The Sun. — London, England, 1841-03-17 00:00:00

no HIS T o f Teive a conort elution come 0 roo m a stat ue blic a u n an p d grail , rrence in the urpose of o° 7 •thiining a ) bt Lth to be tatdra f of, t !eive the 11 to redue,, importe!l,;! cs into the u°' the 1'4911049 be rt Directors se , _y t i, cultivators (11 0 l e G over n t,o in Ceylon , he minutes re the 1a t 664. .;), Pro Pr iel° o* d, a nd the re. sulanitted )r COnfi r°ing o n TESI— ' s DAY,) be ° da hs ll on .v wit h .0 ions, 41° inoss. rr Oat, ai pal'u.sl" rid ALL. c a l li, ° :,, t° 15 0 sg . to 3nipes ic' i r - c os Ch 5 . e pocks 1 ,, . _ t , pa" t a n gs ' Gef • ket o oo Clo c o .dr co. , 0 Pea Apo' Du . for aeo• to Turl'o°°tlp hers % it* or !h fr l i : •eR ss. .%"5" Y te boireco, pr C f o eso o ot tent fr°°l ol tlii :ear ialee orO t; anand irp a Fos rlfSi ,CEOs , 161 CO f el , I liqbe ~,41 Ac ed deArs 41 , t fa' ,c 1 1 1 , 5b . 3 or sha t re o . .• to i .• to 43 .• ". ..-- tO "-- to ' 5 14 0. T pN b a sec : i u: e a : °Bt4 b is i e n Y c l at . b v i s t i I t he a r l oth t he is fo r Colo ° to 5 Bil ls 6 A cti l 011 " Or °. per o p. NTeW/ , 5l Leefts, er 4 thej"; , ) th a cb Gts., 3tf b r iani o i s'6rio," 911 1 rpt 0 °°°l.l t ' ' be g ging .kezccast A (From the Standard.) EVENING EDITION SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FRGM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. (From the Globe.) That th e Bishop of Exeter and the Times have been most cavalierly thrown overboard by "the Conservative leaders in the House of Lords" in the matter of the St. Sulpiee Seminary, is a fact justly provocative of the ire of Bishop, Repotter, and Editor. The Right Rev. Prelate must henceforth rank as a Gentleman of the Press. To the great horror of the dignified assembly io which he sits, he communicat's documents to the Tintcs reporter, and reads the reporter's notes in tAIPIY. Perhaps the Right Rev. Prelate thinks that, in these times of advancing Popery, it is well for him to have two strings to his bow, and, in ca , c of expulsion from his diocese by mai peneeution, to tike refuge from Smithfield in Printing House•square. We do bet say it as a mc:e compliment ; but we really know ho services which would be more valuable to the v tu- Peretiv e part of the press than the Bishop of Exeter's. if a period of persecution should come, such as tries men's souls, the Right Rev. Prelate's soul would prove, upon trial, in far better harmony with the duties of a certain sort of journalism than with those of episcopacy. Olimus accipitrcm, quia semper vivit in armis —and such appears to be, pretty generally, the sort of anti pathy excited by tae Bishop of Exeter's constint itch of religious discord. It is delightful to see him left in the lurch, as he was last night. " We must say,' quoth the Times, " that upon this occasion the Con servative leaders in the House of Lords do not seem to us to have made a very creditable figure." Of course not ; they were blasphemously arrayed against the Bishop of Exeter, the Times reporter, nay the Times i i hmit. A discreditable figure must have been made by somebody ; at.d it is obvious that it was much less likely to be made by the Times, and its Bishop, than by Lord Ripon, the Duke of Wellington, the " Conser vative leaders," in short, and the Lords generally. To speak seriously, we are greatly pleased with the frank ness and good sense of the speeches of Lord Ripon and the Duke of Wellington. The House of Lords has virtually decided upon revoking the Protestant Reformation, as far as the uni t provinces of Canada are concerned. The H ouse of Lords will before long have abundant reason to reflect upon this step. Let their Lordships cull to mind the position which they occup'el in public °Pinion in 1830, and then count back the months be trreen that year and their first defection from Pretes t!ar principles. This short ca'culation may help them en estimate of their place in public respect and con °tlence about the year 1843. Whoever has rm.: our r emark s upon the expecte] debate of list night in the °lnudard, of yesterday, and in some preceding numbers of this paper, must acknowledge that we anticipated ful lY what has occurred. We were not deceived. The Past has not been lost upon us. We have too often seen the fires lighted, the pickets put into ac tlyitY, all the preparations for a decisive onward rn"etnent (to borrow a military illustration), as the Prelude to a retreat—we have too often seen these f hi ngs not perfectly to understand their mean 'll. But enough of this ; " the blow at the " Protes ti!tet Ref orma ti on " h as b een s t ruc k ; an d it ma tters a it tle wh e th er it i s th e fi rs t bl ow th a t the Protes tant Reformation has received, since it is the first blow ruck by th e H ouse of Lords. Teat is the matter their Lordships' consideration, and for the ecw ohleration of the country—for we suppose neither th eir: Lordships nor any of us are responsible for B athurst small strokes inflicted in private by Lord or his successors—strokes so small and s° obscure that they seem to have been unnoticed "% t v the time, or forgotten as soon as administered. s. e „have the fact acknowledged, that this ordinance of `• Nlpice is " a blow at the Protestant Reforma i!l°"." These words stand unretracted, and the ques -11 remains for the public, whether the House of Lords ought to sanction the striking of this blow ? (From the Courier.) sad The Select Committee on Railways met yesterday, Smi was ined on the part of the b ?aed i of Trade th in favour exam of the unlimited powers of the "II now in the House. We confess the more we see 1 ,; 1 , 14 hear of the r eas ons for, and clauses in the Bill, the -"ore opposed we are to the interference of the Govern ment in the detailed working of the lines ; that it will e " n tually drive the most respectable part of the Di rectors fro m office we are assured ; and in every Board there will be two parties—a Government party and an ant i -Govern men t party —: n t h e super i n t en dents and ulcers a d ou b t as to the course t h ey s h ou ld pursue— . ° leh will p ara l yze th e efforts of all the Companies, and p revent those improvements wh i ch exper i ence s h ou ld e as the best prevention to accident.. :We shall re _4l: to thi s su bj ect as one o f t h e mos t v it a l i m port a nce , " 1 the railway interests. COURT OF ALDERMEN. b Testerday a Court was held for the despatch of astness. JOSEPH ADY. Alderman COPELAND presented a Petition from that very public character, Joseph Ady, who stated himself p° be a Li veryman of the Bow-string Makers ' Com . , a tt3'. The petition represented that Ady bad about Zwent •-fi ago engaged in compiling work which valu e r at u pwards of 1,000/., and which contained 4 1 great variety of intelligence on the subject of mi. Productive dividends, profitable to the community, and equetive of a certain revenue to himself ; that he ed been tried and convicted at the Old Bailey, and sentenced to transportation for seven years, which sen- X I " was commuted to imprisonment for twelve months; a t he placed the work alluded to, consisting of books -. 13 4 Papers, in the hands of Mr. Tyars, now Mr. eputy Tyars, to whom he had since applied for the th st oration of t h em , b u t f rom w h om he had met with tie Most indignant refusal ; that he was prevented in tret a d vanced age from supporting himself, and gaining for e e Public hundreds of pounds in consequence of such % (1 , s al; and that he prayed th e Court to interfere in h ' e n a manner es to cause the restitution of his pro rerty. LORD MAYOR thought it necessary to state to c e Court th at M r . Ad y h a d app li e d t o hi m , an d th a t Ai.. ll ad spoken t o hi s d e p u ty, Mr. Tyars, on the subject. 4,1 r. iyars appea r ed t be justified in the course he had eo 6 l 3 ted in t h e case . Th at gen tl eman s t a t e d that the tnieutation of the sentence had been made on the ; I ° Nlition t h at t h e b oo k s an d papers s h ou ld never b e le ,d again t o t h e i n j ury an d vexat i on o f th e publi c . 11 ertnan COPELAND said that he was under no ii .4at compliment to the petitioner, who, when he was th `l ° r , had the assurance to refer to him, as well as to er Aldermen, as willing to be responsible for his ki d,. 'V to the amount of 1,0001.—(A lau g h.) He (Al o-er,rnao Cop e l an d) h owever , was one of those who could o eL se down a man as doomed to be a perpetual of erldert us liee ae he was condemned by the law upon pe e ec iceasio n . H e th oug ht it possible for a man to re th,. a nd mend his ways, and he considered it no more -4 commo n humanity to aid any effort of the kind. t ....- o (4 ear, hear.) He was the more strongly induced D t p r esent the petition, as he had every reason to sup ,j,e that the petitioner had procured for rightful tooLrnants several sums of money, particularly sums of e , h l'e L Y connected with bankrupt estates, a subject on g o ; ' a the Court knew it was extremely difficult to ac t: a ny information at all.—( Hear, hear.) He should Ntt e ep t . hat the petition be referred to the Petition Corn. S ti ir PETE R L A URI E mos t d ec id e dly o pposed the let ‘l t 4 - The petitioner, he said, was, according to e. 0 , - , er a from S co tl a nd and other p a rt s , p urs uing his old e o -t ", and the acquiescence of the Court would be an Al e Z ur agement to him to proceed. For the Court of Ite k , --1 ; _men, of all bodies, to take up such a subject, The him as extremely preposterous.—( Hear.) Petition was then ordered to lie on the table. PUBLIC-HOUSES IN THE CITY. t e l eti A c onversation took place amongst the Aldermen d ftt ‘'e to t h e conduct o f pu bli cans i n t h e Ci ty i n vic aleil'g the P o li ce Act, an d t h ey came to an unan i mous wer er atanding that the licenses of those houses which ib e :"tupliined against on the l ist licensing day should igr e 4 ) PPed next year if any further complaint of trans the,4 should b e es t a blished against them. The tak 4 ors admitted that it .as a most serious thing to 4 140„3 w aY a license, but they determined that ex should b e ma d e . The Ward of Bishopsgate llondinnst Particularly cautioned, and Alderman Cope- , 'lid that he should convey the caution, with all i Pedition, thr oug h his deputies.—Adjourned. — 4NS Co rr , ,1,1•••••••111010111.11.