The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—We are yet disposed to hope that the wretch who is now the object of universal execration will not eventually escape ; but if he were taken to day it would furnish no excuse to the police, who, had they used proper means, could not fail to have had him in custody within twenty-four hours after the discovery of the offence he is suspected of. The first oversight, blameable as it really was, might, how ever, have been perhaps repaired by subsequent dili gesice ; but instead of that, the police appear to have been literally loitering at the murderer's heels; and the very fact of their having been so often close upon his track renders them much more reprehensible in hav ing never yet succeeded in coming up with him. We hear much of their vigilance, and their attention to every information that is brought to them; but their vigilance seems hitherto to have been ex hibited in running wild-goose chases in every direction that vague rumour or mischievous folly has pointed out to them. Their readiness to listen to statements consists apparently in a prompt credulity, which induces them t o lend their ears to every idle story that is brought to them, and they set out post haste to every public-house where they are told the murderer has just been, in the hope, no doubt, that he has the full intention of craning back again. Nearly half a dozen publicans have presented themselves with a declaration that the susnected man has been in their iionse, an d vA it has never occurred to them to secure him until he has been allowed quietly to walk off and then they, think proper to hurry with their , " important clue ' to the station-house. W e slieutd be inclined to regard these statements rather as attempts to advertise the public lioitsea (which, . from the present anxiety to hear anything professing to relate to the murder, are sure to be made known), than as bona fide efforts to further the cause of justice; f )r if these worthy individuals, who bring their inform ation, are so desirous to aid in the detection of the criminal, it is surely rather late to come to the autho rities with the news that "the bird has flown," when they might have caged him with ease, had they been really desirous of doing so. That the murderer can continue to live, and yet escape detection, we cannot believe ; but it will be the awful nature of his crime, which has set every man's hand against him, that will he the means of preventing him from remaining long concealed ; and it will indeed require all the vigi lance that the police can display in taking him, be tbre they can wipe out the stigma that attaches to them for permitting him to have so long eluded them. STAN .11.A.1D.—The party of which the present Premier is leader saved the agricultural body from absolute and final destruction twelve months ago ; it was natural that the farmers, therefore, should count upon that party, as friendly to all their objects, and even bound to go all lengths with them, whether ' reasonable or unreasonable, just or un;ust, after they (the farmers) had heaped upon it their acknowledg ments of gratitude. This, we say, was natural ; but many things are natural which are not reasonable; and surely it is not reasonable to convert benefits into claims of submission, even though these benefits have been gratefully acknowledged, or to charge with de ceit all who do not realise all the sanguine hopes that their former services may excite in our own inconsi &rate minds. This error is more particularly to be guarded against in judging the conduct of the Govern ment of a free country. Such a Government really be trays its duty when it acts as the Government of a class or party—betrays its duty usually more to the injury of the class or party favoured, than of any others. A free country will not long endure a party or a class Government, if for no other reason, because such a Government must, in various ways, cripple the general industry and the national energy. Then from one class or party Government follows a violent change to the Government of its opposite class or party, placed in power, animated by party feeling and strengthened by party precedents, to oppress and injure the party of its predecessors ; and in this way the political history of a country becomes but the record of reciprocal injuries, alternating from year to year. Lord Western tells the farmers that they have been deceived ; let the farmers, believing his Lordship's erroneous representation, withdraw their support from Sir Robert Peel's Administration, and they will have Lord John Russell's Government and his delusive fixed duty, and they will then learn in union workhouses and beggary by the way side, the extent of the injury from which Sir Robert Peel has protected them, and would protect them. But Sir Robert Peel has not deceived them, as ire have clearly shown. If they have deceived them selves, as Lord 'Western confesses to have deceived himself, the fault lies in the unreasonableness of their expectations. It is satisfactory to us to remember that we have been no parties to the deception. Convinced as we ever have been that the agricultural interest is im measurably the most important interest in the country, and zealously as we have always fought its battle, through good report and ill report, we haie never regarded it as the only interest entitled to protection, or asked for any unfair advantages in its beh a lf. If, as Lord Western seems to think, the agriculturalists claim more than this service, it is we, not the farmers, who have been deceived, for we thought we were engaged in a • fair and equal cause. We will not, however, doubt that the Noble Lord is mistaken ; we will still adhere to the conviction, " that live and let live" is the farmer's principle, as it is the prin ciple of every just man. COURIER. —The object of Mr. Mangles being to serve not truth but his party, and the very sore place of that party being confessedly the wretched state of Indian affairs, induced by Indian misgovernment and resulting in the deplOrable disasters of Aff ghanistan, he forthwith rushes with more haste than good speed to throW himself into the breach, hoping that on his authority assertion might be accepted for fact, at least until the manoeuvre had answered the purpose of deciding wavering votes from telling adversely on the day of division. Here is the double mode of action resorted to, as we extract the process from Mr. Martin's summary :—" Mr. Al angles says the East India Company have at this moment a loan open at 5 per cent., but he omits stat- • ing that little or no money has been lent by the public to the Indian Government, and that the 4 per cent. loan has proved an utter failure. Mr. Mangles also omits stating that all the Government securities on India are at a discount, except those on which the interest is payable in England, and that the deprecia tion extends to 17 per cent.--a circumstance unprece dented since the time of the Marquis Wellesley s just and able financial, as well as military and political government of India. The current interest on money in Calcutta is now eight to nine per cent. ; it was no mire at the close of Lord Wellesley's administration in 1805, although no public, banks then existed in India. There is not a shadow of a proof that the East India Company are raising money at a rate eenivalent to three per cent. , as stated by Mr. Man. gl e e;." Now we can testity, on the faith of the most accredited Indian papers, to the fact that, although a five per cent. loan had been opened for some time past—months even—at Calcutta and in the other Presidencies, yet that very few • subscriptions had been obtained towards filling up the list, and that, although for only four millions sterling, it w an utter failure. The Government securities in (not on, as perhaps by mistake in Mr. Martin's letter) India were moreover at a discount, as averred ; from which may at once be inferred the causes why the Government could raise no more loans, unless at a much larger sacrifice in the shape of usurious interest to lenders than the India Board world be disposed to consent to and ratify. Such are the first samples of Mr. Mangles' peculiar tact in the art of perverting or suppressing truth. This witness, during his examination, was reprimandeA by the Chairman, who said (with the concurrence of the Commit tee), if he did not give his evidence in a clearer and more satis factory manner, they should report him to the House of Com mons. The Committee adjourned at Four o'Clock to Eleven o'Clock day. PROMISSORY NOTES. (From Last Night's Gazette.) An Account of the Average Aggregate Amount of Prominory Notes payable to Bearer on Demand which have been in Circulation in the United Kingdom, distinguishing those circulated by the Bank of England, by Private Banks, am by Joint Stock Banks, in England and Wales, by the Ban in S a otland, by the Bank of Irelane, and by all other Bank in Ireland, and of the Average Amount of Bullion in the Bank of England, during the Four Weeks ending the 2d day of April, 1842, pursuant to the Act of 4 and 5 Victoria, cap. 50. ELECTION COMMITTEES. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yestertlay.) LONGFORD. The examination of tke Witnesses to the qualification having *eluded, the vote of J. Dogherty was decided to be a bad one, ong struck off the poll, and the Committee also came to the deeittion of applying to all the cases the solvent tenant test. Mr. AUSTEN then, on the part of the sitting Member (Mr. White), stated that the seat would not farther be defended, and that Wile withdrew from the contest. The i n cog is thus virtually terminated ; it only retraining for the Commi e to strike off a sufficient number of votes to give the petaioner the majority. This the Committee proceeded to do, and bad struck aff seven votes at four o'clock, when it adjourned. IPSWICH. Janes Shanders examined, stated he heard Mr. Rigby Mason address the electors from the busting'', when he said, that 2,0001., 3,000/., :or even a sacrifice of 10,0001.. should ,not stand in the way of his being returned for Ipswich. Mr. Rennie followed in a similar strain; but the witnem would not undertake to swear that he said more than "money shall b 0 needistaele in the way of our election." He alicl a person, named alter Edgley, addressed a letter to Mr. Wason, stating that he (witness) would din.lage some words which would be likely Crose-essatained b M r , to good towards him. Merabers—The 41 •C. PIIII Lies on beh alf of the sit tingPuTtort of ' he ' i what prepom t. to divulge was concerning text— a serra° %P;e t a ll thed by the Rev. Mr. Alderson. w ho took for hiss your own land, but sow not your seed among thorns." ,Zi Sunday previous to the election, an l rmwa was preached on the was attended by a number of the Liberal party. Was not suli at so large a sum as 30,000/. being s p oken of as likely to be spent at an election after what he witnessed at Norwich, where pended. He supposed the text alluded to ih e 3 o r ° „„ l i a , A w . s as . ex- Alfred Edgley was the next Witness • h mas ter in a school attached to the Revered he was Alderson 's chapel, with whom he had a misendersta r n n t Mr. to vote for the candidate whom ng'in consequence of refusing he sug gested. He was in the Libera l interest always, but n o t h ay ' received any instructions or advic e from them , he efferedZ services to the opposite party. He wrote a letter to Mr. R. Wason, staling, that if he sent him 301., he would not tome forward on the present occasion. Wolfenden, being sworn, said, a short time previous to the election his wife received two cheques for 251. each, from a person named Smith, who keeps the Suffolk Hotel. They were subsequently handed over to a person named John Man, but returned to witness's wife, soon after which they were ~ . ..,eaticiN b y, a person named Waller. ~... ovi.,ezanstned by Mr. Ninnies—The notes received in easltiy&d: ~ ' , es;; were red. These of Alexander's bank at ,!. :1 7,, 14 ,1 1 ji ' ~, • same colour. Witness's wife was at present, ‘ 414 ` 01 DU 77 . 