The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-07 00:00:00

, enabled to obtain the support of all the leading men of the four classes ; and that was proved by the fact, that they had presented, on a former evening, four separate petitions in favour of the Bill. Under these circumstance, he would leave the case in the hands of the House. He would recommend the measure to them, with the conviction that, by encouraging literature, and by providing for its protection, they would not merely confer upon those who cultivated letters a personal boon, but they would extend to the nation at large a public blessing.(Hear, hear.) Mr. MACAULAY then rose and said, that although he was seldom so fortunate as to agree with his Noble Friend in that House, he had always had occasion to acknowledge the great kindness with which his Noble Friend spoke of himself personally ; and upon that occa sioa, he had to thank him fora very rare, as well as a very high compliment ; for he believed that that was the first occasion on which a speech, made in our Parlia ment, had been answered in detail in another. It would be difficult for him (if he thought it advisable to do so) to go at that moment through the topics to which his Noble Friend had adverted, and to repeat the argu ments and the observations which he had last year br mght forward ; but he thought it utterly unne cessary to wander to those topics by following the Noble Lord in the details into which he had entered, for whatever might be the objections of his Noble Friend to the speech which he (Mr. Macaulay) had made last year, his measure was all drawn up in con formity with that speech. He had objected to a copy right of sixty years as inordinately long; and his Noble Friend had cut down the term to twenty-five years. He had said that there was danger lest books might be sup pressed if the copyright were so much extended ; and his Noble Vriend had come forward with a clause framed expressly for the purpose of meeting that evil. It seemed to him, therefore, that if he were to employ himself in answering the speech of his Noble Friend in not, defending his own Bill, but the Bill brought for ward by . Mr. Sergeaut Talfourd last year—if he were to employ himself in arguing in defence of principles which really were not then in question at all between himself and his Noble Friend—he should be throwing away the third of the Committee. He proposed, therefore, to con -6* le himself strictly to the matter then under their consideration—to what he had never op posed—namely, to the protection to be given to men of letters. When Mr. Sergeant Talfourd had brought in his Bill last year he did not oppose its introduction, and he had never countenanced any vexa tious opposition to the measure. He could even assure his Noble Friend that he had intended upon that occa sion to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and to reserve what he had to say until the House might have gone into Committee. But Mr. Sergeant Talfourd had said at the conclusion of his speech, that he desired that no person should vote with him who was inclined to cut away any large portion of the 60 years. He had said to Hon. Members who might be disposed to shorten the period, or to diminish the protection, that he did not wish that they should give him their support—that he despised their support ; and that it was impossible for such Hon. Members, under the circumstances of the case, to vote for the second reading while it would be disagreeable to him to receive their co-operation. But they had come to the present discussion under different circumstances. He (Mr. Macaulay) was not indisposed to extend the protection given to men of letters ; he was quite as ready, or even much more ready, than his Noble Friend, to enlarge that protection ; but he thought the mode in which his Noble Friend pro posed to effect that which was a common object to them both, was a bad mode, and he thought the mode he was about to suggest would be a better one. His Noble Friend proposed that the copyright should be for life with an addition of 25 years. He (Mr. Macaulay) proposed that the copyright should be for life, or for a term of 42 years, whichever would be the longer. He proposed to add a term of 14 years to the term of 28 years ; and, if the Committee would bear with him, he would demonstrate, as far as matters of that kind were susceptible of demonstration, that what he proposed was more just, more reasonable, a greater boon to men of letters, and a much greater advantage to the public, than that which hie Noble Friend asked the House to adopt. It was evident, that, with respect to rewards for literary works, it was of the greatest importance that they should - be equally distributed, that those which were pernicious should receive the least encourage ment, and those of a contrary tendency should receive the greatest. Bearing this in mind, he thought he would be able to show that what he proposed was decidedly preferable to what was proposed by his Noble Friend. Perfect equality he admitted they could not have, be cause; life would be a part of the term, and life was sub ject to casualties, and of uncertain length ; but if they could not positively prevent inequality, they might do much to diminish it by good legislation. It was impos sible to fail to perceive how great was the inequality under the present system. Take the instances of two contempo raries of their own —two ladies who were eminetly dis tinguished in the lighter works of fiction. He referred to Madame D'Arblay and Miss Austin. Miss Austin died shortly after the publication of her well known novel. Madame D'Arblay, the authoress of " Evelina," had enjoyed the copyright of her work for sixty years. His Noble Friend estimated the difference between the two to sixty years ; he (Mr. Macaulay) diminished the difference to eighteen years. If they examined the lite rary history of this country, and took the works of eminent men for the two last centuries, they would hardly find a single case in which his own prin ciple would not be preferable to that of his Noble Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Take, for example, Milton. To the copyright of all excellent works, the Bill of his Noble Friend would give a much less period—the advan tage of an extended period would be given only to his ' inferior works. Milton published his " Comus" in 1636. To " Comus" his Noble Friend would give a copyright of sixty-five years ; but to "Paradise Lost" he would extend but thirty-one years. To "Paradise Regained," and " Sampson Agonistes," he would give but twenty eight years. Now, see how his (Mr. Macaulay's) mea sure would apply in these cases. If the House would legislate for Milton only, surely it would be more fair, more gratifying to their minds, and more honourable to the name of the illustrious individual, and also more beneficial to his descendants, that all these works should have a copyright of forty-two years. " Comus" would not receive the immense protection proposed by the Bill of his Noble Friend ; but " Paradise Lost" would be pro tected more in a ratio according to its merits. Then take Dryden. The Bill of the Noble Lord would protect the bad verses the poet composed on Oliver Cromwell, pub lished in 1658, and also the bad plays written by the poet in his youth. His Noble Friend would make the copyrights of the verses on Oliver Cromwell last till 1726, making a period of sixty-eight years. But when we came to the " Fables," and the " ode on St. Cecilia's Day"— the noblest of Dryden's productions—the term of copyright was cut down to twenty-eight years. This was the difference under the Bill of his Noble Friend. The bad verses and the indifferent plays of Dryden would have a copyright of 65 years, while the " Fables " and the " Ode on St. Cecilia a Day," the lat ter published in the last years of his life, would have only 28 years. Then take Pope. The Bill of the Noble Lord would give Pope's " Pastoral Pieces," which were published when he was only 16 years old, and were only remarkable for the talent displayed at so early an age, a copyright of 60 years. But when we come to Pope's most finished production, the " Dunciad," for instance, the Bill would give only 30 years. Now every one of those works would be guaranteed a copyright of 42 years under the Bill he (Mr. Macaulay) proposed. He would give all the works of Milton, Dryden, and Pope, a copyright of 42 years each. Again, let them revert to the first work of Dr. Johnson. It was a translation of a book called " Travels in Abys sinia," a work of no value, published in 1735. Indeed, the merit of the book was so poor, that Johnson did not wish to allude to it in his latter days, and when his friend Boswell told him he had picked it up, the Doctor begged him not to notice it. Yet, to this work, the Bill of his Noble Friend would give a copyright of 75 years. But what period would he give to the " Lives of the Poets?" Thirty years. What to the " Tour of the Hebrides?" Thirty-six years. So here, in the works of one man, was this enormous range, from 75 years to the first, to 36 to the last. Now, was it not better that he (Mr. Ma caulay) should interfere, by merely coming in with the addition of 14, thus making the whole difference of copy right to Johnson's works range between 42 and 49 years. 'Take Fielden. The first of his works was one that no one would read before he had read "Tom Jones." When Fielden wrote the " Temple Beau," he had not exceeded the age of 21 or 22 years. Yet to the " Temple Beau," and all the other bad plays written in Fielden's youth, the Bill of the Noble Lord would give a copyright of from 42 or 52 years; but to" Tom Jones," for the sake of which the others would be read, the Bill of his Noble Friend would not give a protection of more than 30 years. And the same would be the case under his Noble Friend's principle with every eminent writer. John Burke, for ex ample. His first little tract, which was an imitation of Lord Bolinbroke,would no v scarcely be read,was published in 1756. and to that his Noble Friend would give a pro tection of 65 years, whilst he would give 30 years only to "The French Revolution" and " The Regicide Peace." He (Mr. Macaulay) would give eleven years more to " The French Revolution," and 14 more to " The Regicide Peace." There was no doubt that those later t worl . ts were those to which they should give long pro ;T,cotoen. He had shown that the protection given by his Friend • varied between enormous limits ; he could conceive no reason in justification of this, excepting t h at those which had long protectio n should be the best works, and that those which received short protection't beshould be the worst works ; but suc h wouldn turn and twist t hi s question all the the case. Yo lk might world over, but still would find the same t hi ng to be the case. Go to G reece and Rome, you would fifid it the sa me. In Greece, to the worst works of Soph oc l es woul d be given the longest prateetion, whilst to (Edipus the pr otection lne would be short. The worst work of Demost h e nes which was the " Oration against his Guardian," an e d s * n hich would not be read had his name not b een to it, would a long protection, whilst his work "O n the Crown receive, would receive a much shorter protecti on . In Rome the first work of Cicero, "De Inventions," wou l d receivtcae long protection, whilst his eloquent speeches would have but a short protection. In Spain, the worst cop \ right, but the best work of Cervantes, was Dun Q tixote." In France, again, the "Plaidoyeurs" of Racine would receive a long protection, whilst the beautiful work " Athele" would receive little protection ; and in Ger many the worst work of Schiller, which