• KT OF SEWERS FOR WEST TER. AND PART OF MIDDLESEX. s • ASP f Peeial C ourt o f Sewers for the City and Liberties C O4l c!ttninster was yesterday held at the office of the eia, ra ssioner s , G reek-street, S o h o, to ta k e i nto con - Itr e ; a t t '?n the d ra i nage of the W est o f L on d on an d their.allniter Cemetery, F. L. Donaldson, Esq., in the Mr. II far th e COUVERIE said it would be desirable to see how St der t "Pany and the Commissioners azieed t o con it Ns hale points as settled. Thus he considered that l ro v i de P a t nved th at t h e C ounters ' C ree k was t h e easement he j. g b y nature f or th e draining of th e water f rom Westnd gory in p ossess i on o f th e West of Lond on an d 4 ree."Ho.ster Cemetery Company, and he would move mur.%•ton to that effect. A e "TER seconded the resolution. tere (instmissioNea stated his opinion that the Court fronl • reck.was origin a lly d itch which had been taken ' rhe ait a artier, 11tr. motion w as t h en put an d carr ied. Pos e an'EsuE, on M r . B ou v er i e being about to pro eeedi other resolution, objected to this mode of pro bed o n g ; th ey bad already affirmed that of which they dr, t i° Proof ; he did not think it was the natural the Oe. Tne course adopted to tie up the lands of adtnj i .%', r t by a series of distinct propositions was a most tDR gUae:ae wiehooniee l c u er e t s a t i i n on ly, but the Court should be on its t `," aga;nse being completely precluded from discuss ateppetteadiiseusion, after proceeding for some time, was Th. c7 Y - 14 41.1 on the ground of irregularity. thowgbt Mr. Bouverie had better proceed with his statement. Mr. BouVERIE then proceeded with his statement. In 1824 the Kensington Canal Act was passed. The bank in the neighbourhood of the land in question was erected, which was an interruption to the natural drainage, and the Act made it incumbent on the Com pany to provide proper drainage for the adjoining lands. In 1828 they appl'ed to this Court for liberty to lay pipes through this bank. There was a clause at the end of the Act reserving the power of the Commis sio: era of Sewers, but it could hardly be contended that clause annulled the effect of the preceding el ruses, pro tecting the rights of the landowners, and providing a remedy for evils inflicted by the Act itself. It had been contended that the pipes had been introduced for the re lief of the bank itself, and not for the adjoining land ; now there was no proof of this, and the probability was that the application was made at the instance of the landowner. The Court gave leave without hesitation, and the minute stated on the face of it that the pipes were for the conveyence of the land water into the sewer or canal. He did not know how far the Court would contend that they had a right to stop a natural drainage, but he would submit that the right of ease ment was not abridged by the 47 Geo. 3, cap. 7, nor by the Kensington Canal Act. He now came to the point at issue, and he was not aware that it was neces sary to come to the Court for leave to build drains on his own land, and be thought it was perfectly natural that the Commissioners should not know they were doing wrong. In October 1839, the Commissioners directed the pipes to be cut off, on the ground that they had been appropriated to purposes for which they had not been originally intended. Now, he thought that was a harl. case. It was impossible the pipes could be appropriated to any use for which they were not intended, as it was impossible that any but land water could be carried off. The further proceedings, however, in the order were suspended until about March 1840, when all drainage was stopped, and on the 20th of that month tie Court came to the resolu tion to suspend further operations on the order, until a survey should have taken place. In consequence the plugs were taken out, and the drainage continued with out interruption until July. In the meantime the Cemetery Company had renewed their applicef on to have this drainage at a lower level. The order made to cut cif the drains was directly in teeth of the practice of the Court, in cases of old sewers. Now, as the lands of the Company had no frontage to the canal, which, although not a covered sewer, was yet a sewer, they hal a (Isar and undoubted right of drainage into it, and could not be callei upon to build a sewer. The 1 ind could never be built upon, and therefore it would he but fair to the Company to allow the same drainage in the land, which was allowed when it wes occupied as garden grounds. It was evident from the report of the surveyor, that the public could not be damnified by granting the request of the Com pany. It appeared, moreover, from the report of the surveyor, that if the Company were compelled to build a sewer, the land could act be effectually drained by it, and that the only effectual way of so doing was by granting the prayer of the Company's petition. The lion. Commissioner then proposed a string of resolu tions, embodying the principal topics of his speech. Mr. LESLIE rose to order. He thought that notice ought to have been given of these motions, and doubted whether they could be put without notice. Mr. BOUVERIE would, if it would facilicate the pro- ' ceedings of the Court, withdraw the merely affirmative resolutions, aad move senply that the prayer of the pe tition of the Company be granted, if the Kensington Canal Company consent. Mr. J. WHITE seconded the reselution. The Ken sington Canal Company purchased all the land corn posing the present sewers, except a seta I portion. The application for permission to lay pipes through the bank, was made merely to save the bank itself from being de stroyed. He admitted the Cemetery Company had a right to drain their land into a neighbouring water course ; but it had always been a question to treet these matters as a sort of arbitration. The Court said do this, and we will permit you to do that ; and, as a general rule, it was a most beneficial one ; but, in this instance, where only a small strip of ground interfered, he thought it would be hard to refuse the Cemetery Company to drain through that strip, if they could pro cure the consent of the Canal Company. He aid not believe the Commissioners could stop drains, unless they were improperly constructed : the proper way of punishing parties for draining without leave, was to in flict a fine. He seconded the resolution, although he did not agree in all the positions laid down by the Hon. Mover. Sir GEO. FARRANT said that every day's experience showed that consecrated burial-grounds might be con verted to building purposes. The land in the neigh bourhood might become building ground, and then a sewer would be necessary, towards which the Cemetery would never pny, unless they were bound to construct it now. He thought the drainage would not be accord ing to the established rules, unless the Company built a sewer. Mr. JOHN GUNTER thought it would be a great in justice to the Company to insist upon their building a sewer. Mr. MULLINS did not conceive that the Court had any power to obstruct the original easements of any lands, or to preclude parties from using the usual an cient drain. The argument against granting the peti tion was this, that, to effect a possible public good, they might inflict a possible private injury. He did not see how the Court could refuse the prayer of the petition. Mr. BEACH denied that the riht of the Company to the drainage Lad been established by usage. Ac cording to the established practice of the Court, the Company were bound to build a sewer, and therefore be certainly should oppose any proposition for granting the prayer of the petition. Mr. 'GRACE thought, if the resolution of July last should be rescinded, and the Company exonerated frcm building the sewer, the independence of the Court would be lost. Mr. R. GUNTER, as a Proprietor of the Cemetery Company, did not intend to vote on this question, but he thought he wa3 perfectly justified in coming there to offer any observations he might think proper. Mr. R. CHAMBERS had no interest in the Cemetery Company, but he should vote for the resolution, inas much as the land was in the same state it was when the Kensington Canal Act passed. Mr. Furctr thought the Company should be com pelled to build a sower, if they wanted additional ac commodation. 111 r. WILLouGHBY thought the Commissioners were bound to enforcie the rule they had laid down for the public benefit, in enforcing the building of a sewer in front of the land. Mr. LESLIE thought they ought to have had clearly laid down to them what was the law. He wished to know whether the Commission had the power, by law, to say to any proprietor, you shall drain only in the way in which we tell you. Under what statute, sup posing the Company inclined to go to law, could they justify the cutting off the old drainage, and how could they force the Company to build a new sewer? Those were points that ought to be cleared up before they could come to a decision on the question. They would disgrace themselves if they did not use the Company in precisely the same way they would an individual. Mr. F. GODRICH contended that the natural drain age of the land was into the Kensington Canal, and it was perfectly anomalous that the Court should have ventured to take upon itself to cut off the drainage. The Court had in a parailtl case acted perfectly differ ent. Where the public required a sewer that the pro prietors did not want, the Court had no right to make the proprietors of land build such a sewer at their own expense. The CHAIRMAN said the Cemetery Company were by law required to drain under the superintendence of the Commissioners. If parties were to ask for an ease ment, it was the duty of the Commissioners to see that the private sewage was made subservient to public cla• venience. If the old easement had only been required they would not have been interfered with, but now they ' wished for greater accommodation, The Court was bound to make the drain in ij t e manner best for the public good. The qu'::stion was, whether by permit ting individuals drain in their own way they were not depriving the public of any advantage which they ought to have. He certainly thought the prayer of the petition ought not to be granted. Mr. BouvERIE replied, and the Court divided — For the motion Aguinst it Mjority against the motion —2 The Court then adjourned to Friday next. HOTEL AND TAVERN KEEPERS' PROVI DENT INSTITUTION.—The mcmhers of the above Imftu tion held their second annual gereral meeting at the Free masons' Tavern, Great Queen-street, on nonday, Benja min Bond Cabbell, Esq., in the chair. TI e Secretary reed the Report. It appeared that at the lost attelit 2t 3/. 