1... some time back, unwell, and, therefore, unable / 1 - -- - - ‘ 471 "1 t # 4. " . - .tteo as a witness. ) ENGLAND. Bank of England £16,674,000 Private I3anks Joint stock Banks 3,990,656 SCOTLAND. Chartered, Private, and Joint Stock Banks .. ... 2,670,290 IRELAND. Bank of Ireland Private and Joint Stock Banks 2,259,556 Total ...X33,014,677 Bullion in th• Bank of England .... £7,006,000 HENRY L. WICKHAM. Stamps and Taxed, Aprills, 1t4.). LAW INTELLIGENCE. CO URT OF EXCHEQUER, April 15. Mr. Baron Parke, Barons Gurney, Alderson, and Rolfe, took their seats on the Bench s'aortly before two o'clock. Mr. Baron PARKE stated, for the information of Counsel, that Lord Abinger would not probably be able to take his sea; in Court for some time. (We believe his Lordship is at pre sent indisposed, and is about to leave town for Brighton.) DAINTRY v. HUTCHINSON. Mr. ANDREWs moved for a rule to show why the verdict in this case should not be set aside and a new trial granted, or why judgment should not be arrested. The case had lately been tried at Cambridge before the Lord Chief Justice, and a ver dict was found for the plaintiff. It appeared that the parties had agreed to run a match between two greyhounds for a sum of ICO/. a-side. The match, according to the terms of the agreement, was to have coma off on the Wednesday of the week of the Newmarket Meeting in the month of February, 1841. The defendant was, ready with his dog at the week originally appointed for the meeting ; but the meet ing was adjourned by the stewards. for a fortnight, in consequence of the state of the weather. The defendant did not appear on the second occasion. On the trial, however, the rules of the club were not produced for the purpose of showing that the stewards were empowered to postpone the meeting ; and this was the ground of the first part of the ap plication. In support of the motion for arresting judgment, the Learned Counsel quoted the Ifith of Charles 11., and other statutes, with a view to prove that dog matches were illegal, and that therefore the bet could not be recovered. Baron PARKE was of opinion that the agreement between the parties referred to the Wednesday of the week in which the Newmarket meeting was actually held. He could not therefore grant the first part of the application ; but the de fendant might take a rule to show cause why judgment should lot be arrested. BATON V. KINGSTON Alsil) OTHERS. Mr. THEMER moved for a rule to show cause why a non suit should not be entered in this case, or why a verdict should not be returned for the defendant. The Jury before whom the else had come at the last assizes, had returned a verdict fur the plaintiff, with one farthing damages. The case was an action for assault, to which the defendant pleaded " not guilty," by the statute 21st James the First. The plaintiff was a parish clerk; and it appeared he had incurred the displeasaro of his ecclesiastical superiors, and of the parishioners, by the irregularity or the impropriety of his con duct. It was complained, among other things, that he had refused to attend the Sacrament on two Easter Sundays. He had been reprimanded by the Vicar upon the advice of the Bishop,and he had promised on that occasion to amend his behaviour. But his conduct soon becoming as objectionable as ever, the Vicar had thought it necessary to remove him from his situation, and to appoint another individual in his place. For two or three successive Sundays, however, the plain tiff took his usual seat at church ; and so determined was be in keeping possession of it, that after he had entered in the morning he continued there daring the day ; he dined there, and had pudding brought to him by his son. At length a dis pute took place between him and the newly-appointed clerk for the seat ; and the defendant becoming violent, he was removed by forte from the church by the complainant, who was a church warden, and by others who were obliged to come to his as ' sistance. " The Court, after hearing these facts stated, granted the rule. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 15. This being the first day of term, the Lord Chief Justice, Justice. Coltman, Erskine, and Creswell, took their seats on tho bench soon after half-past one o'clock. THE PARISH OF BATTLE V. ♦INBPE. This was an action brought by the churchwardens and over seer of the parish of Battle (Sussex), to obtain possession of certain lands claimed by them as the property of the parish. The verdict was given for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Straw this day obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the grounds that improper evidence had been admitted, and that the action was not brought by the proper parties, the lawful representatives of the parish in matters of property being, the guardians of the union with which it was incorpo rated. in 1819, for the first time, the churchwardens aid overseer's of a parish were constituted a corpo ration, and the possessors of the parish property by the Act of Parliament, the 59th George 111., c. 12 ; but in 1834 the Act of the 4th and sth William IV., c. 69, com monly called the Poor-law Amendment Act, constituted the guardians of a union a corporation, and the holders of the property belonging to each pari ah in the union with full power to take all proceedings at law respecting such property as if it were their own. The Learned Sergeant, therefore, contended that they were the parties who should have sued in this case. The last-mentioned Act gave power to the Justices of the Peace to issue warrants for the removal of trespassers from lands or houses belonging to any parish in the union, upon application to them by the guardians. The latter had availed themselves of that clause of the Act, and the entry made under the warrant accordingly issued, was the only possession (as far as the evidence went at the trial) the parish ever had of the lands in question. This evidence, he contended, ought not to have been received, as the case in which the guardians of the union proceeded as for their property, could not be considered the same as that in which the churchwarden and overseer of a distinct parish proceeded for property as theirs. He further contended, that the evidence adduced was not suffi cient to show that the parisk had ever possessed a right against the Lord of the Manor, under whom the defendant held. The COURT could not think that the evidence of the pro ceedings en the part of the guardians ought to have been admitted ; but on the other points their Lordship; gave a rule to show cause. WESTMINSTER SESSIONS. The adjourned Quarter Sessions were held yesterday, at the Court House, Westminster, before the Chairman and a bench of Magistrates. The Rev. Grice Blakely Smith, a clergyman of the Esta blished Church, and Bebert War 4 Johnson, described as a so licitor's clerk, against whom the Grand Jury returned true bills for indecent assaults, in the first case upon Harrison, a po liceman of the C division, and in the second upon a carman, named George Quinton, were t• take their trials at these Ses sions yesterday, but instead of doing so they lodged writs of certiorari with the Clerk of the Peace, and hence will be tried in the Court of Queen's Bench. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION HOUSE. Reynolds, who was stated to have been an accomplice of Godwin the policeman, lately convicted of a burglary and rob bery in the house of an old woman, named Sarah Lewis, a ma rine-store shopkeeper, in Silver-street, was brought before thu Lord Mayor. The policeman, who, it will be recchlected, sated that he r ceeived information from a man named Reynolds that Mrs. Lewis had purchased stolen goods, and that Reynolds, upon accompanying him back to her house, after she had been charged at the station-house, took away her cloak, in the belief that an owner could be found for it, was sentenced to 15 years' transperta•ion, and orders were given by the Court of Alder men that if Reynolds could be found Le should be prosecuted by he City Solicitor. The ptisoner, upon being placed at the bar, said he must re quest. that all the witnesses be ordered to leave the Court. The witnesses having been sent out of the office, Mr. Martin. of the City Solicitor's office, stated that the pri • 'otter was charged with having, accompanied by a person already convieked, committed a burglary in the house of Sarah Lewis. Mrs. Lewis then came forward and repeated the statement which she made at the Justice-room ar,d the Central Criminal Court against Godwin, the policeman. The LORD MAYOR—Did you see the prisoner on the night of the occurrence ? Mrs. Lewis—l never saw this man at all, my Lord. Prisoner—Now, Mrs. Lewis, I have a question or two to ask you. Do you know me? Mrs. Lewis—No. Prisoner—Now mind what you say. I ask you do you not emember my dealing at your shop? Mrs. Lewis—Never. Prisor.er—Wbat ! Did I never buy binding and twine at your shop? Mrs. Lewis—The IA rd knows, I don't know. Prisoner—Don't you recollect selling to a little man? Mrs. Lewis-1 hope you were not pith the little man. If you were you must he a man with one hand. PriPoner—Come, come, tell me whether I did not buy twine and binding at your shop? (In a menacing tone) Answer roe that. The Lour MAYOR—Do not address her in so brutal a manner. Prisoner—l do not mean to say that I was not in Silver-street that night. 