The Sun. — London, England, 1849-02-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 23. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool- Nick at Five o'clock. TRANSPORTATION. The Duke of RICHMOND asked whether it was in tended entirely to break up the female convict establish ment on board the Anson, and to distribute the convicts to the colonies? Earl GREY said the establishment of the Anson was entirely the act of the Executive Government of the day, and he did not think the Government would be justified in delaying the distribution of the female convicts had all on board the Anson to the colony. The authorities reported that the establishment on board the . Anson had failed in accomplishing the object for which it had been established, and had recommended that the convicts should at once be distributed in the colony. Since that report had been received another bad been received recommending that the establishment on board the Anson should be immediately broken up. They would there fore be distributed among the colonists, and a peniten tiary would be e stablished at Ross in the centre of the island for the rece ption and reformation of refractory female con victs. It was i mposs ible to keep up proper discipline on board a crowded hulk; and he was, moreover, of opinion that all reformatory efforts as far as regarded convicts s h o uld be made in this country before their deportation. Lord STANLEY asked if the Noble Earl had called upon the superintendent of the Anson for any explana tion he had to offer, and he should also like to know the grounds stated by the persons making the inspection of the Anson, on which they grounded the report? Earl GREY referred the Noble Earl to the reports themselves, which were in the library. lie bad not re ferred those reports to the female superintendent of the Anson, because there was no charge . brought against her management. HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Bill. The grounds on which the Government proposed this measure had been so fully stated in the dispatch of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, which had bean laid on their Lordships' table, that he could not do better than refer their Lordships to that dispatch for those reasons. But, although the efforts of those who had conspired systematically to raise a rebellion in Ireland—a rebellion which had been rendered abortive solely through the energy of the Lord-Lieutenant in exercising the powers which bad been entrusted to him by Parliament, the ease with which, in consequence of the exercise of t h os e powers, the rebellion had been put down, could no more be brought forward as an argument against this measure than could the salvation of a building from destruction by lightning by means of a conductor be brought forward as an argument against the further use of that conductor. The present conduct of those who had been leaders in this rebellion proved the necessity of the continuation of this measure. One of the rebel chiefs who had escaped to New York had declared what were, and are, the intentions of those who had been engaged in the rebellion. At a public meeting held in New York, Mr. Doheny, who had been one of the rebel chiefs, declared that there was no cause to despair of the success of the Irish movement, they had been forced by the cunning of the Government to a premature movement, which was for the present fetal to the cause of Ireland. The crisis had been precipitated by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, which gave them no chance of consultation. In one district there had been forged 20,000 pikes. He added, "we are still strong, we are still turbulent, and either Ireland shall be a tree republic, or our turbulence shall be interminable. England's ruin may be delayed, but it is inevitable, and then Ireland shall be a republic one and indivisible." Coupling these declarations of Mr. Doheney with the report of the Lord-Lieutenant, he thought their Lordships would be of opinion that it was necessary that this suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act should be continued for some time longer; but while this temporary suspension was indispensable, he admitted it was the bounden duty of the Legislature to devise measures for the improvement of the social state of the Irish people. Lord BROUGHAM entirely agreed with the motion. His only doubt was whether it went far enough.— (Hear.) Who could venture to say that in a certain time there would bo an end of Irish rebellion? The agitation which had been con tinued so long had brought the greatest evils on Ireland; it had prevented capital from going into Ireland, and had at length forced them to suspend the constitution. All Governments had been guilty of great neglect in allowing agitation to go on until it came to so great a height that it was impossible to stop it. The government of the Noble Marquis (Anglesey) was less open to that reproach than that of any other governor. They had all sorts of agitators there—lay and clerical —who drove the most profitable trade driven in the country. If the Government allowed the trade of agi tation to become a lucrative trade, could they wonder that there had grown up a race of sordid seditious agitators? This agitation had been the ruin of the country. He had heard of the case of a family who had received nu rents fur two years, and who had been reduced to such poverty that they had passed Christmas eve without food, and on Christmas-day had been sated from starvation by a present, which had enabled them to have some gruel. And yet in this country vk here no rents were paid, it is said on account of the poverty of the tenants, where no rates could be collected, 1,000/. had been collected—for the use of the poor? No! but to send to the Pope, to his Holiness the Pope, who had commenced this agitation in Italy, and who was now reaping the fruits of his labours. He was sorry for him. This money was collected through the instrumentality of the agitating Catholic pries . os to be sent to this foreign Bishop to be spent by him among the faithful by whom he was surrounded at Gaeta.