The Sun. — London, England, 1842-02-08 00:00:00

EVENING SUN IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 7. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack shortly before Five o'Clock. The Marquis of NORMANBY brought in two Bills ; one for the regulation of buildings, and the other for the improvement of boroughs. THE ADDRESS. The LORD CHANCELLOR informed their Lord ships that they had attended her Majesty with the Address, and her Majesty had been pleased to return the following most gracious answer :• .. " My Lords, this affectionate and loyal Address gives me the fullest satisfaction. I thank you for it ; and I can assure you, that your congratulations on the birth of the• Prince of Wales are cordially received by me. It is a proof of your attachment to my person and Government. My wish is, and ever will be, to promote the happiness of my people." The Marquis of WINCHESTER brought up the answer to their Lordship's Address to Prince Albert. The Noble' Lord, when reading the Address, was quite inaudible in the gallery. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a peti tion from a person in Hereford, praying Por an alteration in the Acts relating to weights and measures. Viscount MELBOURNE presented a petition in favour of an alteration: t in the Corn-laws. THE EXCHEQUER BILL FRAUD. The Duke of WELLINGTON observed that the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Monteagle), had given -notice of a motion for this day on this subject. He (the Duke of Wellington) would suggest to the Noble Lord the expediency of postponing his motion to a future day. On Friday, when the Noile Lord gave notice of his motion, it was suggested to him (Lord Moateagle) to postpone it until certain papers connected with the subject could be laid on the table of the House. Those papers were now, he (the Duke of Wellington) understood, laid on the table of their Lordships' House, but yet he would sug gest to the Noble Lord to defer his motion at present, as the paperA referred to were but just now in the hands of their Lordships. It was de sirable, too, to ascertain what should be done on the subject4n another place. Lord MONTEAGLE—NobIe Lords seemed to labour under a mistake with regard to his motion. His notice was given for the 17th, and on that day he proposed submitting his motion. He thought it necessary to give that notice as early as possible, even before the Report to which the Noble Duke had referred, was either in his (Lord Monteagle's) hands or anybody's else. When the proper time came on he should court the full inquiry of the House on that Motion ; but he had given notice for this motion before he had seen the Report, for if he had seen the report of the Commission first his motion might appear as an appeal against their Report. He felt that the Commission had conducted its inquiry in a manner highly satis factory to the public, and it was very far from his (Lord Mmteagle's) intention, to say anything which might appear as detracting in any way from the responsibility of those Commissioners. There had been a great deal of personal • vi tuperation relative to this matter ; but he felt that it behoved him not to enter into personal controversy.on personal matters, but as soon as Parlia ment met to claim ant entreat of their Lordships—to whom, in common with the other House of Parlia ment, his acts made him responsible —to enter into the most minute investigation, to find whether the late events had originated with him, or through any neglect of his ; and to ask their Lordships to use that power vested in them by law, if they should find that these circumstances had oc curred through any neglect of his. Before he sat down, he would say one more word regarding the public securities. It had been stated in one of the public papers of Saturday last, that the present Assistant-Comptroller held his office by a mere appointment from Mr. Eden, the late Assistant- Comptroller. If that statement were true, not one of the Exchequer bills signed by Mr. Percival would be worth the paper on which it was written ; but so fir from that being true, the right opposite was the tl.et. The resignation of Mr. Eden took place . hef)re the appointmont of Mr. Percival, and Mr. Pen:qv:ll's appointment was confirmed by the usual warrant, signed by the Lords of the :Tea.-oury. In the course of a short time he should, with the permission of the Noble Duke, move for copies of the appointments of Mr. Eden an l Mr. Percival ; also as to the mode of proceed ing adopted at the examination, together with the instructions given, and the manner in which they had been carried out. The Marquis of LAN SDOWNE, in a low tone of voice, made a motion which was understood to refer to the state of the wool trade in the West of England. Pit ESBYTERT AN MARRIAGES. The 2,1-axcp.ii7i' of CLANIIICARDE presented a petition relative to the Marriage Act in Ireland. The Noble Lord had called the attention of the lloase to the state of the marriage law in, Ire land. Their Lordships were pleased to reject the Bill on many grounc. The only one which he thought was just, was that it only touched upon a part of a very important point. He did expect now that a ge nerti measure on the subject would meet with the approval of their Lordships.—(hear, hear.) It was supposed that the state of the law in Ireland was the same as that in Scotland, and that a marriage by a Presbyterian Clergyman, between a member of his own congregation and another, though a member of the Episcopal Church, was valid, and was held to be so by the Courts of Law in Ireland, as well as in this country before the recent decision. . The question had arisen in a trial for bigamy, and the course pursued by the defendant's counsel was that the marriage was not legal. A point was referred to the Judges, and they declared in favour of the accused person, and de clared that the marriage was not valid. It would he presumption in him if he were to attempt to say that judgment was not sound in point of law, but this he might say, that it was directly the reverse of what was ruled when the case was mooted. Only five years ago a person was convicted at Carrickfergus, where the same point of law was raised ; notwithstand ing which the prisoner was transported, and was now undergoing that punishment for an offence which it appeared was no offence at all. In cases of civil rights of maintenance between htisband and wife, it had been ruled the marriage was good. It had been ruled in this country, but the new doctrine upset ail these decisions, and had spread the greatest dismay throughout Ireland. He could not doubt for a moment that the Government were preparing a Bill which would remedy the evils of that decision, because it would be a case of the greatest iniquity to allow innocent persons to be affected by such a de cision. —(dear, hear.) But they ought to be re lieved by enactment, and not by interpretation of the existing law, and he was sure the Noble" Duke would inform him whether, as it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject, it was to be prospective, as well as retrospective, and whether a general Marriage Act was in contemplation? The Duke of WELLINGTON said that it was the intention of Government to introduce a Bill to remedy the inconveniences resulting from the late decision alluded to by the Noble Marciais opposite.—(Hear, hear.) Other measures were also in contemplation for the purpose of applying a remedy to the anomalous state of the law as it existed in Ireland. But he could net say more at present than that the subject was under the conside ration of Government, and would be brought before Parliament. Their Lordships then adjourned. ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 7. The SPEAKBR took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock. Sir It. BULYELEY took the oaths and his seat for Flint. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from Li verpool, signed by upwards of 36,000 persons, praying for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. The Hon. Member also presented petitions from Li-. verpool from the Society of Fiends, and from Ha nover Chapel to the same effect. Mr. BUSFIELD presented forty petitions from Blackburn and its neighbourhood, praying for the total repeal of the Corn-laws. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND presented a peti tion from Queen's Head, in Halifax, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. Also four other petitions from Bradford and Halifax to the same effect. Mr. JOHNSTONE presented thirteen petitions to the same effect from various places. Mr. T, M. GIBSON presented several petitions From Drury-lane, St. Pancras, and various other places in the metropolis, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. J. oi coNNF New Ross, prayi ..LL presented a petition from L for a-repeal of the Union. Colonel COS presented a petition from the praying the House to be re llDeisvesdentferrosmofthLeielnee.tgeldaecision of the twelve Judges, pronouncing the ffes a Vemnised between Pro testa is and Dissenters maybe Minister to be illegal, and that a law m - passed to legalise them. Mr. WAKLEY presented a for petition from various o peratives in Finsbury, praying a . reduction of the i m p or t duties, the abolition of all t r le necures and useless offices, and for a total repeal of Dr. BOWRING presented twenty-eight tions, signed by person s of a ll condi tions, for a rep ea l of the Corn-laws. Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from place in the county of Lancaster , praying for a a total abolition of the Corn-laws, which the petition termed an unjust and inhuman Act of Parliament. Sir R. BATESON presented a petition from a place in Ireland for a measure legalisino• Presbyterian and Catholic marriages. Sir GEORGE STAUNTON presented two pe titions • PraYmg for a total repeal of the present Corn laws Mr. T. B. MACAULAY presented a petition from Edinburgh for a modification of the present laws affecting the importation of corn. Sir CHARLES NAPIER presented a petition praying for the removal of the gunpowder stored in the Tower. Petitions, praying for a repeal of filo Corn-laws, were presented by Sir John C. Hobhouse and Mr. Craven Berkeley. Mr. EMERSON TENNENT presented a petition from Mayo, in Ireland, praying for a measure, both perspective and retrospective, for legalising Presby terian and Catholic marrlages. Mr. EWART presented five petitions from Dum fries, Berwick, and other places m Scotland, pray ing for the abolition of the Corn-laws. Mr. GROGAN presented two petitions from con gregations in the City of Dublin, praying for a mea sure to legalise Presbyterian and Catholic marriages. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Knaresborough, signed by the majority of the electors of the borough, praying for the total abolition of the Corn-laws. Mr. HASTIE presented a petition to the same effect. Mr. DIVETT presented a petition from Devon against the Corn and Provision-laws. • QUARANTINE. Dr. BOWRING gave notice, that on Tuesday, the 17th inst., he would move a resolution to the effect that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to continue her inquiries respect ing the quarantine system, and that she would carry out such regulations as may e consistent with the public safety; and also he should move for the return of the correspondence which had taken place between her Majesty's Government and Foreign Powers since the last return. EXTENSION OF THE SUFFRAGE. Mr. SHARMAN CRAIVFORD gave notice that on an early day after the recess he would move for leave to bring in a Bill for an extension of the Par liamentary suffrage to a larger portion of the working people. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave notice that he would to-morrow move for leave to bring in a Bill to explain and amend the Municipal Corporations' Act. This was rendered necessary by a recent de cision of the Court of Queen's Bench, from which it appeared that persons holding land under a Municipal Corporation were disqualified from acting as Town councillors. This decision rendered it necessary that a remedy should be immediately applied, as there was opportunity for instituting 5,000 actions and enforcing penalties,if the House did not interfere. Mr. EWART moved for returns of the number of persons executed in the several periods of three years, from 1827 to 1839,; and also of the number of persons committed upon the charges of murder, and other capital offences within the Metropolis. TIIE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS. The SPEAKER said, I have to report to the House that the House has been to present the Address to her Majesty, and that her Majesty has been pleased to give the follqwing gracious reply " Gentlemen I return you my most hearty thank s for your dutiful affectionate Address. Your con gratulations, upon the birth of the Prince of Wales are cordially received by me, as a proof of your loyal at tachment to my person and house. The happiness of my people is the first object of my care, and you may rely on my co-operation in every measure for the pro motion of their welfare." • PRINCE ALBERT'S ANSWER. Lord ELIOT then appeared at the bar, and said the Members who were appointed to wait upon Prince Albert with the Address of this House had attended his Royal Highness, and received the following gra cious answer : " Gentlemen—l return you my warmest thanks for this gratifying instance of your attention to me, and of your duty to the Queen. " I thank you for your cordial congratulation on the birth of our son, and I beg to assure you that the prosperity ,of my country is the first object of my wishes." TIIE POOR-LAW. Mr. STUART WORTLEY hoped the House would indulge hint for a few moments while he put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State on two very important subjects. 7 -subject j s of paramount and general interest. These subjects wore the Poor-law, and the regulations of the the Factory Bill. His reasons for putting those in quiries to the Right Hon. Baronet were, that with re greet to the Poor-law there had been no mention made in the Queen's Speech.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Order.") Ile only wished to ask what was' the general course which the Government intended to pursue with respect to the revision of the existing Poor-law ; and also what course it was proposed to take with re ,, ard to the factory question ?—(Hear.) Sir J. GRAJIAM said, that with regard to -the .44uestions on the Poor-law put by the Ilon. Member, he had to state, that though it was true that the sub ject had not been introduced into the Speech from the Throne, it was the intention of her Ma jesty's Government :to introduce a Bill for the ! purpose of continuing the Poor-law Commission. As to the Second question, whether the Government meant to introduce a measure to regulate the hours of factory labour, he had to answer that he found in his office a Bill prepared by the Honourable Member for Perth, which was intended to be laid before - the late Parliament, and which he (Sir J. G.) meant to introduce in the course of the pre sent Session, but with some alteration's materially affecting infant labour, that was, the labour of chil dren between the ages of nine and thirteen ; and also in some respects altering the clauses re gulating the hours of labour of young persons. but (as we understood the Right Hon. Baronet, who was almost inaudible) it was not his intention to in troduce a Bill which embraced the regulations desired 1 in certain quarters, where they were particularly de sirous to diminish the period of labour to ten hours. Lord ASHLEY begged to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether, in introducing regulations for the hours of labour of children between the ages of nine and thirteen, the Government would adopt the sug gestions of the Committee which sat in 1840 ? Also, if he intended to diminish the hours of labour of per sons between the ages of 13 and 18 ? Sir J. GRAHAM was not at present able to go into the details of the measure the Government meant to introduce, but at the proper time he would explain. At present he did not mean to introduce a Bill gene rally altering the hours of labour. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. Captain PECHELL begged to ask whether the measure the Government meant to introduce on this subject, would embody the provisions submitted to the House last Session. Sir R. PEEL begged the .1-ion. Gentleman to have patience until he saw the measure the Government meant to introduce. It would be exceedingly incon venient to state now what were the details of the measure they would bring forward. Capt. PECHELL —Would the Right Hon. Baronet then say when he would bring his measure forward ? Sir R. PEEL would communicate the intelligence privately to the Hon. Gentleman, who might then use his own discretion. GOVERNMENT LVFORMERS. Mr. O'CONNELL begged to draw the attention of the Secretary for Ireland to the confession of the murderer Delahunt, lately executed in Dublin, and who stated that his sole motive for swearing away the lives of innocent people, charged with the most atrocious crimes, was, that he should be paid and supported by Government. Now he (Mr. O'Connell), wished to ask whether it was the intention of Government,• to alter this system of patronage, which had, especially since the late wretch's disclosure, excited a very strong feeling in Ireland ? Lord ELIOT admitted that some crimes must be attributed to the temptations held out by this system to depraved persons ; but he feared that in the exist ii:;; state of Ireland, and having due regard to the administration of justice, the practice could not be altogether discontinued. Witnesses must be procured to convict persons guilty of capital crimes, and unless those witnesses were, provided with support, and assured of personal safety, it would be very difficult to get them. However, he (Lord E.) should not hesitate to say that this subject should come under the careful consideration of Government, and if any alteration or step towards the abolition of the system could be effected, he should be most willing to undertake it, though, at present, he could not hold out much hope. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Mr. C. BULLF.R. begged to ask the Right Hon Baronet whether it was the intention of Government to introduce a Bill to alter the jurisdiction of r the Ju dicial Committee of the Privy Council ; particularly, whether it was intended to append a new judicial office to it ? Sir R. PEEL assured the lion. Gentleman, that the reports he might have seen referring to this latter pobit were entirely without foundation. He (Sir Robert Peel) thought, before any altera tion was attempted in this Court, they should wait to see the effects of the recent improvements in the Court of Chancery, to which two new judicial officers had been added. It should also be remem bered that last year the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council made great attempts to reduce its arrears of appeals, and that there were now but fifteen cases ready for hearing in it. The addition of the two new officers and the Vice-Chancellors' Court would tend also to keep . these arrears down. The appointment of the two new Vice-Chancellors in the Court of Chancery had produced a great reduc tion in the arrears of business in the Chancery Court. Those arrears had already been reduced from 500 to about 200, and as it was probable that the Vice-Chancellors might hereafter have more leisure time at their disposals so as to enable them to take a more active part in the proceedings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council than the - did at pre sent, it was desirable that any measure affecting the appellate jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be postponed for the present. He believed the legal portion of the business of the Judicial Committee was in a satisfactory state. COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH TEXAS. Mr. O'CONNELL wished to ask if the commer cial treaty entered into by the late Government, with the Republic of Texas, had been confirmed by the present Government ? Sir R. PEEL—No, I think not. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Mr. F. MAULE wished to ask if it was the inten tion of the Right Hon. Baronet, or some other Member of her Majesty's Government, to bring in any mea sure in reference to the state of the Church of Scot land? Sir ROBERT PEEL would, when he had any such measure in contemplation, give ample notice of it.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) It was hardly fair to call upon her Majesty's Government to admit or disclaim an intention of bringing forward a mea sure ofthe nature alluded to. Should any such measure be determined on he would give ample notice of it be fore its introduction. For himself, he must admit that he was at present against the introduction of any such measure.—(Hear, hear.) CHURCH EXTENSION. Mr. HAWES was about to put a question to which he hoped he should obtain a more definite answer than had been given by the Right Hon. Baronet to his Right Hon. Friend—(Laughter)—and so was desirous of ascertaining from the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, if it was his intention to bring under the consideration of the House, during the present Ses sion, the subject of Church extension ? Sir ROBERT INGLIS said it certainly was his intention to call the attention of the present Parlia to the subject of Church extension, as he had done that of the late Parliament; for he had never wavered in his opinion as to the importance of that measure. Mr. B. HAVES—During the present Session ? Sir R. INGLIS—In the course of the present Session. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1842. SPANISH CLERGY. Lord J. MANNERS wished to know whether it was the intention of the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin to submit any motion to the house on the subject of that persecuted body of men, the Spa nish clergy. Mr. O'CONNELL said it was his intention to do so, for hisbelieved there was no class of men more en titled to the sympathy of the House. COLONIAL IMPORT DUTIES. Mr. LABOUCHERE asked the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) what course he intended to pursue with regard to a notice, to which he saw his name attached, for to-morrow, respecting the duties payable on articles imported into British Colonies. He apprehended that he only intended to lay his plan on the table of the House, and not to ask the House to express an opinion on it. This was the usual and the most convenient course, and he apprehended it was the one the Hon. Gentleman intended to adopt. Mr. GL A.D STONE said the Hon. Gentleman was quite correct in his supposition. He should lay his plan fully before the House before he asked it to come to any vote on the subject. The Appropriation Acts Amendment Bill went through Committee. THE RIGHT OF DISCUSSING PETITIONS. Mr. WALLACE rose to bring under the consi deration of the House the motion of which he had given notice, relative to the right of discussing the pe titions of the people at the time of their presentation. He begged leave, in the first place, to state the former practice of the House. Ile had had a seat in that House since the year 1833, and it was the custom, for some time subsequent to that period, for Members to enter into details respecting the opinions advanced in the petitions of their constituents. That had been the 1 law for years, and it had prevailed under the Speaker ! ship of Mr. Manners Sutton. He did not mean to say that great inconvenience had not arisen from Members pushing this privilege beyond the bounds of prudence, while he did mean to say that the refusal to allow Members to speak at all upon the presenta tion of petitions was unjust to their constituents, and led to an improper suppression of public opinion in that House. It appeared to him to be a selfish course. instead of a direct discharge of a public duty. There were, no doubt, many persons in the House who wished that their time should not be occupied at all by the presentation of petitions, but who wished that they should merely be laid on the table of the House. or who were ready, at most, to allow a few words of them, with the prayer, to be read. Now that was not the way in which the people expected their petitions would be treated.—(Hear, hear.) They did not wish to see them lying in hundreds upon the table, and crammed into a bag, while not the slightest at tention had been paid to their contents. lie did not intend to complain in any way of the conduct of their Chief Cleric, who duly discharged the duty im posed upon him. It was the Act of Parliament of which alone he complained. Ile had already told the House that there had been a time when the petitions of the people were treated with the greatest respect. But the last Parliament—a Parliament to which he indivi dually felt it was no honour to belong—a do-nothing, poor, and inefficient Parliament, to the labours of which he was exceedingly sorry that he had devoted his time and his health—that Parliament it was which abridged the rights of the people in regard to the discussion of their petitions in the House. He did not mean to advocate any waste of the time of the House, on the contrary, he wished to discharge his duties, as far as he'was concerned, with justice to his constituents • but he did not wish to be m uzz l e d, and muzzled he had been in that House since the 7th of February, 1839. He had de clared at the commencement of each preceding Session that he would call the attention of the house to that subject, but he had had such respect for the majority of the House, that he had refrained from pressing it upon them. He no sooner saw the late Parliament succeeded by another, which was strong in number to do what it might deem expedient, than he resolved to bring this question under the consideration of the House. The Parliament which had in this respect taken away the liberties of the people was designated a Whig Parliament; the present was designated a Tory Parliament. The vote of that night would show which had most respect for the liberty of the subject—for the right of petitioning, which he held to be one of the highest privileges. What new Members might observe at the present time was no criterion as to what might be expected at a later period of the session. At present they were upon their good behaviour—(A laugh)—they were only at the commencement of the session, they had not got into that immense run of business, which made every Member anxious to drive another out of his way. The time would come when the petitions of the people would be pushed un der the table in a manner that would quite astonish new Members. He was quite aware how important it was that the public business should commence as early as possible, and he was as anxious that that object should be secured as either the present Ministers of the Crown or their predecessors in office could possibly be. But he was still more anxious that the rights and privileges of the people should not be infringed upon. At a future period of the session, when the months of June and July had arrived, there would be from 50 to 60 Bills a month brought before the House at least, if the present Government acted as their predecessors had done. Hon. Members would be told that when a petition was desired to be particularly considered it might be printed with the Votes. He begged to tell them that his right to have them printed had been success fully disputed in the last Session. In the case of a petition which he presented from Kelso he moved that it should be irinted with the Votes, and it was ordered to be so ; his name was put upon the list, but the Session was turned over, and he never had an oppor tunity of bringing on the petition. It sometimes happened, frequently with the petitions presented from Scotland, that the Clerk was unable to read the names. Would any man tell him that if the names of the places from whence petitions had been presented were not read to the House distinctly, and if Hon. Members did not un derstand what the names were, or where the places were, from which such tvNi eve p rat e eli t it i a ei t to i hn oi sy s ndw l , eVeeresieir. erepep(rpireresesestenehnntaettAtedd in f rt t o h ma a l ; i i it tt presentinghec oeouruelldd. be said that they were properly presented? If the House i n d _ t i ) o r d t e b n e o h t said a k i i d;t i v h r . a: all petitions to the House, for the future, there should be a very stringent rule, no matter whether there was to be a discussion upon the subject or not. The rule should be that those who presented petitions should state, generally, their contents, the prayers of those _peti tions, and the objects or wishes of th e petitioners. That should be strictly the right of the Members of the House, whether a collision of opinion or a discussion had taken place. He (Mr. Wallace) did not hesitate in saying that the present mode of dealing with the rights of the people was unjust towards them, and inconvenient to the House, and he hoped that they should be attended to for ever. Though he was not in a majority he would take the sense of the House upon the subject, he would adhere to the notice of motion he had given, and would c n o o m t m ch u a n nge a imtedwsoormdeothf ng to A i‘ n irl Hon vt s i ta a ir ee be ov l ho M p e r m oc he ee r he de t dt n o say, that he would adopt the suggestion of his Honourable Friend ) who had just told him that the rule of the House should be read upon the subject of presenting petitions; he therefore submitted that that was the proper time to have the rule of the House read, and he wished the Speaker would direct the Clerk to do so. Mr. Ley having read the Order of the House with respect to the presentations of petitions. Mr. WALLACE said that he thought the most con venient way would be for him to move that that resolu tion should be rescinded, as that would bring the ques tion more properly before the consideration of the House. Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the motion. Sir ROBERT INGLIS thought that the Hon. Gen tleman was not a ware o f t h e a b sorpt i on of the time of the House which would be occasioned if his motion were successful. The number of petitions presented last Session was 16,80 1—(11ear)—and if each of these was accompanied by only one speech, of two minutes, it would he impossible for the House to attend to any other business. But surely if the Hon. Member presented a petition from Kelso, he could not refuse to allow the Member for the county to have a two minutes' speech in reply to his.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Did the Hon. Member consider that the practice which he. wished to establish would (if his own principle were carried out to the fullest extent) entirely destroy the le gislative functions of the House ; for it was not possible in the course of nature that they could do anything but discuss petitions ?—(Hear, hear.) But, after all, what benefit would the Hon. Member's friends in Kelso for instance, derive from a six hours' debate upon the petition ?—(Hear.) The Hon. Member thought they would be indirectly benefited by the public attention being brought to their case. But the legitimate mode of doing that was by a specific motion. — (Hear, hear.) The number of petitions presented the year before last was upwards of 18,000, and their titles alone occupied a folio page closely printed. Now, if the discussions upon each of these occupied only two minutes (and he was sure that the Honourable Member for Greenock, would not be contented to restrict even his own speech to that time, to say nothing of an answer), what other business could be got through ? If the Hon. Member had no sympathy for the 40 or 50 Bills brought in last June and July by his friends, the late Ministers, surely he might have some for the private Bills of his own friends in Scotland. Besides there was an understanding that petitions of importance might be included in the Votes, and discussed. But a large majority of those so printed had never been brought on. On all considerations he should oppose the motion. Mr. ROEBUCK said the sole argument brought against the proposition of his Hon. Friend was, that it would cause an absorption of the time of the House. Now he would suggest to the Honourable Gen tleman opposite a course that he (Mr. Roebuck) might now pursue under the present regulation, if he were desirous of absorbing the time of the House. Whenever a petition was proposed to be laid on the table, he might divide the House on the question that it "do lie " on the table ? On that point he might divide the House, as he might wish to place his vote on the records of the House. The lion. Gentleman also said that he had a right to make the Clerk read every petition presented to the House, but was it ever done ? The Hon. Gentleman truly said it was physically impossible Gentlemen .in this respect were regulated by the feelings of the House, and would not come forward to discuss the subject matter of petitions contrary to the feeling of the House. Ho would put it to the Honourable Gentleman whether he was not much moize likely to obtain a clear and pro per understanding of the opinions of the people of this country, if the proposition were adopted. Every man in that House did not fancy him self a speaker, and was not prepared to come down to the House with a set oration ; but he does come down with the petition of his consti tuents, and prepared with their statements as contained in the petition : he gets ready those statements in a certain form of words, and is able to ex press them to the Members of the House, and the people of this country. He comes prepared to state that much, and not to make a set oration ; and thanks be to God, he did not.—(Laughter.) lie comes to set forth the opinions of his constituents, and that was much better done viva voce, than by the bare form " let it lie on the table." Under the present regulations, the people of this country do not petition—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—he would even say that they cannot petition. The lion. Gentleman had said that during the last year there were 18,000 petitions ; how many .of them were on one subject ? That of Church Extension; perhaps, or on the Corn-laws? Did he suppose that if he (Mr. R.) has 20 petitions to present on the Corn-laws, he should make twenty speeches.—(Hear, hear.) But if the Hon. Member was impressed with the peculiar importance of the petition, he ought to come forward and state it. It was said that lie might state the substance of the petition, but that would not answer the purpose. The substance of the petition merely stated the grievance complained of, but did not state why—did not state the reasons of that com plaint. Throe minutes would often be sufficient for that purpose, but the present practice put a stopper upon persons trying to make the petitions of the people heard. He would go further, he would say that no question assist ance. could be thoroughly discussed either by the House or the country, but upon the old established principle. He would appeal Membe r Member was Hon. fo r a Oxfordfor his Conservative—now principle of Conservatism, as he (Mr. Roebuck) understood it, was an acting upon the preceden f s of former times, an abiding by the usages of our ancestors. Now, since the Reform Bill, a new practice had been introduced in regard to the petitions of the people, sane somewhat smacking of the times in which we lived, and yet the Honourable Mem ber for Oxford had suffered it to pass unnoticed. He (Mr. R.) was now arguing, upon Conservative principles, for a return to the wholesome practice of our ancestors, and he trusted that, for consistency's sake, the Honourable Baronet the Member for Oxford would vote with him. The wants of the people would never be made known to the House while the pre sent practice was persisted in, The newspapers could not make them known to the House z the House knew nothing of newspapers. He was there, as the representative of his constituents, to State their griev ances to the House. It was said he might make a motion. To this he would reply, that lie might not have an opportunity, he might not be able to speak ; although per fectly able .to state the feelings of his constituents to the llouse, he might nothave the courage to make a set oration. lle would make use of the argnmentnm ad hominem to the llon. Member for Oxford, and claim his vote for this motion upon Conservative grounds, as a return to the practice of our forefathers. Mr. BROTHERTON thought it necessary to give his reason for voting as he intended. He had as great a regard for the right of petition as any Hon. Member could have, and would be the last to say anything to abridge it, but he was sure the present motion would not answer the purpose proposed. He had seen this House, before he was a Member of it, when the proposed plan was in full operation ; and he could state that at that time it turned out a per fect failure. The petitions were neither noticed by the newspapers nor by the Members of the House; the time of the House was occupied by a few loquacious Members, so that it was utterly impossible for the majority of the Members to present the petitions entrusted to their care. He felt bound to declare that he had attended in that House ten days successively, and he had never had an op portunity o f presenting a single petition; at this time he had seen a great number of Members with petitions, which they were anxious to present, and a feeling of justice prevented him from presenting those that he had. He considered that it would be quite impossible that a presentation of petitions could be carried on if every Member was allowed to make a speech upon every petition—(Hear, hear, hear). With respect to the observations that had been made as to the disorderly manner in which petitions were generally pre sented, lie must be allowed to say that he considered the manner in which petitions had been presented latterly was most orderly. Every Member had an opportunity of stating what were the contents of the petition which ho had to present, and he thought that that was quite sufficient ; but as to supposing that every Member was to state his own opinions on these petitions, he considered it quite absurd. He was of opinion that the people had u right to have their petitions heard and attended to, but he did not think that that could be effected by allowing Hon. Mem bers to make long speeches upon their presentation. Mr. O'CONNELL considered that the petitions of the people were treated in that House with a levity which was unbecoming. He admitted that the late practice in the presentation of petitions was an inconvenient one. He thought that a middle course should be adopted, be cause he could not but think that the practice at pre sent adopted was insulting to the people at large. The House ought to refer the question to a Committee, which would doubtless devise some means of giving a more substantial hearing to the petitions of the people, so that no one should have a right to complain, as at present, of the mockery and insult of throw ing bundles of petitions together on the table.