1 am going to prove that I was at her shop that tight, and what I bought there. I went in there, and she knows it, and I bought half a pound of twine and half a p oun d of binding. I don't deny anything that actually took place Mrs. Lewis —Now I recollect, he brings it to my recollection He came for half a pound of binding and a pennyworth of twine. Mr. nobler—Do you believe him to be the man ? Mrs. Lewis—l do. Now he has brought it to my recollection, he carne just before I shut up the shop. Mr. nobler--Pid he bring any person with him ? Mrs. Lewis—l did not see anythirg. ' Prisoner—l bought binding and twine there, as I told you, though she w as so unwilling to acknowledge it. Mrs. Lewis, who appeared to be labouring under the iufircni ti,.,s of age, said, Now I remember it. You are the man. Prisoner—Pray, Mrs. Lewis, did you never lire in Addle-. street? Mrs. Lewis—Yes, I did. Prisoner—Oh, you did ! Pray were you over taken up for anything? Mrs. Lewis—Never. Prisoner—Was your husband ever taken up? Mrs. Lewis— He was once in tr, üble at Guildhall, but he was discharged. Prisoner—For receiving stolen goods? Mrs. Lewis—He was taken up on suspicion of it, but he was discharged. Never but once. _ _ . The LORD MAI-on—And you were never taken up yourself? Mrs. Lewis—Never in my life, except on the night Godwin the policeman took me to the station•house. My husband has been dead these four years. Prisoner--It was about four months and a half ago, her has. band was apprehended for receiving stolen goods. She knows me well, although it is hard to make her acknowledge it. William White, policeman No. 112, identified the prisoner ac the person he saw go with Godwin, the policeman, into Mrs. Lewis's house ; anti repeated nearly the evidence given by him at the Jastice-room, and she Central Criminal Court. When he mentioned that part of it in which the prisoner was represented as having said, " There ought to have been an other, to help to take her." The prisoner interrupted him, and declared that he mere l y said it i n pass i ng , as a jokt. rise LORD ALkYOR.—Did you see the prisoner and Godwin go into Mrs. Lewis's house ? Witness—l did, and I supplied them with a light fr om m y l an t e rn. Prisoner —Did I seem at all, by my conduct, to show that I wished to avo id b e i ng seen? AVitness—No ; I never said did. Prisoner—Pray did you not drink with me in a public house? Witness —Certainly not. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 16, 1842 Prisoner—That you certainly did. You drank with me in the public-house on the left-hand side, where they fill the best gin out of a decanter. The LOAD AlAvon—Do you deny having drank with him, witness ? Witness—l do, my Lord. He is a most false man to say I did. Prisoner—l have witnesses to prove that we drank together. I know these ornamented collar gentleman well, and I can pr.we that I have often drank with them in Fenchurch-street. The prisoner, who acted in the rudest manner to the Court, and the most brutal manner to the poor old woman, was then remanded. He (the Marquis of Normanby) considered it also as great evils the time and manner in which those additions were made. He should not so much object to the manner now if the Right Hon. Baronet, at the head of the Home De partment would have himself by any intuitive knowledge made these appointments ; but he would say that it wa: quite impossible that the Right Hon. Baronet could have any intuitive knowledge of these persons ; he must necessarily have derived his information from local par tisans, and that was what they complained of.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the time of the appointments br would observe, that in all the discussions which took place on this subjee, in the year 1836, it was stated as a great objection to the time, that it was just after election had taken place ; when there was either great party triumph or great party discomfiture, and people were actuated by party feelings.' These objections would apply to this case, for a general election took place last year just previous to these appointments. It might be necessary for the Right Hon. Baronet to make some addition ; but was there any necessity for the enormous addition which he thought proper to make ?—(Hear, hear.) In 1830 the Borough Magistracy amountoi to six hundred and thirty, and up to September of last year it remained pretty nearly the same. But whatever application was made representing to him (the Marquis of Normanby) that variations had take place, and that additional Magistates were necessary, he made such additions as upon inquiry appeared the best accord ing to the best of his judgment, although he would ad mit that any person filling the office which he had lately the honour to fill might make mistakes through misinformation. Such mistakes were not what he now complained of. What he objected to was, the enormous, the extraordinary addition of some hundreds.—(Hear.) Whenever he (Lord Normanby) made appointments 1w endeavoured to distribute them amongst all classes 01 opinion. —(Hear.) With respect to the town of Hull itself, he received representations that vacancies had oc curred, which it was necessary to fill up; but upon inquiry he did not think that the number of men was necessary, it had been at first. represented to him—(Hear, hear) —and having decided on a smaller number, he wrote down to five Members of the Town-Council, requesting them to recommend to him some gentlemen who were known to entertain opinions different from those of the majority of the Council. To this be re ceived for answer that several of those gentlemen had been requested to undertake the office of Magistrate of the borough at the time of the passing of the Municipal Reform Bill, and they refused to serve. However, after a time one of those gentlemen did consen t to accept the appointment. He mentioned that as an instance of the principle upon which he always endeavoured to regulate those appointments. In the returns before the House there was a deficiency, which he really thought could not be justified. There was no return of the number of Magistrates appointed in the borough of Lancashire.— (Hear.) He knew it was necessary to apply to two officers, but then the responsibility of applying to the office of the County Palatine lay with the Home-office. From the Ist of January, 1841, the number of new ap pointments had been only 58, and of these the greater number took place on account of vacancies. But from that to the lst of January, 1842, the number of new appointments was 364.--(Hear, hear.) And let their Lordships mark the distinction with which these appointments were attended. In the whole number of small boroughs which send no Member to Parliament, no new Magistrates were made in the first in stance. But after it was known that there had been no liberal restitution in other quarters, applications were made from some of these places, and the Right Hon. Baronet, per haps with no unwillingness, gave 41 Magistrates amongst 30. There were some, however, particularly attended to. For instance, Hull, where a triumph had been just gained, and the appointments were, no doubt, intended to reward those gentle men for their exertions.—( Hear, hear.) Bath was the next where a signal detest had been suffered, and when it was politic to encourage those who lent their services in a nicely balanced state of parties; in one day 90 Magistrateswere added in 10 boroughs; nor was it on account of the insignificance of the non-Parliamentary boroughs, that caused them to be over looked, for Buckingham, Grimsb y, and Harwich, all small Parlia mentary boroughs, were similarly favoured with Hull and Bath. In Nottingham, and in Sunderland, where there had been a striking contest after the general election in October last, in November an addition of eight Magistrates were made to the borough. Plymouth, no very considerable place ; Tiverton. Wallingford, no very considerable place—these were the towns in which an addition of ninety Magistrates had been made. He would revert, for a moment, to the case to which he had parti cularly alluded—that of Hull. He had felt great anxiety with respect to the appointments, and he had made twenty-four in addition ; but since then there had been an addition made, and now the borough contained no less than one-fifth more than any other borough in the country. He wished to call the the attention of the Noble Lord to the convenience that would be attendant upon applying to some public body to give information on the subject to the Government.—(Hear. ) The Aragistrates of the borough of Hull complained that the name of Dr. Alderson, an active partisan, had been inserted before the names of all the Magistrates in the commis sion of the peace. These Magistrates were told that in general the Magistrates were inserted according to the rank the person held in society. They accordingly went to Bluemantle.— ( Great laughter)—and he replied that medical distinction gave no rank. He (the Marquis of ' Normanby) was not quite sure that Bluemantle was right in that respect.— (Laughter. )—He should not have adverted to this if there had not been another Doctor in the case, who was the Mayor, Dr. Chalmers ; and Dr. Alderson bad been inserted before Dr. Chalmers. He trusted that, in future, information would be obtained from some person with respect to these appointments being made, and that. those persons should not be those who were prejudiced on one side or the other, and unless they had recourse to this system, they would constantly do injustice. He did not think, it .r oulcUsho w good sense to bring in a Bill for; the purpose of altering the spawn, but if these appointments were continued to be made in a similar manner to that to which he had alluded, Borough Magistrates would soon be held inlthe most sovereign contempt, and be made the means of political corruption. He did not mean to say that that was the case in the present instance, and ho hoped to see the remedy in future applied which he had recommended, and which was the only one in their, power to apply. The LORD CHANCELLOR confessed he felt grateful to the Noble Marquis for having called the attention of their Lordships to drat. petition, because many observations had been made from time to time as to the manner in which the Magistrates had been recently appointed. The responsibility of those appointments rested with him (the Lord Chancellor), although, as his Noble Friend had correctly stated, he had conferred with the Right Hen. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home. Department, as to the manner of filling up those commissions; and he . (the Lord Ch ance ll or ) was desirous of satisfying their Lordships as to the propriety !of the course which had been pursued. He would now refer to the observations made by the Noble Marquis, and direct their attention to the petition from Hull, by taking the Corporation of Hull itself, as an instance of the general spirit in which the Government acted. When the Mu nicipal Corporation Bill passed, it was found necessary to re model the Magistracy. New Magistrates were appointed in many places, the borough of Hull amongst others. For this borough twenty-three Magistrates were appointed. Did those who made those appointments do so without reference to party or ParLamentary objects? Out of the twenty-three magistrates so appointed, four were Conservatives, and nineteen were of the other colour of politics. He did not mean to say that all of those were of the same party, but there were nineteen who might be characterised as Whigs and as Radicals—steady pro portion of them, zealous, warm, active, and eager partisans. Such supportei sof the Government ; all of them, or the greater was the composition of the magistracy of Hull, up to the time the present Government same into power. Two of those Ma gistrates, whom he had designated Conservative, never acted ; one resided at a distance, and another was disabled from acting by , his health. The Magistracy of the borough were therefore of one colour of politics, warm and eager partisans of the late Government. if this was the proceeding of the late Govern ment, what had been that of their successors ? They added eight names to those formerly appointed. Those eight were of respectable character, and of weight and station in the borough of Hull. Ns) impWation could be:madr against theie appoint ments, founded orslthe character of those individuals.,: They were Conservatives., and,he ould ask their Lordships whether, considering.the character of w the bench up to that time, the Gos vernment were not justified in the course they pursued, and whether it was not their duty to dilute and soften the spirit of partitanship that had exist. din that borough ? If any complaint were to be made it should not come from the Noble Marquis and his friends.