9s. remained in favour cf the Society, which, with 8041. 7s. 9d. received in donatit ns and subsetiptions, aid the dividend on stock, made the receipts in March, 1841, amount to 1,117/ 21. sd. The disbursements being 150/. 14*. 4d. in the necessary expenses, and 8491. ss. 6J. in veAcd with the Commissioners of the Nmioaal Debt, arid added to the permanent fund, left 1171. sd. in the treasurer's bands. After congratulating the members upon the prop essive influence of the St cicty, the Re port stated th it 384 members were enrolled, a great num ber of whom were cooks and waiters of hotels, for whose relief the Society was principally intendel. THE RULING PASSION.—An exciseman call ing a t the hours of a good humoured landlady at Shrewsbury, she consulted him about some liquor that had b een d e p os it e d i n her editor without a permit. At the word s " without a permit" the exciseman rushed bc_ low, and soon found himself up to the middle in wr.t.r, which the flooding of the Severn had forced into the cellar. —Bristol Journal. CAMBRIDGE.—The three gentlemen, Messrs. Core, Bather, and Thing, who stand at the head of the first class of the Cambridge Classical Tripoe, are, we un derstand, schoolfellows ; having proceeded together from Shrewsbury school to college. Such a circumstance is seid, to be unprecedented in the annals of either University. PRICES OF CANAL,DoCK,ASSUR ANCE COMPANY SHARES, &c. Sz.c. LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 16. Number Divide: ti Price of per CAIIALS. ner S3are. Anna m. Paid. Share. 1,76' 1 7 pet cent. Ashton & Oldhae- _ Average97l.ld,.sh. 111 I, 482 41. Ashby.de.le.Zotich A. rage 113.511, 72 1, 60 Basingstoke 1001.6 h. 5 1,0t,3 5/. Brecknock and Abc i g av cony - 1504. st. 43 1.,410. I 10th. 10/. Birmin ,, ° ham, (.10th share ....8;/. & 711. 201 4,C03 . ...... .. Ditto & Liverpoo I Jun cf. Iv.ll. sh. 100 pd 30 000 3/. Bridgewater and Tatintan.lool, sh. all pa - too Si. ChelMer and Blackwater l9O/.sh . 101 300 321, Coventry 1001. s h. 600 Croydon. - 2,0f10 51. Os. Dudley 100/.sh. 97 600 133. Derby lool.sh . 120 20,00:1 4 per cent, i/anithe and 51Ayne 411.1:38. 4 a .pd : . 2 3,575] 4 , Ellesms.,re and Chester Ave17.ge133..59. 81 231 821 Erewasn 1, 4 217 301. Forth and Clyde... Average 4001.165. tn. 6 0 11,i;60 94 Grand Junction ................. . 101.30 137 4849 i 255. Grand Union 1001.3h On 1,500 ......•.. Grand Surrey.... ..... ... 'Cash. 15 1,0601 41. percent. Ditto (optional) Loan 1001. 3,996 Grand Western 000 131.123. Od. Glamorgan:hire, Aver. cost 172/. 13s. 4d. 749 Hi. flran;htva l5Ol. h. 30 , .1,238 2/. Os. Huddei.i,ld Average ',//. 6s. 6d. sh 27 100 Kensingtoa 10f; oh. all pd 10 20 6 1128 11.10 s. Kennet ind Avon, Av. 301. 18s. 10,1. sh 24% 11,6991 1/. 7s. Lancaster Average 471. Os. 8d 27% 2,897; 301. Leeds and L iver p ool ltml.sh 750 545: 114 Leicester 140/.11 14 , . 1,897 5/.os. Lice ester & NortAainpton Aver. 100/.8 t23:.110 473% 2. 400 101 thshire 15° 10/. Melton Mowbray 500 254 Mersey and Irwell lOOl s ,- ,. 550 3,000 21. 10s. Macclesfield lOO/ ,h. all NI 247 i 247 171. N eath IOO/.sh. 325 2,400 51. Peak Forest Av,i,.ge about.7B/.sh. 75 21,418 63. Regent's (or London) Av. 33/.165.8d. sh. 10 5,669 61. per cent, Rochdale kverage ( 4 5/.sh. 67 500 81. Shropshire PIS/. sh. 137 SOO 10/. OA. Somerset Coal l5O/.5h. 180 3,600:. 4f percent Ditto Lock Flint: Stock 121. 10s. sh. 114 700 361. Stafford and Worcester 140/.sh. 650 530 151 Shrewsbury...-. l'2s/. sh. 280 310 9 3tcurbridge ..... 145/ sh 6 _ • • ... 3,647 21. Os. Stratford.On.Av.na rs ver....791. lis. 7d. sh 41 533 1211 Swansea I 00/. sh . 265 4 762 V. Bi. . Severn and Wyc sad Risilway A v. 85/. sh. 45 - . 2,600 i sti. :321. 10s. Trent and 131crsey, i share lOOl. oh. 590 6,149 Than - Les and Bkilway Av. 191. ss. Sd. sh. 2 1,0005h.1 161. Warwick and IP riningham lo o l.on 245 1,0004 Th. i 930 131 Warwick and _sap,,,' 1001. sh. 175 7,000 4/ I Worcesar & Birmingimm A v.7S/.B*. sh. 56% 6,000 325. win, ,-,,,,i perks Ave.,Lee 67/. His Bd, sh. `27 i'ol . l 6.. W!.lev and Essington 1251. oh '74 .26 W:sucacn .. ..... . '":,: sh. 30 905 It. Wey and Ann'. llOl. en. 22 DC.',F..5. /4600 & , . t , , , ish. ] 3p. C. Commere a' !001. sh • f 3 East and West India 3.138,310.11. 60e. p. ct. London Stock 681 4 Ditto Bonds 2,209 31. 6e. sd. Bristol Average I ,i - 1. Os. sh. 75 68,324/. 51. per cent. Ditto Notes, various amounts lOO 352,752 5 per cent. St. Katharine Stock 1 9.:i% 590,040 41 per cent. Ditto Bonds 200.000 4 per cent. Ditto Bonds tor 10 years Deptford Piet "01. sn. 20!. pd 10 BRIDGES. ,600 Ins. Hammers:nit! . 5O/. :h. 21 7,231 Southwarli, Old Av. 63/. 2s. Bd. oh. 2% 1,700 11. 15s. Ditto, New, 0174 per cent., 501. sh. 13 J ,OOO , ...,... W a t er l oo 100" sh. 3 5000 2.35. Od. Ditto, Old Annuities of 81 601, p 1 , ;(1% 5,00 194. 3,1. Ditto, New Ditto of 7/. ... 4O/. pd 18% 50,000/. 51. per cent. Ditto Bonds 5,843 26s Vauxhall .........Av:rage 701. 10s. 3d. oh 26 i q ASSURANCE COMPAN:ES. 2,000 3/100 Albion 5OOl. sh. 50/. pd 72 50,000 1 6 1.7, c i e s l N Alliance British & Fereignloo/.sh. 111. pd 13% 50,000 6 per cent. Ditto, Marine lOOl. sh. 51. pd 5 4,000 tl. per sh. Atlas 5Ol. sh. 51. pd 14% 3 I,2ooish. 5/. Birmingham 1- ire. ,. "501. sh. 55/. pti 107% 20,000 41. per cent. British Fire 250/. sh, 51(1. pd 40 12,000 Ii!. per cent. British Commercial 5O/. s's 51. pd 5% 5,000 5/. percent. Clerical & Meilii.:rl Lite, ICO/.sh. 2/10s pd -I 4,000 2; Os County lOOl. oh. 10/. pd IC 20,000 do. Eagle ..... 50/. sh. 5!. pd 5% or,„ f 5 per cent. l E conom i c Lii-, 10001. sh. 2501. pd 406 --" 1 and 301 bs. 2,271 225. per cent. European Li.; 20/. sh. all pd 22 59,000 2s. Ditto, New 90/. sh. 2/. pd I% ~ 000,0001. 6/.per ct Globe Stock 119 20,001) 5/* Guardian _37% 39,000 s. fid. Hope 2,400 51. 7s. 6d. Imperial Fire 5Ol. sh. 50/. pd 131 7,500 Os. Imperial Life ... 1001. sh. 10/. pd 10 13,453 51. por rest. Indemnity Marine lOO/. sh. 8/. pd 29 2,020 31 108 Kent Fire 53)1. sh. all pd 92 31. Ditto Life 5O/. pd 06 10,000 16s. Law bile lOO/. sh. 10/. pd 1 .- 03( 5,000 Ills. London, Firs! 05/ eh. 121. 103. pd 194,,, 3,900 100. London, Ship 1251. sh. 12/. 10s. pd ly% 1,000,000/. ... ..... Minerva Lite 1004 sh. 590,00/. - ....... . . 41. So. pd 2 30,000 M. per cent. Palladium Lilo 59!. sh, 21. pit 9/ (is 50,000 41. per cent. protester Fir.: 0 9/. sh. 2/. pd 18s 00 10,000 4 per cent. Protestant !.lesenters ...KW, sh, 51. pd by, 2,500 11. Provident Luc 'OOl. oh. 11)1. pd 20 210,900 7s. Rock Life 89;220/ 5/. per cent. Royal Exchange Stock 184 6,000 5 per cent. University Lite lila sh. 5/. pd 5 1 4 53,000 4 per cent. United Kingdom Life 100/. sb. 51. pd 7% JOINT STOCK B AN Ks. 25,000 A g ric. and Cum. of 1 reland2s/. sit. 10/. pd 5,000 8 per cent. Australasia 40/. sh. 40/. ;iii 54 10,008 II) per cent. Bank of Birmingham 51y, sh. 10/. p ,l i s % 10,000 IP per cent. Birmingham Bank 5O!. sh. 10/, pd 20 33,000 6 per cent. London & Westminster 100/ sh. 2C/. pil .4 60,000 5/. London Joint Stock 50/. sh. 101, pd L% 3,009 4 per cent. Lancaster lOOl. sh. 201. lad SO 25,000 Liverpool lOOl sh. 10/. Pd ' - l) 50,000 71 per cent. Blanchester and Liver-lam on . 151 pd 10 pool District . 20,000 7 percent. Manchester Provincial Bank of I reland l liTo l. l. o s h h . . 22557/.. p p (4 d : 3 1 Z 20,000 3)0,0 00 sier i ciit. National Bank of Ireland 50/. sh. 1711. pd 15% 10,000 5 per cent. National Pros, L.clal Eng.loo/. sh. 351. pd 3(1 2 10,000 Ditto New JO/. sh. 101. pd fi% 10,000 Gloucestershire 50/. sh. 10/. rid S 2- 6.000 10 per cent. Hampshire 5O/. sh. 51. pd 0 GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANIES. 2,500 llis Od Bath 20/. sh. 1(11. pd 92 5,000 British 4O/. sh. 161. pd 181 4 Ditto Provincial 2Ol. sh. 191. pd 25 fst.percent.l 5000 I ,, nd Hs. 60. 928 5/ lOs Birmingham so , . sh. 96 1,250 '2l Os Bristol 2Ol. sh. 36 2,250 3/ 100 Brighton 2O/. sh. 14 .;.-..--- 750 3/ lOs - Ditto, New 2O!. sh. IS!. pd 9 2,471 4f per cent. Brighton General 2Ol. sh. all rid 9 4,000 71. Os. Continental Consolidated ....75!. 62f /. pd 110 1,000 101. City 01 London.. ....... .....100/. oh. all pd 195 1,000 61. Ditto, New 100!. sh. 75/. pd 150 4,000 3/.os. Equitable 5O/. pd 50 10,000 21 per cent. Imperrt 5B/. sh. 57 800 5/. per cent. Isle nt Thanet '29l. s h. '2O/. pd ls►i 2,350 6!. per cent. Independent 90/, ;h. all p.. 49 9,000 41. per cent. Phos.nix 5Ol. oh. 39/. pa - 34 1,000 4/. per cent. Ratcliff lOO/. sh. 60/. pd C 3 4,000 South l'lNtropolitan 50/. sh . 19/. pd 17 9,000 41. per cent. United General 50/. sh. 47/. pd 30 240 M. per cent. Warwick 5Ol. she 50 400 51. per cent Waite/169d 251. she 22 9,000 3t. Westminster Chartered 6,000 12s. Ditto New sf /. sh e 10/. pd 11,r 1 760 3 per cent. Yarmouth ' , O/. sh. 181. pd WA'TEIt WarDC.S. 1,800 3 1 s. Birmingham 25/. sh. 2.51. pd 1:2 4,434 71. East London 100/. oh. 16414 i-,00 2/ 15s. Grand Junction A veraee 41/. I.ls. 49. sh. 62 . , 1,000 2/. Kent 100/. sh. 4144 372 10/. Liverpool !tootle .201. s h. SIN) 1,5011 2110 s N:77 River London Bridge Water Ann... 10 6,496 21 10s Manchester and Salford 109/. sh, 55 1,000 4 per cent, South London lOO/.sh. 10434 9,294 4i/. West Middloex Average £3l. 12s. 9d. sh. 101 1,360 11 14s York Building Co. Lessee Prop. 1001, sh. 35 IRON RAILWAYS. 6,800 Birmingham and Derby ..... 9,500 Birmingham and Gloncester 110/. pd 78 15;100 Bristol and Exeter lOOl. sh. 60 lid 33 7,500 Cheltenham tt G. Western 100/. s h. 62 3,003 Clarence 1001. sh. lOW pd 3) 8,000 Dublin and Drogheda 109/. sh. 5/. rid 50,001 i Eastern Counties 25/. sh. 20/. p 9 8 1 A 10,000 Great North of England 100/. she 70i. pd 65 10,9:8 14 per cent. Grand Junction lOOl. sh. all pd 204 25,000 Great Western IOU/. oh. 65/. pd SA 25,000 Ditto New 50/. sh.: o'. pd 61 3,000 per cent Gosport Junction 50/. sh. 40!. p 9 44% 2,000 5 per cent. Hartlepool lOO/. th. 1001 pd 1153.4 8,000 ...... ... Hull and Selby 5Ol. sh. 501. pd 43 2,100 4/. er cent. Leeds and Selby 100 sh. 1.514 5,100 10 p ercent, tiveoool !ir Manchester 10i././h. 100/. psi 1 1 5 7,908 111 per cent. Ditto Half Shares 11,495 10 per cent. Ditto Quarter Shares "5/. pd 45 36,000 ... ...... London and Brighton 50/. sh. 30/ pd 42 , 4 94,000 London and lllackwall 25/. sh. 25/. pd 19% 20,000 3 per cent. London and Greenwich 2O/. s!.i. 20/. pd S!4 25,000 8 per cent. London Nt Birmingliana 100/. sh. 901. pd 164 25,000 Ditto Quarter Shares -.25/. sh. 5/. pd 26 31,250 ......... Dit o New Shares 321. sh. 311. pd 50 36,0011 5 per cent. London and S. Western As'. OS/, 17s. 9d. 55 1 4 A 13/ 15 '' 1. 