The Sun. — London, England, 1842-02-24 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM TILE EVENING OF YESTERDAY. L O I 3 E. -- The e ridenee 5 of a systematic organsa- Lion oi' the Uflarti:sts, kept up for the purpose of aid ing and a',...! , ting the ,Torie in their attempts to dis turt) pnblie meetings, and to aonoy Liberal candidates and voters at eleetion=•: h ivi! been too abundant and conclusive to admit of successful resistance, or even of reasonable doubt. We have frequently taken oc casion to re,fer to the subject, as a striking illus tration of the destitution of principle on the part Of the 'Tories, and of the besotted igno, ranee • and desperate infatuation of the Chartists, in allowing themselves to be made the tools of those who engaged. them to perform the " briekbat-aad bludgeon" part of their opposition to the Whigs, in Parliamentary election contests, and for raising the in ce33ant noise s uproar, and other species of annoyance, by which they have interrupted, and, m many plans, dispersed meetings of the Liberal party called to petition Parliament against the Corn-laws, or any other grievance affecting. the general interests of the community. Those who recollect the detachments of Chartists from Carlisle, who were notoriously billettA at public houses-on gaged by the Tory Comrdtte? at the Cockermo:ith Election; the services rend ro:1 by those worthies at the hustings, in the way of hurling stones and wield ing bludgeons, to the perso:ral injury of rainy of the eleetors in Mr. Horny' La's intereA; and the same `tilt of active support givea to the Tory yartv at Sunderlan 1, Leicester, orvich, aul nuny other strongly vein tu3te:d, clue as -- these, with the occasioaal . - fliselosares' the delicate- business transactions liiFfweeil the aritwratic Tories and those whom they al7e t‘• e , atemptuously designate the "swinish linatitntle" and the " unwashed artizans," have left to: room tOr ,14.4 ) t as to the employment of the Char ttsts by the Tories in such services. Awkward alter -betivt.eit the blinded dupes'and the more crAfcv agents, respecting' the distribaion of the funds entrusted to their lands as the wages of violence, have terminated in open rupture : thus the public has been'made acquainted with matters which were never meant to be known beyond the walls of the corn mittee-rooms. It remained, .howeVer, for the Chartist worthies of Lelcester to supply the most ample and almost astounding evidence against their Tory subor ners and accomplices. The Leicester Chartists have split among•thernselves. A dispute has ariSetrrespect ing the iiioi:el3 received by certain of their leaders from the Leicester and NO ttin , hamTories, for the various services they were ceapioyed to render to the Tory party in the 1; - :rott,411 and county elections ; and a meeting of the fraternitY hs been iteld'fbr the pur pose of hearing the crini‘n.ttiocus and recriminations of the accasers and accus'2l. STAN DAIt ~.-1110 principle of Sir Robert Peel's proposition flu- a modilicatioa of, the Corn-laws has been approval of in . the 1 Latise of Commons by a triumphant tii.ijoritv—by a iiiaj , irity greater than has for nine, years divided. on any disputed ques , tion. This is, well .kii•wa - 11 to every being in the United 'Kingdom. Nevertheless a second de bate had. b-ca b• - it •up on the' same disputed question; it his already c mined , four days, was, again adjouraed laSt 4nißht, and may last one cannot guess how m sny day's morci. for as the debate ISM wholly useless at its commencement for any prae , 'ties! purpose the customary elements of calculation, an estimate of the sense of decency, and of what is due to the public service, here must wholly fail one. An unmeaning, and necessarily unprofitable discussion, may, be continaq indefinitely, as it must have begun ia , defianee Of all considerations of decency, or of care for the public interests ; such a debate tareatens folk , w4hout end in.every sense of the phrase. The I s fence of such directly unprofitable discussions, sometimes advanced, namely, that though hopeless of cot-wincing' the Parliament, they may assist in in atructinc,i the public, Cannot be employed by those wit; originate and protract, in such a wearisome nianni4, the debate over which the House of Com mons is now dnink Th., - Corn-laws have been thirty years„under discussion. For the last year the quiet of the country has been disturbed by hired lecturers, sent to howl in every direction; and with the effect, we tow remark by the : way, of reducing the. number of Anti-Corn-law petitioners, from 1,300,000, to less than a third of the number, a fact noted by Mr. &nett last night. What more, then, can the. public learn upon the subject from Mr. Villiers,' Messrs. O'Connell, . Mr. Patrick Stewart, Dr. Bowring, and Mr. Milner. Gibson? Why, there is no one accustomed to attend to such matters—and none others will read the reported debates—who could not Ny..ite off-hand the speech of each or. these permuts, faithfully presenting all its p;ure,s,• and all Its arguments, and all else—except ing. only the filsoTtiglish Iml bad grammar. Or will tlte people are made` '‘viser'hy lord Dtmean's•lavish ANafts.upon' " ,-t - atchel, of s•,hool - books ?',' If it is 4i c csfeilt'h*it the Cult cr~at`it, ;, .NYtio squander truth and good seise in repi to the worn out common lace fallacies of time League:. , ; are equally culpable as respects the prolo;r 4 ..ttion of tYs tediouS waste of th, titne, the an:-.Yer to 5u , .11 complaint ,is, first, that theY not ben Llw nnlsanee ; secondly, that tPy are by -no irrans as numerous or prolix'-as the parties to whoet they are compelled to reply; for, thirdly, fakehood must be niet by truth as often as faisAfaid,iS put thrward, lest falsehoOd, as unanSwer it.hle, pass upon the thoughtks' for truth. . COLT " Moderate and Constitutional" party in the: Church :of Scotland have submitted a memorial to' her Majesty's Government," of which a copy has readied us. We . are peculiarly struck— as we have 02 doubt her - Aijesty's Ministers will be—with the contrast which this most im portant 'document - displays with the 44 statement" and " memorials" presentA - by the Non-Intrusion ptrey in the Kirk, AO far as ptain simplicity of pLtriaoe and , traightibrWard marching towards that iairpose are ecoeezned., 'There is no Mystification in this •` memorial." It. avowedly lays.down , the 1 rinci pie, that when c.question of arisdietion arises between tWeivil and Ecclesiastical Court:: of Scotland, it be to the ta'iner tb . decirle it. 'The line of deimir:- atioh between the ,two panties now dividing the is most clearly marked out, and "no viistake - can , exist." " While the majority," says this memorial," "gave to both the Civil and Ecclesiasti cal Courts, each fOr themselves, the power of fixing what I,i Civil and what is Ecclesiastical, the minority, ascribe to the SupreitL. Civil Courts alone_ power to determine 11 questions of competing jurisdiction." This con cession, according to the dominant faction in the 'Kirk,' is a surrender of the " spiritual independence" of the Church—" high treason," according to some of the more fiery.spirits, " against her great and Divine head !" It now remains with Sir Robert Peel .to adopt or reject the principle, as laid down by the ma , J l o rity of the Assembly calling itself " The Church." ' THAmE6 HAVEN DOCK AND RAI L WAY COMPANY. The half.yearly General MeAing of the Proprietors in this Company was !Ad yesterday, at their offices, St. Mildred's Court, Poultry, for the purpose of receiving the Report of the ]):rector::, autl a statement of the accounts from the Secretary. The meeting was called at twelve for one o'clock, but owing to zto small a number a.Shareholders being present, the business of the meet- Sing did not commence till half-past one o'cloCk. JAMI ESDAILE, Esq. took the Chair, and in doiaz so said they were aware that that was the half-yearly Meet ing of the Proprietors, and the. Directors had drawn up ititeport, in which they endeavoured to show the exact fosition of the Company at the present moment, toge ther with a statement of the financial affairs, which he ;rusted would be found satisfisetory to the body of the Proprietors.. Ile would only further _observe that the -Court of Directors were desirous of giving the fullest information respeetine - the Computyin their power, and they would be most happy to /311:1Wer ; any questions to lho'best of their ability. in the usual course of business he would call on the Secretary to read the Report. The SEC itETA RV then read the 11 , _•port of the Directors, lv hiat was very long, and which commenced by regret jar„. thai; I,t the last general meeting, a suffici t number or Pfoprietorl had not assembled to constitute ting. It then went on tt; state that the Dircttors were , lus ;of preventing tly, Sh.,;•reholders from transferring their ;shan't, to inecenvetent pet:.'coas, awl they had therefore issued an immediate call up'.; the shares so that the burden might fall on all alike ; they regretted to state, ho wever , th a t `jtiO shares had ;,,2en transferred _before it wa-; in their power to - resent it. A Ith respest to the estimated revenue . . to,. be derived f rom t h e ant i c i pate d tra ffi c' the Ihrector-. w '" e itWare that th e ag , ri.tate formed a ,sum equal in amount to the entire co.:. of constructing the railway, or in-other r wsr , d_s_,_t , he ,o a an. annual gross reeeiptA•to be derived from the 11 777 t 4 , Y a si l ltoin ld e rl the capital; to be expended in form itself so startling and so unusual, that the Direetorb t nowied;2;e of tiv! f Were aware it required seine of its accuracy, f acts and details to be assured entirely which, when inquired into, -would be borne out, and the Directors Il til e te li f e i rfeLlutith;tali,fth ,m,,e . ni r e uction of a tide-cock, giving Onto"' would bring to it a traffic eq,:ial to the ahlity of 'fold they grounded this tieliertilwaY to accommodate ; the metropolis and its enviroZ ti o t i e t I t a t r ie ge la p i lt e ttiz i t i t i i;: v n .u t ig tf population on the river, o n the nits] also, advantages their Dook and Railway would w t4 i ldso, and very much I I . ) consequence of the low f are ,, they hod named for the entiv it e c 3 b ' it "bid b" "- ser , Vl, Ism-ign; and goods, the whole distanc - e a o n f ee : f 6- ith p;ts 2, miles, from Thames Haven to Lothlon ; and they would draw at tention to the f act, that in Belgium in ten mendhs of 1838, from the • very low fares, upward s o f . 