was his " Rob hers," would receive a much better protection than his " Wallenstein." He feared ho wearied the House. It was not a matter of chance that operated in this manner. If the Noble Lord would sit down with him and draw up a list of the books which, bo?' his plan, wou ld h ave a copyright of s i xty years, an d those that would have a term of forty years, he would find that this last t class included f ar b et t er wor k s th an i the former. was a plain case; for the plan of his Noble Friend g av e the longest copyr i g h t to t h e b oo k s earliest written at t h e _periodof men's lives, for if a m an published a book, as P o pe did his " Pastorals," at six- teen, he would of course have the largest term of copy right. Now, they knew this, that although it] was per fectly true that young men often displayed extra ordinary powers of genius, yet the juvenile works of great men were not generally the'r best. It was very far, indeed, from being the case even with regard to works of imagination, in which young men were nearly on a par with old men, for it was not the fact that the greatest works of imagination were written by men under thirty—they were the works of men under thirty-five. With regard to works of imagination of the highest class, they could be assigned to men under forty, for whatever powers a man might possess, still, as Marmontel observes, no man could paint portraits till he had seen faces—no man, till he had seen life and society could become a great painter, eithar of life or of society. In the use of language, too, as with all other instruments, practice gave skill, and there was also the freedom from thos dulcia vitire which a man gradually threw away during his life. Even with works of imagination in that class of books, those his Noble Friend particularly favoured were not likely to prove the best, while those he particu larly discountenanced were likely to be so, for he gave this enormous addition to books published at an early part of his life, and does nothing for those published within three years previous to an author's death. To books published in the last three years of life he gave nothing, and to those published in the last seventeen years of life, he gave less than he (Mr. Macaulay) proposed to give. To works published during the last seventeen years of life, he (Mr. Macaulay) gave a much longer term of protection. No person acquainted with literary history, could take all the works written in the last 17 years of the life of literary men, without being struck with the contrast these works presented to those put forward at an earlier period, and which were the objects of the Noble Lord's protection. This one argument seemed to him to decide the question com pletely, and he would now shortly and rapidly run over a few, and but a few, names of English works published within 250 years, and to which his proposal would give the longest term of copyright, and his Noble Friend would find that it included, with scarcely an exception, every great work, every work that constituted the lite rary glory of the nation in the eyes of the world. He certainly did not give so long a term as his Noble Friend to " Love's Labour Lost," but to the other plays of Shakspeare, the noble dramas of "Lear," " Macbeth," " Othello," the " Tempest," to all these he gave a longer term than his Noble Friend. The list included Spenser's " Faerie Queene," the " Novum Organon," and the "De Augmentis," " Clarendon's History," " Paradise Lost," the " Fables " of Dryden, and his " Ode to St. Cecilia," the " Spectator" and " Tattler " of Addison, the works of Goldsmith, the His tories of Hume and Gibbon, Smith's " Wealth of Na tious," the poetry of Burns and Byron, and, he believed, with the single exception of " Wa verly," all the novels of Sir Walter Scott. He thought he might venture to defy his Noble Friend to match that list which he had just enumerated, to which his (Mr. Macaulay's) proposition would give a linger term of copyright than the Noble Lord's would. In the case of Spenser's " Faerie Queene" and "Paradise Lost," the addition would be 12 and 14 years. He thought now, if he had shown that, on the one hand, his Noble Friend distributed protection unequally, whilst he (Mr. M.) distributed it equally ; and, on the other hand, that his Noble Friend's inequality of protection operated against the best master-pieces, and in favour of the worst productions of authors, that he had established a case for the amendment which he meant to propose. He thought that other advantages also would arise from his amendment. One of them was, that it would be unne cessary for them to have a clause like the sth of his Noble Friend's Bill. He (Mr. Macaulay) was willing, if the House consented, to add 14 years to the 28 already given. That would form real protection. He was wil ling to take the risk which might arise from the opera tion of his proposition in the case of any extraordinary whim which might seize any person who might become possessed of that term. It was a great advantage to every trade that it should not become a lottery. They should always aim, in legislating upon trade, to put trade in su c h a situation that every person eng age d in it should make 10 per cent., rather than that one of the parties engaged in it should make 20 per cent. and another nothing at all. He conceived, upon all the principles of trade, and of the patronage which ought to be given to literature, his proposition was a very advisable one, and preferable to that of his Noble Friend. When they came to the 3d clause, he meant to move to leave out the words " and for a further term of 25 years, commencing at the time of this claim :" and when they came to the words 28 years," he proposed to substitute for the words " twenty eight" the words " forty-two." He conceived that if they adopted his proposition, they would give a great boon to literature at the smallest possible inconvenience to the public. Sir ROBERT INGLIS was fully aware of the disad vantage under which he laboured in rising to address the Committee upon this subject immediately after his Right Hon. Friend. Among those of late years who had spoken in that House, be knew but of one who could on such a subject have ventured to enter the lists with his Right Hon. Friend, and that was one whose memory both himself and his Right Hon. Friend regarded with feelings of the deepest affection—he meant the late Sir James Mackintosh.—(Cheers.) He (Sir Robert Inglis) could not follow the Right Hon. Gentleman through the great and illustrious of literary men, whose names were an honour to their country ; neither did he feel it neces sary to do so. It was sufficient for him that his Right Hon. Friend had omitted to make any allusion to one most important point in the consideration of this subject, namely, to what would be the feelings of the dying au • thor with regard to his proposition. At that moment, when he most required consolation, he might, under the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend, be left to suffer from the agonising feelings that he was leaving his fa mily destitute—that the reward of his labours would die with him. Take the case of an author who had survived his great work for forty-two years. His family at his death would be left to the mercy of the world, while under the proposition of his Noble Friend, an author thus situated would have the certainty of leaving behind him a property by which his family might be maintained through the exertion of his mind in the same manner as if he had applied his abilities to the improvement of any mechanical art. llis Right Hon, Friend had not made any allusion to that argu ment, that in every nation of Christendom, with the single exception of Austria, the right of an author to a property in his works after his death was distinctly re cognised. With the single exception of Austria, there was not a State in Europe which did not give this pos thumous interest in his works to an author, so that the proposition of his Noble Friend was not so unprece dented as his Right Hon. Friend had assumed it to be. The question of the comparative merits of the two propositions could not be determined merely by the statement of his Right Hon. Friend. His Right Hon. Friend had indeed gone through a long and brilliant catalogue of authors who would have been benefited by the extension of the copyright to forty two years, but with the single exception of Sir Walter Scott, he had omitted all allusion to the authors of the present generation. Mr. MACAULAY—Lord Byron. Sir ROBERT H. INGLIS begged his Right Hon. Friend's pardon. With the exception, however, of these two great names, no allusion whatever had been made to any authors of the present generation. He believed that of all the illustrious authors now living, one only had ever sold the copyright of his works, and in his case his first endeavour had been to recover that copy right. He would not attempt, for he knew that in his case it would be fruitless, to follow his Right Hon. Friend in the wide range of literature which he tra versed ; but in the case of the authors of the present century, it was clear that Mr. Southey, and Mr. Words worth, and Mr. Campbell, would, by the Bill of his Noble Friend, derive that benefit with respect to their literary works which it was the object of all they should. He trusted they would not hear, certainly they had not heard from his Right Hon. Friend, any of those political economy objections to that protection which literature had a right to claim. Taking therefore his illustrations from the living literature of England, and from that which had recently adorned it, the proposal of his Noble Friend would afford more protection to that litera ture than would be given by his Right Honour able Friend. Take, for example, the three greatest poems of Mr. Southey, the greatest poems of Mr. Words worth, the greatest works of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Rogers, and the proposition of his Noble Friend would give that protection to those authors which would not be given by his Right Hon. Friend. He believed the "Pleasures of Memory " was published in 1796, but by the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend, the copyright would cease the moment they had the misfortune to lose Mr. Rogers. In the case of all Sir Walter Scott's poems the copyright, supposing him to be still alive, and that he were to die in the present year, would be in the possession of his family for an entir e generat i on. It was a presumption, a l so , i n favour of his Noble Friend's proposition, that it was adopted in effect by every country of Europe, except Austria. In France the copy right was extended to twenty years, and such was the progress of public opinion in that country, that a pro , positicn to extend the term to thirty years was carried in one House of the French Legislature, and another proposition still more extensive was in contemplation; and here he should unite his voice in the expression of that opinion of respect and gratitude which, in the course of his most able and elaborate speech, the Noble Lord had elicited, and which showed him a worthy suc cessor to his predecessor in the cause.