11, 84 „, , , , 33,900 ......... London and Croydon] Ditto New Scrip.... v. . s. ,i. 13,000 Alanchestizr and Leed“...loo/. oh, 701. pd 0..4% 13,000 .. 10,000 Manchester and Birniisigham 71.i/.sh. 40/. 2; V, Ditto Extension 7l. pd 2% 10,000 Midland Counties - 00/. oh. 10. 1. pi 75 15,000 North Midland Ditto New 40/. rd 35 5,1'i8 Northevn :mil Eastern....lo o /. sh 501. lid 22 '2,600 Preston and V.' yre 5Ol. oh. 301. pc% 36 '48,000 South Eastern and Dover 13/ pd 10 1 4 1,1100 101. per cent. Stockton and Darlington ...... ...WIT sh. 275 9,000 T h a m e s Haven 50!. sh 5/. pA 6,000 York and North Midland 50 . eh. 50/. pd 10 MINES. Albion Copper 5/.i •- 11/. p 9 12 A lten Anglo Alexican,iss. 5/. pm.loo/. sh. a , '1 9 114 Ditto Subscription 0 5/. 00 144' Bolanos l5O/. oh all mi 35 Brazilianlmp. iss. 51. pm 35/. sh. 20/. pd 714 Alacaubas ei tocaes United 251 5h.251. pd 6 Ditto St. John Del Rey 2Ol. sh. II! lid 21, Bolivar Copper Comnany 20!. sh. 20/. pd 1 Ditto Scrip British Iron . 501. sh. 55/ pd British Coppe- 5/. sh. 4fl. lid 1% Cl' i 73r.,nea O9l. id 7 Cando:ln.-. Copiapo ...... .......... ....... 20/. sh l3/. p! 1);,, Columbian, iss. So pm. ...55/. sh 551. pd 04; English l4l. Cs. pd General Mining Association2o/ &ALM: pd 114 , Mexican Company lOO/. sh. 17,:t pd 6 Polberott Console lO/. sti, 8/. pd 4 ~. KC?" rill iilonte, Unregistered 2 Ditto Loan Not,r. 1:'.01. pd 100 ~.., United Mexican, iss. 2 pm. 40/. sh. all ed 214 Dittt. Scrip 3 .4 Ditto New Scrip 5/ y. , 1 53:c ; West Cork Soil. sh 501. pd 35 LITER ARY I NSTITUTIONS. Londen, with Bronze Ticket ...75gs. she 16 London University lOOl. sh. all pd 8 ...... ... Russell " s gs. sh. King' College lOOl. 11 14 MISCELLANEOUS. 10,10') 151. Australian Agrieultural.loo:. oh 281. pd 39 6,7 CC 1. per cent. British American Land Company 3f . pit 10,000 61. per cent. Canada Company lout. oh. liot. pd 131 N 110,00 C 51. per cent. Upper Caria,,a Loan City Bonds, 4 par cent 11034 20,000 1/. 6s. G eneral Steam Navigation 151.. h. 14/. pd 151,i 10/.percent. Hudson's Slay Stock ,006 11. London Corn. Sale Rooms ....Av. 75/. sh. 19 ,000 New Brunswick Land Comp.. y...E11/ pd 12 e,154 5/. per cent. Reversionary Int. 50c...11111/. sh. 100/. pd 117 2,033 5/. per cent. Ditto New lOW. oh. 100/. lid 117 4,000 Thames Tunnel 5Ol. oh. all pd 10 0,000 Cs. Van Dae..nen's Land.... 100/. sit. 171/. pd 8 8,000 4,000 10,000 2,000 10,000 6,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 ,000 10,000 13,500 2,850 20,000 6,155 3,000 11,t00 30,000 1,000 1,500 700 11. ss. 10/. It. Ws LIST of SCOTTISH COMPANIES' PRICES FEB. 6, 11141. BANKS. 1.030,00 M Gt. p. ct. rank ot7ieotlanti...B3/. Gs. Bd. ch all pd 162 2,uti0,01(1/. 6 p. ct. Rc yal Scotian(' WO/. sh. all p 0 151 500.0001. s p. ct. Bricish Linen Comp,ny...lool.sh. :411 pd 2'..9 500,0004, 61. p. ct. Commercial 5OOl. ch. 100/.l)d 174 50000. :) n. ct. INptional .lool.sh. 10/. pd 11% 50n,00111. 71. p. ct. Gia,gim Union Fh. 50/. !hi HS 1,000,00/. 6p. ct. Westetn of Scotland 2OOl. sh 401. pd 74 INSUItA'.`.ZUE COMPANIES.'` 250.0005 h. 61 p. ct. Scottish Unt.,n 2Ol. sh. I'. pd 45s (id. 7,500 7p. ct. Hercules lOO/. sb. IV/. pd lair 101,000 5 p. ct. insurance Co. of Sectia.,d .101.,11. all pd l% 50,000 Sp. ct. North British ',‘/.01.5h. 10/. pd P- 1 .4 1,00(1 Bp. et. Calcitoni:m kir:: 1001. sh. 101. pd `bl 5,000 ti p. ct. Edinburgh 1,.:. , 100/, sh. lot. lid 11% 100,000 3; p. tt. NN est of Scotland lO/. pd MISCELLANEOUS. 4,SIS ..... Edin. and that:. Gn. Canalso/. sh. all pd Ditto Allocated; nfi/. sh. all pd 5,40( 5 per cent. Edinb. Joint , koel: Water..sl. sh. all pd 2,14105 h IL per cent. Shotts Irue si, . 10,000 3 per cent. Edinburgh & Leith Cilass.'inZ..sh. I (v. pd 4,:,01) 10 per Cent. Edinburgh Coal c-s •%al. sh. aii hd 4,40 10 per cent. Glasgow Gas 251. sh. all pd i 5 1 7,; per cent. !...eith Coal Gas • )01. , 11. all pd „ Edinburgh and Dalkeith itallway au. sh ..... A HARE ROASTED ALIVE.—On Wednesday weak, ai one of the down trains wa: passirg between Clay Cross and Chesterfield, a hare sprung into trio ksbe--pa r , of the engine, arid was completely roasted. Sheffield Mer_ cury. THE WEATHER —We have had excellent spring weather this week ; indeed, the atmosph. re was es soft and warm, on Tuesday and Wednesday, as it is in July or August. A great deal of seed has been put into the ground this week, in excellent ecndition.—Aberdern ,Herald. PH kl SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17. 181. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT• - - - HOUSE OF LORDS, IfiLuzcil 16. Their Lordth ps met at Five o'Clock. The Arebbishnp (.f CANTERI3URY presented a pe t:Von from a place in Kent for the better observance of the Sabbath. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from the Board of Guardians of the Walton Union, Southampton, praying the House to pas.; the Bill now in Parliament for the amendment of the Poor-laws, and, above all, for the continuance of the Commission. The Marquis of NORMANBY laid on the tah:e re turns of the number and character of outines committed in the cuunty of Limerick, 'from the Ist of Oct. 1839, to to the ht of June, 1840; also returns relating to the ad mit.iitnrion of justice in Ireland, and to the state of pri sons in Scotland. LORD KEANE'S ANNUITY. On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON Lord Keane's Annuity Bill was read a third time. TI THE COMPOSITION BILL (IRELAND). Lord DUNCANNON, in moving the third reading of this Bill. proposed amendments of a technical nature in the second arid third' cl auses . These amendments, he said, would not effect the object desired by the Noble Eerl op posite (the Earl o f Wi e kl sw ), nor did he know by what alteration that obj ec t cou ld b e e ff e ct e d. The Earl of WICKLOW was sorry to hear that the Noble Lord was not I,A-epa. - ed to remove his objection, as he was most unwilling to throw any impediment in the way of a measure which was g3Leraliy so important. He reg. - ctt:Tl that none of the legal Lords were iii the House, for he was sure be would have their support in saying that his objection was insurmountable. It was this, that under the Bill, as it now stood, any number of persons could be force I into a court of justice without notice, and judgment could be given against them without tl.eir being licit-3, or having any knowledge of the proceedings ; and further, that under such circumstances they would be liable to the costs. He Lad hoped that in the time which had elapsed since th.: measure was introduced his Noble Friend would have been able to have so framed the Bill as to remove this de fect. He did not mean to oppose the Bill, but should cont,:nt himself with stating this objection. Lord DUNCANNON said the object of the Bill was to prevent the necessity of serving 350 or 360 separate notices and to enable the Attorney-General to prole d, not by separate notice but by one general notice on all persons resident in the same diocese. There was no po,sitle way of effecting this objA:t without incurring the difficulty which his Noble Friend had stated. The Earl of GLENGALL said there was anothe; serious point which had net been mentioned. When those parties came in to object to the order made for the payment of the money they must first pay the costs incurred on the peti , ion. lie thought this was a hard ease. Viscount DUNCANNON thought it would be thc same with scpzrate notices. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE suggested that the Bill should be delayed for a few days to afford time for consideration. vy The Earl of WICKLOW and the Earl Of MOUNTCASHEL also recommended delay. Lord D UN CA NNO N said be regretted these objections had not been mentioned in the discussion that took place a week ago. He had, however, no objection, if desir:d, to postpone the 8.11 to this day week. The debate was adjourned according] The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE pre ented petitions from the county of Dowr, against Church Patronage in Scotland. The Nal? Marquis said Le did not concur in the opinion expressed by the petitioners. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL moved for copies of certain pa?ers, referring to transactions which had taken place between the Guardians of toe Union of For moy and the Poor-law Cornn.issioners.—Ordered. The Marquis cf NORMANBY begged to inform the Noble Lord opposite that Mr. Stanley, the Secretary to tie Poor-law Commissioners of Ireland, was in attendance, and ready to answer any questions which might be put to him. On the motion of the E irl of GLENGALL, Mr. Stanley was called to the bar and sworn. In answer to questions put to him by the Earl of GLENGALL, the witness stated that he was Secretary to the Poor-law Commissioners of Ireland. Tne Poor law Commissioners of England and Wales were also the Poor-law Commistioers of Ireland. The acting Com missioner was Mr. Nicholls. Ile was the only Com raiisioner who set at the Board in the moatli of February, 1840. Condi not say whether be (the Commissioner) was or was not in Ireland in Fe bruary 1839. If he acre he was the only Commia,ioaer in Ireland. All the proceeding of the Commissioners were entered, not in a letter-book, but upon a register. They had no letter-books, but all letters that were received we.e ente:ed upon the register. He bad that register with him, and it contained all the matters con cerning the Clonmel Union in February, 1839. No person had access to those books who were not em ployed under the Poor-law Commissioners. The Lord- Lieutenant of Leland had been in the office of the Poor. law Commissioner, but he (Mr. S.) bad nct the honour if b. ing in the room with him, and could not say whether he had inspected the books or not. The Lord-Lieute nant had frequently called at the office, but what he did he (Mr. S.) was not aware. The return dated May, 1840, was in witness's band. writing. It concerned the appointment of Mr. John Butler as the 1?. , - turning officer for the Clanmell Union. It con tained the letter from Messrs. Hawley and Hancock, the Assistant Commisiioner, recommending Jahn Butler to that office. That letter atrlved by post, and Mr. Nicholls was not then in Dublin. Mr. Earle was the Commisaioner in Dublin upon the 14th of February. Before he referred to the Return No. 3, he begged to be understood that when he was first asked, was Mr. Nicholls in Ireland in February, his reply meant he was so in February, 1840, but in February, 1839, Mr. Nicholls was not there, but Mr. Earle was. No. 3 was the letter in which Mr. Fennell offered himself as the returning officer of the Clonmel Union. The recommen dation