The Sun. — London, England, 1842-05-27 00:00:00

NATIONAL BANK OF IRELAND. The Seventh Annual General 'Meeting of the Share holders of the National Bank of Ireland was held Wed nesday, at their office, 13, Old Broad-street. At one o'clock the Right Hon. Daniel O'Connell, M.P., entered the room, accompanied by the Directors. The Directors present were, the Right Hon. Daniel O'Connell, M.P., Colonel the Hon. Leicester Stanhope, Maurice O'Connell, M.P., T. Lamie Murray, Robert Sutton ? jun., S. P. Rickman , John Joseph Keene, J. C. Ruding, Fowler Newsam, A. R. Johnson, E. F. Green, George Moffatt, James Reade, Esqs.; and amongst the Proprietors we observed the following, viz.: Captain Scallan, the Rev. Thomas Madge, James Hutchinson, Charles Bia,nconi James Lowe Wheeler, Fra nc i s F r ith, James Johnston,John Robins, Arthur Buckley, Daniel Maclaurin, James Ruffell, Esqrs., and others. The RIGHT HON. GENTLEMAN in taking the Chair said, I•take the Chair at present merely as a Proprietor, .as. I this year go out of office by rotation. I will proceed, therefore, in the first instance, to have your attention called to supplying the place of those Directors who go . out by rotation ; and the notice in the Gazette, conven ing the present meeting, will be read by the Secretary. 'The notice having been read. The CHAIRMAN said I now call upon the Secretary to read that paragraph in the Report which mentions the names of the Directors who go out by rotation, and who are eligible for re-election. The SECRETARY then read the following names, viz., Right Hon. Daniel O'Connell, M.P. ; T. Lamie Murray, .Esq. ; John C. Ruding, Esq., and James Reade, Esq., .the gentlemen who retire by rotation. The CHAIRMAN said, I am not in a position to put the names of any other persons to be elected as Directors. If we had any other candidates, I could put their names .to the meeting, but as no other gentlemen have been proposed for election,. I .will now put the names of those four to the meeting, . and you may negative the appoint .ment of any of those of whom you may disapprove. I propose that the four retiring Directors be re-elected. The question was then put, and the four retiring Di rectors were unanimously re-elected. The CHAIRMAN—I can now take my seat as Gover nor, and I now call upon the Secretary to read that 'paragraph of the Report respecting the Eifth Director, referred to in the advertisement in the Gazette,' and whose election you are now called upon to confirm. 'rho SECRETARY then read the name of Fowler New sam, Esq. The CHAIRMAN—I put it to the meeting that they tiNould confirm the appointment of Fowler Newsam, Baq., as a Director of this Bank, in the room of J. R. Elmore, Esq., who has retired. The question having been carried, The CHAIRMAN said, I declare that this Court has confirmed the appointment of Fowler Newsam, Esq., The SECRETARY then read the 'Report as follows : REPORT of the Directors of the National Bank of Ireland, made to the Proprietors at the Seventh Annual General Meeting, held at the Office of the Company, No. 13, Old Broad-street, London, on Wv...dnesrlay, the 25th of May, 1842. "It is with renewed satistation that the Directors meet ;the Proprietors, assembled at the present Annual Genera I Meeting, more particularly as the favourable expectations which they felt justified in expressing in former Reports, respectine , the prospects of the Company, have been fully realized. . . " The Directors have much pleasure in assuring the Proprietors that the business of the Bank continues steadily and progressively to increase, which affords the most gratifying evidence of public confidence, and the prosperity it has attained will be best shown by the ac counts to be submitted to the meeting, embracing the result of the operations of the past year, which demon strate the soundness of the principles and the efficiency .of the system of management, upon which the affairs of the establishment are conducted, and whereby the Direc tors are now enabled to present to the Proprietors the following statement : X s. d. Undivided profits at December, 1840 22,283 9 6 Net profits for the year ending Dec., 1841 28,798 0 9 51,081 10 3 Deduct half-year's dividend to the Proprietors for Midsum mer, 1841 Ditto, ditto, for Christmas, 1841 10,500 21,000 0 0 Leaving amount of undivided profits at December, 1841 " Notwithstanding the serious commercial embarrass ments which have prevailed during the past year, it will be observed from the foregoing statement, that after de fraying all the current expenses, and providing for bad debts, the net profits of the year ending December, 1841, amounted to 28,798/. Os. 9d., and that after the pay ment of the half-yearly dividends, for Midsummer and Christmas, at the rate of six per cent., per annum, a sur plus remained of 7,7981. Os. 9d., which sum, added to the previous undivided profits, left a total of unappro priated profits of 30,081/. 10s. 3d., at the credit of the Shareholders' Reserve Fund, in December last. "It will be a source of considerable gratification to the Proprietors to find that the National Bank of Ireland is deriving those advantages it was fairly entitled to ex pect, in return for the great benefits it has conferred on those districts of the country where its branches have been established, and in congratulating the Proprietors on the prosperous condition of its affairs, the Directors are confident that they will not be disappointed in the anticipations they have formed connected with its future success. " There are now to be elected four Directors in the room of the Right - Honourable Daniel O'Connell, M.P., Thomas Lamie Murray, Esq., John Clement Ruding, Esq., and James Reade, Esq., who retire by rotation, all of whom are candidates for the office, and eligible to be re-elected. " Since the last Annual General Meeting, the Court of Directors have appointed Fowler Newsam, Esq., as a Director, to fill a vacancy in the Direction occasioned by the retirement of John Richard Elmore, Esq., and which appointment will require the confirmation of the present meeting. " Approved by the Court, 4 ' May 18, 1842. T. LAIIIE 'MURRAY, Chairman." ` The CHAIRMAN—If any . gentleman wishes to have the Report read over again, it shall be done. 31r. BIANCONI—As no person seems desirous of having the Report read again, I beg to propose that the Report be adopted. In doing this, I have great pleasure in com paring this, our seventh annual meeting, with the same annual meeting of the shareholders of the Provincial Bank of Ireland. At this our seventh annual meeting, it appears that we have a rest of over 30,0001. At the seventh annual meeting of the Provincial Bank of Ireland, it appeared that their. rest was about 32,000/. From their accounts it appears that they only paid up to that period dividends of 4 and 5 per cent. while we have paid dividends of 5 and 6 per cent. Therefore we are in a better position to-day than the Provincial Bank of Ireland were, if they had paid similar dividends. An HoN. PROPRIETOR wished to ask what were the profits of last year ? The CHAIRMAN—I would suggest to the lion. Pro prietor that it would perhaps be better that he should defer his questions until I have given the details of our transactions, and then he will be able to ask any ques tions upon points on which he may not be satisfied. I would now wish to direct your attention to the statements an the Report, and in doing so I beg to say that I depre cate comparison with any other body in a spirit of rivalry. Mr. BIANCONI—I beg at once to disclaim anything like disrespect in the comparison which I instituted with the Provincial Bank. The CHAIRMAN —It is an historical fact, and as an historical fact, we may be at perfect liberty to refer to it, in congratulating ourielves on the present state of our affairs, that they are now more prosperous than those of the Provincial Bank were at a similar period of their history. No institution, however, can be better conducted than is the Provincial Bank of Ireland. may therefore allude to the Report of that Bank, who have stated the situation of Ireland during the last year. I dare say there is no gentleman present who has not read that Report ; it has shown the difficulties in which the agricultural and commercial interests in Ireland have been placed ; these interests depend in a great measure on agriculture, as there is scarcely any manufactures there. The Provincial Bank in their :Report have gone fully into the causes of depression ex ng in Ireland, giving, if we wanted it, an ample 'apology for our making a more unfavourable balance for the last year than we have done ; but there is no neces sity for such an apology, for, notwithstanding the de pression in I re l and, and notwithstanding that the effect s of the tariff has been to strike down in price every arti oie in which Ireland dealt, and to cause an apathy— , cessation of dealing —a. falling of price, unusual in any o dier period of commercial history --notwithstanding we haves had to contend with su c h a state of public affairs, it for us to come b e f ore the Proprietors ' it is c favourable view tha n with a wore n on any former oc casion.- —(Hear, , hear.) I will n ow apply myself to the the que st i on of one of the Proprieto rs with respect to the account of profit and loss, ,pint suggested in Tom the year 1838 to the pre sent period.- The Provincial . sank has had this advantage over us—for a great many ' years, nothing in the nat ure of domestic calamity ha s pressed upon its resources, or pre• Tented its springs from extending throughout circumstanced—we the land. 'We were di ff eren tl y scarcely carnse into existence before the Agricultural Bank failed and stopped payment, and the consequence . .of that was, that a suspicion was created against every Bank, a run to ok place upon every Bank, and the con ,sequence was a great accumulation of expense in meeting that run. It is true that we had better means than per haps any concur: of meeting those expenses, because I had previously thrown out that it was my conviction that the Agricultural Ban:: could not continue, judging from the manner it was goi n g on. The stopping of that Bank caused naturally a run of; our Bank ; we met every lia bility in every localitWheers)—and the result was, - that that whi c h was in y— convein.vit and expensive in the `first instance, established us in the Dilblic mind, when they ' found and saw that at an early peia:ld of our Institution, we were able to meet every demand ; so that that which was at first a source of weak ness, b eca lm a source of strength. For one half year we made n o dividend ; we _made one, however, in 1838, and eve! 