— , (Hear, hear.) He hoped, therefore, that the House I would rescind its resolution, and follow it up by some plan which would neither trespass upon the public time nor give the people reason to complain. . Sir ROBERT PEEL said that if any insult were offered to the people through the present mode of pre senting their petitions—if there were a mockery of cere mony, to use the words of the Honourable Gentleman, by throwing bundles of petitions on the table, that was the fault of the Members who so presented them— (Hear, hear)—because the rules of the House o re :pse haduna c rt necessity.agmbeaenetn. petition eirrt ihoenl adoptedimre utliwesbtsoyu statelsd said ihd refer to eaatj o 'placera, majority oiximposed rules e P m h s b e ee d r whichlastnp whencs it came, so that if an Honourable Member were not able to pronounce the names of Irish and Scotch places,the rules gave him liberty to learn to pronounce them properly—(Laughter)—which it was his duty to do, not that of the Clerk.—( Hear.) The Member presenting a petition was bound also to state the number of signatures and the material contents of the petition. If the petition complained of personal violence, and re and discussed forthwith.—(Cries of quired immediate redress, it mig ht be entertained "Hear.) And if the subject were of a special nature, it might be printed in the Votes, and a notice of a motion on it be given. Now, if they were to return to the late system, there would be no limit to the presentation of p e titions.--L(Hear, hear.) It was true that, in the abstract, every petition had a right to be read by the Clerk, and attended .po by the House ; but it was clear, that if the Clerk was to read every petition, theit: whole time wouid be absorbed, and if Members would listen carefully, all he could say was, that this would be different from their usual course. —(Laughter.) But now the question was, did the present mode diminish the confidence of the people ? Since the rules adopted the number of petitions had increased. During the last two Sessions their average number was 17,000 each Session. Certainly they could not infer, from the increa se of p etitions, tha t the petitioners were dissatisfied with the present mode of pro ceeding. He (Sir R. Peel) believed there was no alternative between adhering to the rule and the complete relaxation of it. If they permitted individual Members to exer cise their discretion the consequence would be con tinued'debates on the presentation of petitions. Members would be much less anxious to do justice to the object of the petitions entrusted to them, than to state their Sir ir table, R o own individ ua l an d p er sonal opinions. That would eto sayhe present gallery, necessarily provoke reply; reply would provoke re joinder, and they wou ld be involved in the same diffi culties as th e y exper i enc ed from the same source so me twelve or thi rteen years ago - Mr. ROEBUCK h ere ma de some observation across the B w E h ß ic T h w r a E s E n t ot pohreacredeidn dthe order was made i n February , 183:1, during the Speaker- Ship of Mr. Manners Sutton, and the intention of it was to lead to the prevention o f debates on petitions. The question, however rea lly was, what should be conform able to public feeling and to public policy on this score. As far as public feeling was concerned, he (Sir R. Peel) • • must say there was a very general impression that their • time was sufficiently consumed in debates.—(Hear, hear.) He did not think that the country generally— that those who formed the class of petitioners to that House, would wish them to devote more of their time to debating, and less to the performance of practical busi ness. If it was found that night after night was con sumed in preliminary discussions leading to the postpone ment of legislation, he (Sir R. Peel) did not believe that the people would be satisfied. It was for them to strike a balance between the advantages and disadvantages, and from the experience he had of the working of the pre sent rule he would give it his support. Mr. WAKLEY said there was a mode of redressing the grievance complained of, which was by consulting more the feelings of the people. If this were done there would be far fewer petitions presented; but, acting in opposition to the people, the consequence was that they must petition. The Right Honour able Baronet considered that Ministers had little or no peculiar interest in discussing the petitions of the people. Yet there were no persons in the House who were so deeply interested in discussing their grievances as the Ministers of the Crown. The late Ministry considered this their duty, and they most , minutely examined them. Numbers of petitions were presented against them, a large number praying their re moval. They could not have been pleased to hear or discuss those petitions. In this case the Right Hon. Baronet stated that they ought to look at the question practi cally ; they should do so, and with a view to the inte rest of the community generally. He would ask if the mode at present adopted were consistent with the views of petitioners ? He had seen a large bundle of petitions, thirty in number, presented by an Hon. Gentleman, all relating to one subject, and this occupied but half a mi nute. Considering the anxiety of people out of doors on public questions, the expense of petitioning, and the great expectations entertained of the results of their discussions, what would be the feelings of petitioners, when the grievances and opinions of thirty public meet ings were presented in half a minute, scarcely the names of the places being mentioned ? This was altogether far eke], and unworthy of that assembly. There was a mode of lessening the number of petitions, as well as improv ing their practice, and that was shortening the duration of .Parliament. They should go back to their constitu ents more frequently. At present they had a lease for seven years, and the unfortunate persons who sent them have to pray of us to alter our proceedings, but when they come with their complaints no discussion takes place. This is the House of the people, and this the course they take ; but what is the course of the other House, who, as an hereditary House, do not pretend to represent the people ? In this House those who pretended to represent the people were gagged and muzzled, and were not allowed a single comment upon a petition, unless it contained what was called a personal grievance ; then, if it did contain a personal grievance, it was requisite to bring a motion betbre the House upon that, and it was notorious to Hon. Members that such a motion was set down night after night, and week after week, before it could be entered into, yet nothing was done to get rid of so crying a grievance. He had seen personal griev vances brought forward in both Houses of Parliament, on the same night ; in the House of Lords, those motions would be entered into and considered, whilst in this House no notice would be taken of them: He remem bered, some time ago, that a motion of this kind was brought forward by his Hon. Friend, the Member for Westminster, in that House, and by Lord Brougham in the other House. In the House of Lords Lord Brougham was allowed to state his grievance, and the account of it occupied three columns of the morning newspapers ; whilst, in the House of Commons, a few minutes was all the space allowed to his Hon. Friend, the Member for Westminster, for the recital of his grievance. He (Mr. Wakley) should.cin future entreat the people not to present any more petitions to the House of Commons, but to take them all to the Upper House. It was there they would be heard and listened to ; it was here that they could not be considered. He (Mr. Wakley) was one who had taken upon himself, in the year 1836, the responsibility of recommending that an amendment of the practice of the House should take place. If the Speaker's time ,were so much occupied, a deputy Speaker might be appointed, that they might sit there at an early hour to consult on measures for the interests of the people. Sir WALTER JAMES then rose, amidst loud cries of " Divide." He would only take notice of one re mark which had just fallen from the Hon. Member op posite (Mr. Wakley). He had, indeed, stated several things in which he (Sir W. James) could not concur. He could agree with the Hon. Member opposite that that House ought to represent the people, and that they ought to study the wishes and interests of the people ; it was their business to look after the people's interests, and the question now was, whether they were to conduct their affairs in a business-like way, or to delay their affairs in a tedious and vexatious way ? Sir V. BLAKE supported the motion of the Hon. Member for Greenock. The ancient right of the peo ple, relative to the presenting of petitions, had been curtailed in that House, and he thought there should be every reasonable license for discussing them, on their presentation. Mr. WALLACE rose amidst loud cries of " Di vide." He was well aware that the House at that mo. went was against him. In reply to certain objections which had been made to his motion, he begged to ob serve that never had there been more business done than in the years 1833, 1834, and 1885. when the right to discuss petitions was exercised and admitted. He be lieved that the time of th e House would not be uselessly wasted in debates on petitions. What the people com plained of was the monstrous practice of delaying a sin gle point for four or five nights, ,for purposes of party triumph. He had no doubt but that the leading parties on each side of the House had already arranged between them the weeks' debate, which was to be continued from Monday till Friday next, as they used to do last Session.