—(Hear, hear.) In France the copyright was thirty years, in Belgium it was twenty, and if the copyright had been perpetual in Spain, the posterity of Cervantes would have been enriched by the profits of " Don Quixotte," a work which was produced under the greatest difficulties. In Russia the copyright was far more extensive than in any other country—a fact which certainly afforded a lesson to England, considering the superior enlighten ment of England. Under these circumstances he felt himself called upon to support the Bill of his Noble Friend, and lie trusted that it would receive the appro bation of the House. For the good, the proposition was valuable ; for the bad, it was inefficacious ; and whilst all must rejoice in the latter effect, he was sure that every right- thinking man would rejoice in the former. Mr. WAKLEY said the Noble Lord had, in his opinion, entirely failed to show any necessity for an alteration in the existing law. He had indeed stated that authors had petitioned the House for an alteration, but he would ask what right had they to complain ? He lyas prepared to show befo r e a Committee of th at H ouse t ahaluoadn r teNevciitlelain the l as t 40 years the authors of this c oun t ry ad ive d re f e o e r iv t e h d eir th l e abo e u n r o s r a su n ' altogether .unex ampled in th e history of literature . Sir Walt 2 e s r toim S oe c os o o t‘ Where was th ere anything equa m l o t n o s it s i n n m anc o i f ent --(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord altogethe r confined his sympathy t o li terary men. Why not be equallycon siderate to the authors of mechanical inventions, which often displayed powers of mind superior to those of mere literary men ? The whole question was argued here as a question qua authors ; the public were entirely for- THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNINCT. APRIL 7, 1842. gotten, although if the public ceased to read, the incomes of authors would be immediately cut off. Committees had sat in 1813 and 1818 to investigate this subject. Fourteen years were at length added to the term. The Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) was willing to added fourteen more. He (Mr. Wakley) re gretted that the Right Honourable Gentleman had made that concession. He had brought before them a long catalogue of distinguished authors. The works of those authors were produced under the old system. Did he hope to get better works under a new system ?—(Hear, hear.) They were produced at a time when authors worshipped something of a more estimable character than the molten calf. Authors, in the present day, de voted themselves solely to pelf and to the gratification of an avaricious feeling.—(No, no.) If it were not so, why were they now making application to Parliament for an increase of reward ? Why were they not satisfied with the rewards which were received by such men as Milton, Shakspeare, Bacon, and Locke? He knew of nothing more degrading to literary men than such an application as the present. It was sur prising, if they supposed they had a good case, that they had not sought for a Committee to obtain further information. What was the evidence of the publishers in the Committees ? Mr, Murray, in 1813, was asked whether, if the copyright was extended to twenty-eight years, the price would be increased to authors ? His answer was, that he did not think they should, because they could not calculate upon the value of the copyright extending to 28 years. On being asked, in 1818, whe ther he thought it would be an advantage to authors to have the contingency of twenty-eight years turned into a certainty, his reply was, that, in his opinion, it would not ; there was not one case in a hundred in which the sale would continue more than 14 years. Were they, then, to legislate for the one case and neglect the ninety-nine ? Were they to speculate for those men who chose to be so disinterested, and carry their minds so far forward as to write entirely for posterity, and forget the present times ?—(Hear, hear.) Men were not generally anxious about what might happen when they had ceased to exist ; their anxiety was in a great measure confined to the events which might occur during their life-time. Men looked no doubt to a lasting reputation, but thay were desirous that that reputation should grow up while they could enjoy it. It was like men who planted woods for their posterity, while they also expected that they would be of use to them for their own game. Now, with regard to the alleged paucity of books, he would ask what indications there were of such a paucity ? If they applied at Paternoster-row, or at Mr. Thomas Tegg's, in Cheapside, they would find there were plenty of books to be had, and at a very reasonable price too. No doubt there were authors, for whose productions there was no sale. It was to be deplored that these men had suffered from miscalculating their own powers, or the public taste ; but no interfera nce o f th e Legislature could ameliorate their condition. A poet, according to the origin of the word, was a maker, a manufacturer ; lie invented something out of nothing. But he should like to know why any distinction should be made be tween poets and all other inventors. Look to Jenner, the discoverer of vaccination. Let them compare the works of any of their modern authors with the invention of that man ; let them think of the hundreds of thou sands of human beings whom he had saved from death, and the millions whom he had saved from destitution. But the descendants of Jenner were not knocking at their doors asking for a reward for his discovery. The discovery of Jenner was made known to the public, and thousands availed themselves of it. But, if such a dis - covery were published in a book, no party could copy that discovery for a period of 42 years, and they would thus have given a privilege to the author of the book while Jenner had had no protection whatever. Look at the discoverer of the circulation of the blood— Harvey. What were any of your literary men, com pared with him, or with Hunter, Hippocrates, and Sydenham ? Heavens ! Was a mere writer, a thrower together of letters, or a recorder of facts, to be honoured by Parliament, and rewarded with peculiar privileges, while such men as he (Mr. Wakley) had named, who had conferred unspeakable advannages in human nature, received no protection, no consideration whatever in that House ? There were discoverers in medical science, who had conferred advantages on humanity that were abso lutely enormous. Witness many of the operations per formed on the human body ; the operation, for instance, of cataract for blindness. Human ingenuity and research were now such, that an instrument was carried absolutely into the globe of the eye, the very organization was altered, the lens was carried to another chamber, the opaque body was dissol v ed, an d th e man walked and saw.—(llear, hear.) Yet to discover the authors of such improvements, it was often necessary to search through volumes of history. Look at the case of a man who tum bles from. a step of a house, -fracturing the mansion of the brain, through a hone pressing on it. Now he (Mr. Wakley) recollected a case, which he should never forget; several years ago a farmer fell off a load of hay, and fractured his skull. He was taken into his house, speechless, motionless, and perfectly insensible. He was surrounded by his wife and nine children, and the scene of woe that ensued he (Mr.Wakley) should never forget. The family believed that every instant the man would breathe his last. The surgeon, with whom he (Mr. Wakley lived, was sent for. When he arrived he ex amined the depression of the hone, cut down the scalp, introduced an elevator, raised the bone that had been pressing on the brain, and in less than five minutes the man was sitti'ig up in the bed receiving the caresses of his wife ar.d children.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But who was the in.ssentor of this operation ? He (Mr. Wakley) knew something of the history of his profession, y e t he declared that at that moment he could not tell. Such was the tretiring and unselfish disposition of great me dical men. Yet these men who existed in thousands, these great discoverers, did not find that their pursuits, any more - than those of literature, were the paths of plea sure. How did these men acquire the knowledge and the humanity that enabled them to dispense those bless ings on humanity at the bedside of the feverish, the dying, and the sufferers from contagious diseases. After des.th they had often to follow their patients to the charnel house, to make farther and most dangerous observations to complete the skill and firmness that enabled him to relieve other sufferers. Did those men petition the House for protection ? No ; they were glad to be able to contribute information for the benefit of their fellow creatures. Sometimes sordid wretches. 'did arise in the profession, pretending that they had! a remedy, but would keep it a secret. But those usen were spurned and scorned by the com munity of medical men, as unworthy to belong to their 'profession. They were set down as paltry quacks.. But what was the House asked to do with the poet who had but one idea, which he worked over 500 pages ?—(Hear and laughter.) Very often he (-Mr. Wakley) had read poetry without finding even one idea.—(Laughter.) The poet says I have written al beautiful poem; it is beautifully printed and bound, stud all the world ought to give me a guinea. each for it, ; if they don't I'll go to my friend Mr. Ser geant Tab iburd, and tell him that I am a very ill-used man, and ; beg of him to get me protection from the State.--(0h, oh.) This was the truth, and he could prove it before a Committee of the House. New, he had a . specimen of some of this poetry in his hand. The poets asked for protection. He should like to see how much would satisfy them, for their line of appro bation nn wet uncommonly strong and un c ommon ly deve loped,generally they had very large organs of ielf esteent.-I:Laughter.) He was unwilling to read poetry to the House, but lie must give them a specimen of the kind for which protection was asked. That which he was about to read was exquisite poetry. It was fi yin a book entitled " Beauties of the Poets." The books contained 1,000 pages, and consisted of selec tions fro tit the most illustrious and celebrated living poets—a Le obscene ones were left unnoticed. It was a curious fa-sct that the present law was most stringent in its protec do nof authors. In this very work there were 28 pages e, .tracted from the works of a living author, and that nut hor had on that account applied to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain the sale ofthese two large v Armes, and he had made a solemn affidavit that he believed that the sale of those 28 pages would injure the tale of his own works. Why, it was utterly incredible,. if the poetry were good, to imagine that the sale of th, use 28 pages would injure the sale of his works; on the co ats ary, one would imagine that the reading that small por lion would make persons more anxious to pos sess the r en:minder. He was now about to read to the House a s ample of those works which they were called upon to pro tect—he was about to read some of Mr. Wordswoi - Lt.'s poetry. He had not done this on any previous o cc asion, but he felt now that he was forced to do it.—(C he ers and laughter.) Surely, if they were so anxious toe xtend protection to authors, it was but fair that they sit .ould know what it was they were about to protect. - 1.1.ie would now give the House one sample of this exqui Oise poetry. It was entitled to "Louisa," and was as fol : — (The Hon. Member h ere read Words worth's ws .ell -known "Lines toLouisa," with an air of quiet sarcasm, th at elicited repeated roars of laughter. In reading th Le second stanza the Hon. Member was pecu liarly felicitou s A .nd she had smiles to earth unknown." " I wonder lwhat sort of smiles those are 2" said the Hon. Gentler nan, amidst shouts of laughter, which con tinued cwcrio g the whole time the Hon. Member was reading. A' c the conclusion, however, some Hon Mem ber exclai the ,d " Oh, oh.") No person in the House had any right to be angered at his reading those lines. He had not (14 )ne so from any invidious motive. No person could ente rte Lin a higher respect for the character of Mr. Wordswor tb . than he did, but he argued that if it were called upous I'o give protection to literary men, the men of science id ,o had conferred blessings upon humanity had much hi gher claims upon the legislature, and they would not be doing their duty if they gave protection to the author.,, c ,f such poems as the "Lines to Louisa," and suffered sc Lie ntifie men to go unrewarded.