'V year since. The nett profits, in 1838, were 20,7971.; : he dividends were 17,500/, ; and that l e f t , as a- reserved fund, the -sum of 5,297/. In December, 1839, lar profits • increased to 27,336/., the dividends, at 5 five. per cent., were 17,500/., leaving to the reserved fund t',8361. in .s,ddition to the former. In 1840 we increased ti:e divi dend to six per cent., that increased our expenditure in 5001. Our the payment of dividends by the sum of 3 _profits in that year were 27 , 745 4 and the dividends 'were 21,0004 and we added to the reserved "find 6,7451., which would have been increased to upwards of 10,000 L if the dividend had not been in creased to six per cent. • so that instead of falling off our; profits had increased. In 1841 the profits were 28,7981, while in 1838,they were ouly 22,797/, and that i increase you mutt remember has taken place in one of the worst years for commercial purposes in Ireland. The dividends for the last year were 21,0001, and we added to the reserved fund 7,7981., so that the total amount of the reserved fund is now 30,081/. You have, therefore, a progressive increase of profits, and an in crease of the dividend. And lam enabled to assure you that that dividend will not be lessened in future ; that I am enabled to state, positively, to the Shareholders. — (Cheers.) I have endeavoured thus to explain, as far as I understand the point put by the Hon. Proprietor, and if he seeks any further information, I shall be happy to give it him.—(Cheers.) The Rev. Mr. MADGE considered, when the meeting took into account that they had had for several years upwards of 20,0001, as a rest, which was not locked, up, and that all their preliminary expenses had been paid, that there was not so much cause for congratulation. The CHAIRMAN said, it was true, all the preliminary expenses had been paid off, but another extraordinary expense, tantamount to them, in the last year, had fallen to be paid. To this he did not wish, to refer, except to assure the Hon. Proprietor, and to show him, that there had been one particular payment which, though it could not occur again, accounted for more than the difference created by the cessation of the annual deduction of anything on account of the preliminary expenses. They had the satis faction of knowing that all the preliminary expenses had been paid ; they had also the satisfaction of know ing that there was no probability of any such extraor dinary expense falling on them again. Mr. JOHNSTONE inquired if the adoption of the Report had been seconded ? Mr. J. HUTCHINSON seconded the motion, that the Report be adopted. ' MR. JOHNSTONE thought they had not the information they ought to have received at this meeting. This was the only opportunity the Shareholders had of looking into the affairs of the Bank, and, from the meagreness of the Reports annually presented, they went away with as little information as to the state of the Bank as if they had no Report at all. It was true that they had stated the amount of the rest, the rest for the year, and the amount of the profits. But they had no statement of their liabilities or of their assets, and he considered, that, as in the case of every other Bank, they ought to have some detailed report of the working of the establishment. They ought to be informed how the liabilities and assets stood com pared to each other, that they might see if they were, really in the prosperous state they were said to be. He thought that every Shareholder of an establishment of this sort, whose property was involved, and who was re sponsible for the debts of the Bank, should have a full opportunity of becoming acquainted with the, working of the concern. He complained of the meagreness of the present Report, as well as of that of last year. They ought to have something more than a statement of the amount of the profits of the year, and of the dividend paid. He, therefore, as a large Shareholder, and having a deep interest in the welfare of the Bank, which he conceived was one of great im portance to Ireland, though he had a perfect confidence in its stability, and in the Company itself, still he thought they ought to have more information. The Shareholders ought to have an opportunity of inspecting the accounts of the Bank ; he thought they ought to have auditors to inspect the accounts. He should, therefore, propose that auditors be appointed. It appeared to him, that in the Report submitted they had not the statement. they ought to have, according to the Deed of Settle ment itself. He drew the attention of the meeting to the 105th clause of the Deed of Settlement, which provided that in the Report laid before the Annual General Meeting there should be a statement of their receipts and disbursements up to the preceding 31st of December ; they ought to have a statement of the assets, of the amount of paid-up capital, the amount of bills in circulation, the balance of profit and loss, the amount of specie in hand, of the expences of the establishment, of the amount of the circulation and deposits, and the balance of the accounts current. Neither of these were detailed ; in short it was impossible for any Shareholder to judge of the working of the establishment. He should, therefore, propose that the Report should not be received, but be referred back to the Directors, in order that a detailed statement of these particulars might be given. He then read a resolution proposing the appointment of auditors. The Rev. T. MADGE begged to second the proposition, and in doing so he would make one observation. The Hon. Chairman had spoken of the effects which had been produced by the tariff. He apprehended that those effects could not have been felt last year, as the tariff had not then been proposed, and it was impossible for the public to know what measure Sir Robert Peel would bring forward. The CHAIRMAN said, it was quite true that the word tariff itself,was inapplicable to a former period ; but the Hon. Proprietor would recollect that the anticipation of those great changes preceded their actual announce ment.—(Hear, hear.) He would find that they had be gun to operate sooner than he had given them credit for ; and he would also recollect that he (the Chairman) spoke not only of the accounts as they stood, but that he spoke prospectively of the con tinuance of the same dividend, which he did say after mature consideration of the effect of that tariff. Now, he did not think that the Directors had any reason to congratulate themselves upon the way in which the Hon. Proprietor had treated 'them. The accounts com plained of were the same as had been given last year. There was no complaint then ; no complaint had been made until the (present moment ; no suggestions had been made to the Directors to propose more detailed accounts. The present motion came upon them with that species of want of candour, which would not have existed if the accounts of last year had been I complained of, and the attention of the Directors had been called to their alleged insufficiency. They had often • referred to the Provincial Bank—he would recal to their recollection, that in that Bank the Report had always been entirely such as had been given by the Directors i of this Bank.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Proprietor was I quite mistaken in supposing that the account furnished was the only account offered by the Directors. If he had asked him for it he would have given him the very information of the omission of which he complained. He had taken for granted that because it was not in the Report, it was not on the table, which happened not to be the fact. (The Chairman then read the balance sheet of the Company and con tinued.) As to the motion put by the Hon. Proprietor, it was not for him to remind him what would be the effect of taking any step from which it might be inferred that the Directors did not enjoy the confidence of the Shareholders.--(Hear, hear.) Auditors were only resorted to in a failing concern, and theirs, thank heaven, was not a failing concern. He doubted whether he had power to put the question of the appointment of auditors, without the notice was sanc tioned by, the deed. Mr. JOHNSTONE said he was not aware that there was anything in the deed which required that a notice should be given. The CHAIRMAN said it was incumbent on the Hon. Proprietor to show that he had the power. An HoN. PROPRIETOR said that the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Johnstone) was greatly mistaken in supposing that joint-stock banks in general published complete accounts of all their proceedings. Neither the Provincial Bank, nor the North of England Bank, were in the habit of so doing. Ile would, in short, defy him to state any single ease in, which it had been done. He thought the Hon. Proprietor should have taken pains to ascertain the real truth, instead of venturing to make the statement which he had done. He knew that in one case of a Pro- vincial Bank the Directors had distinctly stated to the Proprietors, " It is for your sake, and not for ours merely, that wo do not give further particulars."—(Hear.) Mr. HUTCHINSON said that the object of the Hon. Proprietor had been fully attained by the accounts having been read. There was a great want of courtesy in not having given notice of his intention to move for the appointment of auditors. If any notice of his intention had been given by the Hon. Proprietor, there would have been many Shareholders present, who, having had no idea of the Hon. Proprietor's intention, had not come td the present meeting. The CHAIRMAN asked the Hon. Proprietor if he had found anything in the deed giving them the authority of appointing auditors. Mr. JOHNSTONE—There is nothing in,the deed on the I but, subject, I believe that, as a Proprietor, lam autho- rised at an Annual General Meeting to move for the ap pointment of auditors. An HON. PROPRIETOR trusted that, as the accounts had been read, the Hon. Gentleman would not press his motion against the general sense of the meeting. The CHAIRMAN said that, as the accounts had been pro duced, all had been done that could by the deed be required to be.done. The only question left was, as to the ap pointment of auditors, and the gentlemen would see that they had no authority for appointing any other officers. Mr. JOHNSTONE thought, that as the meeting ap peared satisfied with the information which had been given, that information ought on every future Reoc casion to be inserted in the port itself. Unless some observation had been made on the subject, they would have gone away with the mere Report of the Directors. In all future Reports, a state ment should be introduced to the effect that the accounts were laid on the table. The CHAIRMAN said the fault was his. At every one of their Annual Meetings, the accounts had been inva riably laid on the table, and, on the present occasion, the moment the gentleman had alluded to them, he (the Chair man) had called for them and had got them. In his opening address h e h a d not stated that the accounts of the Bank kind been laid on the table as usual. It would perhaps have been mo re correct i f he had done . so. Did the Hon. Gentleman wish t o press his resolution. t Mr. JOHNSTONE see i ng that h was clearly against him would withdrawesesehoisf motion. The The CHAIRMAN regr e tt e d the the meeting had suggested, Report had i t notha t hat been read a second time as 11,. had been done this discussion might probably have been saved, for the following passage occurred in the Report. ass e —(The Right Hon. Gentleman then rea d the referred to, in which i t was st ated that the prosperit y tag the Bank had attained would be best shown by the accounts to be submitted to the meeting.) The question that the Report be received and con firmed was then put and carried unanimously. Mr. JOHNSTONE, before the meeting separated, wished to direct their attention to the conduct of Mr. Cochrane one of the Officers of the Bank of Ireland, and concluded by moving for the appointment of a Committee to in vestigate that gentleman's conduct. After a desultory conversation, the Hon. Proprietor's motion was negatived, three hands only being held up in its favour. The thanks of the Proprietors were unanimously voted to the Governor and Directors, on the motion of Mr. Bianconi, seconded by Mr. Wheeler. The CHAIRMAN, having briefly acknowledged the compliment on behalf of his brother Directors' and himself, Mr. WHEELER moved, and Mr. ROBINS seconded, a ruE SUN, LONDO vote of thanks to the Secretary and the officers of the establishment, which having been carried unanimously, the meeting separated. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Ilfay 26. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack shortly before Five o'Clock. THE COPYRIGHT BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented three peti tions on this subject; from the booksellers, the printers, and the literary writers of Great Britain and Ireland. SUNDAY TRAFFIC ON CANALS. Lord HATHERTON presented a petition on a subject to which he had before brought the attention of the House, namely, the Sunday navigation of the canals.. The boatmen on canals were the only class of people in the country who had no Sabbatic rest. The boat men of all the canals in the country had petitioned. against the Sunday traffic. Several boat. owners, also, had petitioned for the same purpose, and had disconti nued working their boats on Sundays without dimi nution of their profits. The Directors of some Companies had also petitioned, and had done all that lay in their power to put an end to the Sunday navigation, but without the assistance of an Act of Par liament they could not enforce the suppression. Lord WI[ARNCLIFFE said that the attention of the Government had been directed to the subject, but it was not intended to introduce any measure this session. Lord HATHERTON expressed his satisfaction that it was intended to bring in a, Bill on the subject ; he thought it better that such a measure should originate with the Government, than any individual Member of their Lordships' House. THE TARIFF. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented several peti tions from places in the county of Bucks, praying the House to modify the proposed tariff. THE CUSTOMS DUTIES (DRAWBACK) BILL. This Bill went through Committee. THE BEGGING LETTER. Lord KINNAIRD rose in pursuance of a notice which he gave on Tuesday last, to p Owe for a copy of the Queen's begging letter. He coul4 not but express his surprise that, on that occasion, her Majesty's Minis ters should pretend not to know anything about it. The letter was signed by one of the Ministers ; and, besides that, it was quite notorious that such a letter had been issued. He must say that it convinced him of the fact, • that the Government was carried on by only one indivi , dual in the country—certainly one of great talent, and one from whom he expected a great deal ; but he really seemed to think that he treated the other members of the Government as mere cyphers. The speeches of that individual were very liberal ; but he (Lord Kinnaird) must say he thought that the tariff was a precious piece of humbug.—(Laughter.) If one indi vidual could carry on the Government, it really could not be such a difficult thing to conduct a Government as some people imagined. A Premier and half- a-dozen clerks might do it. The Noble Lord was here inter rupted by The LORD CHANCELLOR, who said the Confer ence from the Commons, on the subject of an Inclosure Bill, was at the bar. The Earl of Devon, the Bishop of Norwich, and other Lords were then appointed to conduct the Conference with the Commons. Lord KINNAIRD then resumed. He read a letter from the district of Lancashire, from which it appeared that many of the labouring population were living on the trifling pittance of lid. a day. He had many letters in his possession which he had received on this subject. All of them confirmed the statement made in the letter he had read to their Lordships. When he had brought the subject under the consideration of their Lordships last session, the Noble Duke (Wellington) treated the subject with some levity. The state ments which he had read would show how much that levity was called for. He should conclude by moving that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that a copy of her letter addressed to the Arch bishop of Canterbury, for the purpose of calling on the clergy to assist in collecting subscriptions for the relief of the suffering poor, be laid on the table of the House. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that there could be no objection to the production of the letter. The Noble Lord had said truly, that he (the Duke of Wellington) had suggested to the Noble Lord that he should ascertain that such a letter had been written before he moved for its production. He (the Duke of Wellington) ought to take to himself some shame, as a Member of her Majesty's Privy Council, in not being aware that this letter had been written. But he begged to inform the Noble Lord that he was present when the subject was discussed in the Privy Council, but he had been out of town, and when he answered the Noble Lord he was not aware that the letter had been sent. He had attended divine service last Sunday in the Chapel Royal, or he would have known it. He had been to a distant part of the Metropolis on Monday, and he conversed with the clergyman of a parish, and certainly, if he had received the letter at that time, he would have informed him of it. He would say, that he had never mentioned the distress of the country with levity. The Noble Lord, at the time to which he had alluded, said, that Parliament ought not to be prorogued, and that those who advised her Majesty to prorogue Parliament took on themelves serious re sponsibility. He (the Duke of Wellington) on that occasion said he did not think that there was any reason to believe that there was likely to be a scarcity of corn, and that if Parliament sat fur twelve months it would not give the people the means of purchasing corn. As he said before, there could be no objection to this letter being produced. Lord KINNAIRD explained that he wanted to know why the letter should be issued just at this particular time. He did not think that it would do any permanent , crood. b _ The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought it would be very unfortunate if it should be imagined that this letter had been issued as mere matters of form, and not upon mature deliberation. The very circumstance of making this a common proceeding was to de stroy its efficacy. All Governments should consider well before adopting this course, because an objection would apply to it which applied to Parliamentary grants, viz., that it had a tendency to prevent local efforts and individual exertions, which, after all, were the best means of alleviating the distress.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that the in vitation to come forward to relieve the distress of a long-suffering peopie would not be confined to the Established Church alone, but would be extended to all places of worship. He thought the measure had been considered, and that it was one well calculated to meet the exigencies of the times ; under those circumstances, therefore, he must express his approval of the course proposed.—(Hear, hear.) Earl RIPON said, it was not until the distress through out the country became general that her Majesty's Ministers took upon themselves to advise her Majesty to make this appeal to the people. On Tuesday night, however; he certainly was not aware that the letter had been sent ; in the parish church which he attended on Sunday last, it certainly was not read, and that was the history of the ignorance which had been imputed to the Government not being exactly aware of the precise time when their advice had been carried out. This cer tainly was not an appeal which ought to be often made, but it was one which he wag sure would, on the present occasion, be honourably responded to. Earl MINTO said, on a former occasion, when the country was in great distress, the Government had ordered a great quantity of bonded corn to be released. He wished to ask the Noble Duke opposite if such a course had been adopted now ? The Duke of WELLINGTON said he was not aware that such a course had been pursued. The Duke of RICHMOND wished to know \ v hat good it would do, if such a course were adopted ? The people wanted money and not corn ; give them money and they would soon get bread. The only effect of such a course would be to reduce the agriculturists of this country to the same state of distress as the manufacturers were.at present in. —(Hear.) Earl MINTO said he must say that he thought the cheapening of food would cons id era bl y ten d to alleviate the distresses of the people. Earl FITZWILLIAM apprehended that whatever exertions might be made, the sum which would be raised l; this letter, would be perfectly trifling compared with what would be required for the object in view. —(Hear.) They should inquire whether this letter was the result of prudence and inquiry, as his Noble Friend (the Mar quis of Lansdowne) was inclined to think. He should like to ask her Majesty's Government what proportion the sum to •be raised by this letter would bear to , the average wages received by the operatives of this country ? He should like to know what would be the annual wages of the operatives in one of our large manufacturing towns alone ? He should think it could be certainly not less than 1,000,000/. of money. He doubted whether they would not be trifling with the distress of the people, by proposing such a measure as this. Did Noble Lords believe that this distress was temporary ? Did they believe that it arose from the fluctuations in the ma nufactures of the country, or did they believe, as he did, that it was merely an exhibition of the permanent declension of the' manufacturers of this country ? (Hear.) He should like to hear the opinion of her Majesty's Government upon that matter. If their opi nion were that the distress he of a permanent charac ter, he thought it should only be considered as a step to some other more permanent mode of administering relief.