cf Mr. But er from Mesita.. Hawley and Hancock did not arrive in Dublin till the 18Ji, two days after the receipt of Mr. Feanell's letter. Turning to Vie paper No. 4, witness found that it was the letter of Secretary of the Pow-law Commissioners, dated 18th February, 1339, and addressed to George Fennell, Esq., Clinmcl. It stated that in reference to his (Mr. F.'s) letter, the a rater was directed to inform him that it was not received until after the Commissioners had determined to elect an oVrer person. Lord G L ENG A LL—Was that letter ever written, and if it was written was it ever sent to Mr. Fennell? Witness could have sworn, afew days ag that it was, but circumstances had 'ince occurred welch convinced him that part of that draft was not coped into the letter which was actually Lord GL ENG ALL referred the witness to a letter dated the 19th sf F,b., and addressed from the Poor-law ' Commissioners' office in Dublin, to Mr. Fennell, 'in forming him that his a ppli cat i in did net a rrive until after an appointment was made of another person. The Noble Lord asked was thet in witneis's hand-writing. Witness—lt was. He could only account for its not being included in the return of the correspondence from this, that no draft was made after that which was dated the 18th, and which was not sent. The clerk who copied it put upon the record in the office the, original instead of the amended: chart, and in this way alone—(as well as we could underst an d th e w i tness w ho spoke in a very indistinct and hesit a ti ng manne r under the reporter's gallery)— et this way alon e he could account for the copy entered on the corie3phndence not agreeing with the letter which was actually sent. I altered the original draft. I have brought thedraft of Ow letter as altered. I produce it; it is in the band weiting of the clerk of correspondence. The cJri - octions are in my hand-wr None of the corrections there we, e made at the time the letter was brought to me for signatuu. The draft is coped in the returns to this House. Tne extent of the corrections in my own handwriting would be • pe:ce ived from the difference in the handwriting. These words would be just sufficient to ful the space or cupEed by the words objected to. If the clerk had taken the corrections as made, he cool l have read them as written for him, The corrections made were just suill elect to fill the space. 'The erasure was made subse quently to the pc ind et which the letter bears date. By the Duke of WELLINGTON—That book was a re cord of the proccedi.igs of the Cernmissioners kept in obe chence to the provision in the third section of the Poor law Amendment Act. By the Earl a GLENGALL—Tbe letter No. 4 in the return was not the letter sent to Mr. Fennell. In ex planation of the statement made to Mr. Fennell that an appciatment had been made, the recommendation of Mr. Hawley and Mr. Hancock not arriving In Dublin until the 18th, the witness said that the clerk made the statement Horn his knowledge of the selectiin of Mr. Butler. Thee letters were never laid bef.ne Mr. Earle. Instructions were given by the Commissioners to the clerk, either ve..- batty or in writing. Mr. Phelan teas in daily attendance when the cie•k wrote the . tte r. It was witness who direct d the alte ration to. be made with regard to the ap pointment having been conferred on another person. The; e was no record of any instructions given by Mr. Phelan. He could not account for the letter net being answe ed on the 16th ; tt might have been from pressure GI business. Mr. Inelan never suggested alterations in the drat'. The Earl of GLENG ALL rose to order. From the course which the ev idence had t a k en , i t was clear their Lordships wo uld want to call other witnesses. He was of opinion that t hree witnesses who wtre to be ca'led, ou g ht The Marquis of. NORMANBY said ce r tai n ly, it was desirable that n o communication should take place between witnesses the wer e to he called, hut he did not k now whe ther it was ncc e i iiary to order twin to retire. n x ot an t ,i o n be nti : a n . the House while another w it ness was un d er e Lord EL LENBOROUG II said it was clear that the House would re ;Mire to call some other wittesses. They ought net to be in the House while other witnesses were under examinativ• The Nia , quis of NORMAN BY —Such being the view of tCe House, it ought to he communicated to the persons lately t - ) be called. In answer to Li r.l R E DE SD A LE, Witness said, that No. 1,329 was the letter to John Bagnell, the answer to which did not appear on the minutes. No. 1,407 was the letter of the Assistant-Cornmisioncr, gi , ing his masons for not calling the meeting at Clonmel. The Asssittrnt-Commissioner was the writer of the let ter 1,407. There is no entry of tie date fif the letter to Mr. Begoell, but we have a co p y o r it. el nuber is not en tees r( tans. 1 have contrasted t T he ette ms from the Foor-law Commissioners to Mr..l. Begnell of the 12th Mr.reh 1839, stating that Mr. 1,111 Bu; ter was re .urn mended ta them as a pi oper persen to perform the duties of returning cfficcr, but that the appointment was not made, with the letter in the return, and the words, with the exception of the formal introductory ones, which are row copied cr faithfully given in the return. It is true that the letter wri:t2n to Mr. Fennell, dated the 18th of February, 1839, and which states that the application to be appointed returning officer did not arrive until after the appointment had been made in favour of another, was of a totally different nature to that sent to Mr. Bagnell, ita which it was statA that the appointment was not made, which was what I wished to express the letter to Mr. Fennell, and for that purpose I made an alteration in the draft, that the correction might be made hi the letter. If the letter bearing my signature was in the re turn, a manifest contradiction would have appeared in liae was stated t) Mr. Feanell and Mr. Bagnell; but I solemnly declare that I had no knowledge when this return was prepared, that that'letter was nut in accordance Kith the draft. I swear there was no motive in making these returns, but to eas true a statement of the case as the r a pers in our possession would enable us to do, and I swear that it was done - for the purpose of provieg to the House that there was no contradiction in the correspon dence. The words I wrct.: were for the purpose of giving a different expression to the words used by the clerk, I wisl jig to convey the impression that the appointment had been confirmed—/ had no doubt in my mind when the words were inserted; they were probably inserted at the time the papers were brought forward in Bagnell's case ; possibly they were not inserted until the petitions were ordered, but I have no recoil, ction c,f having inserted them at the time the returns were ordered. The altera tion of the words "have been confirmed," and the putting the words " ta be," was not done at the same time, but long after. The alteration was made partly in pencil, and partly in ink. The words " have been confirmed" were in ink. My first icapression on look ing at these pagers, when the matter was brought before the House was, that the whole alteration mint have been made at one time, but on endervourirg to recollect the occurrence; that took place two or three cars ag o, it apFeart d to me possible that the alteration in pencil and that in ink was made at the same time,: but a stronger impression afterwards was, that the words in pencil were subsequently written, and they may have been written, as I stated before, when t:.e correspondence with Mr. Bagnell took place. In the . letter written t) Mr. Fennell I did not state that what I now know was not a correct statement, but one merely explanatory. We always consider the Assistant Commissioner as virtually conferring whets he recommends an appeiltment. I be lieve the answer to Mr. Feanell was a true answer. I also believe the one to Mr. Bagnell to be a true answer. (The witness then made some explanation of this state ment, which was inaudible.) The letter, as sent to Mr. Fennell, is not a true letter, but, as corrected by myself, I consider it to be so. I consider it sufficient fr r the purpose. To Lord ELLENBOROUG H—Generally speaking, it was his duty to keeo a true record of all letters sent by the Board. Many letters were sent out without any copies being kept. By t';e Earl cif GLENGALL—He had left out the words " A gentleman, retired from business," because be had heard that Mr. Butler had compounded with his cre ditors. The return made by Mu was not a true return of the Report of Mr. Phelan. All the inquiries made re spr cling the political oJorrexionA or feelings of Mr. Butler were male through the Assistant-Corntnissiore - , and no one else. By the Duke of WELLINGTON—The appointment of Mr. Butler was received from London. The Commis sioners in London were reFponsble for his appointmcnr, though the recommendation was made by the Commis sioners in Ireland. . The Duke of WELLINGTON said the Commission ers were responsible for this appointment. He asked, what had they before them to warrant them in making it? Witness—They had not anything before thorn but the letter from Meesrr. Hancock and Hawley. They had in structed the Assistant Commissioners to make inquiries as to the persons to be appoicted returning-officers ; arid they held them responsible for the appointment. The Duke of WELLINGTON seid the Commission ers themselves alone were responsible by the Act of Parliament. The Earl of GLENG ALL asked whether any part of the information communicated to the Commissioners re specting Mr. Butler was that he was a violent political partizau, and had assaulted the police in Clonmcl, for which he was brought before the Magistrates, but not prosecuted oa account of the interference of the G.. verti ment? NVtness firmly believed that no such knee/ledge was in the minds of the Commissioners at the time of the ap pointment. It was upon the affidavit, for which Davies was convicted of perjury, Butler was exonerated from the charges made against him for improper conduct in the functions ( f his office. Witness might have heard, but he dii not remember, that Butler was accused of suber siooeinn of perjury in the can of Davies. Was quite cur tain that no such charge appeared upon the proceedings. But many other charges were made against him for ne glect of duty, and Mr. Nicholls had lost confidence in him. Mr. Butler remained in the office up to the Ist of March, 1841, because he