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Then they had recently had a case in Dublin of a juryman getting up in the box to applaud a speech of counsel. Why a country in which such an indecency could take place was no more fit for trial by jury than the interior of Africa. Mr. Burke had dishonoured a respect able name by conduct which would have disgraced an inhabitant of a krall of Hottentots. This person had sworn well and truly to try the cause, and he had been scarcely in the box when he exhibited a disposi tion to violate his oath—Mr. Shelburne Burke, he was sorry to find thatthia man had brought disgrace upon the name of the Noble Marquis opposite also, had by his conduct produced an effect upon the witnesses, and ho (Lord Brougham) could not help expressing his indigs nation at the indecent conduct of this man. He con cluded by urging upon the Government the necessity of a vigorous administration of the law. Lord MONTEAGLE thought the limitation of the Bill to six months was in opposition to the recommendation of Lord Clarendon, and not equal to the necessities of the case. lie thought it impolitic to risk the necessity of the introduction of another Bill of this nature at the conclusion of the ses sion. He should have preferred that the measure of suspension should have been for a longer period. The failure of justice in consequence of the improper conduct of jurors had a tendency to bring the administration of justice into contempt, but those trans actions were not applicable to the whole of Ireland. In Munster no such indecent scenes had taken place, the juries did their duty with manliness, impartiality, and courage. The Noble Lord then proceeded to argue that it was absolutely necessary to impose by legislative enact ment some restraint upon the possession °farms in Ireland. Since times anterior to the 'Union, the law now for the first time suffered persons to have the unrestrained pos session of arms in Ireland. It was true domiciliary visits did not take place by the police, but they took place by ribbondmen, and by disturbers of the public peace, who robbed all those entitled to the possession of arms of their arms ; and however unpopular it might be, he must say that some alteration ought to take place in the law for the purpose of preventing improper per sonAfe l rom possessing arms. T ierqui s of LANSDOWNE replied, and the Bill WAS read a second time. TURNPIKES. The Mariuis of SALISBURY moved for certain re turns relating to turnpike trusts and hiighway-rates. After a few words from the Earl of GRANVILLB and the Duke of RICaiI4OND the motion was agreed to, and ourned. their Lordships adj HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 23. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clo c k. SECOND READINGS. The following R a il w ay Bills were read a s econ d t i me: Birmingham and Oxford Junction (Purchase of the Strat ford-upon-Avon Canal Navigation). Forest of Dean and South %Va les (Amendment of A c t s as to Charges on Forest of Dean Railway and Branches—No. 2). North Staffordshire (Amendment of Acts). Stirling and Dunfermline (Deviation of Branch to Alloa Barbo ur • Diversion of certain Works; Extension of 'rime for completing Line and taking Land; and Amendment of Acts). The undernamed Bills were likewise read a second time: Great Central Gas Consumers' Company. Musselburgh Police and Improvement. Norfolk Estuary (Amendment of Acts and Powers of Con tribution by the Eau Brink Commissioners of Drainage, and by the Corporation of King's Lynn). Rock Life Assurance Company. SECEDING CLERGYMEN. Mr. P. HOWARD presented a petition from Carlisle praying for full civil and religious liberty to seceding clergymen. Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition to the same effect. Mr. BRIGHT presented a similar petition from Ash ton-under-Lyme and another place. VENTILATION OF THE NEW:HOUSES:OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. BROWN presented a petition from Dr. Reid, complaining that his plan of ventilation had been ob structed by Mr. Barry, and praying for inquiry. THE MARRIAGE LAW. Mr. BROA DLEY presented 3 petition against any alteration of the marriage law. CATHEDRAL CLIURCII OF SALISBURY. Mr. S. HERBERT presented a petition from certain ecclesiastical officers in the cathedral church of Salisbury. stating that their stipends, which had been fixed at 20/. a year in the reign of James 1., were insufficient for their proper maintenance, and praying for the augmen tation of those stipendls._ PRIVILEGE. Mr. OSBORNE said he had to bring b e f ore the Souse a question of privilege. lie said he knew but one custom respecting the attendance of Members of the House on Committees of the House. He ha d a l ways un derstood those Committees were open to the attendance of Members of Parliament during their deliberations. Re understood that the members of the Irish Poor-law Coin. mittee had come to a resolution to prevent the attend ance of Membe . rs of Parliament, who were not members of the Committers, at the - deliberations of t h e Committee. Under these circumstances he begged to know whether they were jowled in Adopting Chit mine? The SPEAKER said that, according to the rules of the House, every Member of the House was privileged to attend Select Committees of the House, unless that Committee was a Committee of Secrecy ; but during the deliberations of a Committee it was in its power to order Members who were present, but not on the Committee, to leave the room ; and there had been instances where Members had not left the room, and whore the Committee had applied to the House to interfere to compel them. But under other circumstances a Member had a perfect right to attend. _ _ Mr. OSBORNE asked if he was to understand that the Committee had the power to exclude him? The SPEAKER said they had not unless they re ceived such powers from the House. Mr. BRIGHT said that so far there had been no evidence taken before the Committee ; and he had always understood that whilst a Committee were discussing the resolutions which were under their con sideration, and whilst they were dividing upon those resolutions, Members had not the right to be in the room. For himself, he (Mr. Bright) wished the line had not been so strictly drawn. Mr. OSBORNE said he begged leave to give notice to the Hon. Member that he (Mr. Osborne) should go down to the Committee during its sittings. Sir J. YOUNG said he had understood that it had been always the practice in Committees for Gentlemen who were not members of the Committee to absent themselves, when the Committee were deliberating, or when a division was taking place. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Baronet has correctly stated the fact.—(Hear, hear.) Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said the course taken this morning in the Irish Poor-law Committee had been only the same course that had been taken since he had been a member of any Committee of the House. LEGAL EDUCATION. Mr. EWART gave notice that on sa early day he would put a question to the Attorney-General respecting legal education. NEAPOLITAN ARMY IN SICILY. Mr. BANKES gave notice that he would, on Tuesday next, move for copies of certain information received by the Government respecting the Neapolitan army in Sicily. THE POOR REMOVAL ACT. Captain PECHELL asked the Commissioner of Poor laws, whether in consequence of the recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench having upset the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown upon the con struction of the Poor Removal Act, it is intended to cancel the instructions (founded on that opinion) issued to the boards of guardians on the 20th day of October, 1246; 4 . and whether provision will be made for the repayment to unions and parishes of the expenses incurred by them respectively in the maintenance of poor belonging to other parishes, whose relief was withdrawn in consequence of those instructions. The question was put in consequence of a communica tion:fromtthe guardians of the Gosport Union to those of Brighton, which necessitated an application to the Poor law Commissioners, requesting their advice as to how those guardians could obtain the repayment of certain expenses which had been incurred, and the reply of the Poor-law Commissioners was that no past accounts could be opened. Mr. BAINES said that, in replying to the question, to the subject of which the Hon. and Gallant Member had just called the attention of the House, he would recapitulate the circumstances under which the question had arisen. Shortly after the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act, the 9th and 10th Vic., c. 66, the Board of Poor-law Commissioners had received several applications inquiring what was to be understood by the terms of certain clauses, and how under certain difficulties they were to act. In order that the several cases might be properly treated, the Poor-law Commissioners submitted the matter to two gentlemen high in their profession —the law officers of the Crown. Having received their opinion, they immediately forwarded it to the several unions throughout the kingdom. But, after the delivery of that opinion, a decision had been comp to in the Court of Queen's Bench, which was at variance with the opinion previously expressed respecting the construction of the clauses of the Act by the law officers of the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) That decision was of course at present the law of the land ' •—(Hear)--and he (Mr. Baines) and the other PoordawCommissioners had lost no time in forwarding a proper notice of it to the several unions, and drawing the particular attention of the guardians to it by every means in their power. With regard to the letter which had caused the question of the Hon. and Gallant Member, he knew of no clause which authorised the repayment of any expenses under those particular circumstances. 'SEIZURES UNDER THE CUSTOMS DUTIES. Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS moved for and obtained an order for a return of the number of seizures of silks, lace, ribbons, embroidery, and shawls made at the Custom House of London, from the Ist day of January, 1847, to the Ist day of January, 1849, on the plea of under valuation of entry; stating the kind of goods seized, the amount of entry, valuation •f such seizures, the amount paid by the Custom House to the importers of the goods, the amount and proceeds of the sale of such goods, stating the number of lots into which they were divided for sale, the several days upon which they were put up for sale, and whether sold or bought in, or postponed, in each case, and the expenses in curred on such sales: and, balance of account, showing the benefit or loss to the Custom House department, and the amount paid in each case to the seizing officer. THE WAR IN THE PUNJAUB. Mr. G. THOMPSON said he had a question to put to the Noble Lord at the head of the Treasury, when The SPEAKER intimated that the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was not present. Mr. G. THOMPSON would then address himself to the Right lion. Baronet the President of the Board of Control, and was proceeding to make some remarks, when The SPEAKER again interposed, to say that he could only state the circumstances which had induced the question, and then proceed to his inquiry. Mr. G. THOMPSON then said he wished to ask whether, as her Majesty's Ministers have deemed it their duty to lay before the House a Blue Book of 378 pages, relating to a rebellion in the island of Ceylon in July last, they do not consider it equally their duty to lay before the House the papers relating to the war in the Punjaub, described by her Majesty in her gracious Speech from the Throne, as a " rebellion," which war has been going on since April, 1848, and has neces sitated the calling of an army into the field of not less than 120,000 men, including camp followers, and in volving an extraordinary expenditure of not less than fire millions sterling a year. Sir J. C. HOBIIOI.ISE said that the question intended for his Noble Friend, but which had been put to him, was couched in an unusually argumentative form. With regard to the question itself ho must be allowed to remark that the rebellion in Ceylon had terminated, but that in the Punjaub was still going on ; and it was not usual to lay the papers before the House till the affair to which they related had been concluded. As to there being an urmy of 120,000 men, besides camp fol- lowers, of . whom he knew nothing, he must tell the Hon. Gentleman that the army was not composed of half that number, while be trusted the information of the Hon. Gentleman as to the expense of the rebellion was not correct. past, in favour of the admission of Jews into Parliament. However, when they were taking the subject into their consideration, and especially the recommendation of the Committee on " Oaths," he thought it would not be out of place if the attention of the House was directed to the nature of the oaths which were taken by the members of different religious persuasions at the table. Instead of merely dealing with one par ticular oath, with a view to the admission into that House of the Member of a particular sect, he thought, in stead of " chopping and, altering," that the wiser course would be to hare but one form, and that an exceedingly simple one, as he entertained much objection to a multiplicity of oaths. He thought, therefore, that the House would agree with him that if they could simplify the oaths taken by a Member on taking his seat, they would be performing a good public work and elevating the character of that House. —(Hear.) He did not wish to throw any stigma upon the proceedings of the House, but he confessed when he heard Honourable Members talk of the solemnity of the oath taken by Members, that he could not agree with them. He entertained an entirely contrary opinion. The