2„000,000 pers ons travelled on the railways, th e who! , mutation of the kingdthu not excetxling 4, 000,00 „: The. Ueport concluded by stating that Messrs. Ernest Vaux, datnea Esduakt, and ].;chard Baker Wiligiield mere to , go out of the direction by rotation 4 but, being 'elieble, offered thoulielves for—re-election. -.e-' he SECRETARY thew read a statement of the accounts, tfrontlAlichlt appeared and the cash in hand amounted 4 4; VS46/. 10s. rid. :' ite Report 1 I d was received, ant 11: (pte . ittit,is,4o ~.r. of • the lototeru Counties Railway .f.,, 14 . !: - Oree PiOetors were theft re-elected. ,- ,:`-r=te -- SfifeerNs wished th ask the Secretary sit *nee . had been ,ate • t the Me .ting , - 4 : . '' on Tuesday to this - Company, and whether they intended to bring the subject before the Board of Directors of the Eastern Counties Railway ? The SECRETARY said the subject had not been men tioned on Tuesday, but that the Eastern Counties Railway tiok the most lively interest in the affairs of the Thames Haven Company ; and the subject, he felt assured, would receive their early consideration. The Secretary then moved a resolution, to the effect that those Shareholders, wishing to leave the Compa n y, s h ou ld trans f er t h e i r shares to the office, first paying up the calls upon them, • which resolution was carried. A resolution was then passed, that all the forfeited shares sold from this date should be sold at 2/. 10s. less than the original cost, that sum havinc , been paid upon them by the ori g i na l h o ld ers. A vote of thanks was then passed to the Chairman, and the Meeting separated. STATE OF TRADE. (From the Manchester Guardian.) We are sorry to say that we cannot repo:t the slightest improvement in business this week. On the centrary, although the production both of goods and yarn has bee❑ very greatly diminished, it still exceeds the demand, even at the wretched prices now prevalent. Many articles_ have been sold this week at lower prices than were ever before known ; and all this, we re gret to add, is without the slightest prospect of amendment from any quarter, until a decline in th 3 price of - jihad shall enable the working classes of this country to consume the natal amount of manufactured cOmmodities. We believe, indeed, that some little impravement has been experienced in some branches uf the country trade ; but it retaains generally in a state of depression perfectly unexampled at this periol Of the Year. ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKEL, MONDAY, FEB. - 21. The market to-day has been quite as dull as that of the preceding Monday. Those who have been obliged to . sell, have obtained extremely low prices for their gooli. In the wool market there has been very little . doing ; but prices remain firm. HUDDERSFIELD MARKET, FEB. 24.—This was cer tainly-. the most discouraging market-day ever known in this town, bad as they have been of late. Buyers were few and spiritless, and the purchases few even at ruinous prices. In the warehouses, perhaps, business is not quite so wretched ; but even there the symptoms are those of stagnation and ruin. As to prices, they are nominal and accidental; on the average ruinous to the manufacturers LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 23. (Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall.) BREEZE V. JARDINE AND OTHERS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a solicitor re siding in Wales, to recover damages from the defendants, Mr. Jardine, a wine merchant, and Beaumont and Bradley, two officers in the City police, for an assault and false imprison ment, and for detaining certain property. Mr. Jervis and Mr. Ogle appeared for the plaintiff. From the evidence for the prosecution it appeared that the plaintiff and his friend Mr. Williams, the High Sheriff of Me rionethshire, had been down to Blackwall on the 27th of May last to eat white-bait, and returned to town in the evening by the railway. The defendant Jardine was in the same car riage with them, arid plaintiff accused him of smoking a cigar. Mr. Jardine denie 1 that he had been smoking; an altercation ensued, which ended in Mr. Jardine's being taken into cus tody, oim the complaint of the plaintiff. On their arrival at the station in the Minories, Mr. Jardine was taken t o th e Tower police station, a n d charged with smoking. The charge was taken, and tile plaintiff was called upon as usual to give his name and address to appear, to support the charge. He refused to state either his name or address, although re peatedly required to do so, and Mr. Jardine desired that he should be detained until he had done so. The other de fendants said that plaintiff had placed them in a most awk ward situation, and urged him to give his name and address. Plaintiff still refused to do, although, according to the testi mony of one of the witnesses, he said he said he objefved to give his name as a prosecutor, but would do so as a witness. He was then detained, but refusing when offered, to give bail, was ultimately conveyed to the Compter, and locked up for the n'ght. When taken before the Lord Mayor the next day, Breeze was discharged, and after hearing the charge against Mr. Jardine the Lord Mayor discharged him also, as he had no jurisdiction in the case.. Before the defence was gone into, Lord DENMAN said that certainly there was some case to go to the Jury, although he thought it was not a case fur heavy damages, for the plaintiff had, in a great measure, brought what had happened to him on himself by his own absurd conduct. If the Jury took that view of the case, perhaps if they were to state their opinion, it might save some time. ihe Foreman of the Jury, after the lapse of not more than a minute, said, We find for the plaintiff, damages 201. Lord DEN3fAX-Oh ! if that is the case, gentlemen, we must hear the Learned Counsel for the defence. itlr. JERVIS protested against the counsel for the defence being heard. they had chosen to take the chance of a ver dict, and it was exceedingly irregular to let them enter into the defence now. Lord Detimart..--The irregularity was mine. I thought if the jury agreed with me in opinion we might have saved time. As it is, the case for the defence must be gone into. Mr. Hill, on the part of the defendant Bradley, Mr. P 1 att. on the part of the defendant Jardine, and %Ir. Kelley on the part of the defendant Beaumont, respectively addressed the jury. For the defendant, Jardine, witnesses were examined, from whose testimony it appeared that Mr. Jardine had no cigars with him, and was not smoking previous to his entering the carriage in which plaintiff and Mr. Williams were ; that on his arrival in the Alinories, when accused of having been smok ing, he denied it, and that plaintiff insisted on Jardine's being taken in charge. :fliat the carriage was examined by the rail way officers, and that it did not smell of tobacco. That de fendant, Beaumont, was sent for, and that at his request they all went to the station-house together, and that neither the dress nor the breath of J ar di ne sme ll e d o f t o b acco . Th a t w h en Jar ! dine was brought to the st9tion-house, plaintiff refused to give his name and address, although repeatedly urged to do so, because he had given a person in charge; ! that plaintiff was very much excited, and kn-cked the pen on: of the policeman's,hani while the policeman was in the act of writing Mr. Williams's name as plaintiff's bail ; that plaintiff refused to allow Mr. Williams to give his name and address, and that ultimately Beaumont gave Breeze in charge for re fusing to give his name and widress, after having given Jar dine into castody. It further appeased, that when, on the next morning, the policeman' tendered to plaintiff his watch and money which had previously been taken from him, and requested him to sign the book, he refused to do so, saying the entry therein was not true, and he would not sign it, and that as the policeman refused to restore the property with out his signing the book, Breeze replied, " Very well ; you have brought a pretty hornet's nest about your ears." Air. JERVIS replied. Lord DeNAIAN summed up, and observed that he consi dered the plaintiff acted a most obstinate and strange part, in " refusing to give his name and address after having made a charge, but no doubt he had suffered considerable injury from having been shut up . for the night, and if they could in any way make out that the infliction of that imprisonment was a joint proceeding, he would be entitled to recover compensatioa for it. With regard to character, although there had been con siderable obstinacy on all sides, he did not consider that any imputation rested on the characters of any of the parties concerned. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 151., and that the three defendants were joint trespassers during a portion of the time in question. Mr. D. W. Harvey was present in Court during the greater part of the trial, which lasted neatly six hours. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 23. SOMES V. BLISS, This was an :iction to recover an amount for salvage, for services rendered to the ship Harriet, while in danger of being wrecked at Wahoo, in the Pacific Ocean. _ _ Mr. Thesiger appeared for the plaintiff, and Sergeant Wilde for the defendant. The arguments on both sides occupied the Court for t.everal hours; Sergeant Sir T. Wilde concluded hit address shortly after two o'clock, and then pc oceeded to call witnesses in support of his case ; the examination of witnesses occupied the remainder of the day. CONSISTOR,Y COURT, Feb 23. THE DRAINTItiE CASE.