was appointed at first for that time; but he had had no dut es to perform since the com plaints were made rgainst, him, there having been no election site: that time. In answer to a question from the Earl of Wicklow, the witness stated that no interval elapsed between the receipt of the order for the return cf papers to this House, and the answer to that order. Lord G LENG ALL—If you received a letter from Mr. Butler, on the 6'h of February, why did you not return it in the last, with that of Mr. Fennel', which you did not receive until the 16th ? The witness' answer was net heard in the gallery, but he produced the letter itselr, when he was order-ed to with draw. The Earl of GLENG ALL then was about to read portions of the letter, which in the last return to the House, were omitted from the printed copy, astericks occupying their place. From that omission, he said their Lordships would be able to judge of the principles which governed the appointment of Mr. Butler. The Marquis of NORM ANBY objected that the Nob!e Earl could nct read them unless they related to the matter immediately under their Lordships' consideration. The Esrl cf GLENG ALL said the Commissioners stated that they were not aware that Butler had any po litical connection. The letter would go far to provJ why he was appointed re•urnit g officer. The Marquis of NORM ANI3 Y thought they had better postpone the immediate sunjert of i .quir;. It was not necessary that they should go a , . once into a complete and distinct part of toe inquirr. The Earl of WICKLOW saw no objccihn against reading the extract.. He conceived they were calculated to bear out the object in view. Lord EL LEN BOROUGH thought that they eeuld not go into a general inquiry into the conduct of the Commissioners. Unless that part of the letter bore on the subject of the appointment of that gentleman aereturnieg officer, there could be no necessity for laying it before their Lordships:. The Earl of G LENG AL L said that it did bear on that subject. On the 6th of February, Mr. Butler wrote to Mr. Phelan to endeavour to get him appointed re turning officer of Clorimel. In that letter he wished also to have another person to assist in getting him that place, which was worth about 301. a-year. The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was complained of that those papers were garbled. He had moved for extracts from the original proceedings of the Poor -law Commissioners, and the Noble Marquis and her Majesty's Ministers bad in consequence thought proper that the. Poor-law Commissioners should attend before th.t House and give an account of the various omissions in those papers. Now they were toll that there were but a few sheets of paper here and there and in different places which would tend to explain the mode in which those transactions were carried or, and that the Noble Lord (Normanby) had some of those sheets in his hand. Now that was not the way of conducting an inquiry, and fir his part he considered that the present was a most serious question. It was of the utmost importance to know how these proceedings were carried on—how these appoint ments were made—who made them—in short, their origin up to the very moment when they were laid before the House. The Marquis of NORMANBY sa'd he bat no objec tion to the readi g of the letirr produced. It was said that it rcl tited to the subject of inquiry. The subject was, no doubt, as the Noble Duke had said, a very important one, and they ought to proceed yr WI it with the utmost at. tention. [The letter from Mr. Butler to Mr. Phalan wai then read, the purport of which was requesting the ap pointment of morning officer, and stating that the Attor ney-General for Ireland had made him ( Mr. Butler) many promite', but had yet done nothing for him.] The examination was then resumed—Witness could net say for certain whe her the Attorney-General was Mem ber for Clonmel or not. Never heard that Butler waste commended by the Attorney-General. In answer to a question from the Marquis of NOR MANDY relative to the dates of letters received since the year 1839, the witness stated that ho was not certain whether in the Book of Minutes there was any particular column appropriate for the dates of letters. The Marquis of NORMA NB Y said, that, in conse quence of the course which the examination had taken, he thought it right that Mr. Phelan should be called to the bar of the House. When he objected to his attendance on a former occasion, he had no i lea that Mr. Phelan was present in Dublin at the time when the pa-ticular transaa. Lion occurred, to which the examination had reference. It would not be possible for him to attend before Monday. The Earl of WICKLOW suggested that Mr. Nicholls should be allowed to return and remain in Ireland, until be should be summoned to attend the bar. The Marquis of NORMANBY felt bound testate, in justice to Mr. Nicholls, that he had come prepared to an swer any questions which their Lordships might put to him. He quite concurred in the remark of the Noble Earl. - The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was very pos sible that the returns could not be made.. It was desir. able, however, to have distinctly before them, in writing from the Commissioners, how the matter stood. It was most important that they should know whether they were or were not to have information with revect to those transactions. The Marquis of NORM ANBY thought that with a view to that object, it was desirable that Mr. Nicholls should he agowed to return to Dublin. The Earl of GLENGAL L said that before Mr. Nicholls retired, be should wish to be informed whether be was in Dublin in the mouth of February and May. The Marquis of NORNI A N Y, aft:r a short eunte-t-nce with Mr. Nicholls, stlteti that he was in Dublin partcf the month of February, and pert of May. The Earl d G LENGALL sail that the cue involve I not merely the falsification of the returns, but the whole conduct of the Commissioners in the transaction. The evidence was then ordered to b© ptilted, and an order made for the Etendance of •Mr. Phelan on Monday next. _ . Their Lordships then wijourned till Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MdRCII 16. The SPEARE rt took the ( ltiar at Four o'Clock. On the motion of Mr. D A RB Y the Waniogore Inclo sure Bill was read a second time. Mr. BERNAL brought up the Report of the Cora mitt:4e on the South Wcst.:rn Railway 8;11. Mr. BLAKE rose to move that certain clauses be Wel to the Bile. His object was to enable the Company to take possession of lands for the purpose of making repairs. The accidents which occurred r endered it qulte necessary that such poners should be gbad iver. One instance occurred, in which if the landowner had refused per mission the railway must have been stopped. It was not refused by him; but other landowners bad prevented the Company from coming upon their lands to make repairs. Pe had no intention, by taking this course, to infiir ge upon the Standing Orders of the House. On the first c!ause bring read, Mr. SHIEL should tee) it his duty to object to the introduction of these clauses, because when the Bill was originally introduced no notice was given that such powers would be sought for. These clauses departed very irate- i rially from the Bill of which notice had been given, and on behalf of the department to which he had the honour to belong, he should feel it his duty to resist them.--a( Hear.) He believed that an attempt had been made in Commit is e to introduce c'auses of a similar nature, but they had been objected to ; and surely it was not upon bringing up the report of the Bill, at a time when the parties had no no. tice whatLver, that such clauses should be introduced. Mr. W. PATTEN would also resist the clauses In his experience upon Railway Committees he could eta e that similar propositions had been frequerray made, but in every case they had been resisted; and he believed such power had Lever been allowed in any Ra lway Bill. Mr. PE ASE thought some power ought to ba given to the railway propri.aors to make repairs in cases of occi dent, but at the same time he could net say th,,t he en tirely approved of these clauses. It should not, however, be supposed that because they a ith:d to i ravent an attempt being made to obtain powers of an objectionable nature, they also wished to restrain the enterprise of the country. Mr. ESTCOURT wished to express his great ob- ! jection to the introduction of such clauses as that now before the House. It had Lean attempted on former occasions but the House had rejected them. When the Bill was printed and proposed in the first instance, it did net contain these objectionable clauses, and he believed parties in the vicinity of railways were not aware of the intention to introduce. then. He could nct show the opportunity to pass with. out congratulating the lieu e upon the appoint- ment of his Eon. Friend as Chairman of the Commi tee on Ways and Means. — c Hear, bear, hear.) They owed it to the vigilance of his Honourable Friend that this subject had been brought under the coosidere tion of the House. He (Mr. Estcourt) was sure that it was sa , isfactery to the pubic that it was so brought to light, and tact empts were resisted to introduce mea sures in Committee, of which the public had not receieed ample notice. It was now known that such aelempts would be vigilantly watched, aid that his Hon. Fiend would bring them before the House, and give the H, use an opportunity of examining them, and of rejecting them if deemed objectionable.