—(Cheers.) He would n ow read " Lines to a Butterfly."—(The Hon. Men tbt it here read Wordsworth's " Lines to a But terfly," in th e same happy vein in which he had before given the " 1 Ines to Louisa.") Give a poet dew, and a poem. rivulet 'that:han a d t : ; a garden, and straightway the re was a ' was all very pretty, but could not everybody do the same:, on which they should act. Was that the principle which guided them? In the case of inventions a man takes out a patent for fourteen years ; ,then, if h's invention were one of a very superior character—if he had not made a great profit by it, or if he were dissatisfied, he had the power of going before a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and asking for an additional term, and they would give him seven years more. Why was not that applied to the writing of books? If a thing be superior, what matters it whether a man has impressed his mind upon paper, or upon copper, on iron, steel, brass, or the finest India paper? It mattered not ; in each case there was the same amount of labour; nay, in the sciences there was much more labour re quired than in the production of such poetry as he had referred to, for in them there were no poetical licenses allowed—all must be reduced to perfection with the greabest nicety. But the greatest men were not those that came here to ask for an ex tension of the copyright ; and bad the Noble Lord had any communication with Heraohel upon the subject? That was a name not of inferior importance—that was a national name. Take his work on Astronomy, why it was worth more than the whole lot of poetry books put together. Did he come there to ask for protection? Did he say that literary men were not protected ? He (Mr. Wakley) was sorry to see the bent which the House seemed to be taking on this question. The country required amusement and instruction ; the gaols were full of people who could not read or write. Was it the way to improve the condition of the people, by gi .ing to authors the exclusive right of publishing their works, and at their own price?—and every one knew that authors did not place a small value on their own work. He held in his hand a list of the prices paid for various works, under copyright and out of copy right, which he would read to the House:—Smollet's " His tory of England,"at the cheapest copyright price, was 31. lOs , the cheapest non-copyright price was IL ss. ; Robertson's " Works" fell from 31. 4s. to lU. 4s. ; Tytler's " Elements of History" from 11. Is. to 4s; Scott's "Last Minstrel" frost 21. 2s. to Is. 6d. ; '6 Marmion" f rom 11. I I s . 6d. to 10d. ; Gibb on ' s 6 * Rome " from 61. 6s. to 18s. ; Paley's, " Works " from 6/. to 7s. 6d. ; Pope 's " Works" f rom Si. 14 s . to 9 s . ; The " Spectator, " from 3/. 4s. to 10s. lOd. ; " Johnson's Dictionary," from 3/. 3s. to 2s. 6d. Every one must be de lighted with such falls as these. Now, allusion had been made to the distress of Dr. Johnson ' • there was no doubt but that he was in great difficulties, but he laboured with great zeal and overcame them. But what was his opinion ? He said that were an author's right in his book to be perpetual, no book; however useful, would be circulated amongst mankind, should an author take it into his head to restrain its circulation. The moment a book was written it should become the property of the public, for which the author should receive some return, and to this end the copyright should be secured to him for some years. Nolloubt that was correct. He had now a copyright for 28 years, and he (Mr. Wakley) must say that he thought those who called for a change in the law should make out some ease for that change.—( Hear.) They said authors had not sufficient encouragement ; he (Mr. Wakley) thought they had too much. He had already said that Scott received upwards of 250,0001. for his writings. No one could have grudged it, and if it had been ten times as much he (Mr. Wakley) should have been g l a d ; and be was very son th. _ Mr. M. A it GATES—Try it.—(Cheers.) Mr. WA; , EY—The Hon. Member for Pontefract had tried it; , k e had succeeded; he was a poet; he had pro duced ex ce ll e at poems, and he (Mr. Wakley) only wished the Hon. 1' .nber had produced something more useful to society-- • -(Cheers an d l aug h ter.) Wh y, a man might go ear. - writing such poetry as that he had quoted for hours t c gE ther; he might sp i n such lines by the mile. His " Lines to the Stock Dove" were similar. When authors such as these• ci une to that House and asked for an extension of the copyri .gb t, he (Mr. Wakley) would ask the House in re turn if they be lieved that any Act of Parliament they could pass would evi ir give to such authors any peculiar advantage ? But suppuse,th ey could do such a thing, onght they not also to recollect tl sat there was a public —a people whom they were called on to . is struck ? and would they give to authors the right of shutting up t heir ideas, and making them sealed works to the public for forty or fifty years ? What said common sense ? Why, corn mon s iense said that as soon as a good thing was dis covered, it ough t to be given to the public as soon as possible without inj Airing the inventor. That ought to be the principle pose that the words, " from the time of the death of the author" be omitted, and that the term of 42 years or for life be inserted in its stead. He need hardly tell the House that he did not in any manner concur with the Hon. Member for Firnbury. He should not detain the House with any further expression of opinion on this subject, hav:ng already addressed the House, but he must say, that having listened to what had fallen from Hon Members, he had not heard any refutation of his argu ment. He believed that his proposition would confer greater protertion to the author than that of the Noble Lord. He, therefore, moved the omission of the words and the substitution of those he proposed, • Lord AIAHON said he could not think that the plan of the Right Hon. Gentleman would confer greater benefit than his (Lord Mahon's). Sir R. PEEL said he did not wish to give a vote without stating the general conclusio n h e h a d come t o , f rom th e argu mentshe had heard on the subject. He had alwas felt great doubts on the subject. He had not hitherto given a vote upon the subject, but he was resolved, from the impartial arguments he had heard, to form a right conclusion upon them. His im pression hitherto had been, that no further protection was re quired (as was understood). He thought that if additional protection was given, a discretionary power should be given to some public authority to extend the term of copyright. How ever, as it appeared to be the general opinion that some altera tion should be made, he should not press his own views. Having heard the speech of the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, he thought that the argument of the Right Honourable Gentleman, with respect to the period of forty-two years, or for life, carried conviction with it. He had, he thought, proved that the later works of an author would be superior to his earlier ones, and the conclusions he drew from his argument a fortiori, were borne oat by facts, The Right Hen. Gentleman had referred to the best authorities, and had proved that, speaking generally, the works produced in the later years of authors were better entitled to protection as far as the interests of the public were concerned, than those pro duced at an earlier period. At the same time he thought there was great force in the argument drawn from the position of the family of an author, immediately after his death. He thought that, in some cases, an additional period of seven years might be combined with the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. If he had to decide simply between the proposal of the Noble Lord and the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, deciding from the arguments alone, he thought be should give his vote for the proposal of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. MACAULAY said he could not adopt the suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet for an additional seven years. He thought the arguments he had urged all bare in some small degree on the contingency of the time of life. As to the argument of an author dying and leaving nothing for his family to depend upon, if it took place early in the term of forty-two years, they had the remaider of the term. A book to be a valuable copyright after that term, must be a classic, anti became a standeard in the language ; if it did remain valuable after that time, he could not see why the author, who had enjoyed the copyright for forty-two years, should not, like other professional men, have effected some provision for his family by saving o ut of it. He • .h dig out. ... ... . .rat he shciuld ever have felt pecuniary difficulties ; but it could not, with any satisfaction, make any further concession. seemed that it was a love of gain which brought him to that Alr. WYNN thought it was not worth while to give pro. difficulty. Had he not turned bookseller, those difficulties pro- tection to works of an inferior description. The copyright of a bably would never have come upon him. Then, again, Pope, book that was of no intrinsic valu e , afte r th e d ea th o f t h e au th or for his translation of the "Died" received 5,3201.; L or d Byron, could be of no imports , ce whatever. He should not enter into though he died young, received 23,050/. for his works; Sir J. any controversy as to the case of a venerated living poet. He Mackintosh 5,0004 for his: Dr. Lingard 4,0001. for his ; Wil- would allow the lines the Honourable Member quoted to berforce received 4,0001. for the Life of his father ; Moore re- be as bad as he described ; and if so, the passing the ceived 3,000/. for " Lalla Roekh," and Southey 1,0001. for his Act with respect to them was neither good nor bad. " Life of Cowper." He knew that in many respects the It is argued, are authors such slaves to pelf as to look to money world was slow to appreciate merit. He had been an author only and not to fame ? Why, in the case of Dr. Johnson, did himself in an humble way, and he never complained of the he undertake the " Lives of the Poets" mefely for his own gra treatment he received, a n d yet Le looked to the present time, tification ? He undertook them for the booksellers in his and left posterity , to look after itself.