hurrying of Members to the table at the beginning of a new Parliament to take the oaths, whilst Members around were talking upon different subjects, was not to his mind a solemn proceed ing, and be did not think those who took a part in it or beheld it were impressed with a conviction that it was so. It was no argument" against simplifying their oaths to say, that because they were settled in the year 1829, and that twenty years had since elapsed, it was not now expedient to remodel them. Though he had not spoken to any member of the Roman Catholic faith with respect to the oaths which they were called upon to take, he thought he was correct when he said that tke oath was nut only objectionable to the members of that faith, but not of a nature to elevate the cha racter of that House. The Roman Catholic Member merely subscribed to the oath which had been prepared, leaving him at liberty to interpret it as he pleased. When the oath was proposed in 1829, by Sir Robert Peel, very little was said in sup port of it. Indeed, Chief Justice Bushel said that "no danger could result from it, and certainly no security." If it did not exclude members of that faith from taking part in all debates, he confessed he did not see the necessity of retaining it. If that oath was not dangerous, and yet was productive of no security, he thought they might safely expunge it from the statute-book. The oaths of supremacy, abjuration, and sucession were unnecessary at a time when no one doubted the right of succession, and with respect to the oath of allegiance great disparity existed between that taken by a Protestant and a Roman Catholic—the one said "on the true faith of a Christian," whilst the other swore "he would do no injury to the Established Church." It was just as likely to be injured by those persons who wished to support the State as by those who, professing another religion, might not be so hostile to the esta blishment as Protestant Dissenters. He totally differed from the Honourable Member for the University of Oxford on the high stand he bad taken in advocating the retention of those words, " on the true faith of a Christian." He (Mr. Vernon Smith) must say, when members of the different sects of Christianity met at the table of the House and said they took the oath on " the true faith of a Christian." he could not say what was meant by the word " faith," because the true faith of a Christian differed as widely among Christians, in many instances, as it did,in the faith of a Jew ; and, therefore, he should object to the words on " the true faith of a Christian," particularly because these words being so inserted, and so adapted, would lead to a result which he wished particularly to avoid. His Noble Friend said there were three different oaths to be taken by Members professing three different reli gions. There was one taken by the Protestant, aad that was to be taken by the Jew too; but when the Jew came to the words on " the true faith of a Christian," there he was to stop and these words were to be omitted. Well, now he (Mr. V. Smith) said such a proceeding as that was very unbecoming of that House, and it ought to be put a stop to. The next oath was that which was to be taken by the Roman Catholic Members, and that oath was entirely different both from that taken by the Protestant and that taken by the Jew. The Roman Catholic was not called on to. take the oath on " the true faith of a Christian." He (Mr V. Smith) should like to know why ? Now, he thought it a most un seemly thing that Members coming up to the table of that House should be asked what was their particular religion before they were permitted to take the oath at the table of the House. He thought the House would agree with him in thinking that all that was contained in the oath of su premacy and the oath of abjuration was embodied in the oath of allegiance, which could not be more simple than it was ; and therefore he thought that the House should adopt the oath of allegiance. It was with those objections that they were bound to consider the question of the oath as tributary to the Jews in their present disabili ties, that he had thought it right as a Member of that House to state the way in which those objections could be achieved in the simplest possible manner, and ene most in accordance with the feelings of the public, and of the majority of the Members of that House. He begged leave, under those circumstances, to propose the amendment which he had road. _ _ _ _ Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think there was any sufficient cause to be dissatisfied with the oath. He thought the oath was a security, and he should, there fore, oppose the amendment of his Hon. Friend. Mr. HUNIE said the great object to be attained ap peared to him, in every transaction, that they had to re duce as much as possible unnecessary oaths. By the Duke of Richmond's Bill there had been twenty millions avoided.—(Cries of " Hear.") Since then twenty millions more had been abolished, and he was not aware that the slightest dishonesty had ever been discovered in consequence.—(Hear, hear.) The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment Against it Majority against it — 72 Mr. BANKES had given notice of an amendment, but the proper time for proposing it was when they got into Committee on the Bill. He wished therefore not to be precluded from moving it on the Bill if he abstained from moving it then. He had no objection to an altera tion of the oaths, but he certainly should object to any proposal for conferring upon Jews the right of sitting in the House. Mr. G. THOMPSON gave notice that on Monday he should move an address to the Crown for the production of the papers, and then he would take an opportunity of justifying the question he had just put. RAJA OF SATTARA. Mr. HUME wished to ask the Right lion. Baronet what provision had been made for the family of the late Raja of Sattara. Sir J. C. 110BIIOUSE had already stated the amount, while the reason it had not been paid was simply that the legal representatives of the Raja had re fused to receive it.—(llear and laughter.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was glad that the Hon. Member intended to reserve his amendment to the Bill before the House. The lion. Gentleman surely could not think that there was any danger of Jews subverting or overturning the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.) What he understoood him to say was this—that he wished the words promising not to subvert the Established Church should be introduced into the oath taken generally by Members. Now that was a very different question, and instead of being the terms of an admission, they were the terms of a restriction.