-VELEY AND JOSLIN, CHURCH- WARDENS, C. GOSLING. The present case came before the Court on the admission to prove the libel, and the facts connected with it originated in the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, on the well known case of the Churchwardens of Braintree v. Burden. In that case the parishioners of the pa rish of Braintree, in Essex, having refused to make a rate to repair the parish church, a suit for substraetion of Church-rates was instituted against Mr. Burder, one of the parishioners of the said parish, by . the churchwardens ; but a writ of prohibition . having been obtained from the Court of Queen's Bench, which was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, the proceedings of the churchwardens were declared to be in valid. The churchwardens thereupon called a vestry for the pith of May 1841, when a rate to repair the church was again sought to be made, but which was again refused by amajority of the inhabitants. The vicar of the parish, the Rev. Bernard Scale, in consequence of that report, sought and obtained a decree under the seal of the Court, calling upon the churchwardens and parishioners to show cause why a Monition should not issue against them, to compel them to take steps to repair the church. The pa rishioners not having appeared, the monition accordingly issued, and the churchwardens, in obedience to it, convened a vestry on the 15th of July, 1841, at which it was pro pose to impose a church-rate of two shillings in the pound. fo the proposition so made an amendment was proposed, and carried by a majority of the parishioners, to, the effect that the tax was unjust, and an interference with the religious freedom of the subject. The churchwardens then, of their own autho rity, made a rate of 2s. ; and Mr. Gosling, a party refusing, being cited to appear for his refusal to pay his assessment on 231., a libel on his behalf was prayed for, and the arguments for its admission were now heard by the Court. Dr. ADDAMS, for the defendant, entered at great length on the judgment in the case of the Churchwardens against ;'order, delivered by Chief Justice Tindal in the Court of Exel s . ~- , ?, u er Chamber. He contended that the rate made was bad, becati>e a majority of the parishioners had voted against the rate, and that the votes of the majority were not lost, be cause they refused to submit to a rating. The case was quite distinct from that of a Corporation met to el&t an officer, and some of them refusing to proceed to the election, in which case the votes would be void. The argument from analogy thrown out by the Learned Chief Justice was fanciful, because the one was a case of obligation, and the other one of privilege. As to how far the present was a Common Law obliga tion he would say one word ; hecontended that that was not the Court in which the rase ought tube enforced it it were a common law obligation. It was the custom of England for the parishioners to repair the nave of the church, anti not the chancel, which the parson was bound to repair. The Learned Advocate cited numerous eases, to show that the parishioners were not bound to repair the whole of the church, and that therefore titivate must be bad. He allowed that in one sense the making of the rate was one of Common Law obligation, but not in the sense in which it was assumed to be so in the judg ment of Lord Chief Justice.Tindal. It was half civil and half eccles'astical, and the present was not the proper juris diction to apply to to enforce the proper rate. He objected to the proceeding, because it was a mongrel proc ee di ng . If the rate was legal, the proper mode of proceeding would be by distress ; and he had no doubt, if that mode of proceeding was adopted, the present defendant would allow his goods to be taken, and there would be an end of the ease. They had no right t o t a k e th e present mode of p rocee d in g , to impose on Englishmen, contrary to the Bill of Rights, what they considered to be a violation of their rights, and against their consent. The present case did not concern the Church generally, for he sup posed that 99 out of every 100 parishes would have no dif f iculty to repairimrtheir churches.. There was another reason who the Court. would not. sanction the rate, which would in Popish countries be considered almost miraeulous, and which he supposed the Puseyites would' also consider somewhat of a marvel now that they were approaching to P.pery. That reason was, that in 1837 a rate of 3s. in the pound was deemed necessary for the repair of the church, whereas, in 1842, though the church must have gone more into decay, a rate of 2s. in the pound, was thought to be enough. He also contended that the Churchwardens ought not be satisfied with a show of hands at the meeting, in proof of which he quoted a case from Rogers, p. 789. The parish were only bound to repair the nave of the church, and not the whole church. And it was evident from Ist Mordaunt,.p. 237, that though a tax were imposed de reparatione ecclesue, and applied to the repair of the chancel, the Court could not interfere at Common Law, and the expenses need not be allowed in the churchwardens' accounts; and, therefore, the rate was bad. The next objection he had to urge was against the rate itself and its excessive amount, on which ground he contended also that the allegation must be rejected. The - churchwardens and the mino rity in vestry assembled took it upon themselves to omit 1,0001. worth of rateable property; and though, from the au thority of " Thompson and Sandford v. Cooper," in 3d Philli more, 640, the property of pmr,parishioners may not be in cluded in the rate, yet that authority could not apply to a , ase like the present. Upon the whole, therefore, he hoped the Court would agree that a rate levied in the manner in which that had been would be set aside. The QUitEtes ADVOCATE and Dr. HAGGARD, who appeared for the churchwardens, contended in reply that this case was totally distinct from the former Braintree case. Thence was not then made in a vestry meeting, or on a day when a vestry meeting was convened ; it was made by the Churchwardens alone. But none of these things could by said of the rate now in dis pute ; and above all, this rate had been made in pursuance of a decree of this Coact; and a monition issued by the Court, direct ing the Churchwardens to call a Vestry Meeting, and to take the necessary steps to raise a sum for the repair of the church, as they were bound to do. But if a majority of the parishioners mild still legally refuse the rate, there was no means of com pelling them to discharge the obligation imposed on them, and there was no means of obtaining the execution of the order of that Court. The ecclesiastical authorities could not enforce their claim by having recourse to an interdict, which was a proceeding, as stated by the Chief Justice in his decision in the former erase, now obsolete, and abandoned by general consent. The Judges of the Exchequer held that in the former case the churchwardens had not legally proceeded, and that they were not therefore entitled to the support of the Court. But in that very judgment the legal character of church rates was admitted ; and it was manifest beyond all question that in the opinion of the Judges a resistance on the part of the inhabitants of a parish to snake the necessary church-rate was a resistance to the law. The only possi ble means of enforcing the law had been taken ; and, therefore, the proceeding of the refractory parishioners could not be maintained. The majority who refused to make a rate, which they were hound to make, threw away their votes, and the •minority on that occasion legally represented the parish. Dr. AnDASIs having replied, Sir S. LUSAINGToN said that the question was one in volved in great difficulty; and it had assumed a new aspect in consequence of the decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench, and of the Exchequer. He would inded be a bold man who under these circumstances would of his own accord undertake to adjudicate upon the question. It was, however, his duty to pronounce a decision ; but he would not do so until he had taken further time to consider the whole matter. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION HOUSE. John Bagnell Stockley, the Brussels banker, agent and broker, who was charged on Saturday week, with having unlawfully converted to his own use, certain French Dutch bonds, left in his custody by a lady of the name of Motors'', was brought up for re.examination. The case attracted a great number of auditors. Mr. Chad wick Jones appeared fur the complainant, and Mr. Bodkin for the prisoner. Mr. CH►DWICK JONES stated, that he had got over evidence from France, to prove the identity of the French Dutch bonds, which Mrs. Molony's husband had purchased of a broker at Bou logne, and deposited in the hands of the prisoner. He also had the necessary evidence to prove that the prisoner had misappropriated the bonds, which he brought to this country (being seven of the complainant's bonds), by causing them to be sold, and the pro. ceeds to be placed to his account. Mr. Ilyppo lite Sire, banker, at Boulogne, stated that he knew Mr. Lambert Molony, the husband of • the prosecutrix there. In the year 1835, witness sold to Mr. Molony fourteen French Dutch bonds, the numbers of which corresponded with the numbers of those respecting which evidence was given on the first examina tion of the prisoner. The value of the whole was above 1,200/. They had been purchased by witness's house, together with a few others similar, and subsequently sold to Mr. Molony, as appeared by an extract taken from the books by one of witness's clerks. Mr. William Wilson Scrimgeour, Manager al the Union Bank of London, stated ,that the prisoner had been introduced to him upon respectable references, and had opened an account with the bank. Witness thought that the time of the introduction was about January, 1841. Subsequently the prisoner brought souse French Dutch Bonds to witness, who took them, but who refused t.s take other securities of a comparatively questionable character. (Here witness stated that the bonds placed in his bands were num. bete& 2171, 2172, 2176, 553, 557, 558, and 2274 ; seven of the numbers purchased by Mr. Molony of Mr. Sire, at Boulogne.) The prisoaer afterwards directed that the bonds should be sold, and the Bank accordingly sent them to Messrs. Boyd and Co., the stock brokers, who sold them, and placed the proceeds to the pri soner's account. There was a balance of 41, remaining of the account. Mr. Chadwick Jones said there was another witness whom he did not think it would be necessary to call, as the transaction was confined to Brussels. • That witness, was a banker, to whom the prisoner went, upon receiving the bonds from the prosecutrix, and sold them, thus supplying the prosecutrix with the temporary ac commodation she required from the money derived from her own property. The LORD Maroa-:-There is no occasion whatever for hearing that gentleman. - Mr. Bodkin said he had expressed a wish upon the first examina tion that his Lordship would consult his legal adviser as to his Lord. ship's jurisdiction in the case, and he was anxious to know whether that had been done ? The Logo MAYOR said be bad taken the advice of the City Solicitor on the subject. and determined, after having heard the opinion of Mr. Pearson to send the case for trial. He enter tained not theslightest doubt upon the matter himself. The offence with which the prisoner was charged, was a bailable one, but if any bail were offered, none would be accepted but good securities, to the full amount of the prosecutrix's claim. By consent of the Counsel on both sides, it was agreed that the prisoner should be brought up on Saturday, to be committed for trial, and the depositions of the witnesses were severally taken down and signed. TRANSPORTATION OP JERSEY FELONS TO ENGLAND. —We mentioned in our last that a highway robber, convicted of four distinct felonies - in Guernsey, had been sentenced to be transported to England; and we have since heard that he is to be shipped to Southampton, and there let loose on the community: He is said to be a most expert burglar, and can , pick a lack equal to Black Dick, who was some years ago hung at Salisbury; but his principal forte seems to be that of a- highwayman and pickpocket—so we would advise our neighbours across the Channel to keep a sharp look out. South ampton has a great many beautiful shops, stocked with the moat valuable goods, and a rich neighbourhood, comprising that class of people who always carry plenty of loose money about them ; hence this rascal will have a fine field open to him, and if the police do not - watch his movements, he . will make a rich harvest. There was also a fellow sentenced to be transported to England by the Jersey Court on Saturday. - hut, on the recommendation of the Attor. ney-General ; but he waas only a small offender. Judge Winter Nicolle, who was on the bench, very properly protested against this systetri, arid maintained that the man ought to be punished in the island. Judge Perrott, however, thought differently, and, as the bench was divided, the Chief Justice, Sir John De Veulle, bailiff,.by his casting vote, sentenced him to be transported to Eng. land; nay, more, that his wife and family, who had not participated in his crime, should be transported also I Bravo! Verily a Daniel is come to judgment. —Jersey News. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. KING'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL—Sunday morning a sermon was preached at the Chapel connected with Kin's Col. lege, by the Rev. John Lonsdale, 8.D., the Principal, in aid of the funds of the College Hospital, in Portugal.street, Lincoln's Inn, The Rev. Gentleman eloquently pleaded the cause of the distressed sick, and his earnest appeal was nobly responded to by a very liberal subscription. One of the great benefits conferred by the Directors of this Hospital on those unfortunate persons who are compelled to avail themselves of its assistance, is that of sound re. ligious instruction, in conformity with the principles of the Established Church ; so that, while the skill of the medical man is employed in the restoration of the diseased body to perfect health, a faithful Clergyman instils into the minds of the patients those religious truths which a sick bed is likely to ren. der beneficial and permanent. At the date of the last report, that is, during the previous year, 1,109 patients had been admitted, by reoommendation, accident, or other cases of emergency; of whom 378 were cured, 140 mateially relieved, 105 died, 368 made out. patients, 103 remained in the hospital; the remaining fifteen were irregular, and of tkem there is consequently no report. In addition to these there were 6,631 outpatients, giving a total of 7,740 of [ the afflicted and destitute who have participated in the benefits afforded by King's College Hospital. The expenditure of the year exceeded the receipts by nearly 1,000/. _ . A letter from Algiers, dated the 28th ult., men that a barbarous murder had been committed on two French colonists by a young man, from the environs of Strasburg, who was working with them. It was at first supposed that some Arabs had fallen on them, and had killed them, but the activity of the police soon discovered the true murderer. The object of the assassin is not stated.—Another letter in the Sentinelle of Toulon, states that a great fraud has been detected in the management of the military accounts at Algiers, the articles furnished being much overcharged to Government. It was at one time supposed that the surgeons were implicated, but the contrary had been proved in the clearest manner. An inquiry was going on. . MERTHYR TYDVIL.—The generality of those who reside in the manufacturing districts of South Wales'ardently hope that the low rate of wages have reached their minimum. Far " as the poles asunder" as we are from being the means of circulat ing false reports, yet it is useless to conceal facts; tradesmen can not fail to meet with many difficulties, if not impossibilities, to make up their payments, and as fur workmen, great numbers of first rate ones actually suffer the want of the necessaries of life. The crowds assembled at the Vestry room weekly—the hundreds of those emigrating—and the vast number taken to their parishes, is an undeniable proof of this melancholy truth—that Merthyr and the neighbouring iron-works are in a more distressed situation than they have ever been before.—Silurian. HOUSE. OF- COMMONS, FEB. 23. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock. General MORISON was introduced by Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Fox Maule, and took the oaths and and his seat for Clackmannan and Kinross. On the motion of Mr. BARNARD, th 3 London and Greenwich Improvement Bill was road a second time, and ordered to be committed. The South Eastern Railway Company's Bill was read a second time. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from Wol verhampton in favour of the Severn Navigation Bill. The Birkenhead Improvement Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Sir J. Y. BULLER brought up the Report of the Committee on the Southwark Improvements Bill. Mr. GODSON presented a petition from Stour port and Kidderminster, in favour of the Severn Na vigation Bill. .MARYLEI3ONE VESTRY BILL. Colonel T. WOOD brought in the Marylebone Vestry Bill. Sir B. HA_LL wished to know when it was the in tention of the Hon. and Gallant Member to move the second reading of the Bill. Colonel T. WOOD said he should move the second reading in 10 days or a fortnight, as he thought in that time the inhabitants of Marylebone would be enabled to become acquainted with the nature of the Bill. Mr. R. CLIVE brought in the Grantham Pier Bill, which was read a first time. CORN-LAWS. Captain BERKELEY presented a petition from a place near Bristol praying for the abolition of the Bread and. Provision tax. LNMII BURIED IN THE SNOW FOR NINETEEN DAY9.—A one-year lamb, belonging to Messrs. Sutton and Co., of the Trubshaw farm, was missed on the 13th of January, during the heavy fall of snow, and was not found until the lst of the present month, when it was discovered in a ditch, standing in an upright position, having been nineteen days enveloped in a snowdrift. It had been reduced to a mere skeleton, and when brought into the ;resh air, it could neither stand nor walk; but by the judicious care and treatment of Messrs. Sutton's shepherd, it h as now quite recovered. —SlVordshire Advertiser. Mr. BROTHERTON presented thirty petitions from di&rent parts of Manchester, praying for the total abolition of the Corn-laws. Mr. MARSLAND presented a petition from Stockport, signed by a magistrate, a minister of the Established Church, and many others, who are la bouring under great poverty and depression, which they ascribe to the fatal effect of the Corn-laws, pray ing the House to pass a law for the repeal of the Corn and Provision-laws ' • also, another petition from the inhabitants of Stockport, agreed to at a public meet ing, expressing _surprise and indignation at Sir R. Peel's proposed plan for the alteration of the Corn laws, respectfully demanding that the franchise be extended to every man of twenty-one years of age, and that the Corn-laws be totally and immediately repealed. Alderman WOOD presented a petition from South wark, praying that the toll be removed from South wark and Waterloo Bridges. Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition from Marylebone to the same effect. Mr. FOX MAULE presented a petition, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws, and an extension of the Suffrage ; a petition from Berkshire for the re peal of the Corn-laws, and a petition from the Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham, praying that certain clauses in a Bill before the House, investing the Com missioners 'of Improvement for that borough with ir responsible powers, be expunged from that Bill. The Hon. Member cordially agreed with the prayer of the petition. Dr. BOWRING presented twelve petitions from various places, praying for a total and immediate re peal of the Corn-laws. One of the petitions came from a body of 'persons who had hitherto suffered but little distress, men engaged in the manufacture of chains and anchors. They stated that they were not now able to supply themselves with a sufficiency of nutritious food ; they, therefore, pray for a repeal of the laws that tend to produce such distress. Mr. JONES presented a petition from Ayr, against the Corn and Provision-laws. LAMENTABLE OCCURRENCE AT BULMER. a. FEMALE SHOT tni Rea Huseawn.—The village or Bulmer, near Sadhury, was on Sunday morning last thrown into the greatest con sternation by a report that Mr. Charles Viall, farmer, of the above pariah, had shot his wife, which, unhappily, proved to be too true. 'Die facts of the case are as follow : —Mr. Viall had been spending the evening of Saturday at the Plough Inn, in the above parish, and one of his workmen having quarrelled with him, some blows were struck. About eleven o'clock, Mr. Vial! went home in a state of excitement, and quarrelled with his wife, on which she ran into another room, and held the door after her He (Mr. Viall) the n tired a gun, which was loaded with shot, through the door; and part of the charge entered his wife's left breast in an oblique direc tion, also carrying part of the door; which struck her. She then made her escape to a cottage on the Halsted-road, and obtained the assistance of two men, who returned with her, when they found Mr. Viall in bed, with a double barrel gun by his side, one of the barrels of which appeared to have been recently discharged. Medical as. 3i.tance having been procured, Mrs. Viall's wounds were dressed. Nothing can be elicited from Mrs. Viall on the subject of the trans.. action. An account received since, states that Mrs. Viall was not considered in danger on Monday.—Chehnsford Chronicle. We ha ve b e f ore s t a t e d th a t the occasion of the Roden removal of the Court to Brighton was for the improvement of the health f ha t s h l e in P ced rin t c h e e ss au lt m oY s a c : f . g.) that Mr. Harry Maker, the eminent surgeon of that place, ha v ing been called no has allayed the irritation, .and she has since cut three teeth. The We are yal now H i g h h a n p e l s , s y : t o which s t ate Princess's h ealth is now much improved.