—( Hear, hear ) BERNAL seii he was glad this matter was brought befote the House. He was satisfiad that the origeral evil of thin proposition lay in the form in which ti e notices in the country newspapers were warded ( Hear.) The words were so comprehensive that they would include almost an) thing. Persons in•crested could not be sufficiently apprised of clauses sought to be intro duced in this manner. The Bi'l as it stood before the House, was a Bill to raise an additional caFit,l. He thought the House should take into consideration the propriety of improcing the farm of notice. —( Hew, hr ar. ) It should he reduced to a Standing Order, net the notices should be more distinct. If sucu a step was decidei upon, the House could then order the rejtion to be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders,it should stand on the same ground as the notice, and thus they would not be se tished with vague and loose allegation. Wit) respect to the clauses denonieeted modern clauses, doubts were entertained whethe in legal tendency they were for perpetuity, or a limited space of years; and it was on that account these clauses were introduced, to do away with any doubt as to the construction elf the Act. Mr. B. WOOD said that having acted in the Commit tee, be concurred entirely in the opinion that had been expressed by his Hon. Friend. He telt that a vast im provement had lately taken place in the manner in which unopposed Bills were conducted, but, at the same time, he thougnt, on the present question, they were treating t' e Railway Company with some harshness. The clause which was new before the House was one which was absolutely necessary for the purpose of enabling the Company to keep up the repair of the road. Without that power it was quite clear that the road must either be at the mercy of the landowners, or fall to decay._ ( Hear, hear.) If they had come with the proper notice, there would be no difficulty, he apprehended, in passing the Bill. It had biers mentioned on the other side of the House that that was an unneard of clause. Now he believed that the clause was introduced into every Bill tela ice to the subject passed within the last one or two yearn. It was a clause which was established as a mods 1 clause, as he understood, and it appeared to him to be a clause essential to the maintenance of railways.—( Hear.) and different in no degree from that attached to Bills re lating to turnpike roads. The reason of the aromoters of the Bill coming before the House at that stage wan simply on account of the formation of a new roao. He thought that it was rather hard that the Corm any should now he opposed when parties were taken by surprise. They came to the House with a clause arising out of circumstances which they could not foresee, which occured since the first Bill was printed—circum stances which involved them in law suite, and might in volve them in great difficulty ; even between the present time and next year, when they could come anew before the House,that Company might he essentially injured, and the public greatly inconvenienced. Under these circumstances he was inclined to press the House to pass the law. Lori G. SOMERSET thought that if the effect of the clause would be to adjudicate in favour of one parry and against the other, that was a sufficient reason against the granting of the clause. The Directors of the South ampton Railway were to have a power of taking 500 yards along the whole line of railway without taking imme diate possession of it, but always keep:3g the powers thus vested in them hanging over the heads cf the landed proprietors. So monstrous a power as that, in whatever shape it might be brought before the House, was, he thought. certain of being negatived. Mr. MARK PHILIPS objected to the grievances to which the landowners were likely to be subjected by that 13ill. M. BLAKE, after the opposition which he I , al met with from bath sides of the House, withdrew his proposed (hoses. _ The Bill was Oren reported, and ordered to be engrossed. Mr. CHETWYND presented a petition from a place in S:affordshire against the Stafford and Rugby Railway Bill. The petitioners said that the railway would be of no public beneti!, and that its only object was to put money in the pockets of the projectors. Sir G. CLERK rxesented a petition against the Pul lock and Govan Railway Bill from the agent of a conti guous estate. Colonel LYGON presented a petition from cer a:n landowners cf Worceiter against the Severn, Navigation On the motion of Mr. R. GORE, the Patent Roiling and Compressing: Iron Company Bill was read a second time. Lord SANDON brought in the Liverpool Docks' Bill, which wa3 read a first time. On the motion of Mr. 13ROAD LE Y, Bogdea's ralisation Bill was a read second time. Mr. B. WOOD presented a petition from certlin pa.ties in Southwark, praying for compensation under tt.e Southwark Improvement Bill. Sir C. STYLE presented a petition from Comberford, praying for the extinction of Church -rates, and the im mediate liberation of Mr. Baines. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from Caithness, praying fur the abolition of Church Patronage in Scotland. Mr. W. GLADSTONE presented a petition from Newark, against the MedicAl Reform Bill. Mr. J. ROUND presented a petition from MaIdol", in Essex, to the same effect. Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from Chemists and Druggists of the borough of Stamford, again.t the R,form Mr Alderman COPELAND presented a petition from Stone-upon-Trent to the same eff, , c;. Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition from Bris tol to the same effect. Not less tha•r 30 or 40 Members, who had petitions on tFe same subject, then moved simultaneously towards the tab's, and presented them amidst the laughter of the House. The only one which v.e could distinguish in the confusion was a re ition presented by Mr. Gaily Knight, from the Medical Association of Nottingham. in favour of the Mr. W. PATTEN said, seeing the Hon. Member for Lambeth in his place, he begged leave to ask him on behalf of those win) had entrusted him with this pitition, whether it was or was not his intention to ritain those clauses in the which affected the trade of chemists and druggists. They : bad been left out of the former B►ll, but introduced into that before the House, and he wished to know what was the Hon. Gentleman's inten tion with respect to them. Mr. HAWES said he bad no hesitation in answering the Hon. Member's question, and stating again to the House as he did before, that he bad not the least idea of affecting the trade of the chemists and druggists by any of the provisions of the Bill, arid if there was any ambiguity—and ho doubted that there was—in the Bill be would remedy it by a distinct clause•. In answer to an HON. MEMBER, Mr. HAWES said that he intended to bring in the Medical Reform Bill to-morrow. _ _ . Major CHETWYND give notice that on Thursday be would move for Returns of the number of trdriked and unfranked lettersthat passed through the Post-ellice since the sth of January 1837; also for Returns relative to the number of money-letters since that period. Sir G. STRICKLAND gave notice that in Comm that on the Poor-law Amendment 13111 he would move certain alterations be introduced into the 130 1 . Mr. EA STHOPE gave notice that to-morrow bc would move that the petitions which be had presented from Leicester in favour of the liberation of Mr. Wm. Baines, and for the abolition of Church -rates, be printed. Mr. ROC 11 E moved fo certain returns connected with publ.c works in Leland.—Ordered. Alr. BA tiN El 3 move.' for a return of each mail coach or cart, or other eonveyarce drawd i by horse', employed by the Pont-olliee for the conveyance of lette - s in any plrt of 14.;ngllud or WO )C.l, on the Ist days of Alareh in the 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841; stating the years 1837, number of horses by which each was drawn, the place to and from which letters arc conveyed by each ; the number of Passengers which was allowed by law to carry; and the toms of agreement e ntered into by the Post office with the proprietors of e ach such conveyance for the conve yance of letters, and for what period.—Ordered. OUND DUES. hipowner?, and other inh a bit ants of Hull, Mr. II UT r prese nted a p etition very numerously signed dues now levied on B t iti s h vessels pass irg the coat of • e h_ o y m n ,l l , 7 o r . r if l , i i , i n t o i , ts o , ~f thl /eninark The Hon. Meinter then said h e would call the attention of the House to the motion of which he bad given notice on that subject. Ile recant to refer to these taxes which were now levied by the King of Denmark on British vessels passing between the (.; . 7- tcgat and the Baltic Sea. The grievance which he com plained of, although he believed it was not unknown at the Foreign-office, was comparatively new to the House. In deed so far as he was informed, it had never become a subjrct cf discussion in Parliament. It should not, however, be ima gined on that account, that the evil was of a trifling,nature, in regard to our national industry or the general welfare d the country. He believed that the real cause of the silence EVENING EDITION, IT' 1 which bad been so long observed on the ssdiject n ?or . i the House of Commons arose from the cirestramee of its ,-- I belonging to a class of questions whi7 . . 1 2t ey could 7 er" not become a matter cf party wee:fare, _ mnifpigaged -'7, ~ r the attention of Hon. Members. He • Yts<o.4 . k -aip , T;A-V--I experience of that evening- a (Great triA ?.\pi,r'4t :,::,:- 1) ; " this time in the House)—to convince icti s ittkOtai ' - -'7 /1 , of that nature were but lightly considere , s Aare a'a / -ea .. ... s ".„. by the G overnment , an d lie could not belies e ..... , Administ ra ti ons s i nce 1814 h a d b een a li ve to th i " risi -41 g p,,, of the ques:ion, as affected the commerce of the country, they would ever have permitted the King of Denmark to impede and harrass British trade by the levying of those dues. He could not imagine by what argument such a system could be defended. It was contrary to every re ceived maxim of international levs—it was' opposed to the universal practice of the civilised world, and to those wise principles which regelated the intercourse of kingdoms. He could not conceive how an impost of the kind had Leen se long tolerated—en impost which advanced ;ha price of our goods in foreign markets and of foreign goods in our markets—which stopped our ships in their voyages and exposed the it crews to harrowing restrictions and impediments, affecting in a most mischievous manner the operations of our comme-ce. If the law were a legal one it might perhaps be i a'iently submitted to. But if it could be shown that the King of Denmark had violated the treaty on which he founded his el.iim—if it could be shown flea he had exercised power tglinst our trade which the treaty itself expressly f abide, tie (Mr. H.) thought that under such ci, cum stances i - was a fair subject of consideration and inquiry whether or not the contract bete een the two nations hsel not been annulled. He should not fatigue the House by so y lengthened statement of the origin of the Sound does. It was sufficier t to state that these tolls bad been arbitrarily, and sometimes forcibly exacted by the King of Denmark, and wete at length recognised and sanctioned by the States •of Holland in 1645, by the Treaty of Christianople. Specific clarges were laid down for cacti artmle of commerce, and with respect to those riot stated in the to iff, it was agreed that they should be taxed one per cent. act vnioreni. In 1647 the Kirg of Holland Lecame a consent i ng party to mother treaty, by which the King of Denmark unde.