—( Hear and laughter.) declining years. He would recommend to his Noble He did entreat the Noble Lord even now to relinquish this ob- Friend the propriety of combining the two proposi noxious measure; he asked it not as a private individual, but tions. With respect to ephemeral publications, they because he thought st wou ld act against the public,and be of not the have lost their value the week after they are pub. slightest benefit to authors. If the House passed a law for the lished—legjslation was useless. With respect to the works protection of literature, they must expect that men of science alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman, it was of very little conse would come there too—they were, in fact, entreating of them quence whether their copyrights had expired at the time of to do so—and ask for protection. Did they believe that, under the author's death, as they were, some of them, called into notice such a state of things in that House, they could benefit the at a subsequent period. Instead of a period of 25 years after community ? He put that question to the House, and, he the author's death, he thought it better to give an additional would ask, did they believe that men of science, who often period of seven years after his death, or an absolute term of perilled their lives in the cause of science, would see them do forty years. Alluding to cases of scientific discovery, he was this, and not give them protection ? He Could assure Hon. surprised to hear it stated that, in the case of Dr. Jenner, no Members that he had not quoted those fragment s o f poe t ry a t reward was obtained. He had a Parliamentary grant of money, all in an invidious sense ; nothing was farther from his desire and he hoped future Parliaments would follow the example in than to inflict pain on any party, and he would be the first to similar cases. bestow, on that author a grant of the public funds if he could Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he wished to explain, in a few meat with a deserving case. But he did say that if protection words, the vote he intended to give, if the House should be were given to such a class of works, it would inflict a called on to divide on the amendment. With regard to the great injury on the people, and would confer no be- principle involved, with the exception of the Hon. Member for nefit on authors. He should support the proposition Finsbury, no one had spoke against it; and, therefore, it was of his Honourable and Learned Friend, who had unnecessary he should enter into that argument. With regard favoured them with such an excellent and argumentative speech to the propositions of the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. on the subject, because he believed it to be the best of two Gentleman, he considered that either of them would he a great evils. He believed twenty-eight years quite long enough, and extension of the present law of copyright, and that by either he thought that any change must operate most disadvan- of them, if carried, the legislature would be conferring a con tageously, and in no way whatever could it operate to the siderable boon on authors by that extension. He must say that advantage of the public.—( Hear.) on principle he preferred the proposal of the Noble Lord, and Mr. MILNES said, he should only detain the House with a he had not been convinced by the arguments of the Right Hon. few observations, but he thought that no man who had heard Gentleman. After hearing the arguments he had used there was the speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, could no doubt that. taking the great ornaments of literature,. both have felt it possible to restrain from answering some part s o f in this and other countries, as a body, it wou ld b e found that his address. He regretted that the Hon. Member had been the best works were produced during the latter part of the lives led to make certain remarks, which he had made in so light of the authors ; both for the reasons he had given, and from and flippant a manner ' • and he did think that a decided the illustrations he had given, he considered the p os iti on o f hi s intimation should be made of the . feeling entertained' by that Right Hon. Friend was unassailable. The Noble Lord had House of the improper manner in which the works of a most adduced some instances to the contrary, yet he had not taken delightful poet, had been brought before that House in a man- away anything from the truth of the proposition. That pro ner quite in opposition to the forms of that House, a nd h e was position, though true, was not, however, a groun d f or legisla sure in such a manner as could not but hurt the feelings of the tion. It was not a ground for the Legislature to proceed upon, eloquent and exquisite poet whose works had been thus can- that authors generally produced the finest poems and their best vassed. Besides, those rules were not at all applicable to the works at the latter end of their lives. In calculating the ex present occasion ;he might as well have read poetry that he istence of the copyright, therefore, it seemed to him much was more acquainted with and more accustomed to read—such better to go on the very simple principle of giving authors a as the song of " Billy Taylor," or the " Cat's meat Man," copyright for their lives, and a terniinabie period aft erwar d s . they would have been just as applicable. The works of Mr. The period should not be altogether less than twenty-five years, Wordsworth were brought forward with no other object than to and if an author died soon alter the publication of his book it cast a slur on the poetical genius of that great man. It would should be extended to I wenty.eight. This was very simple, be impossible to follow the Hon. Member through so very de- and would not require them to tamper with any proofs as to sultory and unargurnentative a speech, and he believed the whether the production took place at one period of the author's House must consider that the questionlaid between the Right life or another. At the same time, he thought th a t as th e pro - Hon. Member fur Edinburgh and the Noble Lord who brought positions so nearly resembled each othe r , it was t o b e l amente d forward the motion. The Hon. Member who had just sat that there should be a division.--( Hear. 1 He could wish that down had talked of the question being argued in such a way his Hon. Friend would concede the point as to the seven years that no attention was paid to the public ; yet the Hon. Gentle- additional, as it did not seem a very great concession. The man brought forward no argument to show that the public effect of the alteration would be this; suppose all the works his would be injured by thii measure, he did not even attempt to Hon. Friend had alluded to had been produced in the eight or prove that books would be made dearer. There could not, in ten years before the death of the authors, then, from the fact, be any greater absurdity than to suppose it would i n an y time of their death, their works would b e en titl e d to f orty palpable degree be increasedin price by the copyright being ex. years' protection. It would be a very rare case in which an tended. He believed that books published under the copyright anthor would live for 42 years after the copyright of his work were cheap. The books published by Whittaker—the trans- obtained a value. Such cases must be rare, and would not Wiens of foreign histories, were the cheapest books in the apply to such productions as some of the worthless plays of market ; the Waverley novels were as cheap as could be. Both Dryden, it must be the case of a man producing a work of ex-- publishers and authors had found out that the cheaper they traordinary merit. It would not be a very great change, if the sold their books, the more profit they would make. Competi- Hon. Gentleman would consent to the proposed addition of tion in publishing was one of the principle things which raised seven years. the price of the books, and where there was no competition Mr. MACAULAY said he must feel unwilling to carry his books were deer and scarce. The works of the Elizabethan own views of the case against the general opinion of the dramatists, for example, because they had no publishers, were Hence. But, he must confess, he had already gone a great difficult to be obtained; the works of Bacon, Fox, and many others way. He thought it much better to have forty-two years cer were the same ; but the best works generally fell in price after taro, than to have seven years added to the term of life. if the lapse of some little time. The works of Sir James Niacin- the decision of the House should be against him, and the tosh, published at 355., were sold for ss. a copy. The ques- Noble Lord could induce the House to take the modified pro tion of comparative cheepness had, he thought, been completely position they had been speaking of, he could only say he should answered; and, if any doubt yet remained, he wonld refer Hon. not offer any obstruction to the measure, but would do what Members to a little pamphlet, written by his Hon. Friend the he could to facilitate, though, of course, he should be less sa- Member for Weymouth, called " A Plea for Perpetual Copy_ tisfied with it than with his own proposition. right." He was sorry that the Hon. Member, who had just After a few words from Sir R. Peel, Lord Mahon, and Mr. sat down, was not now in his place, because, when he drew that Aglionby, during which conversation strangers were ordered to distinction which he did between men of science and literature, withdraw three times, the House divided. he (Mr. Milnes) would tell him that there were men of science The numbers were— as well as those to whom the Hon. Member had referred, For the Amendment . . 6S who had thought of this matter. Sir David Brewster had For the original Motion written on the same subject, and his opinion was directly oppo- Majority for the Amendment —l2 site to those of the men of science which the Hon. Member had quoted. These were the words of a ma n of r e a l an d pro- Lord MAHON then said, that as h e was d e f eate d on t h e proposition of twenty-five years, he would propose a period of found science. The Hon. Gentleman applied to the persons seven years after the author's death. who came to that House to ask for protection the names of Ii- Mr. MACAULAY opposed it, and would take the sense of terary quacks. He had spoken in this way of Campbell, Miss the House on it. Martineau, Fontblanque, Fox, Leigh Hunt, Carlyle, Dickens, A division took place, and the numbers were— James, Rogers, and Johanna Baillie. These were persons who Ayes yielded them pleasure, and who had exalted the country. These 33 persons the Hon. Gentleman design a ted quac k s , w h en at t hi s Majority — sB very moment one of them, Mr. Di c k ens , was rece i v i ng Mr. AGLIONBY would now o bj ec t t o t h e propos i t i on o f from the whole American nation the tribut e o f a ll th e assem - forty-two years. bliea in that nation. The Hon. Member for Fi ns b ur y, pro - Mr. MAC ‘ULAY defended it, and the C omm itt ee di v id e d, fessing as he did democratic principles an d a d m i rat i on o f when the numbers were— America, came there to insult that very cl ass o f men w h om For the Motion America delighted to honour. He (Mr. Mikes) must tell For the Amendment • 22 him that there were other professional men q u it e as di st i n - ,Noes Majority for the Motion ' 79 guished as the Hon. Member who took a .different view of this The period of forty-two years was, therefore, ordered to be matter. He found in that petition the names of Hope, Pro- the term to which the copyright is to extend. fessor of Chemistry, a name well known, Abercromby, of The question having then been put, that the clause, as Edinburgh, of the Institution of Medicine, Bird, Professor of amended, should stand part of the Bill, Surgery, and a great number of others, all of whom enter- Mr. WAKLEY said, that he thought the amended clause so twined a different opinion on the subject to the Hon. Member injurious to the public, while it would confer no benefit upon for Finsbury. But he must really apologise to the House for authors; that he should divide the Committee against its detaining them, for he must say that the sentiments of the Hon. adoption. Member for Finsbury were scarcely worthy of serious con- The Committee divided— sideration. One remark in answer to what the Hon. Mem- For the clause ... 