—Obaerrer. .It probable'tbat, in consequence of the acceptance of the Governer-Generalship: of Jamaica by the Earl of Elgin (late Lord Bruce), the question which was about to be raised as to the right of a Scottish Peer to sit in the House of Commons for an English borough will no • t the present initance be pressed to a decision.— Tory Paper. Lord DUNCAN presented two petitions from Bath, against the Corn and Provision-laws. Mr. GIBSON presented several petitions having the same prayer. Mr. 'l'. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from inhabitant rate-payers of Brighton, stating that under the local Act, the overseer of the poor had the power of compounding with landlords of houses for the poor rate, under the sum of 20/. ; that much inconvenience arose from this power ; they, therefore, prayed the House to repeal the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Bill, and as the best and shortest way of doing so, also pray the House to pass, the people's Charter. Sir J. EA.STHOPE presented petitions from Loughborough, in. Leicestershire, from a parish in Leicestershire, and other places, for a total and imme diate rePeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. O'CONNELL presented four petitions from Scotland, and three petitions from Ireland, praying for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws ; one of these was signed by several hundred persons ; another was from the City of Cork, signed by more than 5,000 persons and the other from the city of Dublin, with more than 60,000 signatures. THE SUN, 'LONDON, THURSDAY-I:EVENING,- FEBRUARY --244--1842. referred, although they thought the petition ought to be printed, were of opinion that it ought not to be sold. He thought the House had better follow the suggestion of the Committee. This arrangement was agreed to, and the petition was ordered to be printed for the use of Members only. BUILDINGS REGULATION BILL. Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from George Thomas Ward against the Buildings Regulation Bill, and praying to be heard by Counsel against it. THE CORN-LAWS. Colonel FOX presented a petition, praying for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. Sir G. STRICKL AND presented a petition from 2,600 persons in the West Riding of Yorkshire, stating that they regarded the Ministerial plan for the alteration of the Corn-laws as an insult to the starving people, inasmuch as it held out no prospect of pre sent or future relief; therefore for an immediate re peal of the Corn-laws ; also a petition from a congre gation of Primitive Methodists at Hepworth, York shire, to the same effect. Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented 30 petitions from mechanics at Manchester to the same effect ; also several petitions from Dissenting congregations in Lancashire, stating that they were unable in a great degree to go to church on Sundays, or to send their children to Sunday-schools, from the want of clothes, through the distress brought on by the Corn-laws.—(Hear.) The petitioners, therefore requested a repeal of those laws. Also, a petition from a body of men engaged in iron works in Gla morganshire to the same effect, more on account of others than themselves. METROPOLITAN BRIDGES. Sir CHARLES NAPIER presented petitions from inhabitants of Black friars-road; and other places in the metropolis, praying that Waterloo and other bridges should be made toll-free. BOROUGH OF LIVERPOOL. Lord SANDON presented petitions signed by the Mayor of Liverpool on behalf of the inhabitants of that town in favour of certain local improvements there, and also from the millers of Liverpool, who stated that they had 2 0,000,000/. of capital embarked in their trade, and praying for a protective duty upon the importation of foreign wheat. - CORN-LAWS. Mr. BLEWETT presented a petition from New port Pagnell, against the Corn-laws. QUEENBOROUGH PETITION. Mr. G. W. WOOD moved, in pursuance of his motion of last evening, that the petition of the free burgesses of the borough of Queensborough be printed with the votes for the use of Members only. Sir E. KNATCHBULL opposed the printing of the petition, as the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), when presenting the petition, had not given notice of his intention to follow it up. The practice of the House was, that when Hon. Members presented peti tions, they should give notice of their intention to move that they be printed; and also of the day upon which they intended to bring them under the consi deration of the House. ' In this instance the practice of the House should be particularly enforced, as the petition seemed to involve charges against individuals who could have no notice whatever of them. Lord J. RUSSELL (who spoke in a low tone, and amidst much noise), was understood to say that when the Municipal Reform Bill was passed in 1835, it was his intention to bring in a Bill to regulate those smaller Corporations which were left untouched by that Bill; and it was still his intention to ask for leave to bring in a Bill for that purpose. After a few words from Sir E. Knatchbull, Mr. G. W. Wood, and Mr. Estcourt, Mr. WALLACE begged to say that this was an exemplification of what he had stated to the House the other night, viz. that the petitions of the people were not pawl any attention to, or comprehended in that House. To-morrow, when the newspapers would appear, it would be found that but a little conversation across the table on the subject would be printe 1. That state of things would continue, and the petition of the people would he disregarded, as they had hitherto been. Mr. WYNN held it to be of great importance that they should - not leave it in the power of any individual to give currency to any slander. Tie, in no degree, alluded to the present petition, for he had no idea of what the petition was about, whom it was from, or to what circumstances it referred. But speaking generally, it was a melancholy thing that a per son should have the power of giving currency through out the kingdom to a slander, when no opportunity was afforded to individuals of repelling that slander. The Hon. Member then alluded to the case of a peti tion presented to that House some twelve mont is ago, complaining of the conduct of a Judge w;io, though possessed of a character the most un impeachable, was charged in that petition with misdirecting the jtiry, which it was said, gave a verdict, in consequence , against the evidence. That petition was printed and pub lished ; and how, he asked, could they go and examine the Judge's charge, and see whether the statement in the petition was true or not ? When such was the case, that House ought not to afford facilities for circulating what might be a slander, and which the parties slandered could have no opportunity of re pelling. Mr. O'CONNELL said that he would be the keeper of no man's libel. To confine the papers to Members only would not prevent them from obtain ing publicity; and if they allowed them to escape from their own hands, they might be subject to an action for libel. Mr. DUNCOMBE, after a f ew observations, the purport of w hich we could not c ollect, proposed the omission of th e words " for the use of Me mbers only." Lord JOINRUSSELL sa id that he h a d not been present in the early part of the discussion ; but as far as he could learn this i w n ho th w e as e o a r po m r e a m t i b o e n r ofo was a petition incul pating certain parties who held official situations ensboroughi. Every one C o mmittee upon Printed f t Q h: e Papers, and most of the Members of that House, would recollect it was very strongly urged against the sale of papers, that although it might be proper to sell such as contained duals.—harmless general in hlv inquiry ie k , that by formation, yet it was a great abuse of their power t i print. charges against particular individuals, and by circulating them throughout the country at a small price, to injure the character of those indivi might be one for le (Hear, hear, hear.) publication. Although the matter there gislatiionn suchand papers which, although that .‘ House, yet it was thought that Abere 'could ,be no use He thought that all Members c: neurrel in that view, and it. was urged, specially by Lord - ought to be considerab.e caution used by the House as regarded c_Ttain they ought to le I tinted, they should be re strained . from orlrin r their I üblication and sale. The Committee to whom this petition had been SEVERN NAVIGATION. Mr. E. BULLER presented a petition from a place in the county of Stafford in favour of the Severn Navigation Bill. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. DUNCOMBE gave notice that on Tuesday, the Bth of March, he should move for a Committee to inquire into the expediency of repealing the Act. Mr. WODEHOUSE gave notice that to-morrow he should move for a return of the burdens upon landed property. Mr. MACKINNON moved that the petition which he presented yesterday on the subject of the interment of the dead in towns, be printed toivther with the Votes. EXCHEQUER Colonel SIBTHORPgave notice that to-morrow he should move for a return of the number of days which Lord Monteagle had been present at his office as Comptroller of the Exchequer, from the sth of January, 1839, to the sth of January, 1842 ; also for a return of the number and amount of Ex chequer bills signed by Lord Monteagle, t ogether with the dates and the places where signed.—( Hear.) LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO MEMBERS. Leave of absence was granted to the following Members—Mr. Holland, Lord Hotham, Sir Ralph Lopez, and Mr. Forman. COLONIAL DUTIES.—VAN DIEMEN'S LAND. Mr. G. HOPE brought up the Bill to confirm an Act of the Legislature of Van Diemen's Land, autho rising the levy of certain duties ofcustoms and on spirits. TURNPIKE TRUSTS. Mr. FOX MA.ULE asked the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) whether he had turned his attention to the Act 3d and 4th of Wm. Iv., regulating the Turnpike Trusts for England and Wales? He could not but be aware that great injury had arisen both to public bodies and individuals from their having invested money in these trusts, which had afterwards turned out deceptive. He asked the Right Honourable Baronet whether he had taken the matter into his consideration, as it would be necessary to take some steps to arrest the evils which had arisen. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he was obliged to the Hon. Gentleman for calling his attention to the subject ; he • could assure him that the points to which he had referred had not escaped the notice of the Government, and it was the intention of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Cambridge, to introduce a ge neral Turnpike Bill; by that Bill it was intended to pro long the duration of such Acts as would expire in three or four years ; and it would also include several re gulations bearing directly on the points alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman. POOR-LAWS. Capt. PECHELL rose to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet rekpecting his Poor-law Bill.