---( Hear, hear.) It ought to be from the Con servative party, because, when the Government had the power to place a majority of Conservatives on the bench, they had appointed only eight, leaving two to ono against the party which the Government represented. But why did the Go vernment do so? Because it felt it to be its duty , to act with forbearance, good temper, and moderation, and thus put an end to that party feeling and those party disputek which should never be displayed on the bench of the Magistracy, or be mingled with the administration of justice or the performance of those ministerial duties that belonged to that class. He appealed to their Lordships whether they were not justified in the course they had pursued ; whether it was not the duty of the Government to appoint Magistrates who would dilate the party spirit of the borough, and be least offensive to tha inhabitants of that town ?—( Hear, hear.) His No ble Friend said that Government were wrong in having in creased the Magistracy of Hull ; but of the 23 appointed, two had died, two removed to aistant places, and three never quali fied, leaving an actual number of 16, to which the Government added eight, which would only make one more than the origi nal number of 23. The Noble Marquis objected to some of the appointments; but his (the Lord Chancellor's) answer was, that as the names came in they were arranged in the usual man ner in the office by the proper officer, and if one were a doctor of medicine, and the other a knight, they were arranged only according to the rank they appeared to have by the returns. This much he would say for Hull, and now lie would say a few words, to enable their Lordships and the public to understand the general conduct of the Government. When they found in a particular borough an delusion or a preponderating number of Magistrates of one class, as at Hull, they added a small number of Conservatives for the purpose he had stated, but earefullyiabstaining from swamping the exist ing Magistracy.—( Hear, hear.) The Gover nment wished to show its power, b ut avo i de d g i v i ng offence, they desired to heal wounds and remove rievances, and by be in g moderate them selves to encouragemoderation in the opposite party. In no case do they make a majority of Conservatives , . The Govern• ment were not without authority in this course. A late Noble Baron, a Memb er o f that H ouse , w ho was a high authority, alluding and it is the flutyof appointing Magistrates rests with the Lord Chancellor , to a simil ar subject, thus spoke — " tl:e r es pon si b ilit y of that high functiona r y to recommend only such pe rsons as h e thinks duly qualified to discharge the dutie s repose d i n them. I do not mean to ques tion the motives, or to impugn the conduct of any particular party, but I think, in common with the mass of the country, that if men of ono colour of politics only be nominated to these offices, though justice may not bo corrupted in consequence, the administration of it would be subject to doubt and sus picion."—( Hear, hear.) This he thought was justifiable, because the Government look to mitigate the preponderance of one party on the bench. His Noble Friend complained that a great addition had been made to the Magistracy. In conse quence of that statement, it was necessary for him (the Lord Chaucellor) to call their Lordship'sattention to the circumstan ces under whirls the appointments ware made, and he must say it did appear most extraordinary that the Noble Marquis should have brought before their Lordship such an allegation. Take the case of Yarmouth-19 Magistrates had been appointed. Of these one was a Conservative, and the 18 were violent political partisans on the other side. That was one instance. But then his Noble Friend said they consulted the Town CounciL Take the case of the Borough of Guildfo d. In that borough there was a very large number of Conservatives ; the inhabitants were called on to make a return of names; they did so, and mentioned all Conservatives. What did the Secretary of State do ? Ho appointed one Conservative and two Ra dicals. Was this to go on? Were they (the Ministers) to be trampled under foot by their opponents ? Take Wigan. Every appointment in that borough was confined to Whigs and Radicals. That was another case. Talk of taking the sense of the Town Council! Look at Ro chester, where the Council consisted of half Conservatives and half Whigs. They sent up names, and the Goverment appointed six of their own party and no other. Really, for the Noble Marquis to have the lace to make such charges!— ( A laugh.) Take another ease, Coventry. That borough had twelve Magistrates. Perhaps they might ask how he knew who were Conservatives, and who were Whigs aed Radicals ? He would tell them. Out of these twelve Magistrates, sight were on the Committee of the Members who supported the Noble Marquis's party. The four others had no votes for the county, but three of them voted to the borough for the Whig Member, and the fourth was a Whig Member himself. (Hear, hear, and cheers. ) What had they (the Mi nisters) done in this borough ? They had been content with having one-third of the Magistrates Conservatives. Take another instance, the borough of Leicester. There were ten Magistrates for Leicester ; nine of them voted at the election for the friends and supporter: of the Noble Marquis. In Ply mouth there were eight Magistrates, two of them were Members of Parliament, consistent supporters of the Noble Marquis; five others voted for them at the election, and one was a Conser vative. In Bristol the Town Council agreed that twelve names should be returned by one party, and twelve by the other. Now, how were they marshalled—were the twenty-four ap pointed? No, the twelve Radicals were taken, and only six of the others. In Manchester the whole of the Magistrates were Radicals. After this how could the country be surprised they had attempted to regulate these matters. Ile was answerable for the manner in which he exercised the prerogative of the Crown. Every care had been taken in the appointments; and previous to making them he had com municated with the Secretary of State en the subject. The Marquis of NORMANBY said that the cases to which the Noble and Learned Lord had referred were precisely the same as those which were brought before the House in 1830. With regard to Guildford, he begaed to say that the Noble and Learned Lord had certainly been misinformed, lor there was not one Whig Magistrate in the borough. He (the Mar quis of Normanby ) had been requested to add others to the Commission, but he refused to do so, because the number was complete. He would again repeat that the present Govern ment had made most unnecessary additions to the number of Magistrates. They had added no less than 364 to the Borough Magistracy since they had been in power. The Earl of WINCHILSEA said, that he thought the Noble and Learned Lord was entitled to great praise for the manner in which be had acted in this matter, and for his endeavours to put a stop to the disgraceful system of partisanship that existed under their predecessors. With regard to the borough of Rochester, he could bear testimony to the disgraceful appoint ments which had been made in that borough. He thought that the Noble Marquis had gained nothing by his motion, but an exposure of the system of partisanship which prevailed under the Administration to which he belonged. Lord COTTENHAM thought it was important to know in what way his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had been influenced in the appointments which he had made. His Noble and Learned Friend could not have known personally all those 364 persons.—(Hear.) He could only have chosen them on the representation of others. Now, according to the old plan there was a local authority, in the person of the Lord- Lieutenant of the county, who was acquainted with the lo cality, and who knew the character of those whom he recom mended.—(" Hear, hear," from the Duke of Wellington. ) There was now in the boroughs also a local authority, which was consulted by the late Government—the Town Council— and if that body were not consulted, he should ask what autho rity was to be consulted ?—( Hear, hear.) Was the Great Seal to be affixed to Commissions of the Peace upon the recommendation of persons whe had access to the 'Lord Chancellor, and were not before the public in any re sponsible character ? ( Hear. ) His Noble and Learned Friend mast have a very extensive knowledge of the boroughs throughout the kingdom ; still he thought the recommendations of the Town Council, which was a public and responsible body, was a much safer source of recommendation than any private individuals._( Hear.) His Noble Friend, in the charges which he made against the late Government, had gone back as far as the year preceding 1836, and he could only find two cases— Guildford and Bristol. But those cases had been discussed in Parliament in 11136, and the charges were proved, to the satis faction of both Houses, to be entirely without foundation. He did not see why the same course should not be adopted with respect to the appointment of Borough Magistrates, as in County Magistrates. These were appointed upon the recom mendation of the Lord-Lieutenant. There was no office in boroughs certainly, similar to the Lord-Lieutenants in !coun ties, but there were parties holding official situations in boroughs capable of making the recommendation. This might be inconsis tent with the ancient institutions, yet his opinion was that the alteration would have a beneficial effect. He was at a loss to know to whom t• apply for the information required in these appointments, but it certainly should not be left to politically interested parties. He hoped his Learned Friend would state to their Lordships whether such a system would be adopted, as had been recommended by his Noble Friend with respect to obtaining this information (as we understood, but the Noble and Learned Lord spoke in so low a tone of voice that we frequently found great difficulty in understanding his points.) Lord BROUGHAM said, that before his Noble Friend answered his Noble and Learned Friend who spoke last, he wished to say a very