay, fired two guns, and showed blue fcts... ,2_ ra n the land, - until discharged from such liability by a similar lights ; soon after which a boat from the Thunderer, 74, el r g :. s , to assign their interest;„ the term ; but even suepos- and a Government barge, came alongside, to inquire what ..,),.,. , : a ._ , the to be so drawn, in my opinion it could not be 1 t:,7 at,..11y enforced without continuing the covenant requiring thoy were, &e.: and in a few hours, the despatches being .thec sinments to be prepared by, and executed in the pre- received on board, they made sal for England, no one hay ., `" e of, and attested by, the Comptroller, or some person on sai itO• . b ehalf of the Corporaticn.tr been permitted to go on shore. Shortly after she had ~ 'a -14 i,, Entertaining the most respectful deference for Mr. Side- got in' under weigh, six o'clock, a.m., Mr. Woodburne went into o s m ho e ul u d p , p a i n :- 1 .•,i t bottom' oeire,.sa opinion in this and all other matters, I humbly con- breakfast with the company ; he replied t Sir D. Wilkie's berth, to request he would ht he c .. In t the plan of registration suggested by him, 2S a sub- a •' do ' • b blv sn, but he should like to see the doctor before he 4t . 44., stloite for the latter covenant, would not meet the necessit of did so. Mr. Cattle, 'I '.11 '"%. th ' s l'aae a medical gentleman, then came to him,. t c, ,„ • The Corporation desire to know the names ofthe and soon . . 1,,,` 4 a-, 'oulers of their le ases, d.. state. Mr. Woodburne, returned to Mr. Woodbarne, with an assurance that his friend was in a very dangerous irl * but ases, not as -•— • - - a matter of infor ma ti on merely, 14,, . , .t of security also; and the knowledge of the fact of the as. '+ -, ' a'gninent would be of no value unless they had at their c0in ,,.,-, , tumid the requisite. legal proof to sustain an action against the ~ .. Party accepting the astignment for a breach of covenant coin _ nutted, while the lease remained in his ownership. In the absence of the original a , si.ninent, which remains in the hands of the assignee, this legal fcould proof only . the Comptroller, or other officer of the Corporation, attesting be given by the assignment as a witness, and by the production of the draft in the absence of the original, and after notice to produce it had been given. Both the clauses to which objections are now raised are to be found in substance in the leases of must public bodies, and :s•lt/ . even private proprietors of considerable house -property have ~ , ' adopted them ; but the modern covenant not to assign has '41., ' ' I ,been worded in the manner I have before adverted to, so as 4 4 Itsi , - ap- a l' ~ . . , p rent y to get rid of the legal difficulty' raised by Mr. Side .k, .1 • nottom. to of adopting this modern covenant some 4. 1 - . public bodies introduce in each assignment ad o feaza, as Id Ws'ita,:- recommended by Mr. Preston the conveyancer, t accomplish 4i 7t ''. 4: then lime object : and many landlords to avoid the difficulty, ;4'4'tfNlca** pl,efu.se to grant any license to assign, driving the party to the 4 'l k: neces•ity of taking an under-lease upon each ~'- , 114 7 e1 .ts ebsive change of ownership. These expedients, how 'Vl ~„ tti trer, create expenses which do not attach to - no •sts. ' by.. being greatly alarmed, asked Di.. Brown (who was with Sir James ( - fume) to consult with Mr. Gattie as to what could be done to save his friend ; and the two medical gentlemen made every exertion, and applied all the usual remedies within their reach, without avail. Sir David kept gradually sinking. but did not appear to experience any bodily suffering, and became unconscious about half past seven, and at eight o'clock he ceased to breathe, his friends and the physicians being with him all the time. The passengers assembled to consult what was to be done, and they requested the Captain to return and land the body at Gibraltar ; he did return, but the orders of the Governor are so strict, that the remains could not be allowed to come on shore and therefore the last sad offices of committing his body to the deep were performed in the mos'. solemn and im pressive manner, as the Oriental stood out of the bay on her way to England. Sir David had been for some time anxious to return home, and declined to visit either Cairo or Athens, two cities which Mr. Woodburne was most de sirous of visiting. The latter gentleman is with the other passengers, Sir Willoughby Cotton, Sir James Carnae, &c., now in quarantine off Portsmouth, in consequence of the fore going fatality, although all on board are perfectly free from any siekn-s•. The immediate cause of Sir David's death was, we what is called " the Syrian fever." understand, w (.1 pF, AA - ER, after putting question dec4ared LL presented a petition signed by - th'e , • exceeilin_,sytlle: comptroller, and they are on tra s t 'g ae rn eO nls - • The mean as to the distress of — the country; but were