--(Hear.) Lord WHARNCLIFFE believed that the distress in the manufacturing districts arose in a great measure, but not totally, from the state of America. When this letter was agreed upon it was not expected that very much relief would be the result, but still it would induce persons who had it in their power to come forward, and it might for a short time be the means of alleviating a portion of the distress. He hoped that the time was not far distant when the present distress would cease. The Bishop of LONDON said, that in 1826, when great distress existed in the manufacturing districts, the same measure was resorted to, in connexion with the public subscription, and the result was such as to place at the disposal of a number of Noble Lords and Gentle men a large sum—not so large, perhaps, as to wholly alleviate the distress, but still it was sufficient to render great assistance. They succeeded in obtaining an amount of 150,0001. or 160,0001., which was not wholly expended at the time ; but part had' be en reserved, to be appl i ed to the relief of the distressed people, from time to time, as distress should arise. He could bear testimony to the exemplary patience with which the poor people of Spitalfields bore their sufferings. He thought, that if the Government wanted a justification of their proceeding, it was to be found in that of 1826. The question was then put, and agreed to. COPYRIGHT BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to call the at tention of their Lordships to the Copyright Bill.. He wished shortly to state the reasons why he supported this Bill. He anticipated that there would be no op position to this Bill in their Lordships', House. He had , FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 27, 1842. presented petitions from some of the most e mine literary men, publishers of the metropolis, and from some of the first stationers, all praying the House to pass this Bill. He thought, therefore, he was confirmed in the opinion he 'had formed, but he confessed he had greatly been disappointed, for he , found that it was to be op posed from a quarter he did not anticipate. He passed to the Act of 1709, when the Copyright Bill was passed, upon which this question mainly rested. The object of that Bill was to promote literature, but unfortunately some expressions were allowed to remain in the Bill which caused it to be construed otherwise. In thirty years after the passing of this Bill the question came under the consideration of the Courts. A person of the name of Millar, purchased the copyright of " Thompson's Seasons." Subsequently a person of the name of Taylor, published an edition of the work, and Millar brought an action against him. The question was most elaborately argued in the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Judges, with Lor Mansfield at their head, de livered their judgment, that by the law of the land an author had a perpetual interest in his copyright. (Hear. ) He found then, by the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, that copyright was a common law right, or in other words that an author bad a perpetual right in his copy. An action was subsequently brought by Beckett against Donaldson, which came before their Lordships' House. Eleven Judges from the Court of Queen's Bench were summoned—Lord Mansfield was not summoned, as it came before their Lordships in consequence of a writ of error from his judgment. They were asked whether there was a common law right vested in the author ? that was answered in the affirmative by a majority of eight to three ; the other question put to them was, whether the statute of Anne took away the common law right, or merely added additional benefits ; the Judges, by a majority of six to five, decided that it did take away the common law right. The law of the country was then, that the copy was the .property of the author for perpetuity, but that the right was abridged by an Act of Parliament—which was in tended for a very different purpose,—to a period of 14 years. Sir S. Romilly said that the Bill was not one calculated to encourage literature, but that it tended rather to protect the crude productions of youth than the more mature productions of age and experience. The 54th Geo. 111. extended the copyright to the life of the author. The Bill for which they asked now was not to restore the common law right, but only to extend the period for seven years more. He appealed now to the justice of their Lordships ; on that broad footing he placed it; he did not appeal to their sympathies on behalf of men who had exerted their talents in their behalf, but on their justice only he relied. Seven years was all they asked. Were they to be outdone in liberality by other countries? The law of France gave the copyright to the author durin„o life, and al lowed it to the widow for twenty years afterwards. Another country, distinguished in many respects for its literary pro ductions—he meant Prussia—was still more liberal in its law ; it gave thirty years after the death of the author. Russia gave twenty-five years after the death of the author, and ten years more under particular circumstances. The only country in which the law was the same as in England was Austria, and that country—it was a strange fact—had produced fewer works of genius and literary merit, compared with its size and popu lation, than any other civilised country in the world. If they went to Spain, where the literature was se charming, they would find that the copyright was perpetual ; so it was in Den mark, in Norway, and in Sweden. The more encouragement they gave to the productions of genius, the more likely they were to have them increased. But they were met with the argument, " Would y ou encourage me nopoly ?He did not understand such monopoly as this. If a man possessed a house it was a monopoly, and that was the kind of monopoly that an author's right in his book constituted. If it were monopoly it would have all its advantages, but none of its evils. The law at present was precisely the same thing as a law would be which gave to a rabble the power of rushing into a house directly the owner died, destroying his property, and turning out his wife and family ; and who would say that it would be unjust to repeal such a law as that? Another ob jection which had been raised to this proposed alteration in the law was, that it would raise the price of books ; he (the Lord Chancellor) did not believe that such would be the case ; he did not think it would have any effect of the kind, but that it would rather tend to low er the price of books. Nothing was a greater monopoly than the Bible, and yet how cheap were copies of the bible. lie had said before he did not like to anticipate arguments. He had touched upon these lightly, and there were many others that he might go into. He thought this was a measure of justice.—( Hear, hear.) He had attempted to present to their Lordships tip correct view of the subject, and of the law on the subject. Lord BROUGHAM had not been changed in the opinion he had formed on this subject by what had fallen from the Noble and Learned Lord. He went to the full length of all the sentiments of veneration and respect to the authors of this country as the Noble and Learned Lord did himself. What increased his anxiety was the latter part of his Noble and Learned Friend's observation, for he found that they were called upon to give their consent to a measure which prospec tively would alter the law on this subject, but which %N ouldretro speetively alter the law of their rights, andmany other rights. If they rejected or altered this Bill, and the result of that alte ration was its rejection elsewhere, then let them introduce a measure to satisfy both. To those parts of the Bill which con sulted the interests of literary men he had no objection what ever, on the, contrary, he thought they were most salutary. That it was the opinion of the Queen's Bench, that at common law of this country there existed a law of copy right, he had no doubt. A question was brought before the House,_ and the majority were of opi nion that copyright at common law had ceased to exist. That was the law of the land as declared by the highest authority. If seventy years and a majority of the Judges were not sufficient to settle a dry point of law, then it was in vain to talk of rights and privileges at all, because, upon higher ground none could rest, or show a more unimpeachable title. His Noble Friend then referred to the Act of the 54th George 111., which he thought was introduced in favour of authors; and he stated the opinion of Sir Samuel Romilly on that Act; that Act, arose, however, out of a complaint made by the University of Oxford, that copies of the works published were not sent to them, and that the Act of Aune was not suffi ciently stringent to make publishers deliver the copies of their work's to the Universities ; an Act to enforce this was passed, and as a kind of compensation to the publishers the Act of 54 Geo. 111. was passed. At that time, however, great com plaints were made that they were compelled to send eleven copies of their works to the libraries, and they stated that the Act of George 111. did not nearly compensate them for the burden thus imposed upon them. It was, generally speaking, quite unimportant what became of the copyright after four or five years, and certainly one never looked beyond fourteen years. But, they might ask, " Would you not, as a publisher, give an author more for a valuable work, if the copyright which would be vested in you were perpetual, instead of only of fourteen years duration ?" The answer they would receive would be universally, " No, we would give no more for it." Of that part of the Act which related to protection from pi racy, he highly approved. The great evils under which the Publisher and the author now laboured, were-Ist, The great defect of the law with regard to valuable works ; and, 2d, The piracies which were made, both by printers at home and abroad. By way of example of the present state of the law, look at a most useful work, which had been publishing during the last twenty-five years, " The Encyclopaedia Edinensis,' edited by Sir David Brewster, than which no work ever presented a com pilation of what was more useful, or exhibited more genius. If ever there were a book which ought to be encouraged, it was this. But such was the state of the law, that neither the authors themselves had any right in their copy, nor had the owners and publishers any legal redress against a pirate. Of course, the size of the work protected itself; no one would think of publishing twenty-five quarto volumes in a piratical way. But any single treatise—the valuable treatises of Pro fessor Stewart, of Professor Playfair, the papers of M. Arago, &c.