96 her had said about the high remuneration of many literary Against it men. He had spoken as if a literary career was always one Majority in favour of the clause of prosperity and enjoyment, as if a man who worked with his On the next clause being read, head had not just as many difficulties as the man who worked Mr. WAKLEY moved that it be omitted. with his hands. When he talked of the rewards of Scott and After a short discussion, strangers were ordered to withdraw, Byron, he (Mr. Milnes) would ask him whether he forgot Hip and the Committee divided, when there appeared— enormous incomes paid to professional gentlemen ? Show him For the clause the literary man whose income was equal to Sir Astley Coo- Against it pers, or Sir Benjamin Brodie, and the leading professional Majority for the •• 0000000 ••• •• clause' . • 43 s men in the metropolis. It was perfectly absurd to sin g l e ou t Clauses from supto 14 were then agreed to with some a few cases where authors were largely paid, and he did not verbal amendments ,after which the House resumed, the Chair think in any degree overpaid, and say that therefore litera- man reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on tore was a good profession, and did not require protection. In Weduesday next. questions of this kind it was impossible that the House could PUBLIC-HOUSE BILL. keep tap along debate, and he would therefor confine himself to On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the a few remarks upon the proposition of the Right Hon, Member for Public-house Bill being read, Sir J. GRAHAM suggested to the Hon. M em b er f or W e st- Edinburee. The proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman West was one which was an onprovement in the existing law, but he minster, the propriety of postponing the Bill. If the Hon, did not think the proposition so good as that of the Noble Lord. Member would consent to this proposition, he (Sir James Under th e p ropos iti on o f the Right Hon. Gentleman, if the Graham) thought he should be able to make certai n p ro p osa l s author more to him, to which 'he (Sir James Graham) thought the Ho n . l .. Member would accede, on the subject of the t rans f er o f li censes , inwished for ved it. to 1 . h se e l v l efe his v e copyright as py f r a i v g a h a t regarded he w oul d immediate get advantageon e sh i 1 - Th to the auth or , he would derive no benefit whatever. The great a nd as regarded the Police regulations. I evil he (Mr. Milnes) wished to remedy was that of authors of Captain ROUS postponed the Bill for a fortnight. great distinction and eminence, leaving their families almost Mr. WAKLEY thought the keeepers of public-houses had totally unprovided for. It was a question interesting the great reason to compl a i n of th e regu l at i ons f or t h e i nterference families of authors more than the authors themselves. The of the police. Under the present system a most atro speech of the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh was a very cious assault might be committed in a public-house, and the strong premium for ;literary celibacy. The Hon. Gentleman publican might send for a policeman, who, when he arrived, who had spoken last accused the Noble Lord (Mahon) with would not have any power to enter the house for the purpose being led away by sentimental tales. The Honourable Mem- of removing the party committing the assault, because be had ber should have known that there was a tale of a certain not seen another assault committed. This was a grievance of eminent literary man, an historical writer, who had which the keepers of public-houses had just cause received from the country great literary honours, who was at to complain, and he understood that they had no objec the close of his life deprived by Providence of the great powers tion to call in the police on their own responsibility oi his mind, and his family was almost entirely dependant upon whenever they might see occasion. He thought that it was a him for support. When he mentioned the names of Ward and matter well worthy of the attention of the Government, . Smith, these were signal instances of the defect of the present RAILWAY BILL. arttelm. He did not know that there was anything else, ex- The further consideration of the Railway Bill was postponed cept to congratulate them on the tone of that debate, with the to this day week. exception of the speech of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. He CORN IMPORTATION BILL. thought such a tone would act most beneficially on the country On the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report on the —it would dispel the notion which had gone abroal, that lite- Corn Importation Bill be.ng read, rature was treated with very little respect in that House. There Mr. M. GIBSON said he had a suggestion to make to the was a certain sum of money appropriated yearly for the purpose Right Honourable Baronet. There could not be the slightest of assisting indigent literary men, but that sum was not more doubt but that the present measure was only a step to further than would keep a pack of hounds, and that was the only and more extensive changes.—( Hear, hear, hear.) No one public fund in this country. In. France tit, case was different. could be so credulous as to suppose, but that before long they The present French law was that which they wished to make must necessarily have another Corn Bill. Now, as h e was the law of England. But the French Government was not aware that the Right Hon. Gentleman had the greatest content with that state of things, and made an attempt to alter aversion to holding out expectations which could not be f ul the period from 25 years to 50 years. A Bill to that effect fi l l ed, and to giving rise to hopes that must be disappointed, passed on e o f t h e Ch a mbers, and was rejected by the ;other by he would suggest the propriety of introducing a clause to limit a small majority ; but there was no doubt that the Bill would the duration of the present Bill, say to one year—(A laugh)— be renewed, and there was every probability orits being carried. for it would be only practising on the credulity of the farmers to The effect of this law in France was to produce an harmonious pass the Bill in its present shape, and add to the distress of the action between literary pur s uits and politi ca l. Th e historian manufacturing interest, which h a d no t a tall been alleviated by of the civili zat i on o f .Europe was the Prime Minister, and the the measures of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and he therefore historian of the revolution was the Leader of the Opposition, hoped, as the quest i on must soon be re-d i scusse d, that some and it was w ith t h e h ope o f connectin g th ese t wo pursuits that such clause as he suggested would be introduced into the Bill. the alteration was proposed. He should therefore vote Sir ROBERT PEEL could not consent to the suggestion of for the proposition of the Noble Lord, against the amendment ' the Hon. Gentleman for the very reasons:which the Hon. Gen of the Right H onour abl e Member f or Edi n burgh, but tleman had urged in s u p por t o f it. H e ( Sir R. keel) did not like he would see that it was a friendly litigation between to give rise to expectations which must be disappointed. s Now them, for he (Mr. Milnes) had no doubt that either proposition if he were to con s e n t t o th e H on . G en tl e man s suggestion he would confer benefit on the country. I should give rice to a general expectation that the Corn-laws , The clause was then put and agreed to, as was also clause 2. would he repealed—( Cheers and laughter)—which he did no t ' On clause 3 being proposed, I think at all likely to happen.—( A laugh.) He att r ib u t e d a Mr. MACAULAY said it was here that he wished to prc. considerable portion of the present distress to the uncertainty of the country a 3 to the Corn Bill and thefariff, and he thought if the House adopted his (Sir R. Peel's) propositions, a great portion of the present distress would cease. Aft..T a few words from Dr. BOWRING, the Report was brought up and agreed to with some amendments. THE INCOME TAX. Sir R. PEEL stated, that instead of to-morrow ha should mention Friday as the day on which the discussion on the in come tax should come on. WEST INDIA COLONIES. Lord STANLEY rose to move for the following Select Committees—First, for the West Coast of Africa :—Lord Stanley, Viscount Sandon, Lord John Russell, sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. E. Denison, Mr. Forster, Sir Thomas Ac land, Mr. Milnes, Mr. Charles Buller, Mr. Hutt, Captain Fitzroy, Earl of March, Viscount Ebrington, Viscount Courte nay, and Mr. George William Wood, and then for the \Vest India Colonies—Lord Stanley, Mr. Pakington, Viscount Howick, Mr. Godson, Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Charles Howard, Sir Charles Douglas, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Emer son Tennent, Mr. Grantley Berkley, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Mr. Barclay, and Viscount Chelsea. Mr. P. BORTH WICK trusted that the Noble Lord would take into consideration the propriety of extending tl.e limits of his inquiries to India. After a few words from Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, the Com mittees were appointed. TIMBER SHIPS. On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE the House went into Committee to consider of a Bill for preventing ships clear ing, out from any port in British North America, or in the seetlement of Honduras, from loading any part of their cargo of timber upon deck. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House Adjourned at a Quarter-past Twelve. PARLIAMENTARY D (From the Votes and Proceedings of the Ho TUESDAY, ?ARIL Jr. IVISIONS. , use of Commons.) CORN-IMPORTATi MINORITY of Thirty-nine (Tellers inc' Lord Worsley's A'Bendmel A.ldam, William Ebrington, Viscount Allix, John Peter Grogan, Edward Archbold, Robert Hamilton, C. J. B. Barclay, David Heneage, E. Barrington, Viscount Howard, C. W. G. Brodie, W. B. James, William Buller, E. Lygon, Hon. Gen. I3urroughes, H. M'Taggart, J. Busfeild, William Murray, A. Childers, J. W. Norreys, Lord Christopher, R. A. Norreys, Sir D. J. Dundas, Admiral O'Brien, Cornelius Dundas, Frederick Henley, J. Warner Eaton, R. J. 'ON. luded) who voted for nt : O'Brien, W. S. Packe, C. W. Palmer, George Pusey, P. Tancred, H. W. Tollemache, J. Troubridge, Sir T. Vere, Sir C B. Wallace, H Yorke, Hon. E. T. TELLERS Wortley, Lord Palmer, Robert MINOR! I Y of Se renty-one ( Tellers inc Childers' Arnenclinerr Ferguson, o:onel Forster, Matthew Gill, Thomas Gore, Robert Hill, Lord Marcus Howard, C. W. G. Humphery, J. James, W. John,tone, Alex. Leader, J. T. Listowel, Earl of Macaulay, T. B. Marshall, W. Murray, A. Napier, Sir Charles Norreys, Sir D. O'Brien, C. 0' Brien, J. Pechell, Captain • Philips, Mark Pigct, D. R Pinney, W. Ponsonby, C. F. A. Ponsonby, Hon. John Agltonby, H. A. Aldan), William Barr lay, David Berkeley., C. !Slake, Sir Valentine Bowring, Dr. Brotherton, J. Buller C. - - Buller, E. liusfeild, W. Cavendish, Hon. C. Cavendish, Hon. G. Christie, W. D. Clements, Lord Craig, W. Gibson Crawford, W. S. Duncan, George buncombe, I'. S. Dundas, C. W. D. Dunilas, F. Ebrington, Viscount Ellis, Wynn Evans, William Swart, W. quded) who voted fo ;-- Power, James Ricardo, John Lewis Scott, Robert Sheil, R. L. Smith, ienjamin Smith, Ve:non Somerville, Sir W. Strutt, Edward Taucred, H. W. Thornely, Thomas Troubridge, Sir T. Tufnell, Henry Turner, E Villiers, Charles P. Vivian Hon. Captain Wallace, R. Williams, Wm. Wood, Benjamin Wood, G. W. Wrightson, W. Yorke, H. Redhead ST. ALBAN'S ABRI NUNNERY TELLERM. Childers, J. W Hawes, B. Y.