few words upon this most important con versation. He was exceedingly glad that the subject had been brought before their Lordships, for nothing could be more im portant than that which related to the administration of jus• tice. The principal ground upon which he wished to address their Lordships was that the Noble Lord who had spoken last had referred to the appointment of County Magistrates, and recommended the same course to be adopted with respect to Borough Magistrates. lie (Lord Brougham) would remind their Lordships of the course adopted by the Great Seal with respect to County Magistrates. In order to have a person of responsibility and of undoubted local knowledge, it had been the usual course to act upon the recommendation of the Lord-Lieutenant. The Great Seal was undoubtedly re seonsible for the appointment, and was at liberty either to fol low or reject the advice of the Lord Lieutenant. Generally speaking, unless a satisfactory reason was given, that recom mendation wes acted upon. It did so happen that when he (Lord Brougham) held the Great Seal, for the first two years there was one perpetual list of complaints made to him by va rious persons connected with the different parties, that political influence was used in the recommendations of the different Lord s It was said that the Magistrates were all Conser vatives, and that not one Liberal Magistrate had been appointed. He did not think, that during the whole of the four years that he was in office he was besieged on any subject so much as this ; for the first two years especially. At the end of that time, a general election—that which was commonly called the Reform Parliament—took place. At that time recommendations poured in upon him from Lords-Lieutenant for the appointment of County Magistrates. He was eonsequently led to inquire the reason why the administration of justice should just happen to require so very ample an addition to the Magis tracy. This was in the months of December, 1832. and January 1833. He did inquire, and he found that those persons were all well and duly qualified to exercise judicial functions. In making those inquiries he did not impute any improper motive to any one, and he was bound to say that in no one instance did he find either of the persons unfit for the commission. He was bound to say this to justify himself and his Noble Friend on the woolsack. He gave the lists of the different Lords-Lieutenant to the Whig Govern ment, requesting them to point out any objections to the names. He gave the list of recommendations made by the ruling Members to the Lords-Lieutenant for them to examine them, and no objections were made. He did not recollect any one objection being stated save one, and that was because he was a manufacturer, because the rule was not to appoint a manufacturer to the commission, as there were frequently dis putes between the master and the men respecting wages. He did not think that there could be any objection on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for t heHome Department, to adopting a similar course with respect to borough Magistrates. If a cause could be shown, then eject them ; if not, it was to talk of an Utopian state of things to believe that party was to have no effect, and that it was love of discharging the duties of the office, and that they must be given to those who were the best fitted to discharge the duties. At the present time it appeared to him that the spirit of party divided arid split up the country more than at any former period, not only in counties and large constituencies, but the most insignificant communities. It was almost impossible to expect that, in such a state of things Magistrates would be chosen without re ference to political bias. This was to be lamented as unfor tunate, and he had wished he could have lived to see the time when it would not be the case; but he should have been more surprised if the change in the late Government had taken place without being followed by a considerable change in the Borough Magistrates. They had now unknown advisers, con cealed nominators of the Magistrates. Why not make the re commendation of political friends the constant rule in such cases? Why not permit the Members for different places to biggest the names, and show, if they could, some cause of ob jection; prove that from their characters and capabilities they were unfit for the office. He could see no objection to adopting this course. He by no means intended to say that they ought always to be bound by the ma. jority of the Town-councils, and for this reason. the councils were chosen by the majority of the community they represented, and his Noble Friend said, generally speak ing, it was better to have the Magistrates of the same political opinion as the majority. If the councils changed, then the Magistrates underwent a proportionate change. But lie thought there was another thing which he considered it incumbent on the Government to consider, and that was the protecting the minority against the majority. if he was morally certain that there was the greatest possible disproportion between the two parties, and that that disproportion could be shown to be so large as ten to one—if he was satisfied that the proportion of ten to one was a just expression of the feelings of that place, he should say, all the more on account of that very disproportion, all the more because the numerical strength of the minority was so insignificant, it was the duty of the Government to pro tect that minority against that majority, and see that the majo rity did not have it all their own way. Ile thought his Noble Friend was mistaken in stating, that these appointments had been made principally in the Patliamentary boroughs. He found, from the return, that there were thirty-three Parlia mentary boroughs where no Magistrates had been added; and in those thirty-three places were some that had been con tested, and where additions might have been expected. These were such places as Leeds, Newcastle-under- Lyne, and another borough which was very well known—the barough of Sudbury. In conclusion he hoped his Hon. and Learned Friend would lay down some general rule which might guide them in their future appointments. The Marquis of NORMA_NBY briefly explained, and stated, that though they (the Ministers) might talk of having acted the same way as the Opposition, he would beg to remind them that eight months previous to his (the Marquis of Normanby's) quitting office, he had only appointed fifty-eight new Magis trates, whilst in seven months the present Government had made no less than 364 new appointments. After a few words from the Duke of BEAUFORT, The petition was allowed to be laid upon the table, and their Lordships adjourned at Half-past Seven. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 15. The SPEAKER took the Chair pit tho usual hour. AIUNTZ presented a petition from the Birming ham Law Society, praying that Attcrneys, Solicitors, and Proctors, might be exempted from the income tax. Mr. YORKE presented a petition from 2,700 persons residing in York, expressing their gratitude to the House for upholding the right of petitioning, and pray ing that the income tax might not pais into a law. POOR-LAW. Mr. HARDY presented a number of petitions from several townships in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying for the repeal of the New Poor-law, and for the restoration of the Act of Elizabeth. CORN-LAW S. Mr. THOR NELY presented a petition from Ormskirk, in the county of Lancaster, kigned by 1,340 of the inha bitants, praying for a tctal repeal of the Corn and Provi sion-laws. CORONER'S INQUEST. _ Yesterday evening, at seven o'clock, an inquest was held in the Board-reom of St. George's Hospital, Hyde Park-corner, before Mr. Higgs, on the body of Mr. Robert Benjamin Bur ton, aged eighteen, a young gentleman of high connexions, who was killed on Thursday afternoon, by being thrown off his horse in Hyde Park. Captain Higgins, of the let Regiment of Life Guards, de posed, that between three and four o'clock on Thursday after noon, he was in Hyde Hark, when he observed the deceased galloping along Rotten-row. lie was coming from the direc tion of Kensington towards Hyde Park.corner. Both his legs were out of the stirrups, and he was leaning forwards, having hold of the mane. When near the bridge, the deceased was thrown off on the near side into the road. The horse proceeded on. Witness, who was on horseback, galloped to the spot, followed by his Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge and Sir George Wombwell, who were in Rotten row and saw the accident. The deceased appeared quite life less. Ile was immediately conveyed to this hospital. By the Jury—The deceased appeared to have lost all com mand of the horse, as if he was nat accustomed to riding. The animal was not going at a furious rate. Cools, the beadle, said he had left summonses for Prince George of Cambridge and Sir George Wombwell, but they had both left town that morning. There were no other wit nesses who saw the accident. There was some discussion amongst the Jury as to the pro pric ty of an adjournment, to obtain the evidence of Prince George of Cambridge and Sir George Wombwell, bat ulti mately a verdict of " Accidental Death" was returned. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 15. . Their Lordships met at Five o'Clock, at which hour the LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack. SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL. The Marquis of DOWNSIIIRE presented a petition from the inhabitants of Tewkesbury, in the county of Gloucester, against the Severn Navigation Bill. CHURCH EDUCATION. . . The NOBLE LORD then presented numerous petitions from different parishes, in the counties of Down, Con naught, and elsewhere, in Ireland, in favour o: the sys • tem of education pursued by tho Church Education SQciety. VAGRANCY IN IRELAND. The NOBLE LORD next presented a petition from the Board of Guardians of Downyatrick, praying that a stop might be put to vagrancy in Ireland. .icy lit PRESBYTERIAN MIXED MARRIAGES. The NOBLB LORD also presented a petition from Ballynalmich, in the county of Down, on the subject of these marriages. THE OXFORD TRACTS. Th• NOBLE Loan presented also a petition from an individual, named Clark, who stated that ho read with alarm certain tracts which had lately been put forth by persons in high station in the Univers►ty of Oxford. The petition mentioned no names, but he prayed their Lordships to lend their powerful aid to preserve the Church from the conspiracy by which he believed she was endangered. EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from Pro testant inhabitants of the town of Galway, against the present system of National Education in Ireland, and praying for a grant in aid of the Church Education Society. The Earl of WICKLOW presented petitions to the same effect, from the Protestants of parishes in the county of Wicklow. In moving that they be laid on the table, he would express a hope that the House would consider the prayer of the petition, and see if it were not possible to give some part of the grant for Irish Education towards educating the Protestant portion of the people of Ireland.