— (Order, order.) If he was out of order he would wait till the Orders of the Day were disposed of. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether, in his proposed measure, which was to repeal a great number of Acts of Parliament, it was his intention to include the parishes which were incorporated under the Gilbert Act ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that no subsequent information which he had received had induced him to depart from his announced intention, or could make' him consider it inconsistent with his duty to introduce the measure alluded to. MASSACRE IN JAMAICA. Mr. O'CONNELL begged to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, whether he had re ceived any information respecting a melancholy— indeed, a sanguinary —occurrence, which was said to have taken place at Kingston in Jamaica, on Christ mas-day last ? Lord STANLEY said, that information had been received by the Government, but he should prefer, if the Right Honourable Gentleman would have the goodness to postpone his question, to lay the in formation before the House to-morrow. Mr. O'CONNELL acquiesed. CORN AND COTTON. Mr. T. M. GIBSON begged leave to explain a misapprehension which Hon. Members had fallen into respecting a statement of his in his speech last night. It was supposed he had stated that the quantity of cotton worked up in 1837 and the three years pre ceding was greater than the quantity worked up in the four years ending with 1841. In the newspaper reports he was represented to have said the very re verse, which in fact, would be the correct state ment, and what he intended to say, RETIRING ALLOWANCES (INDIA). In answer to a question from Mr. E. BULLt.IR, Sir IL PEEL said he believed that the salaries of the Governor-General and other officers under the East India Company were subject to deductions, to provide for their retiring allowances. He was not quite certain what was the exact state of the law on the subject, and he regretted that the Hon. Gentle man had not given him notice, in order that he might be able to give a more satisfactory reply. IPSWICH ELECTION. Mr. R. WASON rose, according to notice, to bring under the consideration of the House, the peti tion of W. 11. Ashurst, relative to the Ipswich election. Parliament had passed a law to enable the Judges to en force the attendance and examination of witnesses in pending suits. If such a; power were necessary inCourts of Law he apprehended that it was equally necessary in that llouse. The Courts of Law had always had the power to postpone a cause where the absence of a witness, whether wilful or accidental, would be subversive of the due administration of justice. No such power was possessed by that House. Their powers with regard to election petitions) were defined by statute ; they could not postpone the trial, nor could they give, either to the petitioner or to the Member petitioned against, that privilege which he would have in a Court of Law, when, through the absence of an important and material witness, the due adminis tration of justice was in danger of being injured. If it were necessary to pass an Act, giving this power to the Courts of Law, it was qssentially neces sary for the due administration cot . ' justice that the House should have this power also. He contended that this House inherently possessed every power and privilege which was necessary for the due per formance of its duties, either in the House or in Com mittees. It was only necessary to act upon that power. He was sure it would be seen that the utmost possible courtesy had, been used towards the Gallant Admiral by the petitioner, who wished to prevent the case from coming before this House and was willing to make any arrange ment the dallant Admiral would suggest, to have the evidence brought before the Election Committee. Rut this he (Sir Thomas Cochrane) declined. Now, it became the duty of the petitioner to submit his case to the House ; and it was to be hoped that the House would adopt the most convenient course to the Gallant Admiral which he would propose. One way was to require the attendance of the Gallant Officer at the House to l morrow ; he might then be examined res pecting those papers, and might produce them and those, with his examination taken by a short-hand writer, . might be brought before the Election Committee on oath. He did not wish to enter into the constitutional bearings of this question, but he trusted the House would see, that unless this case 'was looked into, the most enormous power might be vested in the hands of a wicked Minister. He did not mean to insinuate that the Gallant Officer had obtained the appointment through any of his public merits, but if a Minister could send down a number of officers to places to settle what money should he spent by candidates, and the number of voters to be bribed, and then if another gen tleman were to come down and pay the money, this pro ceeding would evidently, if not checked, undoubtedly become a dangerous precedent in the hands of any Minis ter. The warrant served upon Sir T. Cochrane, of which he held a copy in his hand, required him to pro duce certain evidence. It was not necessary to rtad that warrant, which was purposely not inserted in the petition, because there was no design on the part of the petitioner to do any thing more than simply to raise the question before the House, whether they could, or • could , not, compel the attendance of a, witness wifo declared it was his intention, after he had been' Served with the Speaker's warrant, to go abroad. There were three points necessary to be established before the petition could - be consi dered valid. First, there should be a case. pend ing ; secondly, the witness must have declared his intention of going abroad; and, thirdly, the ques tion upon which he was to have been examined, must be material to the point at issue. He believed that each of those points was established in the Ipswich petition ; first, there could be no doubt but that a case was pending ; secondly, it was certain that Sir Thomas Cochrane had declared his intention of going abroad ; and, lastly, it was stated by the petitioner that he had been informed that Sir Thomas Cochrane was in possession of certain documents which it was material should be produced. The Hon. and Learned Member then quoted Ar chibald's Practice, page 243, to show that such evidence would be sufficient in a Court of Law to make a Judge grant a rule nisi under the circumstances. And if a Court of Law deemed it unnecessary to show the materiality of the evidence, surely it could not be necessary in that place, which was'the grand inquest of the nation, that they should re sort to any quibbling to prevent the petitioner having the relief lie applied for. He wOuld_Alitrefore move that Sir T. Cochrane be called to the bar of the House, to answer the allegations in the petition. But if any other Hon. Member would sugges any other proposition, which would be less inconvenient to Sir Thomas 'Cochrane, all the correspondence at the same time being produced, and no injury resulting to any party, he (Mr. AVason) would agree to it. But if the Attorney-General should consider it neces sary to show that the correspondence was abso lutely material and essential, he was ready to prove that it was so at that very moment. He would therefore conclude by moving that Sir J. Cochrane be called to the barof the House, to answer the elle- gations contained in the petition. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the House, that neither the Honourable Gentleman opposite, nor any other Gentleman, could feel more deeply than . he did, the necessity of paying the utmost respect to any mandate, warrant, or authority which issued from the Speaker in virtue of the high office which he held, directing the attendance of witnesses, and that the House should have the privi , lege of commanding the same--ipecies of evidence as any other power ; but having made the concession he was at a loss to .know what was the object of the Honourable Gentleman opposite in calling Sir Thomas Cochrane to the bar of the House. The Courts in Westminster-hall had no doubt the power Under particular Acts to obtain evidence which might be afterwards used for the purposes of trial, and it might be extremely desirable that the House should possess the power now ; but beyond all doubt, the House did not possess that power. If the Ho nourable Gentleman's object was, that Sir Thomas Cochrane should appear at the bar of the House to be examined, and that the answers he gave were not) ho,- - an oath, but that they wore to be laid hefore the Committee, substantiated by the' oaths • of, other persons, it was clear that . the Hon. Gentleman could hardly be acquainted with any of the rules of evidence or the use of an oath.—(Hear, - hear.) If a person swearing that he heard Sir Thomas Cochrane make certain statements were sufficient, it was contrary to all rule that the evidence of such a person should be sufficient to - substantia.te the statements that should be made on oath by Sir Thomas Coch rane himself. It might be quite right that some means should be hereafter adopted to enable the House to obtain the testimony of persons who are about leaving the country, and he (the Attorney-General) agreed with the Honourable Gentleman opposite, that undoubtedly the power of compelling such evi dence might be exercised with ad - Vantage by that House. In point of fact, he had inquired and ,at.scertained that Sir Thomas Cochrane had been ap pointed to the office which he was about to fill, and the duties of which he was about to discharge before he received the Speaker's subpoena; about that fact there was no doubt whatever ; and he would call the attention of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite to the counter-disadvantage under which a party was placed in consequence of his being appointed to 'an office .to which rank and gallantry had entitled him. That might have been the reason why he was called upon to appear at the bar 'of the House; but he (the Attorney-General) did not mean to say that it was the case in the present instance. It should be observed that Sir T. Cochrane was not a candidate at, and had nothing whatever to do with the last election ; therefore it could net be supposed that he could give any material, evidence in relation to. it. - He certainly had been a candidate before, and a successful one, but he (the Attorney-general) was not aware that there had been any reflection cast upon him whilst ho sat in that House. The present motion was. made upon some grounds which were not disclosed in thepetition, jealousy. He which were kept back from a groundless He thought it would have been much better to state those grounds. that every Hon. Member might know for what reason it was that Sir Thomas Cochrane was 'to be called to the bar. What was the real position in which the House was placed with respect to this petition ? Sir Thomas Cochrane was a candidate at a former election ; the petition did.