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord John Russell) would object to the words being introduced with regard to Jews, or to any other class except Roman Catholics. Mr. GOULBURN could not conceive that the intro duction of the words would have a prejudicial effect upon any class of persons. Mr. J. O'CONNELL said a most important point was to be decided by the House, via., whether Catholic Mem bers stood in the same position and with the same full powers as other Hon. Members in that House. Did they stand there with as full powers and privileges as the Protestant Dissenters, or were they there, as many fancied, with one of their hands tied up? There were some who believed that the oath taken by Roman Catho• lies involved no restriction as regarded their voting on questions affecting the revenues of the Protestant Church; others believedthst it did. It was time that the ques tion should be decided one way or the other.—(hear.) The House did not need to be afraid of the Catholics at tempting to appropriate the revenues of the Protestant Church to themselves; for they held that the money of the State would only contaminate them and do injury to their religion.—(Hear.) Mr. DRUMMOND said it was certainly somewhat new to those who had some small smattering of historical knowledge to be told that it was a prevailing doctrine in the Catholic Church that all alliance with money and wealth was detrimental to the cause of true religion. It might be so in Ireland; but he, for one, could not reconcile this new doctrine with the maxim of the Ca tholic Church—seniper idem.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that as they restricted the Catholics from voting on questions affecting the Church of England, rrotestants should also be restricted from voting on all matters af fecting the Church of Rome.—(No, no.) Then they would not adopt the maxim that " what was sauce for, the goose was sauce for the gander."—(Laughter.) He' objected to the amendment which the lion. Gentleman intended to propose, because it went to enact an sx post Jasto law against Protestant Dissenters. At present, Protestant Dissenters were at liberty to enter that house with the full privilege of taking what line they pleased with regard to the Established Church, whereas, if the proposed amendment were carried, it would take away from them the privileges they already enjoyed.—(Hear.) The Earl of ARUN DEL and SURREY had not in tended speaking on this subject at all; but he felt com pelled to state why be had felt it to be his duty not to vote for the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith), and why he could not vote for the motion of the lion. Member for Dorsetshire. At present the Roman Catholics. when they came to that House, were obliged to take a certain oath. There was no compul sion upon them to become Members of that House ; but when they once became members they were obliged to take the prescribed oath. The object of the Right Hon. themGentleman'sN this, ow thathr o i s m h t t ehh they inconveniences (r r t h VoeiAtSornamuinat hdnSmith's) )c,)atvhimotionarisingoeCatholics) esl from was te hn g ma engaged, that a o e t dt d e er upon ipwv oath. oaenrs if a certain condition, to enter that House, it did not ap pear to him to be right that they should subsequently take advantage of their acceptance of that condition to do away with the condition itself.—(Hear, hear.) He would illustrate his vi ew b y a f am i liar case. Suppose that there was a club in London that admitted fo reigners to become members and to enjoy all the ordinary advantages and privileges of the club, but upon condition that they should not interfere with the election of members ; and suppose that in a few years afterwards some gentleman should move that the rule which prevented those foreign me m . bers interfering in elections should be altered —would it be right that those foreign members should vote for such a motion? He thought it would not; and it was upon that principle he had de clin ed voti n g fo r the mo t io n of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith). With re spect to the motion of the Hon. Member for D . orsetseire, he should decline to vote either for or against it, and should leave Protestant Members to settle it amongst themselves—(Hear, hear.) lie would only further say, that while he would not vote for an alteration of the Roman Catholic oath himself, he should consider it a w b o a o s n th i f e i t s o w u e r r c e e a o l f t e g r e r e d a f t o n t c h o e n m v e ; n b i e e n c c a e u ; e fr a o t m p i r t s e s elu being i t THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1849. differently interpreted by Catholics equally scrupulous and equally honourable—(Hear, hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE could not feel otherwise than highly gratified at the speech which the Noble Lord had just made. Would that all Roman Catholics were like him.—(Hear, hear.) Firm in upholding the in terests of his Church—ready to promote its advancement oven when it might be felt to be an invasion of the Es tablished Church, the Noble Lord yet refused to avail himself of the doctrine which some Roman Catholics held, that he was relieved from the obligation of an oath whenever it interfered with the interests of his religion. —(Cries of "No, no.") He (Mr. Newdegate) had in his possession good evidence that such a doctrine was held by some Roman Catholics. With reference to the amendment of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Bankes), he begged to say that although he thought it had a considerable degree of reason on its side, yet, as he was not prepared to alter the existing oaths, he felt that to vote for the amendment would lead him into some embarrassment. Mr. ANSTEY said he entirely concurred with the Noble Lord in his views of the oath and of the duty of Roman Catholics with respect to any proposition for its alteration. Perhaps the hest course would be to intro duce a clause preventir , any person unconnected with the Church of England from interferini , in any question affecting its temporalities. If they did' so, they would only carry out by law what was in his judgment the duty of every Roman Catholic Member, For his own part, he had no doubt but that the intention of the Le gislature in passing the Act of 1829 was to prohibit such an interference, and he felt it his duty as a man of honour to give effect to that intention, and could only regret that the Act of 1829 had been framed in so ambiguous, not to say so bungling, a manner as to leave any Roman Catholic free to choose what course to take.