—might be dishonestly pirated, without any redress being allowed to the publisher. It would be most desirable that such a state of things should be put a stop to. He now came to the other part of the measure, which extended the copyright from twenty-eight to forty-two years. Suppose an author took his manuscript to the publisher, and wished to part with it, the question would be on what terms he could dis pose of it; and the question would be between the present value of twenty-eight and forty-two years. Suppose it would bring in a clear yearly gain of 100/., after paying every expense for the term of forty-two years—it was very unlikely, unhappily, that any work ever could produce such an annual income, but he would suppose it, for the purpose of stating the argument as strongly as possible against himself. Suppose, also, that the bookseller knew this—that the work was to succeed, how much more would the publisher give for forty-two years instead of twenty-eight? for that was the question. He had taken the trouble to calculate this. The difference was 511. at ten per cent., which was a low profit, indeed; and if they took fifteen per cent., it was something life 151. Therefore, the pub lisher gave little more, if any, for forty-two years than twenty eight years. It was said they bad evidence enough without witnesses being examined ; but that was not the case in 1814„ n ne d ir e t t; e m ; n a d nd ha t d h p ey res t e h n e t n ed sa , id had t h a given e e a v d i d d i e t n i o c n e for a Committee of Inquiry lraona was wh na hpapdoinatiegdn,edantdhowpitenteitiisoens h ex a his Nm e o ibn r l e e e d at. hatnd Why,L ao t C of fourteen years could not operate to the encouragement of literary men. Two of these individuals were Mr. Long man and Mr. Murray, and yet now they presented a petition in favour of this Bill. His Noble Friend had argued this question as though it stood as it was left in 1814. But this was not the case, for great altera tions had been made since. At that time authors were subject to Irish piracies, but an Act had been since passed to extend the copyright law all over the United Kingdom. It was, therefore, not correct to say that things remained in the same state as in the Act of 54 George 111. He should have less objection to extending the interest to seven years after the death of the author, than to extend the period fourteen years. The great proportion of works that were published were net interested in this question, because few works sur vived beyond the year of publication. He could not agree with his Noble and Learned Friend, that books would be cheaper than at present under the system of what he called monopoly. That was one of the most extraordinary proposi tions which he ever heard. His Noble Friend referred to the Bible in proof of his asseriion. That was an exception ; but the reason was, that there was no desire for profit in the sale of the Bible; on the contrary, there were great bodies of the community who were interested in the circulation and disiemi nation of the Bible. 'Works like the Bible and others, which were very popular and had a great run, would, no doubt, under any system, be published at a cheap rate. But they might depend upon it that the extension of the period of copy right from twenty-eight to forty-two years, would have the effect of preventing a great many valuable works from being published at a low rate. Now, upon the last point to which his Noble and Learned Friend adverted, he thought that there could be no doubt—he meant the retrospective effect which the law would haie. The retrospective effect, he believed, would be to • prevent men, who had been waiting for the last two or three years, to bring out cheap editions of works in which the copyright was abcut to expire, from bringing out those editions at all. He knew instances in which men had made preparations to bring out certain works on a certain day, and had expended large sums of money to that effect, and if t h ey were to be prevented from doing that, ruin to them might ensue. Was such a law as this ever heard of, stepping in between a man's expended capital, which he had ex pended under the law, and the authors, and saying to them, " Be ruined, because you have acted without your host in th is H ouse. " There were poets of great transcendent talent, whose productions almost dazzled the imagination of common men, and to them this Bill might be of service ; and sorry was he to say anything which should tend to deprive them of any protection which they ought or could have ; he looked upon them as the conservators of public virtue ; he would go as far as any man in their praise; he would laud them, nay, he could'almost venerate them, and them he would be proud to protect; but he would turn for a moment from these men, to him and men like him, who, by their inventions, had added more to our strength than if he had added cubits to our stature, who had taught us to stem the waves, almost to chair the winds, making what was formerly but a saying to become a hterdfact, that not an axe fell to break the silence of an Indian forest, that was not echoed by the anvils which had assisted to forge the shuttles of Lancashire and Warwick—he alluded to the Woreesters, the Newcombes, and last of all, greatest of all, Watt—what reward had they ? No one thought to alter the law which concerned them ; but they had greater honours than any Courts could confer—imperish able renown. To Watt, a monument had been erected in memory of his genius and his= talents, and proud was he (Lord Brougham) to have assisted in its erection. What other honours had they ? Their dust was allowed to mingle with the ashes of the great, but the great less illustrious than them selves. But, he asked, what good had been done for them du- ring their lifetime? It was asked now to give more pecu niary profits to the author; and could he then shut his eyes to the state of the inventor, to whom the law said " Four teen years and no longer shall you derive any benefit from %our great and important discoveries." To the inventor of the steam-engine, and to the inventor of printing, if they were now alive, no more than fourteen years would be allowed to compensate for the expenses which they had incurred and the time which they had employed in producing such magnificent results. Some time• ago he (Lord Brou g h am ) w i s h e d to im press upon their Lordships the necessity of allowing to inventors an extension of seven years to the right they then possessed, but that was not allowed. Let there be some equality in the treatment of these great men, and let them not be too hasty in passing this measure on a mere statement, without comparing their position with that of other classes of the community. He ventured to say that no man would attempt. to propose an extension of the term of patented rights. He apolog ised for havi ng so long trespassed upo n th e i r L or d s hi ps ' time. Doubtless, he had expressed that which would run counter to the feelings of many in that House, but he felt it to be his duty to go into the subject as he had done. Lord LYTTELTON would have preferred a Bill founded on the basis of the present one, as first proposed to the House of Commons. The principle upon which he supported this sill was, that it was a compromise between the author and the public, and this he thought was the opinion of Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Christie, and their supporters, amongst whom, he thought, he might rank the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. He agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham), when be said he did not see any difference in time, between patents and copyrights, but he thought the time given to each was not long enough. He did not think an extension of copyright would enhance the price of books, nor did he think perpetual copyright would have that effect : on these grounds he would support the Bill. The Bishop of LONDON said, for some time he was staggered by the argument of the Noble and Learned Lord ( Brougham) with respect to the analogy of copyright of in ventions and the copyright of literary works, but he considered this argument a fallacy, for the invention was that which was of general and household use, and therefore the invention was amply remunerated in fourteen years. But a quarter of a century might elapse before the works of a literary man be came known and appreciated by the public. With regard to the argument of the Noble Lord, with respect to copyright about to expire, and in which the publishers might have ex pended two or three thousand pounds on the work, this fact was a reason why the author should be further protected. This was one of the best reasons for an extension of the copy right, for by this outlay it proved that the work was just be coming valuable. It was a just remuneration to the man who had devoted the whole of his life to the benefit of his species. It was, as the Noble Lord had said, for the great authors that tins measure was sought. Lord COTTEN HAM thought this question, like all others, should be discussed, not with respect to private or individual interests, but the interests of the public. In what way would the benefit of authors be best consulted ? He thought it was the general opinion that the addition of 14 years to the ex sting period of protection, would be of service to the authors, and as he thought the interests of the public were so mixed up with the interests of the author, that what was good for one must be good for the other, he certainly should not oppose it ; he was not prepared to say that the extension of the period to 42 years would have the desired effect ; but as he did not see that it would effect the public interests, he should not offer any oppo sition. The Noble and Learned Lord then commented upon the various clauses of the Bill, and the 4th, 18th, and 25th, were clauses which he thought ought not to remain part of the Bill ; if they were struck out, he should be quite prepared to give it his support. Lord CAMPBELL would give this Bill his most cordial support; and hemustsay, notwithstanding the in g enious arguments of the Noble Lord who sat beside hi m (Lord Brougham), he did net think that the arguments made use of by his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had been answered. The principle feature of the Bill was to allow an extension of the period of protection to authors, and that he thought was a most desir able object. We had obtained considerable eminence in the paths of literature, but we could not claim any particular pre eminence over the French, nor was our judgment superior to theirs, in the amount of protection which authors should receive. He approved entirely of the principle of granting the extended copyright to those authors whose works were already published. He did not see why such men as Mr. Wordsworth or Mr. Campbell, for instance, should not be entitled to participate in its benefits. He did not see why the advantages of the pro longed term should not he extended to the works of the author of " Waverley." On the whole, he approved of the Bill, and hp trusted that in all its main provisions it would receive the sanction of their Lordships. The Bill then went through Committee, with the under standing that the discussion on the clauses objected to should be taken on the bringing up of the Report. The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to be brought up on Thursday next. The Turnpike Trusts ( Ireland) Bill went through Committee. 'f heir Lordships then Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 26. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. TYNE FISHERIES BILL. -- The Tyne Fisheries Bill was read a third time, and passed. HOLYWELL ROAD BILL. The Holy well Road Bill was read a third time, and passed. LEEDS IMPROVEMENT BILL Mr. BECKETT presented a petition from Leeds, against the Leeds Improvement Bill. FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the millers of Cork against certain clauses in the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill. INCOME-TAX. Mr. WALKER presented a petition from the attor neys of Londonderry, praying to be exempt from the operation of the Income-tax. CAPT. MANBY'S INVENTION. Sir C. NAPIER presented a petition from Captain Manby, who stated that he had invented a machine for the purpose of removing sand banks from the mouths of rivers and harbours. The petitioner wished for a Select Committee to inquire into. the merits of the invention. He (Sir C. Napier) would give notice at the proper time, of his intention to move that the petition be printed. SUNDAY TRAVELLING. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition from Glasgow, praying that a clause be introduced into the Railways Bill, for the purpose of preventing Sunday travelling ; also a petition against any further grant to the College of Maynooth ; also a petition for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament. POOR-LAW BILL. Mr. GRIMSDITCH presented a petition from the Poor-law Guardians of the Chorley Union, Lancashire, praying for an alteration in the Poor-law Amendment Bill. Mr. LITTON presented a petition from the Irish Society against the Irish Drainage Bill, and praying that the petitioners might be heard at the bar of the House by their counsel against the Bill ; also a petition from Longford against the National System of Education in Ireland. Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from the Poor law Guardians of the parish of Keithley, in the West Riding of the county of York, agreed to by a majority of 10 to 3 against the Poor-law Amendment Act, as being wholly unfitted for the purposes for which it was passed ; the petitioners prayed the House, therefore, that that Act might be repealed, or so far altered as that relief to the poor might be administered under the sanction of the rate-payers ; and that the Poor-law Com Missioners might be relieved from the further administration of their functions. COMMUNICATION WITH BELGIUM. Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the English residents of Bruges, complaining that the com munication between this country and Belgium was not sufficient for the purposes of trade. Vessels only went four times a week from London to Bruges, and great in convenience arose from not having a daily communica tion, as there was with France. • CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the Ca tholics of Stafford, complaining of the religious grievances under which they laboured, especially in the Army and Navy, the poor-houses, and the prisons. REPEAL OF THE UNION. The RIGHT HoN. MEMBER also presented several pe titions for the repeal of the Legislative Union. CORN LAWS. The RIGHT HoN. MEMBER also presented a petition from Dublin, praying for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. The RIGHT HON. MEMBER also presented a petition from five leaseholders, praying fur a further reform in Parliament. FISHERIES "(IRELAND) BILL. Lord BERNARD presented a petition from some place in Cork, in favour of this Bill. SUDBURY ELECTION. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from cer tain electors of Sudbury, signed by three Dissenting Ministers, one Magistrate, and 152 electors, highly ap proving of the decision of the Commissioners appointed by the House, whereby they found that bribery had existed in the borough of Sudbury to a great ex tent. The petitioners stated that they regarded the suffrage as the right of every Englishman, and they prayed for Universal S u ff rage an d t h e V o t e by The Hon. Member also presented-a petition from an in dividual at Birmingham, praying for the dissolution of the present Parliament, and that one might be elected according to the ancient custom of the realm. THE TARIFF. Mr. GILL presented a petition from the rope spinners of Devonport, praying for an adequate protection against the introduction of foreign cordage. BRIBERY Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from Bath, pray ing the House to adopt measures for the prevention of bribery at elections. POOR-LAWS. Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a petition from the Guardians of the Dewsbury Union, praying for an alteration in the law relating to Bastardy. LIVERPOOL. AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY. Lord SANDON moved that the Select Committee on petitions for private Bills, to whom the petition of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company (presented on the 24th of May) was referred, have leave to sit and proceed on Friday next. After a few words from Mr. Estcourt, Sir G. Strick land, Mr. Greene, and Mr. Labouchere, the motion was agreed to. __ CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES. Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of the City of Coventry, complaining of the grievances to which they are subjected. NOTICES OF MOTION, Sir C. NAPIER save notice that to-morrow he wou'd move that the petition of Captain Manby be printed with the Votes. CORK ELECTION PETITION. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice, that on the motion being made for printing the proceedings in the Cork Election Petition, he should move in addition, that the petition itself be printed. POOR-LAW COMMISSION. Mr. FERRAND gave notice that on Tuesday next lie should move that an humble address from the House be presented to the Poor-law Commissioners, praying that they might be graciously pleased to rescind an order issued by them to the guardians of a union in the West Riding of Yorkshire. SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION. Mr. 0. STANLEY gave notice that to-morrow, on the motion being made for issuing a new writ for the borough of Southampton, he should move the suspension of the writ undl the House had instituted further inquiries into the proceedings at the election, which the Select Committee hadbeen unable fully to investigate, in consequence of the rekal of W. Wrenn, one of the witnesses, to produce certain documents. Mr. PARKER gave notice, that on Thursday, next he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the clause which prevented the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty from sitting in the House. Mr. FLEMING said that he wished to call the atten tion of the House to a subject deeply affecting its-privi leges. A petition had been presented to that House re specting the election for the borough of Southampton, purporting to be signed by 171. electors, inhabitants of that borough. Out of that number of persons from 30 tol4o were not on the registry of the borough. He now gave notice that on Monday next he would present a petition to the House on the subject, and that he would move that those persons who, not being electors, had so signed the petition referred to, be brought before that House, and subjected to such punishment as the House should inflict. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord STANLEY said, that an understanding had been entered into, that although the matters connected with the Ipswich Election, and also the Bridport case, were not strictly cases of privilege, yet as far as the Government were concerned, they would not bring forward any business which would interfere with the subject. In making that statement he did not mean that those cases should interfere with the Bills for making further provision for the Government of Newfoundland and New South Wales, of which he had given notice. Mr. O'CONNELL said it was hard to make an objec tion to the introduction of any Bill, without the particu lars being communicated to those who were interested in it. He certainly should apprehend that the Noble Lord would show that the people of Newfoundland and New South Wales, who were to be affected by these Bills, should have some intimation of the Noble Lord's inten tion to bring theircases before the House. Lord STANLEY said that he was unwilling to enter into a discussion of that question, but the real fact was, that at the present moment, in accord ance with the instructions given by the Noble Lord who had preceded him (Lord Stanley) in his present office, the functions of the Legislature of Newfoundland were suspended. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the Noble Lord had stated nothing which would make it less interesting to the people( connected with those Bills to watch their progress. BOWRING said, that the Right Hon. Baronet had intimated his intention to bring on the tariff this evening at a period which might suit the convenience of the House. He (Dr. Bowring) would be glad to know at what precise hour the subject would be brought be fore the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it was the intention of his Right Hon. Friend to move, in the event of there being a period during the evening when no business was immediately before the House, that the Committee on the Customs Act should resume. He, therefore, could not mention any particular hour. However, he might state that it was the inten tion of Government to bring on the subject each evening when opportunity presented, and thus to go on with it, de die in diem. ELECTION PETITIONS. Mr. O'CONNELL begged to ask the Right Hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, whether it was in the contemplation of her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill in the course of the present session, with respect to the trial of controverted election petitions? Sir R. PEEL said, it certainly was his intention to bring in a Bill to continue for a certain time longer the present tribunals for the trial of controverted elections. When he saw the different compromises that were alleged to have taken place, he could not but entertain a conviction that more searching inquiries had been instituted by the Committees, as now consti; tuted, than had ever taken place under the old system ; and he earnestly hoped the House would never consent to part with its right of adjudicating upon these matters. He could not say at present what modifications he should propose to make in the present law. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that whatever change might be made in the law, he did not think the trial of contro verted elections could be in worse hands than it was at present. IPSWICH ELECTION. Mr. C. W. WYNN then moved that the Attorney- General be directed to prosecute such persons as should appear to him to be guilty of bribery, in respect of the last election for the borough of Ipswich, and for the town of Southampton. The Honourable Member said, what he proposed was not in the slightest degree connected with any Committee, nor bad he any wish to give one party an advantage above the other. Both sides being parties, all parties in the country were equally concerned. It was equally their interest as well as their duty, to use every means in their power to enforce the laws already enacted ; or, if those were found deficient, to make such regulations as would prevent bribery at elections. He had made it his business to look over the evidence taken before the Ipswich Committee, and he was of opinion that it afforded no grounds to take steps to destroy, or suspend, or alter the elective franchise in that borough. There was not sufficient to justify the House in bring ing in a Bill to take away the rights of those who were not mingled with the bribery that took place, though he was ready to support extreme measures, if it was proved that the practice of bribery was so extensive as to deprive the honest voters of all efficient power. ORMSBY ENCLOSURE BILL CONFERENCE. A Message from the House of Lords informed the House that their Lordships had agreed to a Conference on the amendments made by the House of Commons on the Ormeby Inclosure Bill. Sir G. CLERK. Mr. HUME, and other Members, were appointed to manage the Conference, and withdrew for that purpose. On the return of the Members of the Conference, Mr. HUME informed the House that the Managers of the Conference, on the part of the House of Commons, had stated their reasons to the Managers of the House of Lords for differine , with their Lordships, and had left the Bill and amendments with them. IPS WICII ELECTION. _ The debate on the Ipswich case was then resumed, and Mr. WYNN said that he had already stated to the House the reasons which had induced him to come to the conclusion, that in instances where the existence of extensive bribery had been proved they ought not to allow it to be passed over in silence. Ought those persons, either the bribers or the bribed, to be suffered to go to another election? Ought such disclosures to be attended with no conse quences to those who had been guilty of bribery ? On reading the evidence in the Ipswich case, it must be clear to every one that an extensive system of bri bery had been carried on at the last election. There might, perhaps, in the event of a prosecution being instituted, be some difficulty in bringing home the offence to particular individuals, but no one could rise from a perusal of that evidence without being convinced that an extensive system of bribery had been carried on both by one side and the other. The Commit tee had, by its very constitution, been precluded from going into the evid ence o f the bribery, as it affected the unsuccessful candidates. They must, therefore, further inquire and further inves tigate : he was quite aware of the difficulties that must attend a further investigation. The parties must consider what would be the probable result ; if they established it on both sides, they might establish it to such an extent that each party would equally suffer by it. The punishment ought not to fall entirely on the constituents, but on those who were guilty of the crime of bribery. During the last 150 years the House had passed repeated acts against bribery ; and, by the act of 1829, penalties were inflicted on th e voters who took bribes. The House of Lords were now, for the first time, ready to co-operate with th em ; an d h e did think they ought not to allow to pass unnoticed the pro ceedings which had been lately disclosed before the Election Committees. He did not wish to point out any particular course to the Attorney-General, but, it ap peared to him, that the House should not refrain altogether from interfering in the subject. With respect to Ipswich, he did not think that the evi dence was of a nature to connect the alleged bribery with the late sitting Members ; and formed sufficient rea son why ulterior proceedings ought not to be taken in this case. The Right Hon. Gentleman went through diffe rent portions of the evidence, and said that as there was not sufficient in it to induce the House to adopt ulterior measures, he thought either that a supplemental inquiry ought to be instituted, or that the Attorney-General, who in this case ought to be looked upon as the servant of the House, should be directed to prosecute such persons as appeared to be concerned in the bribery practised at the late election for the borough of Ipswich. The motion having been put, Sir THOMAS WILDE said that he found great difficulty in addressing the "'Ouse in opposition to the proposition of so distinguished a person as the Right Honourable Gentleman, but so strongly did he feel the difficulties in the way of the motion he had proposed, that, notwithstanding the hesi tation he had expressed, he should beg leave to obtrude upon the House. The House stood before the coun try in a peculiar position, and it would be expedient for the House not to forget the circumstances in which it was placed in adopting any course which was proposed to it. He was not aware that directions were ever given to an Attorney-General in the general terms now proposed ; and the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, whose experience was so extensive, allowed that the present form varied from that generally adopted. He had heard it said in the House, and he agreed in opinion, that it ought only to b on very strong occasions, that the House directed a pros9cution, and, generally speaking, it operated to the prejudice of the defendant. But so far from that being the case in the present instance, he believed, on the con trary, that if the prosecution. were ordered by the House, it would rather be advantageous Some experience occurred, even before these decisions took place, during the present session. The House, in a former session, had directed a prosecution in the case of Hertford and St. Alban's. Whoever read the evidence in those cases—the speeches of Coun sel, and the summing up of the Learned Judge— would be satisfied that some peculiar circumstances, not arising out of the evidence, must have led to the conclu sion in those cases. There was no doubt that, at the present moment, there was a strong impression regarding bribery, and that any prosecution unattended by some general measure directed to the suppression of the evil would be considered as a pros ecution. not for the pur poses of justice, but to boast of the existing system. In saying that, he could assure the House that no one felt more decidedly than he did, that nothing but the desire to maintain the honour of the House, had induced the Right Honourable Gentleman to adopt the course he had done ; but while be made that statement he felt bound to ask whether any Hon. Member could exile al any good from the adoption of the proposition ? Was itie bribery so limited, and supported by individuals of 50 ) " .. .i influence, that the conviction of one or two would do an! thing also but c xcite sympathy for thorn on the supPosl'„ r , that the pros; eutiun had taken place, not for the r , p.ses of justice, but to make a show of hostility First of all he was convinced that there, U de. great difficulty in the proposition now Ito The Committee had prostrated no ind iv n s isli with their names associated with certain evidence: sv" of would enable the House to appreciate the certain t r o j conviction. What means had the Attorney-Gel s tist of calling thenbefore him and exam i n i ng them 0 1 ,„/ agents could he employ ; or what means had he going into those q uarters f or i n f ormat i on w hi c h . 'r e , enable him to prosecute th e i nqu i ry w i t h succes s ? Wl es he was Attorney-General, he had cause to make inquie t of a similar natur e , an d w h en h e came to silt' S evidence, he w a s sat i s fi e d t h ere was not eP°6sgo to sustain the pros e cu t i on . lie was convinced tha t , Attorney-General would not have the means of I. !) ing the investigation whi c h t h e Ri g h t H on. Gentleo7, desired ; his proposition was too general to have ,le practical effect. But even if th e investigation eoll ic k made successfully, he w ou ld su b m i t to t h e H ou se,'Wb ther it would be proper to direct such an inquiry 0 I s moment, when no general measure had been br°-lie forward for the purpose of suppressing bribery thought that nothing could more tend to disp.tl, the character of that House than the 1 t 1 ""; ligation of one particular case at the •} 3 7 0 0 time.—(Hear, hear.) A n y one w h o h a d b een in to !louse during the present session, must have beentii g struck with tire exhibition of certain feelings and opi ll 4 which, if quoted, would by no means tend to P r ° 7 ,,, the sincerity of that House if it a d opte d t h e pr2rg, sition before it.—(Hear, hear, hear.) What had I ,lg, pencil ? Every Committee which had shown 17 1 , earnestness in prosecuting its inquiry' had a, charged with ind u l g i ng i n a vindictive Vat and had been held up as o bj ec t s rat h er o f censure Se of approbation.—(Hear, hear.) Every witness had avoided answering questions which had put to him had b een t h e o bj ect of spur — Everything whi c h h a d o pp ose d an o b stac l e to an ini had been hailed w ith c h eers , an d w h en an i n divt had rendered hi mse lf o b nox i ous to cens ure , • greatest anxiety was shown to save him from punishlP. and a few hours' imprisonment was considered sui t i He therefore trusted that the House would forb reciting any prosecution in a general form, sod", also trusted the House would not direct any. `Y t - ef l secution against individuals, until it had ad° l3 o some measure for setting itself right in the 00 mind, for showing its sincerity, by putting a stop to monstrous evil. The rem e dy wou ld b e f oun d , no t in Ali _ punishment of a f ew o b scure i n di v id ua l s who had e°7l,: witted bribery, but in the disgrace of those,, s s a furnished them with the means. (Cheers.) fj ll these reasons, he deemed it inexpedient to order thr: prosecutions. He considered the present was an ° l sis moment for this country. He could not but remelts the expression of a ce l e b rate d const i tut i onal writer, flg the sign of the approaching ruin of this country W n .i 3 be when the con s tit uenc i es s h ou ld b e found to be more e el than the representatives; and although he was desirous to- s is up to censure th ose w h o f urn i s h e d t h e means of b r ib er y. 1 , he could not but r eco ll ec t t h at suc h h a d b een the des i r e 5, nifesred on the pa r t of a l arge port i on of t h e constituenci e 5, ceive bribes, that he could not come to any other coneln than that the constituency itself was most corrupt.—( l 7o For these reasons he could not consent to the motion, n s f considered that neither th e p u bli c i nterest nor t h e cause f u . . s lice would be advanced by i ts a d opt i on.