-THE Sopwell Nunnery was founded by Abbot Geoffrey about 1140, on his observing two poor women dwelling there in a wretched hut of their own constructing . , and living a most austere life on bread and water, and in re gular devotion to God. Their piety induced him to build a house for their comfortable living, and to bestow on them some possessions. He appointed also a chapel and a church-yard, ordaining that none should be buried there excepting the nuns ; none to be admitted into the house but maidens ; and the number not to exceed thirteen. Henry de Albini, or Albeney, of the houso of Todenei, gave to this house two hides of land, with his wife's con sent, in their manner of Cotes in Beaulieu. His son Robert, and his mother Cicely, gave a rood more, in the same manor, Richard de Tany, or Todenei, gave them the land called Black hides in Ridge parish. _ _ Abbot Michael, about 1338, ordained certain rules for the regulation of this house, and enjoined a better order and observance than they had before practised. They are as follows : 1. That the commemoration of St. Alban should be kept as usual. 2. That no more than three nuns should sit in the chapter. 3. That silence be ob served, as ay the rule of St. Benedict, in the church or chapel, in the cloister, in the refectory, and the dormi tory. 4. That a little bell do ring in the morning, as notice to rise and appear, and that none leave the dor mitory before the bell rings, 5. That the garden-door be not opened (for walking) before the hour of prime, or first hour of devotion ; and in summer, that the garden and the parlour doors be not opened until the hour of none (nine) in the morning ; and to be always shut when the corfue rings. 6. That no sister hold conversation in the parlour without her cowl on, and her face covered with her veil. 7. That tailors, or other artists, be persons of good character, but to work in some place assigned them without the mona,stery ; and never to be admitted into chambers or other irivate places. 8. That if any sister be under a sentei e of penance, this shall not ex clude her from the dutieil, of the church. 9. T:.e sick to be kept in the intirmari . . 10. No nun to lodge out of the house, and no guest within it. 11. All the sisters to be present at the mass of our Lady.—Ea treeted from Beattie's Castles and Abbeys of England. . MARY LEBONE VESTRY. A large meeting of the ratepayers and parishioners of the parish of Marvlebone was held yesterday afterntion in the Workhouse-yaid, Marylebone, for the purpose of receiving the Report of the. Committee appointed to oppose the Bill now before Parliament, entitled The Alarylebone Vestry Bill. G. A. You No, Esq., took the Chair, and briefly explained the objects of the meeting. Mr. C. FLOOD, the Vestry Clerk, read the Report of the Committee, which was as follows :--- ST. MARYLEBONE PARISH BILL. Report of Committee jointly appointed at the Public Meeting of Ratepayers, on the 7th day of March last, and by the Board of Vestry, for the purpose of opposing the above Bill in Par liament. The various methods by which an effectual opposition could be made to a Bill which seeks to deprive the ratepayers of this large and opulent parish of some of their most important rights and privileges, have come under the consideration of your Com • mittee from time to time, and the steps adopted by them will be seen in the following brief statement, which they have much pleasure in submitting to their fellow-parishioners. At the period of holding the last public meeting there was but a very short time to elapse before the day appointed for the second reading of the Bill. It was, therefore, the first duty of your Committee to petition the Honourable the House of Com mons against such second reading, and accordingly a petition was presented, signed by 3,477 ratepayers, in addition to a petition presented by the Boards of Vestry and Auditors to the same effect, whilst the petition of the promoters of the Bill, notwithstanding the surreptitious manner in which many of the signatures were publicly proved to have been obtained, con tained only 600 signatures. The Bill was read a second time on the Bth day of 31areh, and to show the intense interest excited in the public mind by so extraordinary a measure as the one then introduced, your Committee have only to state, that no less than 337 Members attended, being the largest number, it is believed, that ever voted on a private Bill. Your Committee have been in communication with the pa rishes on the south side of Oxford -street, and the populous and influential parish of St. Pancras, whose interests would be ma terially affected if the Bill was to pass into a law ' and they have much pleasure to report that the pari s h o f St. James, Westminster, and St. Pancras, have cordially co-operated wi h them, by presenting a petition against the Bill, and the former parish have actively engaged themselves in pointing out to their representatives in Parliament the pernicious tendency of the measure; and as a result of such exertions it is important to state that the Hon. and Gallant Member for Westminster, the Hon. Capt. Rous, and his colleague, Mr. Leader, voted against the second reading. Your Committee would not omit to mention that the Hon. Member for Middlesex, Col. T. Wood, who introduced the Bill originally to the House of Commons, upon being made ac quainted with its real nature, at once gave up the precious charge into other hands, and not a Member of the Metropolitan Boroughs being found to move the second reading, the unplea sant task devolved upon the Hon. Member for Lymiugton, Mr. Mackinnon, well known as being one of the active members of the old self-elected vestry. Your Committee are inclined .to believe that such second second reading would not have been attempted but for the statement then made, that two very important clauses, namely, the one raising the qualification of vestrymen from 401. to 60/ - ., and the other seeking to secure a snug place for a treasurer at a salary not exceeding 1,000/. per annum would ultimately he withdrawn. Your Committee have since the second reading of the Bill prepared and presented petitions to Parliament, as well from the ratepayers as from the Board of Vestry, praying to be heard by counsel, agents, and witnesses against the preamble and the several clauses therein contained. Your Committee have much pleasure to state that, in order fully to carry into effect the prayer of the foregoing petition, the valuable services of G. A. Young, Esq., Wm. Theobald, Esq., R. Thomas, Esq., James Coppock, Esq., and E. G. Randall, Esq. have been gratuitously offered and accepted. Your Committee would only state, that the more they have considered the Bill the deeper is their antipathy to the objects contemplated by the promoters thereof, viz., to disf ranc hi se a vast majority of the ratepayers , both parochially and p o li t i ca ll y, to create disunion and discontent in all parts of this most ex tensive parish, and eventually adding to the existing burdens of an already over-taxed community, by thus introducing a Bill which, under the guise of a Private Paving Bill," would repeal the vital clauses of the Public Vestries' Act. Your Committee, therefore, in conclusion, reiterate that they are ready, heart and hand, to give this Bill their most de termined and steady opposition, in which coutlusion they have the fullest confidence of having the supp or t o f every ratepayer who values those privileges which are beyond all price—privi leges which your Committee, on the behalf of all, are earnestly desirous rather to increase than impair, and to perpetuate the same to the remotest generation. Mr. LANGHAM proposed the first resolution, to the follow ing effect :—That the meeting had heard and considered the report of the Committe of vestr) men and ratepayers detailing the steps they had taken in opposition to the St. Marylebone Parisq Bill, and also the proceedings at the conference held ' with the promoters of the bill with the greatest satisfaction, and the meeting therefore urged upon the Committee to con tinue their strenuous and uncompromis ng opposition to the Bill. He (Mr, Langham ) was not one of those who had been honoured with an invitation to meet Dr. Spry and Mr. Pope, but by the courtesy of the Doctor he was present, arid he thought no man was more suited to humbug a Radical. He (Mr. Langham) had great respect for the Doctor's talent, but he must say that the interest advocated by him was not synonornous to theirs.—( Cries of " Hear, hear. ') Ile held in his hand a return of the amount of the church-rates collected in that parish for nine years subsequent to the t i me the pres en t Bil l came into operation. In 1825 the church i rates were 16,2631. in 1826 they were 16,79 61 . , in 1827 16,8821., in 1828 17,2971, in 1829 17,2371., in 1831 11,3971. in 1830 11,5301., The CHAIRMAN here intimated that this was not the ques tion before the meeting. Mr. LANGHAM said it was a very important question, and he hop e d th e meet i ng wou ld a ll ow h im to go on. In 1833, when the new Vestry Act came into operation, the amount was 8,63 W., in 1834 6,1111., in 1835 6,1701., in 1836 1,285/., in 1837 6,3531., in 1838 6,430/., and in 1839 to 6,472/ so that they would see that the amount of church-rates had been ------ cw reduced nearly two-thi r d s o f t h e f ormer amount. it pr. in consequniceof this gr ea t re d uct i on t h at t h e Bill befo re ,' liament was introduced. He did not believe the protnc.tpt the Bill were sincere, for they wished to divide the pefi t 0 1 districts in order to obt a i n p ower. H e was sat i s fied tha t , to la'e Mr. Cobbett had been placed as the candidate whole country, that he w ou ld h ave b een e l ec t e d with l! c ,ti large majority over any one else ; but going into dis t :4 was defeated continually. He (Mr. Longhorn) fel t to ? on the subject, and he was determined to oppose the P measure to the utnsost of his pow er . tbot4 tit i Mr. ELLIOTT, in seconding the r eso l u ti on , saidhe of v, was not a just or fair mode of proceeding on the ?tor promoters of this Bill to have commenced their Pen' t herti f f , holes and corners. Their duty was to h ave summonedet. v payers, and to ascertain their sentiments on the subj e oij thought it would be a disgrace to the House of C__,l pass such a Bill—(Hear, hea r )—a n d h e hoped "u" they would reject it. cel l° Mr. SAVAGE said it was a very precarious thing w o ffer the interest of a parish to any Committee of the House of t j, mons, for there was great laxity in the proceedinte ‘er o,f t ! Committees. He (Mr. Savag e ) did no t belongtoen7tbee; parties who had got up the Ve s t r y, or th e p ro moters The Bill proposed to raise the qualification, end,ll l sot v opinion was that the qualification was already to° Pie! on . should therefore give that part his st renuou s oppwsiti et, (I A term parish conveyed a very imperfect idea of the e, was rather a city. One parish contain e d not less nbey s houses, in another 2,500, and in Christchurch 50' 1 , 011 1(1 . „ provided that a eertain quantity o f V es tryinen, elected for each district, and it provided that the 1 -77 t b p ii; 0 dens of each district should send to every ratepayer s trict, a list of all persons, alphabetically arra / 1 oil for the representation of the ward in the vestry „ ie sie r- A s opinion that under this system the ele c ti o n of vegt*,;" s ecle' be more fair than before.—(Loud cries of " No, no , _x,l9. confusion.) He recommended them to do nothing " I want," said Mr. SAVAGE— A VOICE—A pot•of half-and-half.