—(Hear.) Now that was the abuse of' time of which the public complained. The people did not ob ject to the time spent in doing their own work, but the time consumed in Ministerial work and trickery. The people should have their political food given to them day by day, or they would not take it at all. He was cer tain he brought before the House a proper proposition, but as it had been overruled by the Speaker he should abide by that. He thought the matter should be re ferred to a Committee, from which he expected the greatest good. He begged to tell the Right Hon. Ba ronet opposite that he did not wish to take up the time of the House, and that he would be content himself not to occupy more than two minutes on presenting a peti tion, which he thought would be sufficient for all persons who had not very dull brains.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He adhered to the motion which was put, and he would divide the House upon it. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the motion 5O Against it Majority against the motion — 187 LOAN SOCIETIES. Mr. M. SUTTON obtained leave to bring in a g i rl 'to explain and continue, until the Ist of August, 1843, the Act to amend the laws relating to Loan Societies. LIBRARY COMMITTEE. Sir R. INGLIS moved the re-appointment of the Library Committee. Mr. WILLIAMS commented on the needless expense in printing a number of Reports and documents which were read by nobody, and were generally sold for waste paper. He should wish to call the attention of the Hon. Baronet to this subject. He also wished to be established an entire new system of appointing the Committees of the House, as a different plan was very much needed. As an example of a better system, he would take the plan adopted by the House of Representatives of the United States. There they appointed Committees at the commencement of the session, and there was no in stance of the same person being appointed on two Com mittees. In this House, if any Hon. Member wished for an inquiry into any subject, he moved for a Committee, and he takes care to place on it a majority of Members entertaining his own views of the question ; he selects men of the best abilities, and the best conversant with the subject on his own side, but, to preserve an appearance of impartiality, some men of opposite opinions were se lected, but they were generally taken from among those who were likely to pay the least possible attention to the subject. The consequence is, that the Committees had not that weight and influence with the House which they ought to have, as many of them were merely moved for to gratify some crotchet of a particular Member, without having any practical object to carry out. Sir R. INGLIS said that the House had concurred without discussion in the course which he had proposed for the last seven years. The objections of the Hon. Mem ber for Coventry did not apply to the present practice of the House in respect to Committees. It used to be the practice to appoint the same Member upon several Com mittees ; as, for instance, his Right Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, used to be appointed upon every Committee ; for his services, however short the time he could devote to each, were considered of the highest value. But now no Member was appointed to two Committees. There used to be sometimes forty Members on a Committee, but lately the number of ' Members on each Committee was not more than fifteen or sixteen ; and on the Library Committee there was no necessity for so many, as their functions were very few. Yet it was necessary to re-appoint them every Session. With respect to the second Committee, he could say that he should hare no objection whatever that the name of any other Hon. Gentleman should be substituted for his. As for the third Committee, that on printing, the Secre tary fur the Treasury generally nominated the Members, composing it, and would doubtless give the best expla nation respecting it. He (Sir R. Inglis) had no objec tion whatever to withdraw from thiS either ; but he pre ferred that some one else should state why he should be on the Library Committee. Dr. BOWRING complained of the very bad attend ance of members of the Committee on petitions last year. The Committee on printing, however, was regularly at tended. He thought that every Member nominated to the Committee on petitions should give a pledge to attend, if chosen, for the matters referred to it were of very great importance. Sir R. INGLIS said that when he was Chairman of that Committee, he read every petition that was referred to them by the House. Mr. E WART bore testimony to the conscientious manner in which the Right Hon. Baronet discharged his duties. He (Mr. E.) thought the reduction of the num ber of Committees from 40 to 15 was a good, rather than an evil, .as it increased the responsibility of the Mem bers; and if the latter number were reduced to seven it would be a still greater improvement, for the same reason. No gentleman ought to be appointed a member of a Committee who had not first promised to attend to the duties of it, and he thought that no person ought to be a member of two Committees at tbe same time. On the motion of Sir R. INGLIS, the following Mem bers were then appointed :—Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Robert Peel, Lord , John Russell, Mr. Baring, Mr. Williams Wynn, Mr. Itutherfurd, Mr. Shaw, Lord Viscount Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone, Dr. Stock, Mr. Acland, Colonel Fox, Mr. , G. Knight, Lord Viscount Mahon, and Mr. Pendarves.' I Sir R. INGLIS then moved the appointment of the following Members as a Select Etommittee on public pe titions : —Mr. George William Wood, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Greene, Mr. Edward Buller, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Owen Stanley, Mr. Pusey, Mr. Charles Howard, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Cap tain Jones, Lord Viscount Duncan, Sir Charles Douglas, Lord Fitzalan, and Mr. Buckley. Mr.WAKLEY trusted that his Hon. Friend the Mem ber for Coventry would not object to haire his name in 3erted in the list. As the Committee was now consti tuted, the petitions were not likely to receive very fair or generous treatment unless his Hon. Friend were amongst the number. After the statement that he was often the only Member present, he hoped his Hon. Friend would accept the office, though perhaps he would not find it very profitable. Mr. ROEBUCK said he believed he was perfectly cor rect in stating that under the old rule respecting the public petitions, there were four separate stages in which they might be discussed ; he believed he was only stating what was known to every Member, when he said that no question was ever propounded excepting that of an adjournment without a debate. Sir R. PEEL said, that in the observations he had made, he had referred not to the forms, but to the usage, of the House. According to the forms of the House, on a motion being made that a petition lie upon the table, a Member might, if he were so inclined, avail himself of his privilege. It would be seen, on referring to the de bates in Parliament, that there had been very few debates upon the presentation of petitions. Mr. WILLIAMS did not wish to persist in having his name withdrawn from the list. The Committee was then appointed, five to be the quorum. On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the following Selec Committee on Printing was rppointed—Sir Geo. Clerk Sir Robt. Harry Inglis, Mr. l'usey, Mr. Vernon Smith Viscount Mahon, Mr. Tufnell, and Mr. Patrick Stewart COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS. Mr. EMERSON TENNENT, liavin - g — moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the laws affect ing the Copyright of Designs for the ornament of arti cles of manufacture, Mr. WILLIAMS said that it was not his intention to take up the time of the House at that stage of its proceed ings; but as he had during the last session taken a very decided course in opposition to any alteration of the pre .ent law, he could not allow that opportunity to pass without stating that he still entertained the same 'aostility to such a change. He was persuaded that the Hon. Member for Belfast, if he had been thoroughly ac quainted with the subject, or if he had been a man of business,would never have interfered with the existing law. For forty years no change had taken place, and it was very remarkable that during the depression of last year this branch was the one in which the exports for the last year exceeded those of the preceding. He should not be so anxious if the Bill of the Hon. Member only affected the home trade, but he feared his proposition would strike at the root of the foreign trade also. He believed that the Bill would have that effect, if it resem bled, as he was led to think it did, the Bill which the Hon. Gentleman introduced last Session. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House. Mr. E. TENNENT said that present Bill - was the same in effect as the one of last Session. There were, however, some alterations, for he meant to'extend the time of the continuance of the copyright to nine months, and not a twelvemonth, as in the former Bill. Some alterations in the details, as suggested by` the Board of Trade, would also take place. The Hon. Member con cluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to the Copyright of Designs. An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, objected to the Bill as being injurious to the manu facturers who lived at a distance from the registry-office. After a few words from Mr. GREEN, which were in audible in the.gallery, Dr. BOWRING said there were many difficulties in this country which did not exist in other places. In. France, for example, the Prudhommes undertook the re gistration of designs. It had been found in this country that the cost of obtaining redress for those whose inven tions had been interfered with was so great as to render italmost impossible for designers to obtain redress. He (Dr. Bowring) wished to have two evils remedied—first, that there should be a means of general registration ; and, second, that there should be economical means of redress in cases where inventions had been invaded. Mr. MARK PHILLIPS stated that he had been on the Committee last year, and he could only say to his Honourable Friend that time and reflection had con firmed him in the justness of the views which he then en tertained. He should offer no objections to his intro duction of the bill—he could only hope that a question of so much importance should be fairly brought before the House. Mr. EMMERSON TENNENT, in reply; stated that he thought it would be the most convenient course to postpone all discussion as to the details of the measure until the second reading of the Bill. The resolution was then agreed to. The House resumed, and leave was given to brille in the Bill, which was accordingly brought in, and read a first time. EXPIRING LAWS COMMITTEE On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the Select Com mittee on Expiring Laws was nominated .