-not state that lie interfered in any way whatever with the last election. Now, he would suppose for a moment that he had written some letter in a news paper, intimating that application had been made to him to become a - " candidate, and that he had declined to comply. He was utterly at a loss to conceive how that could be a legitimate ground for calling Sir Thomas Cochrane to the bar of that House, or for making any inquiry as to what passed when .the proposal was made to him. If it was meant as recrimination upon those who made that proposal, he could say, without fear or contradiction. that it would not be evidence with respect to the pending inquiry. But the House was not so en tirely without a remedy as the Hon, Member seemed to suppose. That House had the means of doing. justice, if any justice were required to be done, They must, on that occasion, take it for granted' that Sir Thomas Cochrane was fully impressed with what he owed to that House, and the necessity of obeying any warrant which might issue against him. If from an erroneous judg ment . as to the value of his testimony, or as to the obe dience which he owed to the House, he should go abroad, not having given that information which was deemed material to the matter in issue, application could be made to the Special Commission, who might postpone for 24 hours their further meeting, and might then come to that House 'to apply for a further postponement, in order that justice might be administered. If it should be ima gined that Sir Thomas Cochrane had- gone abroad to avoid giving evidence which might be favourable' to the petitioners, still it was perfectly competent to that House to postpone the proceedings until he had returned to this c ountry.—(A laugh from the Opposition.) What could the House do ? Could they issue a writ of ne exeat regno, and prevent Sir Thomas Cochrane from going abroad in the service of his country ? if Sir Thomas Cochrane were at the bar of the House, what use could they make of his answers ? After giving the subject fulLconsideration, and attending to it with that gravity and attention which he deemed be longed to the question, it appeared to him (the Attorney- General) that it was impossible for the House to take any step to restrain Sir T. Cochrane from going abroad. He (the Attorney-General) would undertake to say that every Court of Westminster-hall would reply to such an application, Ist., that the Court could never assume that a witness was wantonly called on to absent him,,elf from his duty, and 2d., that they could not assume that any subject of the realm would deal contemptuously with the powers of the Court, or would. fail in that respect to the law which every one owed. The answer would be that the Court could take no notice on one side or the other, but would leave the case to go on till they saw whether the witness had forgotten his duty or not, and if he should forget his duty he would be i)pen to judgment. The House could do no more than Westminster Hall, and all Westminster Hall could do was to leave the matter where it was. If the law were defective let it be amended, but at present the House could not interfere ; and by calling Sir T. Coch rane to the bar adopt a course new and unprecedented, and certainly not very respectful to the very gallant person concerned, and not very respectful to the framers of the law. If the Honourable Gentlemen opposite per sisted in pressing his motion to a division, he (the At torney-General) sould meet it with a direct negative. Mr. O'CONNELL hoped not.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just sat down, had exhibitectthat consummate skill in his profession for which -ph. O'Connell) so much respected him. But he thought that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had relied upon merely technical difficulties. There were .facts which it was alleged Sir T. Cochrane had in his possession. The evidence was not of a personal nature, but consisted of documents and letters. It had been alleged that those documents and letters were of very material consequence to tha proper hearing of the case. It had been also alleged that Sir T. Cochrane had been served with the Speaker's order, as he was about to leave the country before the case could be heard. Now was it fitting that that House should allow of that state of things, and agree, upon the mere prospect of the 'present Members being permitted to retain their seats, that the Committee should be adjourned until the Gallant Officer returned from the service upon which he was about to go? and as he (Sir T. Cochrance) would, no doubt, act with the same gallantry as he had displayed upon former occasions, it was not quite so certain that h e wou ld come back.—(Laughter.) That being 'the state of the case, that part of the Attorney-General's argument, in which he ridiculed the idea of taking down the evidence. of Sir Thomas Cochrane, and offerin,g it as evidence to' the Committee, was perfectly right. It would be taken in evidence; but if Sir T Cochrane stated at the bar that he had in his possession the documentS, and that he was about to go out of the country before the Committee sat, should not the House have the power to prevent the Gallant Admiral ? He (Mr. O.'C.) by no means meant to impugn the conduct of Sir 'rhos.' Cochrane. The Attorney-General did not tell them that the Gallant Officer had not those documents in his possession ; but it was not denied that the Gallant Officer did possess them. It was not to be supposed that the Government sent him out of the way in the present instance, but they ought to see that they did 'not now lay down a principle which some other Government might use for purposes which perhaps could not be justified. All they wanted the Gallant Admiral to tell them was, whether or not he had those documents in his possession. If he had, let him produce them ; if not, there would be no inconvenience to him from tbe__matter, but much loss might arise to the petitioners by the non-production of the papers. He (Mr. O'Connell) admitted that the . h Gallant th A e Admiral ir a l recollect be at an end before he came back, and the next •P. ils b th o a u t n t d he to pr aP eS p e e n ar t Pb"arrlirame that I M l : t ig u r f*- Fo . : 1-1 snluepltocseoualduanaont,seinrytehdatmciatshe,.apusnuibsplicleiniam.byßtuhte letcotiotrh.teeol. Queen's Bench, and he declared that he would not M: an attachuient would be issued against him for thlttncf. claration, and" e (Mr. O'Connell) bad no hesitation is saying the Court would consider his conduct iii therlie,4 of contempt? and would 'put Min_ into custody wh at .°_, , would be sure to be kept to be fortncoming en in !. t !,_ l Y e , of triaL He (Mr. O'Connell) thought then that all :a . justice of the case consisted in complying with the pr. - e_ sent motion. No inconvenience could, as he said, a2: 0 7 . to the Gallant Officer from the course pointed out, be t great inconvenience might arise front the absence o o ll_ a lt e documents. They could not possibly refuse the m or tf: without probably doing great injury to the cause ' • .' petitioners. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was not preparec.° accede to the motion of the Hon. Member opposite, .toj Gentle the proposition of the Right Hon. and Learned . o . man the Member for Cork. What were the facts e t ; ber m° case ? Why that the solicitor to the sitting 3 l nl Or had asserted that Sir Thomas Cochrane had written c r t: taro letters in the newspapers, and those letters . h e ' rs - c li v ; lieved were important. That Sir Thomag. C°, e ivit h F was going abroad ; and, therefore, it was asked rt. 7 'to should be ordered to attend at the bar, in ordei4 6 .l , , what those letters were. Now, as far as he coul d,tin ...1.. stand the subjeet, such a proceeding was ccdit Ze l s to every principle of Parliament. Election petitioi)4: oo. tried by an Act of the Legislature, and not by the " attend Before that Committee-witnesses were bound to t ; they were there examined upon oath, and were bou t flu the produce every paper or document they had. 1 ' t he proposition of the Hon. Member was that, becans i C ie to sitting Member was afraid he should not be ai, oo have the witness before the Committee he was pax for . that the House should interfere. The Hon. gem ber we r Cork had asked whether the House had not the pc' te to prevent a witness from leaving this country ; al l so P could say was, that if it had, it had a power - whi7 s i Court of Justice in the country had hitherto exerls,„ He entirely disagreed with the Right Hon. M e mber :7., Cork, that if a person stated that he believed a W it° 10 would not attend at the trial, that he might be plac ed iat custody, in ordeitthat his attendance might be ensure the trial. Such a course would be against all law, bet a witness when served with a subpcena was boal e j obey it, and he was, liable to be attached and rount s ,_,,ig if he did not ; but he denied that the Court of Q11,r7" Bench, or any other Court, had the power, to in 3 P l 7. any individual, in order to ensure his appearance t a i trial. The Hon. Gentleman proposed that Sir T1n.7 1 7, Cochrane should be brought to the bar and asked 1 „,, had the papers referred to. Why could not that 5 7 0 7 1 1 question be asked him in the Committee ? He de d, that the House had the power to place - him in the c It , tody of the. Sergeant-at-Arms till the petition came ti ° o Such a proceeding was against all authority. Il e lil a to be summoned as a witness, and if he did not attea t. , made 'himself liable for the_ consequences. Upon w!'; - _, t grounds .was this application made ? He did not , '!' n , to enter into the merits of this ease-; but .here-the situp Member was petitioned for for_ - matters conac e tie with the last election for Ipiwich ; _find the Hon. Gr!r",h man himself had admitted that Sir 'Thomas Lu'do rane knew nothing of the last eleetion, had nothing ° a t with it.