—(Loud laugbt er a iifere ° 4 ' Mr. SAVAGE said, to him it was matter of leer what resolution was passed, but he hoped they et•° the subject with calmness and deliberation. tra° r n i Mr. SODER said, he felt muc h sur p r i se a t the ex _.) position Mr Savage had taken that day.--4 Heat, br o l#4 (Mr. Soder) could hardly have thought it possible I° l abs" men to draw up 300 clauses, not one of which et o ltil mired, and when Mr. Savage came and express tion of a port ion of that Bill, he (Mr. Soder) 94 / 2 sllO4 iced at such a proceedi ng . H e f orgo t t o tell tber it 1' parish would have to pay th e ex p enses o f this Bill ti j. 014) Some gentlemen had said somethi n g a bout half- 2 1' 0 0 1 :i he must say that Mr. Savage was not " all hail."---S2`—tbetra He trusted they would not be induced to relinqui_b o ls"' position to this Bill, for if they did n ot go the they would be taken in and done for. f 10 # Sir B. HALL said, it was a source of great satis- ° , et that measures of such great importance, and of see% oVool rest to the peen , le, should be discus se d w ith so ton e a ll and deliberation. It would be in the recollection bro l lo that was the second time the subject had b eee ,. r f t re . o before them. An attempt was made to in' oo s . P',/1 the Local Act of the parish, and he could t oni without an effort against it, such o_ l loo,o to be made. From the complexion of that nseetut,eetA. to believe the feeling of the parish was, that the 11; t 1si r ,0 should not be tampered with. The last time they, it teeLeol bled was before the second reading of the Bill, a o ljOrpol known to them all, that he had done all in his bute°7oo o l, to prevent the second reading of the Bill. He ' rl see s , sanguine of success. He had stated that the circuit's' su sfo which this Bill was brought f o rwa r d were very thst pt l He thought, from the nines of the deputationr o s... 4 ,l.l could not doubt who the promote rs of the fill Tyr" would just touch on the provisions of the Bill. cation of vestrymen had been ab an d one d. Te es senti; mus of the parties who supported this Bill let tb asorld the proposal to levy the rates to be paid in advance.;o7 wonder at this being abandoned, for he did O t pd ,ia° 4 tei they would find people howould like to dip their h a tls# pockets twelve months before the money was du e ' siorr spect to the balloting of vestry men, the Bill pi - werj the list of vestrymen was to be left with each rat e ; siv f ift if the list was not lefc,, the election should not r ;11; Now if one less than 40, or one more, was placed Q ° 01, that vote was rejected. With regnrd to the dal,/ the salary of the treasurer, he believed that an ;he I,or, proposed, but what was that alteration? ,tbs° proposition was that the salary should be not our bee", a year, and the alteration was that it should 1 1 _,.,°'• e" 3001. ; so that while it could not be less than 3tna_ i ' raised to 3,000/. The Hon. Baronet concludeutbelp, that he should still, to the best of his power, oPP °9e rt # l ,_, The CHAIRMAN, be!ore putting the resolutt o° '4 1° ,4 i from Mr. Waktey and Mr. M'Kinnon, apolegs`,o7Y l non-attendance. The resolution was then put o' o 4 A resolution was then passed, renewing the P ° 0 ,1 1 Committee. A resolution was also passed for forming a sa Wr o sto tei. the purpose of opposieg the Bill, and the meeting 4 FISC P. SPORTING IisTTEL LlG—,„,B 0# BEDFORD SPRING MEETING-- I° „ fl — scle The Oakley Tria: Stakes of 10 s o y a . eac h, with ov I mile and a quarter. C 4 Subs.),, ho eir, Mr. Booth's St. Jean d'Acre, 3 yrs, ist ...... Mr. Coleman's Gazelle, 3 yrs, ist . •• •• '• Won by a head • The Oakley Stakes of 10 sous. eac h, h ft, ‘" th Heats, once round and a distance' 4 fri' lion. G. Ongley's c by Sir Hercules—Riddieotu.asd lOst 101 b (Capt. P` - „,• Mr. T. A. Bainbridge's Curiosity, aged, 12st Won easy. h f t ; The Grand Hurdle Race Stakes of 10 SOTS. ea, C 1 0 10:21) added. Two miles over six leaps. ("4 V' - / Mr. G. Tollitt's Tiger, aged, 12st 131 b ............ k Baron Rothschild's Consul, aged, 12st 31b ......... Mr. G. Higgins' Roulette, 5 yrs, llst ..... . ...... Itlr. W. Ekins' Due nna , age d , 12 st 7 1b •• •• Two others started. 2t o l on Th e Tiger. PP' I '1 he Farmer's Pls.te. of triol., the second recelywi I once round and a distance• ofee l l g Mr. Westley's The C ura t e , 5 yrs, 12st ....... ( .Jr 0. Labram's Miss Norman, 6 yrs, 12st blb $ :Ir. Whitworth's Comet, aged, 12st slb ......... Mr. Peacock's Billy the B e au, age d, 12st51b sjirl Three or four others started. W°° e ss JOY The Hurdle Stake s o f 5 sovs. eac h, onc e ee°: 7 lbL were won by Mr. Higgins's Roulette, 5 yrs, lie heo,6 beating Mr. H. Bird's T r e a ty, age d, and tw°,6l, 174,r °t " A Handicap of 5 sov s . eac h, 2 ft, 20 ma" , Osec• Hon. 0. Ongley's Humility, 4 yrs, I Ist 101 b ( jet e ins The Curate, list 41b, an d t wo o th er s, bY la HOO RACES.—SATURDAY. . 10 0 ;0) The Anniversary Stak es o f 10 sovs . each' (i)fr Mr. Brand's Acorn . .••• ....... / Mr. Phillimore's Cracker ........... Mr. Cavendish's Cricketer . • ''"0 01 0 ;er) ....... The Maiden Stak es o f 10 sovs . ea ch.. ( Mr. Brand's Jack Frost ...... ....................... Lord Verulam's ch c by A ctaeon ............................. Hon. G. Ongley's c by Si r Hercules—lieddiOt . orte° The Farmers' Purse was won b y M r . Smith's 00 ), the Scurry Stakes by Mr. Brand's Jack Frots.. s tba THE NOTTINGHAM STEEPLE CI - D"„ I Sweepstakes of 10 soya. ea c h, h ft, with by g o ttr'o/ cond saves his stake ; 12st ; winners extra. .(1 10 ; . „, Mr. Elmore's Gaylad .......................... Mr. Loft's Creeper if btil ......... • .... .. .e cleverly Sveral others ran. Won lid The Military Chase was won by Mr. Dyson' s _ 4 4 1 / 1 Farmers' Stakes by Mr. Wright's horse. te a The sport throu g h o ut was goo d, b u t the et- 9A'' means so numerous as last y ear . Tpb s BEACONSFIELD STEEPLE CHAS E 1 Sweepstakes, &c. Ore.' ,0" Mr. Tilbury's Buffoon Lord Drumlanrig's The Cardinal ................ Baron Rothschild's Ormsby ................... The following al s o started : —C a ptain le l a 're llet eo l 4 l l o Cole, Captain Freem an ' s Pl oug h man , 3.1 r. "' scoe fi re , Comberton, and Mr. Goddard's A dacions• r t u s be Buffoon, but having l o st a sa ddl e - c l o th he v"s end the race given to Cardinal. Tu issl3 -ef i BETTING AT MANCHESTER — t 0 4 Two THOUSAND GUINEAS 5TAKE5•7,7*,,1:00 . ,, t ell acre, 4 to 1 agst Meteor, and 11 to 2 agst kil t / 0, 7 % PO I CHESTER Cur.-8 to agst Vulcan (te' e ta kee/' 16 0 1 Lanercost (taken), 12 to 1 agst Marshal Soult agst. Alice Hawthorn (taken), 14 to 1 eget 11°1 :1 1 49 1 0 1 agst Cormor ant, 20 to I agst Bellona, 25 t° I 4 1 ar t jeclli ). agst Cruiskeen, 25 t o 1 ags t Rh o d an the, 30 to, . Q 0 DERBI.-7i t o 1 ags t A tt il a ( ta k en ), 17 to t i l, 7l,o_T o fri/ 25 to 1 agst J oanna co l t ( ta k en ) , 30 to 1 agst to I , s Beo le 4 , de (taken), 33 t o I agst El ens l " 01 0 tero, 35 to 1 a gs t M e t eor , 40 t o 1 a g s t e agst Brother to Cantle (taken). OAKS. to 1 agst Syren, 12 to 1 agst Sister to Lad, and 7 to 1 agst Mr. Tharnhill's lot. ------:::::-----'__:_l------, cu t . i BRIGH TON—WEDNB 11 . 6 4 LONDON AND BRIGHTON BAILWAt• -..; 13.—n s (Tuesday) considerable anxiety e xisted : triti ll ec irj through the delay in the arrival of the fi rs a nt ~,,r London, which was heightened by the r, e- r ointf,f,/ on another line. The train reached the I :4 b 3" Bird three-quarters of an hour after time, eau% .041:41 dent occurring 'to the engine, near HoriePrep:, r , were delayed for a considerable time ill , of ' ve .4 i Not the slightest injury happened to an y piers3 Jte i sextgers. I{DpRESENTATION OF BRIGHTON. ----1% iw . e 1 , b i t , Sli!„ Sr' ford is succeeding beyond his most siiii n3 gl e i re ph i " 1 tions in the canvass, and has already . .., te e/ , than l the Tories polled at the last eleetle: e ' r e i/ j Jr. Harford only started on Mondaf this sillotvi prospect of success, not%%ithstanding that A C or s i was in the field three weeks before hi °. t he t e r $ l9. meeting \ was held last night to secue t aken 0 , . 1, , Jr. Brooker, but little notice i s ec t„ o , proceedings. A great meeting of the 7 t his IPA l it : take place at the Town-hall on Tharsdq ‘-r e c,he'" which both the candidates and Captat° sitting Members, have been invited. O f :__..._._. _ s ------,.., pi MONEY MARKET aoid Cll.l ,f.,) .... OP lie," 1 FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF • --, 1 ,01-01 TIMES.—The premium on gold at Paris ierrL for ij at the English Mint price of 3/. 175. 100. per ouc- escr ,I the O r i gold, gives an exchange of 25 37iii an : { O llO O r f Paris on London at short being 25 57ii Lt -• ,t4i is 0.80 per cent. dearer in London than in Pallt i j oil, By advices from Hamburgh the price of li u , . J 0 0 0 0 1; mark, which, at the English Mint price of 3h e 'rs 91, l ee./ ounce, for standard gold, gives an exchange °' .., 1 5 ot. exchange at Hamburgh on London at short IV o i' ll e do s i follows that gold is 0.57 per cent. dearer in •L' if r , Hamburgh. Loo per The course of exchange • at New York on per cent., and the par of exchange between tbootriiii America being 109 23- 40 per c ent., it follel gt th.,sii change is 1.57 per cent. against England. ._.,,, sir l i exchange at New York being for bills at 60 Oa l i ce , _A interest must be deducted from th e above differe Jul, ei•iri POST.—The tea market became extremely 10109.0 during acq tbe / 1 delivery of the letters, as the trade were m the fact, that shipments ha?. been going on ons ij 10 4 , a large extent, and that prices had fallen wou ld i China, which, added to the low rate of pr i c esfre i g hs ! stye e l large profit to the importer upon the quoted ~; ths 0: 1 , Speculators appear to have abandoned the inell i cs o, .1 teal monthly prophecies of the residents at 8 0 .40 V • w h i r / blockade was expected in a few days, h a ving t belef „0 and most unprofitable to those who believe' I wo a re e e the trade seeing the eagerness with which linr_arressi ing sales, and having learned that some twenty c t Ve VI :e l afloat and in course of arrival, deem it. pruidee,. o li,o , what their immediate wants require, a chance of getting the leaf at a moderate 10 1 ;' w itli ( I' ence of the war, it appears, does not prevent vow and thus.t7sl, th,,..:00, ions tr 7, ••••••••••••••••••=M. , .... re n3ol. TIM INCOME TAX.—Meet in g s inco m e t5. 1 ,),50l against the new Corn. law, the tariff. and the" Lat Biria i 7 e ; Hobert Peel, have been held at Canterb u zYleath er 4 4 4 of the shoe trade ;at Shrewsbury, of tu e of ildro - of the agriculturists of Harts; at at mercial body; against the income tax particuo, Yarmouth, and other places. TO PO JU LADY tuces B, PABCII GORE. 1 Stipio, Th &e. 3 vol ADVEP aANEER vok. THE s 'iTeraptati 7, 14 R. TI 4"GS and 00 !opri a i ng O riginally p PASSIC PERICK Henry Q h n iS AIA 1.7' UTIi ! I le] are N( j ab LARG HEIN Are now S] a. Persons _ revive 'ECTUS .either or The NE) R6i 66 tiN E T R H t O be p F ro V• liracter of t; Leiner ; • Notary ` l4 ibes. ' Atter whist t O za, entitle u t yerrnindite 11_id (his th - 7; Jtngo, 13 *ors open teas Box es 1 .7. 0 ncl Price Phtcee to te. trona T Pheation selle r i... at. D ui n row t „rill be per PEAR c I ) HIS 1 ostunte, ana ',Artistic, an, ~9..fter which ri! or e witnes, &TTY' nous a n d nit wrded Cours, irctiteci ona Vaul nitd ' conelu le - . 414 ; ort UN -1) ER Ti Thal, i ll be pen Jae Acts, ( by CHAD op us Vince] Scanlan, Iter wch 714'4 1 THE hi W cess, Mr-. tAillconelude ski; ; OR, T ,c . 0; Klaus "neY • tl Tia] 41 A FEW INTDI SURE "tPAI TOG: NEw, Orders Sun-oj News-, °``' Ito v I RE 1 1 ; 4 L GAI t it ;: ‘ ,lo ltete %V • -- TRUR, It • tor t' 0, 18 Per 4 Ott tusQrvn 4t, . 1 11 t h e th e s 14*.ttirerer _ .b►. i 80 90 STI