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. NAPIER observed, that the view of the Act of 1829 taken by the Noble Lord (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) was only what he had expected from his high character, and that the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet in introducing that measure, as well as the evi dence and sentiments of Dr. Doyle and others, proved that view to be correct. He was glad to find that the interpretation put on the oath by the promoters of the Emancipation Act was that which was now affixed to it by high-minded and honourable Members of the House. _ _ every freeholder who exercised the elective franchise might have bad the same question put to him with the same propriety as the Hun. Gentleman has put his ques tions to me. I must be content to leave it to the Roman Catholics whether they can safely take that oath or not. I think it is for the Roman Catholic Members personally and individually to consider its propriety. With re spect to those Hon. Members who have taken it and have given their votes upon their conscientious construc tion of it, I have never upbraided them for a breach of the pledge they contracted on entering Parliament, and I think the Roman Catholics are as little likely to commit the crime of perjury as any other Hon. Members of the House—(Hear, hear)—but the construction they put on the oath must be left to their consciences, and nothing would in my opinion be more dangerous than that I should give a legislative construction of it.—(Hear.) Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the doctrine of the Right Hon. Baronet left each man to put his own inter pretation on the oath. He would rather take the inter pretation of the House, be that what it might. On the question being put, Mr. LAW declared that, in allowing the resHlution to pass without a divi,ion, he reserved to himself every opportunity of offering the proposition a most vigorous opposition.—(Hear, hear.) Ho begged to move that the Chairman should leave the chair to record his opposi tion, though he would not divide the House upon it. The question was put; the resolution was agreed to, and, the House having resumed, was reported. In reply to Mr. BANKES, Lord J. RUSSELL stated that, owing to the great amount of public business, he did not propose to intro duce the Bill till after Easter. Mr. SHEIL—I think it incumbent on me, as a Ro man Catholic, distinctly to state, that I neither coincide in the interpretation put upon the oath by the Hon. and Learned Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) nor in that which has been put upon it by my Noble Friend behind roe (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey). If the interpretation of the Noble Lord the Member for Arundel—(for which he has incurred the panegyric of the Hon. and Learned Member for the University of Dublin, Mr. Napier)—be correct, it is quite clear that no Roman Catholic could with propriety have voted on the Church Temporalities Bill, for the diminution o. the number of Bishops in Ireland, or for the Church Cess Bill, the effect of which was to diminish the revenues of the Established Church, indirectly, to the amount of 6 0 ,0004—(Hear, hear.) Now there is a great distinction, in my mind, between the total subversion of the Church of Ireland and the diminution of its re venues, provided that, in such diminution, you leave and adequate sum, not only for its spiritual main tenance but for its temporal sustainment as a por tion of the Established Church of this country. I do not think it right to enter into an ex amination of the exact words of the oath, but con tent myself with referring lion. Members to the obser vations made by Sir C. Wetherell at the time it was in troduced. He ;complained that it was perplexed and obscure, and that it would be easy, to use a well-known forensic phrase, to drive a coach•and-four through it. What could be more easy than for any Roman Catholic to swear he would not use any privilege to which he might be entitled to diminish the temporal possessions of the Church ? If Members of the House thought there should be a declaratory Act for the purpose of stating what the oath meant, it would be easy to pass it. But I cannot agree with my Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell), that if a reso lution were passed putting an interpretation upon the oath, he and other Hon. Members would be bound by it. He should only be bound by Act of Parliament. Every oath must bo taken " secundunt sensum imponentis.' Who was to determine that ?—the Legislature. I think I am bound, in conscience, however, and by every moral obligation, nut to subvert or overthrow the Church, but, at the same time, that I am at liberty to make such alterations in or applications of its revenues as may be consistent with the due and proportionate maintenance of the Establishment.—(Hear. hear.) The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY remarked, that the speeches they had just heard afforded a proof how Catholics of the highest honour differed with respect to the oath. Mr. J. O'CONNELL approved of the suggestion of the Right Hon. Member for Dungarvon, that the House should pass a declaratory Act on the subject, as they often did when there was doubt with respect to the con struction of a statute. He thought the House would not consult its own dignity to leave the matter as it stood, especially when they had just heard three Roman Ca tholics express different opinions upon it. The oath should certainly be taken in the sense in which it was imposed, but the difficulty was to find that sense. Were the Roman Catholics emancipated or not ? It was well for English Catholics to come into Parliament with whatever understanding they pleased, but he begged to remind them it was the Irish Catholics who won eman cipation, and who would not have accepted it if their hands wers to be tied. The Church of Ireland was supported by the money of the Irish people, and he wished to know if the Representatives of the majority of the people were to have any voice in the disposal of that money. He hoped the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) or the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would give some answer to those questions. Sir R. PEEL—If the Hon. Member's supposition were correct, and if the oath to which he refers had been introduced into the Act on my motion, it appears to me I should act most improperly if I personally or individually were to undertake to say what, in my opinion, was the proper construction of that oath.