—Sir George Clerk, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Thomas Fremantle, the Attorney-General, Mr. Pigot, the So licitor-General, Mr. Sheil, Lord Eliot, Mr. Baring, Mr. Wilson Patten, Sir George Grey, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Greene, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Home Drummond: —Five to be the quorum. NEWSPAPER STAMPS. Dr. BOWRING moved for a return of the number of stamps issued to the different newspapers in the months of October, November, and December last, and a return of the amount of advertisement duty paid by each.— Ordered. . The House then adjourned at Half-past Seven &Clock MEETING OF TORY MEMBERS. A meeting, as is reported, took place this (yesterday) morning, at Mr. Escott's house, of the Duke of Buck ingham s Members to deliberate and determine upon the course to be adopted by them with reference to their duty to their illustrious head. There were present, the two Members for Winchester, the three Mem bers for Bucks (co.), the two Members for Ayles bury, and the two Members for Buckingham. So far as the proceedings of the meeting have transpired, we are enabled to state that the utmost cordiality pre vailed. The bold and decisive conduct of the Duke of Buckingham was warmly eulogised ; and a resolution was adopted to the effect that those who owed their seats to his Grace's influence, were bound to enforce, by their speeches and votes in the House of Commons, his Grace's policy. That, while on all other questions the most effective support would be given to the Government, to the projected change in the Corn-laws the most decided and uncompromising opposition would be given. It is further rumoured that Sir Thomas Fremantle considers himself bound in honour to follow the example of his patron ; as the former resigned the Privy Seal, and th us w i t h drew from the Cabinet, on this great question, so the Hon. Member for Buckingham regards himself as bound to resign his place as Secretary to the Treasury, to show that he, like the Duke whom he represents in the House of Commons, is " the farmers' friend." Mr. Bonham is spoken of as the new S ecre t ary o f the Treasury—tb be appointed so soon as he can obtain a seat in Parliament, for which he is anxiously looking. --Liberal Paper. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING. PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—There is discord already in King Agra= mont's camp. The dupes are finding out that they are dupes, as we told them they would, long ago. The organs of monopoly in the press are repeating what the mouthpiecei of monopoly in the House were muttering last Friday evening. " A sovereign shame so elbow'd them," as they elbowed each other, and sat marking the subdued but significant hints of desertion of their cause by the Premier, that they have ever since been denouncing him as about to repeat the game of 1829, and abandon their acres„as he betrayed their religion. The landed organs, London and provincial, seem tending towards the same course. The Herald grumbles " If, in addition to the impolicy of considering the Corn-law as an iso lated subject, there are indications of a design to cow sider that law improperly, then ought the sensitiveness of the nation to be doubly aroused." The Bucks Gazette, his Grace of Buckingham's particular organ, thus accounts for his resignation : " The Duke of Buckingham pledged himself to the agriculturists to maintain, in or out of office, such an amount of duty on foreign corn as he considered aie quate protection to the home grower. Now, had such en amount been proposed and carried in the Cabinet as the Noble Lord deemed protection, he would, of course, have assented to it, and remained a Cabinet Minister. The fact of his resignation suffices to prove that the re duced scale proposed was not protective in the Duke's estimation, and that therefore he resigned. The agricul tural body have much to regret in this result, for it augurs no good to their interest, by which the Duke has stood unflinchingly and consistently since he first commenced his public career, We shall not speculate on the pre cise objections made by his Grace to the scale proposed, but we may be sure that, with his desire to preserve the unity and strengthen the plans of a Conservative Admi nistration, he would have given way had such a course been consistent with his determination to stand by the farmers. And we do fear that when the reduced slid ing scale' shall be made public, that the agriculturists will soon detect the grounds of the Duke of Bucking ham's refusal to acquiesce in it." Another Buckinghamshire paper, in the Liberal in terest, the Aylesbury News, gives the foißowing account of the effect produced on the Tories of that county by his Grace's resignation The Buckinghamshire Tories, ever since Tuesday last, havelooked dreadfully chapfallen and disconsolate. Whether this is because they fear that they have lost a share of the Government patronage, or because they fear that they are again to be ' sacrificed ;' or because they dread the effect of the change in developing the character of their ducal leader, and causing disaffection i their ranks, we cannot say. It is certainly true that t:ie Tories of this county, whatever the country gene rally may think of the affair, feel the resignation of the Duke of Buckingham to be a heavy blow and great dis couragement to them and their hopes. What the effect may be on the constitution of the great Tory party in t'ais county, time will show. To us it is a matter of deep EVENING SUN which Buckingshire to advantae oth regret that there is no organised party of Liberals .in. must soo ha n n m ecessarily take take place in g the f domi e nant split faction of this county." STANDARD.—Who does not remember the so lemn warning given against the prosecution of Affghanistan war by the greatest military authority living, or that ever lived—by one, too, who had spell his youth and formed his manhood, and reapeo his first laurels, destined to be overshadowed by tir brightest wreath that ever adorned a conqu eror 5 brow, in Asiatic war ? Who does not remember tllle Duke of Wellington's solemn and earnest, and . I "' most angry remonstrance against the prosecution of hostilities at a distance so remote from our re sources as Central Asia ? We cannot pretend do recal his Grace's words—and at the moment we a u not know where to look for. them. This was , how ever, the spirit of the warning :—" You will succeed in the first instance ; of that there can be n o doubt, when you have British officers and British troor; but to what will your success - conduct you ? will you, at such a distance from your resource try, muster a force large enough to occupy the coun or how will you bring back so large a force in safety 9,11110 with honour ?" This was the warning given t Duke of Wellington; a man whose transcendln. iv military genius those who have most freclugntit questioned his views in civil policy admit w"":" reserve—a man who, often blamed for sacrifielbn.9 party interests to a sense of duty, determined 1 1 0 1 , personal judgment, has never been even once 8,0 petted of proffering an opinion for a factious or e% a party purpose. This was the warning and importunately pressed by such an authority n,e such a man. It was despised by, we firmly, be lies o i the only individuals living sufficiently destituteiate modesty and wisdom to despise it. T he t he Ministers despised the military authority o f 15 73 Duke of Wellington, and now the country 13 -s - Ve the penalty of enduring such Ministers so long. 0 confess that we cannot dwell upon the dissstre theme with the temper in which it becomes lig to t giu o dress our readers ; the lives of the late Cabinet wer, e h n o s olemn • L t worth the hundredth part of the calamity th a r" g h already visited the British arms, solely thrc)ue their criminal stupidity and self-conceit—sol el Y h t :re say, through their stupidity and 'self-conceit ; for 0 ; mark, there has been no blunder of command e ,f)o diplomatists, no treachery of allies ; least of n" f there been any slackness or cowardice on the the soldiers engaged. All the subordinates hav e t he charged their duties not merely well, but nobly' cep' of defeat and disgrace was in the original eon , rt e tion of the plan of the war, as the Duke of Welli n ,,b,ot said it was, and for that none can be in the sl i g ht responsible but the late Ministers. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb' Feb.' COYLE V. BRADBURN. 011 of This' was an action of trover to recover the posses' documen tin the hands of the defendant. PI' Mr. Mr. CHAMBERS stated the plaintiff's case, who is ctio t he the widow of an officer in the Spanish Legion, kili e f , 0 th e , late civil war in that country. She had obtained '" asa Spanish ,Government two certificates, one as a penarl , 4, 6 the other for arrears of pay, amounting to 1411. 