—(No, no.) He bad - certainly understood toll, the documents stated to be in his possession wer,Ci o ot correspondence relating to a former election. It nui air appear in the statement of the Hon. Gentleman that re , Thomas Cochrane knew anything whatever of the 1,; i 0 sent election. If it was necessary that the House Au - t o possess an additional power of summoning witnesses o be examined before it—if this House, and. the _ .... „° h ' 0 House of Parliament, should give them the same ISO that had recently been given to the Court oft 11 ,';i r • Bench, it must be only by an Act of the Leg,ist!„',./, that it could be given. Nor was that powe r computs,"o, as the Hon. Gentleman supposed; but only _went t° ` that where a witness would not be able to attend trial, either from ill health, or from being ah';' : '„, t to leave the country, the Court was empowered t o direct nt";,, i i be examined and. cross-examined on oath before i Masterrt to produce any documents he might posses s , th a t they end h # afterwards be produced upon the trial. If th e Hon. IVle,:s, thought that the machinery of the House was not stl 6 P , 1,0 the proper course was not for the House to inte r f er e, but , 1 1 0 to propose an improvement of the Grenville Act, so aqii§ the House, or its Committee, the same power as that the Court of Queen's Bench, of examining or cross-ora witnesses upon oath. If Sir Thotnas Cochrane w pcenaed as a witness by the Court of Queen's ..4 ,- le that Court had the power by th e recent A"' „ r o, examine him before a Master. a n d t o or d er him tes ' o a , duce any papers he might have; but the House had no stielf z it chinery to carry this into effect. If it was a defect, it tvacal it 01 in the law itself; and he thought the Hon. Gentleman ' , slew" a te refi!ction hardly wish to see this power exercised in this . ,, d s as it would be required in every other. Supposing th,.,eretbe.. witness who was keeping out of the way, what weed hl 'o . consequence? Why, that this House would be 12 1 4 ,! ; 41 1 arena for the trial, and the party would have to be br a : to here instead of before the Committee. He would pet ' 1 14 1.1 the Hon. Gentleman whether this House was the plu - -e,', if the question could be entertained. If there was a diffien - 'OO the existing law, and it was necessary to give the 1 10 '7„' i gt same power as the Court of Queen's Ben c h, it m u st be °J 4 ,1, q 1 Act of Legislature , by an act for the improv e m en t of the ~`,/ e of election petitions, and not by the interfer ence o f the P' - Itself. Mr. O'CONNELL rose to explain. He was reallysurP ci°ll 4 to find that the Soliamr-General should have so entirell_L'i l s taken him as. to attribute to him a statement that a O. I W I would be issued against a witness, a n d th a t h av i ng , been -se , p with it, on an allegation being made in the Court that he r mit about to withdraw, then that the Court would attach him. lf,a was only a part of w h a t h e sa id . W hat he said was, tbat , 'y person were served with a subpoena, and he declared the t is would not obey, then a writ in that case would issue fronirbs Queen's Bench to attach him for contempt of c o urt• . : 0 0 Solicitor-General also said that he (Mr. O'Connell) irbar i that they could examine Sir Thomas Cochrane at teo what he said was that they could kno w w k e th er Sir 1 " 1 , 4 1 Cochrane had those documents, and was about to g ° A t eat • without producing them ; and he (Mr. O'C onne ll) sa'" ' f ile his examination could not be given in evidence befor e : i be Committee, but that his papers could, and that se 1:1C- , " ‘', , 5-1 , House might go. ' .0 Mr. AGLIONBY said the question before the al% a whether a witness being within the ju r i s di c ti on the i ,...9 and being about to go out of it, was by an analogy :,,, 5 0 ;er Courts of Law amenable to the jurisdiction of the P.: t et and whether they had power to get the papers they s y ,,'",. to [ He apprehended the analogy was completely sills", a ," tiro t those cases in which the Courts of Law examined 0. witness upon interrogatory points ; and it would be ',, to strous if the House had not, by analogy, Pe e 'ialli bring the Gallant Officer to the bar, where or - e iliff the evidence be could give was admitted on the Off side to -be of the most material importance. : j a I , ought, therefore, to send for the witnesses. What 4 vtololol the effect of refusing the p resen t mot i on ? Wh y the ''„.l Officer could go abroad, a n d th e purposes o f justice *lb' I defeated. Any party possessing documents in cases 4 same kind need only pla ce th em i n th e possess i on o f an 0 leaving the country, and.th e y mi g ht th us be removed ?Lea' the jurisdiction of the House. It was, in his opinions7isft tial to the purposes of justice and the dignity of the 1 1;‘, 1 that they should examine into cases of this kind,. it.e,f' , allow justice to be defeated by contrivances of such a nat,_* - h - to Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE said that though hobo' , •seconded the motion of his Hon. Friend, he thought it l',V o riq r state, after what he had heard from such* high legal an' ''o as the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, ahat h,,,,,e c „ i pst not say a sufficient case had been made out to call Sir . " - , 3 11/ Cochrane to the bar of the House. But he thought it e giliog clear that the House ought to have the pOwer -of cereP e Ile parties to give evidence in cases to be tried before them; l . o o 4 thought they had a right tee require the Ministers of the v , be to give an assurance that Sir Thomas Coch rane w ould a t ° l he sent out of the country in the service of the Crown a a , tb e , had produced the documents in question in obedience to warrant of the Speaker. The Learned Att orne y- Gener a l ~e el' the Learned Solicitor. General had both st a t e d that t" Vie. dente of Sir Thomas Cochrane was not material to the t oo Now, he hardly thought it was fair in his Hon. Friend t°,,ter round upon him with that assertion, after having : e bit fered to prevent him from explainin g , to the 1 4°g ; ee l , • views as to the materiality of Sir 'Thomas Cochran e i olio" dente. But when he looked at the Speaker's warran t ', ir e did he find there stated ?—" You, Sir Thomas Cochr in i let' to bring with you all papers and lette rs , an d a ll co pies ° or , ters or correspondence, between yotirself and othet:, y P b io on the subject of a s u m o f m one y requ i re d t o be ps'n e If s ; previous to receiving the support of the Tory partl en - hri°: with as a candidate at the late electiou; and you ar!" - ,, e isi°", with you all letters, or. copies .of letters, in your f es 'i t eet i ' on the same subject." Now, that did relate to tne c o ele i election, and not to the election at which Sir Thetna' r obe rune had been a emendate ; and h e (M r . T. odes D an would say, that if Sir Thomas Coch rane h a d. been Dune o f 1 , in any manner in a negotiation for the payme nt o the' sum of money to the Tory party at Ipswich to secu iec rio,°' support to him as a candidate at the 4,4 wood be ell it would be disgraceful to the Tory party—it won! r stref` l a graceful to the servants of the Crown—it would be d''g g o t to her Majesty's Government, if lie were allowedr o we'i or China before he had satisfied the requirements of the a c ol t , (Cheers.) He did not think a case had been ma de Let calling Sir Thomas Cochrane to the bar of the House , , WO' thought the House had a ri g ht t o expect t h at t h e RI ,, : 3 9°f; Baronet at the head o f th e G overnment s h ou ld give l'-ou-t,t'l, once that Sir. Thomas Cochra ne s h ou ld not l ea ve this ~a lter on the service o f th e C rown unt il he had obeyed the 4- warrant. a go Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Hon. Gentle ci 'Swor'; had given notice ef the motion, had, in bringing it ~- p ets °, t felt so doubtful as to its success, that he had said if arki to A PI, could suggest any other ' course he would be ready , °Lo b t it. And after a debate of half an hour the I°. thl Gentleman who had seconded it, had in his opinion, this motion could not ba 4,hing.,,, It was agreed on all hands ' that it would be est% t he l, most dangerous precedent to call this Gentleman '_', d s hrie4 and one from which he believed every Member would e 0,?,,, In the first place, it was doubtful if evidence so talon an be rendered available. He apprehended it could , T ron , Sts , power of Courts of Justice in such cases was t eriv e " t it '',,,, tote, and the House could have no such power ea e 1 )... an y 1 . , given it by Statute. The House could not e xa.nlin,,,, por„ dividual on oath at the bar, and it could net exercise ";_ n „tiOv i its lu j i c eo sought to be exercised from any analogy between , an a ..0 add' state , and those of Courts of Justice. The Hon. Genl cer 4 1 1 v the Government to give an assurance that u this o .etion ° aril be detained until he had appeared before the ,, eq uiri , , mittee. That was quite a new proposal, and one '„ iv eo , y, great deliberation before an answer could b se _, 0 1, ', c e l . ' .. (Hear, hear.) It would require the most . 1- . gif 7, 1 sideration before such an assurance could or t eta 1 He would admit the object to be bona fi de, and tohlaiterthial, big believed the evidence of Sir T. Cochrane was __, •e d _ A that there was nothing in the case but what ape ` e 'A e o,tt i !r e observe, other parties may make use of it as a P r ( war.) t . of allege what they did not feel to be the case. ,as a .„,,rte_et, conceived the issuing of the Speaker's warranttawring . thaV y nt course, and that any person going to hnn and s . a _ a ~,, fain person's evidence was necessary, would ?bt . !7 l , as ty' s , from the Speaker, and he would not make any n ul ~., ~ officer might be essential to the public service._ ~, _ wo o, , or materiality of such evidence. The immediate I d3p t a h r e t u ; ) ,o_ t i t o Yl and if he might be retained not by the House L , m „„ry ~., by an individual alleging that his evidence v: in If; ,ightl . , certain election purposes, the services of such nwn tio n 1 , - lost to the country, or at least suspended fill the etc , ..,, tion was tried, which might not be till June.. u ~ i t..;. ~ Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—it will come ou t i . a ? . ' : f i e thil e , Sir R. PEEL—But that was nut ma e i rt I d Learned cm_,,, he had said enough to convince the Hon. at ,ie to e arn' ' man—since it was evident his mind was_ct i t n n __ ( t a ,ight2 e r because he had already abandoned his nai , it from the service of the country, not bec auseindividual stat ed that he should be very cautious how hee l P h t e h ll a e o k uo an dS ti f; Mani interfered, but because a priva t es