the land : 1, Mr. CRESS - lit D aotaor., was then negatived without a diiision. -;:. of 0,, gLiY 103 n'e• Yam not aware that the legal effect BRUSSELS, JUNE 6•—The . Minister of the in -- rao L ,, em in 9 which it was in 181,7,---(Hcar, hear.) and inn-keepero . ,of i, 1..) ed , d f position now , and was the c<•~untry nearly three hundred of o t o h l e , e p o ri m n p c i l a p i a nin l. hard - 1 _ covenant and proviso to which I have adverted ' terior informs the merchants of the kmgdom, that by . a decree sold Or '1 tba y t cr lle lli n 7 s ..c h :p d re it s . o e parties might Fiat the undergone t b Nib Friend stated a fir f th e to th ' Actin , dto thi • think it h he censl d erat i on of a , court of lam •Idm • of his Si c il i an the expert duty on stilPhur, In Sicily, He tiouf . „Nat 14 _ more o . sh ip of brew erg bein ei an -r holders d s e ,a r tn s o i n.,ptc,L7i position tbelr own expense n be red uce d i _ pt at • - U . for ge m , Ins i r d n h ot a as ]let bscietnhaelub:teireineeztotniisairteltty • frot; t Y he let °I hnuary , 1642 / 4Ore , 20 earliiie obse , -v_ ations he had - made on the sub. .rhe aford. i their ciatome.s rest, 44( . 1 Y i ng Mifved .by doeurae 8r0ug14w),w4.14 arlacgt to Day that 'O - te th - e - t Dill - of exeraption• • 1-• di„ - • .0. m ugg y per I, vv • ..• ~ ~ ':--~` , 4 1 . Y 4:at After a short conversation, in which Sir R. Peel, Mr. Hume, and Sir E. Sugden took part, Lord HOWICK 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' of in furnishing the required copy, a penalty of 5/. or 10/. should be imposed. - That, he thought, would provide a remedy 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. H. 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. ■+ THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAN, JUNE 11, 1841. 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 ani 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 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. No 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 no power 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 entered into, as had 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 expenses 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 was thought so irregular 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 two Governments 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 Right Hon. Gentle man do the same ? There are various ways in which that could be done. Take the 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 2,0001. a year on 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 Honourable Gentleman 'Say than 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 the 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 o t o e o h s e a ren , lnt i te i d d idl t pa l: es sy thattoh of the havingmt h O e ne y I H. actedou se i, s n u tbthwmeoiyt casest o o u gh in 0/Iht t ob l a e j dd e sty's Gi o enc so e on the present occasion, and not to counsel her Majesty to' refuse her consent when the House had come 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 admitted that a majority of one is sufficient to test the wish of the House; why, 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 thenasked to bring in a Bill—that Bill was brought in, and a suni of 22,0001. was paid, not of public but of the money of the East India Company to t.hensh :ontieesrindivi dual in satisfaction for his claim for justice. yaru)u 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 oftliis House, I they should not be stopped by technicalities from carry ing those opinions into effect. Mr. CRESSWELL said Gen tleman (the Chancellor of . the Exchequer) com plains Honourable erivti„;nthtehisliirgelsitoluHtioon was first proposed. p n l o a u i r n b s l e o f the ine S c r i to n r- o G t en a e n d r s t ' il certainly have done so, -humoured enoftlemmiasn pchairetifeulawriliyiehaftetiriethellisigighlooo:dl s would the be e ire n c lo te r d e against o I should u h g e 4t Hou it se consonant th b e ut for l m th° f oppose it f l ro s n a t id th an e y C o h li a h ir g . in tlis its t favour.soic one NoiV with motion " wa b s ef li b i r it e respect to the objections stated to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I ca ll upon the ou!# to adopt an address to the Crown, asking her Majesty :to do that -Which by law the has rower to do; I f ran kly state that I am driveti to thjf cal se 17 the EVENING EDITION. persevering opposition of himself and - his pre decessor to the wish of the House.