— (Hear, hear.) The imposition of the oath was the act of the House of Commons, and of the Legislature. Votes have been given in the House which have occa sioned some comment; but I am sure you will do me the justice to say that, since 1829, I never attributed it to any Member connected with Ireland that, in giv ing his vote, he had given it otherwise than in a proper and conscientious manner. I say, therefore, that if it had been introduced on my motion, nothing would have been more unfair with respect to the Irish Members who have been acting on their construction of the oath than if I were to listen to the appeal that has been made to me, and undertook to say what was the sense of the Legislature in imposing it. If the Legislature were dissatisfied with the course taken by Roman Catholic Members, it would be the duty of the Right Hon. Member, and others who think with him, to establish some new rule, and to lay down expressly what is their intention with respect to the admission of Roman Catholics to seats ix Parliament; but, to say that Hoe. Members who hare acted on their own conscien tious construction of the oath are in error—that is an office which I must decline to take. But the fact is, Hon. Members are entirely in error in supposing that the oath in 1829 was introduced by me. In 1829 a proposal was made by express enactment to remove the restrictions on Roman Catholics taking their seats in this House. It was then proposed by a Right Hon. and much lamented friend of mine—Mr. Wilmot Horton—that Roman Ca tholics should not be permitted to vote on questions re lating directly or indirectly to the interests of the Es tablished Church. I stated my objections to the intro duction of any such proposal, w hi c h was made, I b el i eve, from the best motives , and supported w i t h i ngenu ity, ability, and research. I said: " My Right lion. Friend has proposed, with a view to calm the suspicions and fears of those who object to the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, that the Roman Catholic Member should be disqualified by law from voting on matters relatiug, directly or indirectly, to the interests of the Established Church. There appear to me numerous and cogent objections to this proposal. it is dangerous t o es t a bli s h th e prece in the first places dent of limiting by law the discretion by which the duties and functions of a Member of Parliament are to be exer cised. In the second, it is difficult to define beforehand what are the questions which affect the interests of the Church. A question which has no immediate apparent connexion with the Chur ch mi ght have a practical bear ing upon its welfare ten times more important than another question which might appear directly to concern it. Thirdly, by excludiag the Roman Catholic from giving his individual rote, you do little to diminish his real influence, if you leave him the power o f speaking, of biassing the judgments of others on the question on which he is not himself to vote; and if, by a jealous and distrusting, but ineffectual precaution, you tempt him to exercise, to your prejudice, the remaining power of which you cannot, or do not, propose to deprive him. I believe there is more of real security in confi dence than in avowed mistrust and suspicion, unaccom panied by effectual guards. For these reasons lam un willing to deprive the Roman Catholic Member of either House of Parliament of any privilege of free disc uss i on and free exercise of judgment which belongs to other Members of the Legislature. I have ventured to trouble the House with this quota tion, because it is the cotemporaneous explanation of the object I had in view in 1829; but at the same time the Act did require an oath to be taken by Roman Catholics—not imposing it, however, for the first time, but adopting the form of oath in an Act passed in 1793, which was taken from an earlier statute in 1774, which was arranged in concert with the Roman Catho lics, and to which they had no objection whatever. Hon. Gentlemen would recollect it was no easy matter to carry the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. We had to look out to see in what way we were to succeed, and l am perfectly certain we could not have parted with any se curity which then existed. In order to show the Right Hon. Gentleman he is in error, I will read the oath which Roman Catholics were required to take by the Act of 1793. The Act of 1793 conferred very important privileges upon them. It admitted them into civil and military offices, places of trust, and into the police. In fact, all places under the Crown, with some exceptions mentioned, were opened to them provided they would take this oath. The Act of 1793 put them on the same footing as other subjects of the Crown, having removed all disability with respect to landed property. The oath required to be taken was as follows : " And I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement and arrangement of property in this country as established by the laws now in being. I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment for the purpose of substituting a Catholic establishment in its stead ; and I do solemnly swear that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant Government in this kingdom.—So help me God." Every one appointed to any office under the Act of 1793, RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL. On the order of the day for the second reading of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill, _ _ Mr. HUME entered his formal protest against it, but refused to divide the Housc Mr. BANKES wished to take that opportunity of asking the Noble Lord what had become of those col. leges in Ireland, which would, he was afraid, turn out to he sojuseless? Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply, said that due provision bad been made in the Act for the erection of the col leges, and for the maintenance of the professors. The colleges would be open by the Ist of October, and so far from their being entirely useless, he was glad to say that many persons of the Roman Catholic permission had stated their intention of entering them.