— ( Ch eers. ) tti , The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could not resist ti motion on the grounds p ro p oun d e d b y hi s H on. an d Lea bg y Friend. He could net agree with him in thinking t o because brit ery had been extensively carried on at the ii election, therefore the House ought to take no steps to el-4 down until some Legislative measure should have been Piro' for that purpose. He th oug h t i t wou ld b e exceedinglso judged in the House t o h o ld out t h e id ea t h at persons elbe i lie permitted to bribe with i mpun i ty, b y saying that,_,,, House would not di rec t any prosecut i ons to be undertakes' He admitted, how e v er , th at extens i ve b r ib ery had b_'" carried on at the la s t e l ect i on, b ut h e d i d not 19 with his Hon. and Learned Friend in opinion that et feeling of a majority of the Members of that House syss, favour of screening those who had been guilty of corrupt p tices. They might be satisfied that there was no part,' t he o was not deeply interested in putting down such a system— s o could not, therefore, agree that the majority of Members 0 1 ; , 4 House were not anxious to take steps to put down to the erse s t fili The question was, what was the best course to adopt ? „ d ye regard to the motion of his Right Hon. Friend he .sir="--- s so felt very serious obje c ti ons t o i t , an d h e d ou b te d saueb.ii would produce the effect he anticipated. The usual, cgli, , if was this : if a ca se were ma d e out b y a Committee .0.;. House, and it were proved before that Committee that indiVelio, had been guilty o f b r ib ery, the House, if satisfied 0f5„,41 charge, directed the Attorney-General to institute a pr° s 7 oo : tion against th ose i n di v id ua l s. His Right Hon. Friend 1t. 5 , 41 posed that th e Att orney- G eneral should read over the eeide's, - i before the Ips w i c h C ommittee, and i f satisfied with it, W in, s ,,s; tute a prosecutio n , B u t h e did not k now how the A ttor nerw o neral could make su c h an investigation into this eTide t us ei he might read it, an d f orm his judgment on it, but he could ~..., send for witnesses, or take any steps for proving the trustw.e. iw k, ness of the evidence. The consequence would be either that must neglect the order of the House, or institute a pre ; thin en evidence unworthy of credit; and he considere4 s oi injudicious course for the House to institute a prosecutio n nip _ t vidence that left a chance of the escape of the F art . v precsea objections to the motion were—that it was o ' l e trar s j :eau — Ito dent, and that the Attorney-General would sod d upon hint. .Be discharge the duty which would be motion 1.,,,, Right finm= ~ould not, therefore, accede to the motion o ' bribery,Frieed, aalnthd,oaulgthhohueghashset.roarilgdlyhediwsaopuplrdova him, would be ready to give their best assistance for its su pression. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he agreed very much in Wq had fallen from the Hon. arid Learned Solicitor-General..;.' roved d d lei of s appeared to him that if the House complied with the motion'a the Right Hon. Centleman opposite, they should either les, ) it to the Attorney-General to find out those cases in which , p i might think it advisable to prosecute parties, or they shoutfildt t f h ri e en p ds ia7 a ti r ce ouni ); reel the Solicitor to the Treasury to make further inslntr i f„ - .4 Now if they directed the Attorney-General to institute P7 - t i ceedings against parties iu consequence of the evidence' gt7 l ,,t, before Election Committees, those prosecutions might be : 0 1 successful, as it was admitted that the evidence so given be"; the Committees could not in many cases be relied on. ; 4 , 1 House might thus fi n d it s cre di t di m i n i s h e d b y h av i n g' eni menced proceedings against parties which would have led to ;;; result. In the next place, it a pp eare d to hi m t h at if they wt:, to direct the Solicit or t o th e T reasury to d eterm i ne w ho wen; the parties who sho u ld 'b e p rosecute d , suc h a course wo uld .. °`,., , liable to the objection th a t th e par t y institntl.7, the prosecutions m i g ht b e suspecte d o f part i a lity. I asmuch as he was himself the p artisan o f a particular pa.,: i i) Even without saying (a n d h e did not f ee l i nc li ne d to is! sr, that there would b e an y p ar ti a lit y i n t h e exerc i se of that posr, if it should be fou n d th a t a p rosecu ti on was di recte d aga inst. t Liberal attorney or trades man , an d t h at a T ory attor ney bi tradesman had been left out, it w as o b v i ous t h at , though t o , ; thing might be done by chance, th ere wou ld b e c h arges o f ro ‘ ality, and that was sufficient ground that thi s p ower s hoo d t_',„.) be given. He did not agree th a t th at H ouse s h ou ld a t T;4# admit that there was any favour existing in it towards brieas and corruption—that its M em b ers were un fi t persons todi;jll a prosecution in any cas e w he re th ey h a d h it h erto dire!..J;', prosecutions. If there were cer t a i n persons w h o appes's7ts guilty of bribery, he w as qu it e w illi ng , as f orm erly, to voter'," their prosecuti on . Th ere was muc h d anger in letting it o/ seen that they were not willing to prosecute in such an;jso There had be en occas i ons i n w hi c h t h at H ouse h a d shown soo favour to parties examined before Election Committees.' 1 1,, would state one which struck him with snrptise. ' s ae' )Lord J. Russell) was in the Ifouse when the Hon. and Lear_f;s,if Member for Woodstock ( Mr. Thesiger) gave notice of e_sfd, tion respecting the case of a particular individual, a'veini7,,i" before an Election Committee, who was supposed to haver,,e, fused to answer several questions put to him. The Chaireel s isi of the Committee stated to the House that the Committr . ' thought it desirable to have the witness retained in' euetodi '',, the following Monday (itbeing then Friday). He (Loral. IDSV sell) had concluded that th e H ouse wou ld agree; as was' 11 _ .,7, ::, in the opinion of the Co mm itt ee th us expresse d b y t h e i r ClIsLS , !' man. The Hon. and Learn e d G en tl eman gave notice on,. occasion that he would move a t th e nex t s i tt i ng o f the - Berk d ' for the liberation o f th e w i tness . I t occurre d to hi m (L o rd Russell) at the moment, t o as k w h et h er , b y t h e nest s i t ting ',if the House the Hon. and Learned Gentleman meant sistebO ss e r si l , day following, and he would have done so, but that he thong; be would be considered as suspecting the Hon. and Learer,,i' Gentleman of unfairness. However at a late hour of . -su" 4 night he (Lord John Russell) left the House, and he strO. __, quently found that at one o'clock in the morning a motion se'reri agreed to that the House should adjoufn to Saturday instead R d ? Monday. The witness was accordingly ordered on Satur: to be liberated. Nothing he thought could be met:s' i grossly partial than such eonduct.—( Hear.) If . ail ( Lord J. ti assell) had been the Chairman of the Committ le ieil l , i lie should have felt that th e H ouse was not prepare d to stipPnSi', the Committee against an y w it ness w h o h a d re f use d- to rft" evidence against bribery. He thought his Hon. and Lesetr y kl : Friend was justified in saying that the r e h a d b een a disiositsissvp in certain cases to screen w it nesses w h o re f use d to gve 8 7 00 0 / dente.—(Cheers an d coun t er - c h eers .) H e part i c i pate d'l the opinions of Isis Hon. and Learned Friend with regard t0r:,19; motion before the House, and he agreed with him, and'tsr h . i . e Solicitor-General like w i se , i n t h e h ope t h at there was 0i1:47075' ides a desire to pat an end to bribery.—( Cheers.) s:S A IS' Mr. THESIGER said he was astonished at the eouriew" _j Noble Lord had pursued—( Cheers )—on a motion upon ato rr different subject —( Cheers)—without giving the slightest notio i. te —(Loud Opposition cheers.) The Noble Lord thought ai: to advert to the circumstances of a former debate: . 5 0 a most irregular course (Cries of " Oh, 0h,")1464, debate in w hi c h h e too k occas i on to explain, as_S ' s l thought satisfact or ily t o t h e H ouse — (N o, no)—h i s 'coal "? duct with regard t o th e mot i on h e ma d e f or t h e release wf. skijcs4 witness who had been illeg a lly d e t a i ne d i n pr i son. The NoOei's Lord not being in hi s pl ace , an d not h av i ng h eard the exe l l e tion which he gave, it was necessary, rather for the sa tistacti! of the Noble Lord, an d no t f or th e H ouse i tse l f, to exp l a i n this If course he pursued on that occas i on . Th e N o bl e L ord was 11,,)4 taken in supposing th a t th e C omm i ttee di rected that, ta,'ol witness was to be detained in p r i son un til Monday. „'" e r si Committee only dir ec t e d th a t t h e w i tness s h ou l d be eonslnSr b e . s 3 to the custody of the S ergean t- a t-A rms , an d t h at i t s h ou ld reported to the House that the witness had been guilty of S i ft :,t ' pressing certain documents. he having been served by a War r ; - , ~ to produce them; and not bringing them before the Corninittiv the matter wa..F , adjourned on the que,tion respecting the !Ov i d: . of the warrant, and he entertained a strong opinion on the subie ~,, s He therefore thought it his duty to come down to the s i! ° , °. ) , s t prepared with a notice for the release of the witness.—( o e "" si . , st He asked whether the usual adjournment of the House fr o ,j Friday till Monday was to be moved, and his Right Hon. Fr k i e .j i , the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him it was; upon i" 1 he ( Mr. Thessig4) said that it was his intentiop to prop] that the House should meet on Saturday. He intended t ° ut ..' so when the House was full, but his Right Hon. Friend t? s . s hint not to move the adjournment at that time, as it would l ie terfere with a question he was anxious to bring before s ' u s 2 . Houie. That was the reason of hit deferring the motion__,.s " - :. he gave notice to every Member on his side of the Nor se .- . .' (Loud Opposition cheers)—of his intention, and his L 'ib4l' . 4 ' Friend the Member for Cirencester, told many Memberson eloit. other side that it was his intention to oppose the atilour .s u/11 , slie' t ' s fi tiii Monday. Ho thought it rather hard, therefore, °toe '''', $ Noble Lord should at this late pariod come forward and o u p s esis', # ll him with having been guilty of surreptitiously brio ins' tel,%; 0 ward this motion, and of unfair conduct towards the n ° „" -- sP'ett I n le t) vdiindgtrtuhset t a n d a j t o t u h r e n A m ro e b n i t eL un oi d d er w t o h u e l s d e h e a i v r e ctr ee s n tan ge c ne es r .—( 7,4 100 10: j so sf ow ell q t net to have taken this opportunity of making this charge 00 0 00 i i/ hies, but would, at all events, have attended to the eXel s e s noal, s e which he had to gibe of his conduct, and which be Inig_ sse , n ' ...? 'ld, received from Hon. Members on that side of the 111 " — s seiese ' cat, ( Hear, hear.) He had not intended to make any Obserr not hi' es' on the motion before the House, but having been calledu to it' ) by the Noble Lord, he must confess that it struck bins . .0- would be very inconvenient Indeed for the House to direct r ..-~ cee He tioi ine ver Mar and righ, Ro u J, the 014 y Sent I. l eV 0 4 1 % the r rt,