—:(rlcar, hmr.) Therefore I thought I was justified —nay, Sir, I think I was bound in justice to those on whose behalf I have undertaken this question, thinAitig theca justly entitled to the compensation which ;ley 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 iulehalf of these unfortunate sufferers. And I citiitiqt help thinking that the Right Ho n . G ent l eman has not bred quite correct in his solution of the case of. Mr. Palmer. He was well aware I should rely upon 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 Parliament—that funds were already at his disposal by Act ofParliament, 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 1 will endeavour to meet the arguments of my Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and if 1 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 (sot up 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 bren extremely diligent in reading what had passed on former occasions, and put all the scattered fragments of argument into a connected form last night; yet, in truth, he bad recounted nothing new ; not one single argument, nothing in fact was added except one or two dttes, 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 ISth 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 British forces before Copenhagen; and let us see what was stated by the Connnander of our • own Forces as to there being war or not, because the whole case has been rested by my Hon. and Learned Friend. upon the fact of these ships and vessels being seized. What was the proclamation issued by the Commander of the British Forces on August 16, the very - date g iven by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General)? I think they then said that they earne s t° the lianish shores no: us 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, wss 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 Yes . sels had disclaimed being at war in August, 1807 ; what was said? Why. that because of the acts against the Danish property theßri tish nation were bound to compensate them . So justly was that felt by the British Government that in September it was thought necessary to iSsne aState 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 became debts of the State and ought to be paid by it. But when it was a case of State 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 respell*, 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 compenstion. 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 Exchequer, in 1834. It is a principle which was never held 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 the guardian of the public purse gets up and says that this act was done during the war, I say, grant that we were at war, still we are entitled to have 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 advanced. But 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 m u le 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 Hon.- and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) asked me for my proofs. I have had recourse to two or three authorities on the subject, which I mentioned on a former occasion. I beg the Hon. a n d L earne d G ent l e m a n's attention to the Third Book of Grotius, Dc Jure Belli. and the Second Book of Vette], chapter 18. I thee find the following passage :—.'.Those who have given occasionfor reprisals . are bound to gran t com p ensa ti on to those who have sus fered by them." (The Hon. timl Learned Gentleman then quoted a p assage f rom Groans- to the effect that "it el was the duty of a Stat e t o compensate those on whom reprisals had f a ll e n.") I think that those passag'l s that as the seizure of the Danish property "lisl lf opposed to the laws of nations. they being a fri e ndly Tower, and they not hal he• denied retuseu com done us any wrong, for which thq ha . ds think pensation, when we seized on their go( 1 ) se; on that under these circumstances us any . right, , or we are to on p of the war. our selves the responsibility of the cwiseqsulon they been de . If, under these circumstances, coulee'', sa) lot surrender tl that they had been waws.oub° - eae not liable fOr the a m t a tae nd k ed ed fr n o l i e n re t l l7 b D e a ea n u es s , e th ti e le y y would bombarded, and the e a i r t n i i z a e m ns en s t l s a , ug t h h t e e i re r things. There is but consequences of such a state advert. The Hon. and one other topic to which I shall Right Hon. the Ch slaughtered, they of si Learned Gentleman, and the _ • ancel tees of the public purse. had been in dispute lor of the Exchequer, had sl a t,r i e d uss,t th tif i l t ue t ny t d he N?l y ,- - e w r i H r ; e ea - b t r h u e ,t terr.what-) had they done with the Lordin my as e C p h i 11 1 11 0 7 1 I o d r i , d mexpres siongreat e f n el Lo l f r r d em ß hi ro m ugh:n , o be tween parties ttorney- General stated upon the occasion that the money was d that there was no use in entering into a gone, an A lame i.th the name n e l f o ri n , e r 3 o , hic w h dis cussion on the subject. " But," said Lord Brougham, a is the 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, sa y, 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 mad 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. Th e House:will make its decision upon its own.respoz bibility, and it rests with it to rescind or abide by the decision it has on so many occagom ski cow to