— (Hear, hear.) Ho was in favour of granting money fur the education of every class of the people, and ho therefore thought the Protestant people of that country were entitled to some share iu the liberality of Parliament. CORN LAWS. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented petitions from the farmers of Cambridge, of the Isle of Thanot, and of other places in the county of Kent, against the proposed alteration of the Corn-laws, which they viewed ith great alarm. Ho presented a similar petition from a clergyman who was well known to many of their Lordships, the Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees. He entirely concurred with all these petitions. The Earl of HARDWICKE bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioners, but he could not support their views. . The Earl of YARBOROUGH presented a petition from Horncastle to the same effect. The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition from the farmers of Shropshire against the proposed mode of taxing the averages. and against some other de tails of the New Corn Bill. They did not complain of the Bill as a whole, for they knew that the outcry which was raised against the existing, law would compel the Government to propose some change But they viewed with astonishment and alarm the great reduction in the duties on spring corn, which would be productive of the most mischievous results. He fully con curred in the petition, and ha would assure their Lord ships that in several market towns barley and oats were at present wholly unsaleable. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from the Mo ravians of London, praying for the abolition of oaths. Thu Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a petion from the members of the Church of England Association against a national system of education in Ireland. A NOIJLS LORD presented a petition from Worcester against the Severn Navigation Bill. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to call the attention of the Noble Earl, atthe head of the Admiralty, to a petition from the city of Cork. The petition stated that a packet-station bad been established at Cork, and the petitioners understanding that such station was about to be removed, prayed the House not to take such a step. The Earl of lIADDINGTON could assure the Noble Marquis that every attention would be given to the sub ject by the Admiralty. Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition from Leith, praying that the taxes upon horses used by carters and carriers might be taken off. Also a petition from the inhabitants of Darlington, expressing strong objections to an income tax, and praying their Lordships to reject any Bill sent up to their Lordships' House for the pur pose of imposing such a tax. Also a petition to the same effect from Chipping Wyche'''. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from West moreland, signed by many persons of the highest respec tability, against an income tax. The petition contained the mimes of many extensive landowners. Although their Lordships had not made a Standing Order fur the prevention of the discussion of petitions at the time of presentation, as had been the case in the other House, and he hoped they never would, he would abstain from debating the petition he had just presented, as there would be many further opportunities of debating the subject. The Noble Lord presented a petition from the mechanics of Bradford, praying that they might be exempt from assessed taxes. EXCHEQUER BILLS' BILL. . The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the tlieefread-' int..; of this Bill. Lord BROUGHAM now presented certainielsaisea,,of which he had given notice. They were takearfreine:the 58th Geo. 111., c. 9 1 , and another Act, and had for their oheet to give the Conimissioners powers to issue a cer tificate, which should protect witnesscss, who might give evidence that would otherwise criminate themselves. The Earl of WICKLOW feared the result of those clauses would be to prevent, perhaps, the punishment of guilty parties, who might put themselves forward at first, and take the Commissioners by surprise. Lord BROUGHAM thought this a strong objection, but he had met that point by not specifying any time within which the Commissioners should give a certificate. Lord CA MPI;ELL added a few words to improve the clauses of his Noble and Learned Friend. . _ The Bill was then read a third time and passed. SPIRIT DUTIES' BILL (IRELAND). The Duke of WELLINGTON gave notice that on Monday he would move the third reading of this Bill. NEW INIMUSTRATE: The MarquiS of NOMNIANBY said he had now to present the petition of which he bad given notice, and in a iew words to direct the attention of their Lordships to the subject it embraced. The petitioners in this case represented a very large and important commercial com munity, and, perhaps, their Lordships knew the Pet itioners and the members of other corporate communities felt the greatest interest in the matter on which they now addressed the House. True, this was the first direct appeal, the first petition addressed to their Lordships, in consequence of the evil of which they complained ; namely. the excessive addition that had been made to the Borough Magistrates towards the conclusion of last year. He would not detain their Lordthips by adverting to the numerous communications he had received from other places on this subject, but would . confine himself to this petition, and then make one or two general observations on the subject of the returns for which he had moved, and which he now had in his hand. The petition was from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Kingston upon-Hull. The substance of their complaint was, that from time immemorial — from the reign of Henry the Third until the passing of the Municipal Reform Bill, with certain modifications introduced by Henry the Sixth—they had the power of nominating their own magistrates. Whey stated that in the interval Which elapsed from that time (five years), on every occasion when an addition was thought necessary to be made to the Borough Magistracy, com munications were made to the Town-Council, with re commendations as to whom should be appointed ; they complained that, in the month of November last, with out any communication beforehand, the Mayor received intimation that gentlemen had been appointed to fill the vacancies in the Commission of the Peace. They objected to this, as the vacancies which had taken place had already been filled up, and there were then twenty four Magistrates, being the greatest number which ought to be in any borough. The number of eight was aft‘rwards added, and the petitioners complained that this was practically a complete violation of the course which should have been adopted towards them ; and they wished to have the power restored to the municipal authorities which they formerly held. The number of the Borough Magistracy in Hull at present was thirty two ; and he was sure he need not press'on their Lord ships' attention the evils which arose from having a greater number of Magistrates than was required, as it w as quite impossible to maintain that unity of purpose which was necessary amongst the Magistracy. Where a large addition had been made at any time, the neces sary consequence was an unnecessarily full attendance. TuE NEW TARIFF. Sir W. SOMERVILLE presented a petition from the shoemakers of Drogheda (we believe), against the pro posed reduction of the duty on foreign manufactured shoes and boots. Mr. G. PALMER presented a petition, numerously signed, also against the proposed reduction of the duty on shoes ; . and another petition for the repeal of the assessed taxes; but in neither case was the designation of the petitioners heard in the gallery. Mr. HAWES presented petitions against the reduc tion of the duty on foreign manufactured hats, shoes, &c., from Lambeth ; and a petition from the working classes of that borough, for the total repeal of the Corn-laws, LONDON AND CROYDON RAII;WAY. Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition from the inhabi tants of Bermondsey, against the London and Croydon Railway Anti-Amendment Bill. MARYLEBONE VESTRY BILL. Mr. MACKINNON presented petitions from inhabi tants of Marylebone, in favour of the Bill now before the House, for amending the Vestry Act in favour of that pariah. EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON presented several petitions from places in the counties of Cork and Limerick, against the present system of National Education in Ireland, and in favour of that adopted by the Church Education Society. COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH—FACTORY SYSTEM. Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from a congre gation of Wesleyan Methodists in linareshorough, against the grant to the College of Maynooth ; and a petition from Devonport, for a law to correct the evils of the Factory System. The petitioners prayed, that as Parliament had granted twenty millions to abolish black slavery in the West Indies, they would take measures to abolish white slavery in England.--(llear.) MAYNOOTII COLLEGE. Colonel 1 1 7665 presented a petition against any fur :her grant to the College of Maynooth. EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Mr. GIIi.GOItY presented a petition from a place in Ireland, praying for a system of education in Ireland. INCOME TAX. Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from Edin burgh against the income tax. Mr. MASTERMAN presented a petition from Lon don against the income tax. Also, several petitions in favour of the tax. METROPOLITAN BRIDGES. Mr. Alderman lIUMPIIERY presented a petition from Southwark, praying that the tolls on the different bridges might be taken off. INCOME TAX.. _ Mr. BARCLAY presented a petition from the Soli citors of Sunderland, praying that they might be exempt from the income tax. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from Oak ham, in Rutland, frum Essex, from Newport, Northamp ton, and the compositors of the Western Times news paper, against the income tax ; also a petition from Richmond, against the proposed reduction in duty on foreign manufactured leather. Sir J. HANDIER• presented a petition from the attor neys of Hull, praying that they might be exempted from the income tax. Lord SANDON presented a petition from certain mer chants of Liverpool, praying that the tariff might be passed into a law. Mr. PHILIPS presented a petition from Manchester, against the incline tax. CARDIGAN ELECTION. The following Members were called to the table, and sworn in to try the merits of the petition against the re turn for the borough of Cardigan :—Sir C. Coote, the Earl of Leicester, W. S. O'Brien, G. Dodd, E. Turner, W. James, and W. G. Ilayter, Chairman. WAKEFIELD ELECTION COMMITTEE. The following Members were called to the table, and sworn in as a Committee to try the merits of a petition, complaining of an undue election for the borough of Wakefield :—E. Strutt, Esq., W. M'Kenzie, Esq., Hon. R. Gore, Col. Thomas Wood, of Brecon, Hon. W. Gor don, and H. H. Drummond, Esq., Chairman. The Committee was appointed to sit at twelve o'clock to-morrow. CORN-LAWS. Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from the silk dyers of ➢lanchester, praying for a rQpeal of the Corn laws. INCOME TAX. Mr. COWPER presented a petition from Hertford, against the income tax. The petition was brought up and laid on the table, amidst the cheers of the Opposition. Mr. G. W. WOOD presented a petition from Kendal, praying for a reduction of the duty on foreign and co lonial sugar, and also beseeching the House to adopt every expedient for equalising the revenue and the ex penditure, before resorting to such an inquisitorial mea sure as the imposition of an income tax. Mr. RUTHERFORD presented a petition from the Provost and Town Council of Leith, against the income tax. The Hon. Member moved that the petition be read at the table. - _The petition wag then brought up and read by the Clerk at the table. _ _ _ NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. lIODGSON HINDE gave notice that, in Com mittee on the Miscellaneous Estimates, he would call the attention of the House to the state of the unfinished publication of the Records. LAND TAX. Dr. BOWRING moved for a return of the amount paid to the land tax in various townships and places in the county of Lancaster, exhibiting the whole amount and the sum paid by each. Captain GUEST moved for leave of absence to Captain Layard till the Ist of May, on account of illness in his family. COLONIAL CUSTOMS. Mr. M. GIBSON asked if the Right Honourable gentleman opposite meant to bring on his resolutions on the Colonial Customs Bill that evening. Mr. GLADSTONE said he should be governed by the convenience of the House. If there was time he should probably bring it on after the Mutiny Bill was disposed of. Mr. LABOUCHERE thought the Mutiny Bill might occupy much time in the discussion, and if the Ordnance Estimates were to be brought on afterwards, it would be hardly possible to enter on the Colonial Customs' Bill. Sir R. PEEL said it would entirely depend on the du ration of the debate on the Mutiny Bill. THE MUTINY BILL—FLOGGING IN THE ARMY. The Order of the Day having been moved for the third reading of the Mutiny Bill, Capt. BERNAL said, that, in rising to bring forward the motion of which he bad given notice, relative to flogging in the army, he could not help expressing his re gret that a subject which had, on former occasions, been submitted to the House by gentlemen of considerable ex perience, should on the present occasion be introduced by a Member possessing only his slight claims on the at tention of the House. He trusted, however, that he should still have the support of Hon. Gentlemen who had formerly voted in favour of similar motions, and especially of the Hon. Member for Chippenham, who had identified himself so much with the subject. He had certainly un derstood from what had fidlentfrom the Hon. Member on a former evening, that he would himself have undertaken the introduction of the motion. But he trusted that the Honourable Gentleman, when he reflected on the additional weight which his opinions would have from his position in the Government, would give expression to his sentiments in the course of the present discussion, and that he would not be satis fied with giving merely a silent vote for the furtherance of a cause of which he had always been so energetic and eloquent a supporter. He hoped he might be allowed to state, for the information of Hon. Members who were not practically acquainted with the subject, the state of their legislation on the matter. Prior to the year 1812, there bad been limitation to the number of lashes which might be awarded by Courts-martial. In the year 1812, by circular from the Horse Guards, Regimental Courts martial were limited to the infliction of 300 lashes. In the year 1830, District Courts-martial were limited to the infliction of 500 lashes ; in 1832 they were limited to 300 lashes, and Regimental Courts-martial to 200 lashes. In the year 1833, after the House had decided by a majority of only 11 in favour of retaining corporal pu nishment, flogging was limited to cases of mutiny, insu bordination, and violence, to cases of drunkenness while on duty, and to cases of making away with arms and ammu nition, or to stealing, or other disgraceful conduct. In the year 1836, General Courts-martial were limited to two hundred lashes, District Courts.martial to one hundred and fifty, and Regimental Courts-martial to one hundred. NoW, whilst no one would attempt to undervalue the great improvements which had taken place both in limiting the number of crimes and the lashes for which they were inflicted, he confessed that his objectiona were directed not only against the quantum, but the nature of the punishment, because' in his opinion it was not only inefficient to reform the man, but likewise to deter others from committing the same crimes. He quite agreed with the words which Lord Hill was reported to have used before the Com mission, which sat in 1834, to inquire into military punishments, with reference to the punishment which was . formerly applied to a military offender, of fastening a weight to his leg. The words of that Noble Lord were that, " he objected to that punishment because he looked upon it as a - punishment which was more fit for a beast than a man." But he left it to the House to determine whether this objection was not more directly applicable to the punishment of the lash than to that of fastening a weight to the leg of a soldier.— (Hear, hear.) He knew it would be urged, with regard to the Commission which sat in 1835, that the Report of that Commission was conclusive against the abo lition of flogging in the army. He had studied the Report with the greatest attention, and he fully concurred in the views of the Honourable and Gallant Member far Chippenham, who, in seconding a motion which was brought forward in the year 1836, declared that the evidence, contained in the Report of the Commissioners, clearly proved the possibility of abolish ing that mode of punishment in the army, without injury or disadvantage to the service. —(Cheers.) At the same time, he was aware that it would be said that none but military men were competent to give a judgment on this point. Against that doctrine, however, he must humbly but decidedly enter his protest. Every page of that Report showed that the witnesses; had rather endea voured to justify the existence of the practice than to assist a dispassionate inquiry into what the practice ought to be. Having had the honour to hold a commis sion in her Majesty's army, he was sensible that military men were i n , general as humane and considerate as the Members of any ot h er pro fessbn. But the house would call to mind that alterations in received forms of discipline were rarely popular with the followers of any profession._ (Hear, hear.) It was a matter of history that the Judges had shown themselves as averse to the relaxation of the criminal code as the officers of the army to the aboli tion of corporal punishment. It was a curious fact that in 1834, when the question was put to the officers— " Are y ou enabled to suggest any means of restraining or eradicating the propensity to drunken ness so prevalent among the soldiery, and confessedly the parent of the majority of military crimes?"—out of 214 field-officers, to whom that question was put, only two or three suggested moral, intellectual, and religious instruction, as a preventative to crime! Sir George Arthur and Colonel Oglander proposed schoolmasters' drills, and considering all that had been written and said on the subject, it was an extraordinary circumstance that while much had been done, to drill the soldier, and while his clothes and knapsack were im proved, and a more efficient weapon put into his band, they had not done much for his morals—while much had been done for the machinery, little was done for the man.—(Hear, hear.) It was a libel on htirnan nature to say that instruction tended to render the soldier in- subordinato.—(Hear, hear.) The teaching of morals, with the sanction of religion, never indisposed any man to the proper p er f ormance of his duty.—(Hear, hear.) Ile as aware that many persons held the opinion idiot ignorance was bliss, and that when instruction well :necessary the lower orders had the advantage of the in formation of others ; but he would refer to the gaol returns lately laid on the table of the House, which ' , !ould afford him a strong argument in favour of instruc t on. The llon. Gentleman then referred to the Report a the Chaplain of the Preston House of Correction, which showed that the number of prisoners decreased in proportion to the amount of instruction they received. He believed that in France and elsewhere upon the Continent, the discipline of the army was. maintained without recourse to the sys tem of dogging. As an instance that flogging was .not necessary, for the maintenance of good disciplint, he would state the instance of the Irish Con stabulary. Sir Hussey Vivian stated that, out of seven thousand men, the finest en the face of the earth, he had never seen a drunken police elan ; and if discipline could be maintained among •oich a body of men without the necessity of "!. flogging, where wes the necessity of applying that principle to the regular army. The Douse would call to mind, that by an order dated •,, the 24th of February, 1835, Lord William Bentincle. abolished flogging among the native troops in India, and lie begged of Gentlemen to hear in mind that he did that in direct opposition to the Opi nion of a military committee on the subject. ". lie was unwilling to intrude unnecessarily upon the time of the House, but he could not avoid quoting, in support - support of his argument, the minute of Lord William Bentinck upon this subject. Lord William Bentinck had said that. with regard to the opinion of m ilit ar y men, it was the unanimous opinion of, all the members of military committees, that the punishment of flogging could not be abolished.