7s- 1 ' Do entered into an arrangement with the defendant, t e oie' vanced her 351. upon the latter certificate. When, t ',.'„sa t ' of the certificates afterwards rose, she applied to the de 1 ,70 who informed her that he had sold the certificate, and, L od . had her own authority for so doing, which the plainti° The defendant was asked to show the authority upon `Y, h mit e made the sale, which he refused. A tender of 3.5/. W i l so cer t ' rest was then made to the defendant, which he wouldn°`,,, r oei' John Holloway, managing clerk to the plaintiff's a", 00; proved the demand of the certificate and the tender of the: j tbP Mr, Goraldo, a clerk to the Spanish Commission, pr oe d,, q a certificate was granted to Mrs. Coyle for 1411. IS. tbr e , e the 31st of December, 1839. Upon similar certificats: is ,1% instalments had been paid. The whole was to be Pa id instalments. The plaintiff's case having closed, t, and Mr. Cuaav addressed the Court for the defende ri t ,i t s t`' read a letter of the plaintiff to the defendant, desiring ' do the best he could with the certificate. SP" "1, Charles Black, an agent, proved that the value of iv fe certificates was not more than from 20 to 30 per cen t ' VI bruary, 1840, but they ro s e cons id era bl y hi g h er a fter- o , o o' instalments had been paid, an d th e o th er three•maY sfi`! from 60 to 70 per cent . The price rose after some ut tl wen,' which took place respecting Spanish securities in par ~ i Dr. Barry proved that h e b oug h t S pan i s h ce rtifie t i e t 7 March, 1840, for '25 per cent. Did not know the v a l. 0° those instalments which r ema i ne d unpa id . There $ lll- 4 . market for them at present. Th e y were a mer e " f" ° tide." •He dealt considerably in part - ish certificates - William Smith, a clerk to the defendant, proved that"; th e authorised to sell certificates for'him. Could not sal or certificate-in question was among those he sold. fia,c l „attv., versation with Mrs. Coyle, who expressed dissatisfaet°-I:g* sale of her certificate: , - He did know where the certifie a now. The plaintiff's case having closed, His rotiii'snie,emmed up, and directed the Jury to 6` , l lf' the plaintiff, but to *hat amount it was for them to dete r ', r She was clearly entitled to the three instalm e nts whio' n fth e paid, though there appeared no m a l e fides on the Pal ;jet t defendant, he having paid the full price for the ceril ile ota g the time he got it. t did not seem that the - plainti ff ' 9 was sufficient authority for him to sell it. e Verdict for the plaintiff 1221., minus the 351. origiln d lf by the defendant. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 7 • , BENNET V. RHODES. et; , This was an action brought by the plaintiff for the rep t ,¢' 401., the balance of a sum of 501. claimed by him, for sersn" formed for the defendant, who was the proprietor of the C c° Tavern, in the Strand. r tP / Mr. PLATT (with whom w as Mr. Lee), stated the cas e ' o o g plaintiff. It appeared that in the summer of the Year t ! 1)1 , defendant became acquainted with the plaintiff, who No s r i time a steward on board one of tlie stearn.vessels in the ri ve ;o was known as a very civil, cievn, And attentive person , ',or defendant, on becoming acquainted with his character, "to,of sirious of engaging his services for the management of h!'tpe bey Accordingly, in the month of November, Bennet entered he P oi vice of Mr. Rhodes, and conducted the business of his ki te e - sto! ii presided at his table. He went to market, bought the e i rc i i soil p vegetables, and was especially remarkable for his skill in P° kidneys —a delicacy for Which the house became amm , . pa Jt' l , deavoured to make himself agreeable to the guests, and he tick'`,, additional merit of singing a very good song. The honse'till ter was celebrated for its conviviality, w as not usua ll y c losed to gell'i or three o'clock in the morning ;_ and these late hourst,,, ; lo, l , with the fatiguing nature of his duties, soon a fl ected the " b ", eb;, l the plaintiff, who was obliged from indisposition to loot!. be blishment in the month of April, 1840. During the ti ° ,:i s te r co been with the defendant he had never been able to settle"l4 of remuneration with him. The defendant constantly W oe o : that every thing would be arranged to his satisfaction . ..apt: o j ceived nothing until he had left the house, when the defe" — ,,, 11 0 g e, closed a rule for 101. in a letter, in which he added thal,10 1 ",„ on seeing him, to propose something for their mutual 01 1 ‘; Tye plaintiff, however, had never received any further l' etti d o f tion ; and the pr esen t act i on was brought for the ree ° , y Llil RIM of 101. a mo n th f or f our months, the plaintiff adow' o ut ` lt money he had received to be a su ffi c i ent payment for (njejot. the five months lie had been in the serv i ce o f t h e defen`: t er appeared that the plaintiff was n ow engage d at t h e Tavern, in the Strand, at a salary of three guineas a wee/t: e C ,, Henry Probat deposed that he had frequently been a t OP en hole while the plaintiff acted as manager or superinterld el' e c e j He presided at the ordinary, which was a t six o'clock in th ;et, ing, in the absence of th e defendant ; and the defenda n ' d be much pleased with the manner i n . w hi c h h e pe r form ed 5 1 t . Elizabeth Parker stated that she was now barun' t o e' x t e Exeter Hall Tavern, in the Strand. Sh e h ad f i lle d ti l e sa' at the Coal-hole Tavern, a t th e ti me t h e plaintiff was t hen "ip P 4 plaintiff used to buy the me a t an d vegetables conslo n r ej ,, Itn.4 house, and presided over its genera l management. seemed much pleased with him ; and on one occa , i n 'i, e 0 0 " heard Mr. Rhodes say that if h e h a d k nown him soon er, by that time have made a fortune. ro ot, g Mr. CROWDER, in add ress i ng the Jury for the defe ereelld tempted to show that the pl a i nt iff stopped at the tavern et " • friend of the proprietor, an d l ie had no regular en ger tilt &OW. tbo t Thomas Burke stated th a t h e h a d h eard theplaintlfr 01 , , , A , lie 04 Rhodes had lent him Si, while lie was with him, and t ",,a to anxious to repay the money. T he plaintiff appeared to 1 1 ' merely as the friend o f th e defendant. • °'' S' Wm. Rissen and Fred er i c k Ki ng, waiters at the taverivole ,• that the plaintiff went in and out as he pleased. He Was t restraint, and he acted as he lik e d on all occasions. `co lic Lord ABINGER having sum me d up, the Jury found a the plaintiff' in the sum of 101. , 7, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, VetL n to .x O , r ued 'DOHERTY. This was an action ovr for libel, alleged to have 1) se , c e i in an affidavit before the Q ueen ' s B enc h , un d er the r e e pt stances :—lt appeared that the plaintiff, having to e r s at i a challenge from the defendant, declined tiO n title' it, on the ground that the latter had be e et e ie a ls° from the British service by court-martial, and Was Doy l e to be considered as the plaintiff's equal. Sir John f or ,„ th e filed a criminal information against the defendan t ogei sent the challenge. The defendant, in showing caul: e t, n' i l r itigi; rule, put in an affidavit, in which he stat the 'da e ' circumstances under which his own dismis-sal fr, °— no 0 0 1 service took place were trivial, and Ll ta ticol n brtr disgraceful ; and, secondly, that the inn, ince with very bad grace from Sir John D ° Y.h - ,p oe List i° ,3 been himself ignominiously dismissed from cs o- jeg e l Don Pedro, for submitting to a severe per Be .: o the h - iish e ' t at the hands of General Bacon. This statement " e 'i n g P u- d f l° libel. The defendant pleaded that the affidavit b le „a, O sto te in the course of ajudicial proceeding was Priv th '' a t the et iajr actionable. The plaintiff, in replication, affirmt he yfore e a p t le; ment was false, malicious, and irrelevant, and o able. Upon this, issue was joined; and after a lonA,, da nt e s f l r tween Mr. Knowles and Mr. Millar for the def t r. jaill ees t, Thomas Wylde, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and it was r e the plaintiff, the Court decided that the :Ada , and that an action could not be maintained.. Verdict for the defendant. SILVER PLATED CORNER 1- prices of DISHES,th ew following tt with silver handles A. B. SAVORY and SONS, Manufacturing PIS ..-:"., 5. r 4 0 silversl;; tb; Cornhill, London, opposite the Bank of Ellff i l a , A na ' s jOle h;roGagaidy.vand s ilver 9 engraving the erest or coat of arms :The POW. Four T patterns and o . edges, str .ng IY - P 1 8 1 1158P.1- f°C Fl"rerstrongll- ~ p oo h n ted Pa c t o te r rn. ro u u te r Dishes and Covers ...£lO 1 Four extra D i s hes ~ 4 p extra strongly.plat-d and Covers .......... tha t Corner Dish es and Lovers 12 12 har►dl Se j N.B. The Covens are made with moveable harldilLorite they form extra dishes. Drawings of the above are fOl , Postage freeo„. to an 3, part of Great Britain or Ireland plated Corner ........ x , ~ B IRTHS. • W • in EsDtVii" Esq.,, surgeon , On thelst o inst a n. , s a o tlVoolwich, the lady o f - illia er , MARRIE:D. vll7' cbe st On the 4th inst., at St. Swithin's, Kingsgate, -, 11 1 ficifh Douglas Wynne Stuart, Esq., fifth son of the ia : to rt Archibald Stuart, of Balmeri 0, Fife, to Marca , 3 Chair Esq ., daughter of the late Francis I , ' n • es Luttrell, of the Board of Customs. "n moor in On the 6th inst., at herD DIED. in upper so n 111 311 ha Portman-square, Lady Hul , e, relict of the late 'L . ': B , c . the Right Hon. Sir Samuel Hulse, G.C.I - 1., &C" . London: Printed and Published by MU RD ,,O No. 112, Stran.l, a t Th e S u n O ffi ce, No. 102. the County of Aliddieeex, Tuesday, Feb ruary 80 YOU Stra 0 d 0 c e t c Pre, .4 l'rel fAle ttet aii t. ; i tlen Cp 1 111$ 4.11$ - - r Pro C, :14 rii st alb that th e , itar the