- took to establish lighthouses and buoys in the Cattegat and the North Sea ; c rtai:t fixed payments were to be made to the Danish officers at Elsinore, and the King of Denmark bound himself by a solemn engagement, never, on any pretext, to increase the amens tof Ville. In 1814, by the Treaty c f Kid, these tells were confirmed, bete een G:eat Britain and the Crown of Denmark, and that was done at a grievous sacriace cf Britian commerce, as it would be admitta d that the King of Denmark had effected a bargain with al ch he should be content. Wnat had been thd result ? Ever since the signing of the Treaty of 1814, toe Government of Denmark bad been eng,vgad in considering by what means it could vi,- late its stipulations. He would• now reed to the attention of the /-louse the nature of the taxes that t'-en canted. He f and tnat a tariff was concluded between Denmark and Russia i r 1645, and according to that, with respect to goods not enumerated in the tariff, Russian subjects were tot to ply more than one per cent. The tariff between Great Britain end Denmark granted the same advan tages to British subjects as those conferred on Russians rry the former tariff. —( neer, Lear, hear.) With respect to the tariff of Cleistianople instead of one per cent., sometimes five, six, and even eight per cent, were exacted by it, and fixed payments were substituted for per certage. On Norway and Swedish deals 1,509 per cent. over the legal charge was of:en exacted. On cotton and woollen goods, on sugar and coffee, a per centage was at times exacted enormously beyond what eas specified in the tariff. There could be no doubt that we were suffering under a degree of oppression and injury l in daring vielition of the t eases which bad been concluded t ruching this subject. For 26 years that state of tnings was going on. Our powers in the North of Europe, which were once so great, in to-pest to the sui,jrct now befsre the House were greatly diminished, and he trusted we would not wait till we sew Brmish commerce excluded from the Baltic ; which would ce.tanly soy' he the case unless rigorous me sns were taken to enforce the rights of the British merchavite—( Hear.) He would not go further into a subject which appeared so unpalatable to the House, but which was of vast importance to the great com mercial constituency which Le represented. He trusted the Noble Lord would think it necessary to take the sub ject into his consieb ration. There were few things that would bring the Noble Lord into greater accession or fame than proving himself to he the emancipator of our com merce from the thraldom to which it wait now subjected. Tne Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, That, in the opinion of this House, the Tariff of Sound Does now le vied at Elsineur is not a Tariff which the King of Denmark is emit: ed to maintain ; and that the Sound dues require such a revision as will facilitate the commercial relations of this country with the altic Ports. The SPEAKER having put the question, Lord PALMERSTON would not dispute any of the propositions which his Hon. Friend had so ably and dis passionately propounded, because he could do no better than say that the statement which he had made with regard to the mariner in which the Sound dries wcrei now levied was almost entirely the case of the British Government as against the Government cf Denmark. Therefore it was not his wish to weaken the propositions which his Honourable Friend had endeavoured to establish. This was not the first time, however, the subject had been brought under the consideration of the Govern ment in that House. Indeed, the ground on which he should request his Honourable Friend., as a mat ter of else: eion, either to withdraw Lie motion, or riot to resist V..e nertion of the preti rus ques tion, was that the suejmt had for sonic time past oc cupied the serious nttention of Government, aid that they were at this moment in negotiation with the Government of Denmark upon the matter—(li, ar, hear)—and that consequently any expression of opinion on the part of the House, such as was then proposed, would be an unfitting and an inexpedient i A:l:position of Parliament in a negotiation pending between the B. itiill Crown and thee: own of Denmark. Mere especially when the dispa: i:y of the streegth of the two countries, was caul dered be thought it would not only upon goneral principle be inexpedient, but in some manner ungracious at the present moment. Her Majesty's Government Lai made a communication on the subject some time ago to the Government of Denmark, through the Danish Minister in this country. The result of that communication had been that the Danish Minister who was before on leave of absence from 'this country, returned especially for the purpose of coming to some arrangement with the British Government. He felt it due to the Danish Government to state, that in their communications on the subject, they had evinced a fair and candid disposition, and had entered into the question with a view to the completion of a settlement which might be satisfactory to all parties. Her Majesty's Government felt that they could not object to any dues which were legally exacted; but they contended that a great portion of the numerous dues levied were . not maintainable by any interpretation of the treaty. There was one point in which he (Lord Palmerston) could not agree with his Hon. Friend. hie could not think with him that whatever might have been the oppressive nature of those duties, they bad diminished the commerce cf Great Britain with the Baltic. They might undoubtedly have in some degree cperertvaeinatettatitstbeayughmadenttacaidoend, a ta n u d ch on t e o thing divert w thens cquite certain that they had tended much to divert the chart eel of our commerce.—(Hear, hear.) But it appeared from a pamphlet, of which he was sure his Hon. Friend would be the last to deny the authority, and which had ably discussed the whole question—it appeared from the last pages of that pamphlet, that if the commerce of Greet Britain with Denmark had not been of late years increased it had not at all diminished. But it was certain that a great portion of the commerce which would have been carried on though the Sound had been diverted into another course ; and that was also a circumstance which should weigh with the Danish Government, because it ought to show them that the maintenance of these high duties did not add to their revenue to the extent they might have imagi , ed, and that by reducing the dues, so as to restore the commerce be tween the two countries, the revenue of Denmark would in truth sustain very little if any diminution. Having stated thus much, arid having said that the British Government was engaged in astive negotiations with the Government of Desinark on the subject, and that the latter Government had shown a real and sincere satire to come to a fair un derstanding with regard to it, and hoping as he did that these negotiations might be brought to a satisfact o o f ry a c c e O to n : carlY,epteahosoNunodbledits.Locrorerydt elusion long before the e xpiration of a y e arter expiration he tury, as Lis Hoe. Friend anticipated — (Lord P.) trust. his hopes and expectations on the ahr e—trusted being t hat withdraw his motion or that rnwi°,rteb waste a ' tse t , , his Hon. Friend would either of the House against he would abstain from taking sensethestior. the motion for the G • " vi t s t lufethere was any immediate d of even a qua rte r in e faati matte-, e io as n rasi i : n dtu w hia i i t tc h gn d e r gw a o w : i ii n ca g htio t t h nheset Horn. Gentleman would, in Sir R. PEEL said brought to a satisfactory con prospect of the matterriboctedni:neg elusion' at an the subject, and that the House of his opinion, crEc h re r wiute° , O t n to interim e, it should be considc.ted that the ;eat Britain had not . been , ecitnoviledg d but pre eent the interference of the House of Corn- , the q uestion just claims ,k acre not in conformity with the treaty. Lord admitted that the duties • --e . 'lnc Noble r s ° n u gad been P now levied by mt the n, o cc ; ? ma " No one wished to resort to violence, but What, f h t a h t e D m so l emn engagements were habitually n C o ro c ie t . 4 ll n coolsiternnaotthp. alternative, in nurhei his redress, n and if but t : a t violated, there was rn and temperate and becoming lao pealed tbat t the House of , C n o i m: ae o e n m s e s d ho t u o ld hi i m n c t a o l ence of the House. The Noble Lord gasp fortify tt.e Crown in its be a case for te legitimate interfer ence had application ad madefor redress. d s t r e a t s: : Lunt ha the course of his speech which he (Sir R. Peel) did not think could be justified. The Noble Lord had said that there had b een no diminution n: of the comeree be tween Great Britain and Denmark under the present du. ties, and the Noble Lord seemed to conclude that that was a reason why they should not complain of the present sys ' tern. He (Sir Robert Peel) was of a contrary opi nion, and he felt that if the commerce of the country bad not been incrca cd, as might have naturally been expected, those duties were not justifiable.—( Hear. ) If the existing duties prevented the trade from incress jug, or if it directed the trade into other or indirect clean_ nets, they were hound to dema nd their reduction. If the Government of Denmark refus ed to adhere to the p r ovisions of the treaty entered int o with it, he ( Sir Rob ert Peel) i n that House interfering to stre ngt h en Ministers in a remonstrance t o t h e Da nish Government.--( Hear.) There were ma n y reasons why the Danish GCVCTRITIeIit should be anx i ous to preserve a good nd anr i' with g withdrawn t h e manifestation of opinion from all part ; o f the Ho us e 1 w hich had been elici'ed would p ro d uce t h e b est resu l ts , ' without pushitg the matter t o an extrem i ty . If t h e H on. Genie:ran found that the exi st i ng nego t ati ons f a il e d i n wereuearost producing a proper result, then he had tee power of bring. ing the question forward again, and he (Sir Robert Peel) for one, would be prepared to support the motion in the event of the appeal which would be made by the Noble Lord, who was the representative of the British Govern i inent, failing to produce the proper result.