—(Hear, hear.) They did not stop to inct'aire whether any adequate sub- stitute for flogging tould be adopted, but they at once declared that if the punishment of flogging were abolished the discipline of the army could not be maintained. Lord William Beatinck'denounced that opinion of the members of the military committees as a int:re prejudice which was entirely oppose d -- to reas'Jn. At the same tine his Lordship said that -- ho was not at all surprised at the existen ce of that prejudice, because he could not forget that h e had for many years entertained the same prejudice, an d it was only by many years of reflection an d calm reasoning, that he had been enabled to ove r- I come it. No one, however, had hitherto lll tempted to • defend the practice of flogging O n its own merits. He knew that he should be told that , unless he could devise some efficient substitute, it would be impossible to do away with the punishment of flogging , while the army was composed of the description of Men who at present, generally entered the sernce,; but be , would ask, did they find the present system to recruiting so efficient that it was impossible it. 1- could he revised with advantage to the service. He (Captain Bernal) was anxious to justify his opinion by authorities, and he would first q uota the authority of Mr. Fox, who had given it as h is opinion that the existing practice of recruiting w ee not consistent with the British Constitution. fir' Wyndham, too, on introducing his I tecruiting Bi b s in 1806, had said that he hoped, by introduc ing a better sort of men into the service, they wou ld be enabled to do away with corps zal punishmen t ' Lord Lynedoeh and Mr. Wilberforne had express ed similar opinions. • Major-General Sir Archiba ld Campbell had been examined before the Milita r y . Committee on corporal punishmen,t, and had give n it as his opinion, that men enlisted for a limited period always made the best soldiers, and th at he (Sir A. Campbell) had alwt ,ys endeavoured to get such men under his comma nd, and to indu ce to re-engage. It wig' at 'be said, th at the present system of enliste lent was perfec tl y voluntary. It could hardly lie said to be e n ' Men were entrapped under the excitement of liquor , and deceived by the false pretences c -f a recruiting serjeen t ' to enter the service. Cout I they wonder tba4 when a youth, entrapped in this manner' and enlisted for an unlimited period, found the' those representations were false, and that he was at one! subjected to the strict discipline of a regiment, witb en i hope beyond having a pension of 6d. a day at the encl!. ' 30 years if he conducted himself well—for such a person only granted a reward for good conduct —could theyiwonder st d ; youth thus situated beoming reel :less and demoralised ? t' o s . believed it was an undisputed fact, that the properti oo ., suicides in the army was much greater than it was in civil He would next draw the attention of the House to ther e priety of limiting the service of these men and increas int t i a number of those who rose from the ranks. He felt justitie a. saying, with due deference to the opinion of the Right rae l ye Gentleman, and the Secretary at War, but at r. same time with all due firmness on his (Mr. De o nal's) part, that it wax his humble opinion that . would, by limiting the service of the men and b e ;i e ing out the hope of ultimate promotion to them, do away a:„ the necessity of flogging, and ele vete the character of the seL vice. The clause which he sh ould have the honour of or, witting to the House had for its tbject the abolition of punis i v ., menb'by flogging, reserving it c.nly in two instances- 110° 4 offences committed on a brie of • march, or for theft. He " he induced to retain it in those tvve instances in deference mate_ opinion of those officers who h: al given evidence on the' ect. They were unanimous i n the opinion that it should D . : retained in those two instances , and he was fortified in his sent view of the matter on reforring to the speech of the Nelal.. Lord, the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sanders), who had bec" . one of the Commission that sat in 11535 on Military Punise, silents, and had on that occasion said that he did not considers practicable to carry on the discipline of the army on fu.ro service, without inflicting corporal punishment. Wi ta il , exceptions that he bad mentioned he thought that flog ought to be dispensed with ; he, there fore, certainly cone e m ' • that he would have the support of the Clerk of 14 , Ordnance(Captaln Boldero). He would conclude by mel t ; the insertion of the following clause in the 1 3 iu,', " And be it enacted, that it shall not be lawful to inflict . 0 0 poral punishment, by Pegging, during s the time of pelte_ e ', Se any private soldier, corporal, or non- commissioned olir,f„el - the army or militia of the United Kitigdorn, save for or s • . committed on a line of march, or fort heft." b e The SPEAKER then put the quest ion, that the Ch aose brought up and read a first time.—Agreed to. On the question that the clause be t ead a second time, the Captain BOLD ERO said that he we uld first advert 10 .00 ,0 question put to him the other night by the Hen. Gest to the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Berns .1), and he begtt; t tle' remind the House what that question wt ..s. The Hon. t' bie man had asked him (Captain Boldero), whether it witi,. oo of tention to bring forward his annual inn tion for the sib°,'',: i . o l) corporal punishment in the army? His (Captain B° o dor answer was, that he did not mean to .do so but if .. "- it to that effect were brought forwai d, he would gl c t i - t oo his support. The Hon. and Gallant IV.lember comMi tte i s ieb it errors ; one, in saying that it was an a nnual motion , 7 o " ai bets was not; and, in the next place, it was usual in Hos. 14 s ofa asking for information from one another , that courtesy re ' Ito they should give some private information of it: stir te Hon. and Gallant Officer had overloolted this, not vn b c for intention of annoying or embarrassing him, but n o M od in the good of the service. Now, with egard to its be i aced annual motion, how did the matter stand In 1836, he for the abolition of corporal punishment. Captain / lER NAL —You seconded die motion. d 001 Captain 'tIOLDERO—He did second the motion, 8n 40t on the occasion, and voted for the abolition ; but bad 't r e ati e s for a similtir motion from that time to th;s? That be P and totally denied. (An Hon. Member said "In 1 837 . ' 1 '0 e h , had stated, that he had voted once, and mice only, hit lition of corporal punishment, and if his word was tioe''• s bt Mirror ( Parliament—the record of that House—lnto b referred to. An lion. and Gallant Friend of hi!, o t ' o e made an annual motion on this subject, at last sbr_ r d e r d: t es s t doing it, and moved for a Committee of Inquiry. in ' he tre , 0 evidence taken berme it might support his views; " dar t not trouble Hon. Members for their votes, so often unsuccessfully without further evidence. 11- t be 'bt Beltbsro) voted for him. In 1836, Mr. Lennard , bo,' fileniber for Malden, gave notice when the Report O P ' seor por up that courts-martial should not be allowed toinflicln g ht,el ► punishment in time of peace. The Report was b re n bolitwi f ; and he (Captain 13.) spoke in favour of the hts iaeclA and said he considered a great triumph had been % o f dr o restricting courts-martial in the number of lashes ' ll ,Ol O inflict, but in consequence of the improvement tiT t pul ea 4 ; o ; place from the system of rewards and solitasy ceo si ;did bT urged his Hon. Friend not to press his motion. e adju i t l es it forward, and he (Captain Boldero) left the House.% nit o f give him his support. In 1838, during the discussio otios question, he had been much impressed with the obs4orecretario the Hon. Member for Sunderland, who was then t ad o War, that, as to aboli s hing cor p ora l punishroca s ts t i s t n e t s it better disband the army at once. Observations or . o , his e g et was enough to make the boldest n an flinch from P u b ; breead opinions in opposition to them. In 1838, alt e ' Acts it t be forward a motion relative to the Mutiny i n to i n moved for a Select Committee to inquire , o for ce lt state of military punishments and rewards the n 4 1 0 Gee,e t r b , the British army. On that occasion, he alludetr h ` o Evans, who had just returned from Spain, and I ° ll 4 to clte standing his votes in that House, had been eons sole' ors flogging to a great extent in the British Legion i% ang eel `. ll had not retracted his opinions merely when he had s c „ ut ioy 131 sle for ever since the year 1838 he had allowed the P, notion. but plies unnoticed without his bringing forward any oiter ed; on e confessed that his opinions upon the subject were,lo it'd oge he would give his vote with perlect c o nfidence :r ht t o e d it which no one could disapprove of. He had aHA ch url that his opinion whenever he might. please, and he ~ o 0 ,0 sn while sitting upon the other side of the House. al f ans' s pa be had ever expressed a determination to bril is b a scat t , annual motion fur the abolition of corporal 1 , a4i,c00 .. ,.. - et tss be would confid en tly l eave t h e H ouse to judge ° I i nt/TY i r diog Mr. J. HO WAI-ID said that in his (Tiniest le r u s 5 5 1. less martial ought to be entrusted with the Pal n o Is's ° oltea corporal punishment. For his part. he knew l? 1 he wits be abused, or inure satisfactorily exercised ; and to be tr t" by 'what tribunal he should wish above alt oche rsi.,_onsiinrios should certainly choose a court-martial. Notsv tr: tes °! the the able speech of the Hon. Member for Cbippenharaoteersa_r of the officers high in the service, and a mongst co re b a d first soldier of his age, the Duke of w e itj a gtono st tiles ~e a l s t t lf r :l i y ig i t n he f n a e vr h r im of i nrethtaeinviinegw whichthe p u p n e i s h h a m d nst the Intrusted on this subject, awl he must, therefore, vote s e ga' being en _ 6OO Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said, havi sore i g n 1 : 11 „ct with the command of her Majesty's forces to on t he ii rs ..o , for many years, he could not give a silent r .. e ,0. experience led him to the sincere and solte. _ so d w ith r_ nt not be ain' t. ", I ,„ did P,„ brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman solemn _rU ite this mode of punishment could althougo safety to the British service ; and wishes on this subject, it was very svgs by deb eras say this without doing great an v d iolen T e e e_ W cs ;o s lat? r i_ re e t s ° him to know that this obnoxious purstro7 l l oe )...-that the einiitt,htrntan ohtitertootro. falling into disuse—(Cheers from the PP?; that proportiohnabaats becoming less and less frequent, and e _ t it a blitY tn providence and sobriety encouraged, w future period. would fall entirely into disuse at soma and renaembe.l.g moral character of the soldier should absethraeips iy hear.) Looking back to his own career, was ineictebetoloenJel robs frightful extent to which this punishment v t'll doing, t 1;i d wss hich u not reflect upon what had been done, n dale abatement yi .0 fo e prove the condition of the soldier, of lashes, without ind oo easly daya—a recollection which made him' shudder— .0 eventually, a rt ob , / a hope that these converging lines would .) By s ea n tn rae distant day, be found to meet.—( Hear, r I that c rap etaskomen, paslabldinimtliineisphuinngishtimieennat,rnabsesrvell by restrieting to prove punishment was restricted to the . , negle o l o g the army regulations, page 2-52, insubordination, the use of threatening tang wa s the P - ti ken away with arms and accoutrements. IN ° tost care 1"11 duty, theft, disgraceful conduct, stealing, anent restricted to these crimes, but the gre! to present the partishment from being low i t wfneuunldw ibnegsecrirneo....s.o.t: taonndlyselling or ttpist, r bpon r itted ikod. Liter f e, or 4 use . 1; 4 part -.ers, 1.1 L.„ ,,, and 0, Pilau s 4 mtle of 1 4t th e , ' 1 ill ag—.ll Atlas.ll