—(Hear.) The Bill was ordered to be committed on Monday. VICE-GUARDIANS OF UNIONS (IRELAND) and with great ferocity snatched it from her arms. The sister returned to the mother, and informed her what had happened, and in a few moments the unnatural parent entered the room, holding the child up by its ancles. The poor little creature was laughing at the time, apparently thinking that the way she was being held was the result of play. The mother instantly made an offer to seia , 3 her offspring, when the prisoner, with fearful force, dashed the child upon the floor. He then lifted it up by its ancles, and again hurled it to the ground. Here his brutality did not cease. He struck the helpless innocent three times, and having lifted the body from the floor, swung it round by the legs, and threw it some distance towards the mother. The floor was bricked, and several places were broken by t' , e force the child was thrown dawn. The prisoner the❑ decamped, and the unfortunate little creature was re moved to the infirmary, but death had already termi nated its sufferings, several severe fractures having been inflicted on the skull. The LEARNED BARON having summed up, The jury, after an absence of an hour, found the prisoner Guilty of murder, but strongly recommended him to mercy. Hip LORDSHIP—On what grounds, gentlemen? The Foreman—Because of our strong abhorrence of capital punishment. Hii LORDSHIP —Oh ! that is a very foolish ground. Any other or better ground? The Foreman—No, my Lord. His LORDSHIP having put on the black cap, in a most impressive meaner passed upon the prisoner the awful sentence of the law, that he be hung by the neck till ha was dead, and his body to be buried within the precincts of the gaol. PENSIONERS. Mr. HUME gave notice that on Monday he should move for an alphabetical list of all persons receiving public money above 501. a year. IRISH POOR-LAW. On the motion of Mr. CLEMENTS, s copy of all correspondence between the Commissioners for adminis tering the laws for relief of the poor in Ireland and in England, relative to the removal of John M'Coy from Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Armagh, including the ,opinion of counsel (if any) thereon, was ordered. IRISH RETURNS. Mr. A. STAFFORD, in the absence of the Secretary for Ireland, wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of some importance to Ireland. It related to certain gross inac curacies in the returns which had been presented to the House on the subject of Irish distress. In these returns there were no less than seven inaccuracies of simple addition, one of them to the extent of 5001., while another represented Gd. and nothing to make 4d.—(llear and laughter.) He wi s h e d t o k now if Government were prepared to lay amended returns on the table. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that the statements referred to by the lion. Member a w n e d r e that made they by hadth e beenvice printed-gua! vice-guardians in the mistake, ts of unions in I re l an d, h e t a t e they if any,had been received by the Government. Th had not been made by any officers of the Government, but by parties who had the best means of information on the subject. Mr. STAFFORD asked the Right Hon. Gentleman if he would prom ise to have the report amended and laid again on the table of the House? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Hon. Gentleman had merely assumed that it was wrong ; but if he could point out any inaccuracy he would h ave it amended. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not now prepared to say whether correct or false. Mr. STAFFORD said ho should have no difficulty in proving that 6d. and nothing did not make 4d. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, there might, perhaps, be a mistake in the printing, and the 0 might have been substituted for lod., in which cases there would remain 4d. GENERAL RATE IN IRELAND. Sir JOHN WALSH asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to empower them to levy a general rate throughout Ireland in aid of the poor's-rate, without waiting for ithe production of any evidence on that subject from the Committee on the Irish Poor-law. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said tho Government did not intend to introduce any measure on the subject until the Committee had made their report. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the souse went into Committee on this Bill. On the first clause being read, Mr. V. SMITH rose to propose an amendment, to the effect that it is expedient to abolish all oaths save those of fidelity and allegiance. He said he was per fectly ready to admit, that there should. be no disquali fication on the score of religion to the holding of civil offices, and therefore, on the present occasion he was PrePtired to give We Tote, Ike he 1254 durizig the BILL. On the order of the day for the second reading of the Vice-Guardians of Unions (Ireland) Bill, Mr. HUME said he wanted to know what permanent had been adopted by Gover nmen t t o re li eve the people ? — ( Bear, hear.) The Gov ernmen t h a d h a d measures plenty of time to prepare them, if they had any mea l:urea in view. Mr. B. OSBORNE hoped the Noble Lord would give some answer to the question of the Hon. Member for Montrose. Lord J. RUSSELL said he really could not state all the measures the Government proposed to introduce in the course of the session. The Right Hen. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had already stated the views of the Government with respect to three of those mea sures, and with respect to the present relief of the poor, provision had been made for it by the Act passed two years ago. The Earl of LINCOLN suggested that the Bill should be extended to that time twelvemonths, for, if the vice guardians could be dispensed with before that titne, the guardians could resume their office, whereas it would be inconvenient if it was necessary to continue after Sep tember next, when the Bill would expire. Sir G. GREY, in reply, stated that the present Bill was intended to clear up the doubts which existed as to the effect of the Act of 1844, and to give powers which tho Legislature intended to have bestowed, but had not precisely stated before. The was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday next. The Consolidated Fund (8,000,0001.) Bill was read a third time and passed. In reply to Mr. J. O'CONNELL, Lord J. RUSSELL observed, that within the next fort night it would be necessary to bring forward some mea sure with reference to the immediate distress in Ireland. lie recommended the Hon. Member for Limerick, there fore, to postpone till then what he had to say on the subject, rather than take up the time of the House on going into a Committee of Supply on Monday, when the special business fixed for consideration was the navy estimates. Mr. DISRAELI stated that it was his intention on Monday to lay on the table of the Home th• specific re solutions he proposed to move in reference to the agricul tural interest. Mr. NAPIER inquired when the Noble Lord pro posed to bring in a Bill founded on the resolution of the Committee of the House, with respect to the Irish poor- Law. Lord J. RUSSELL replied that he would state on Monday on what day he meant to bring is a Bill founded on the resolution. Sir W. SOMERVILLE brought in the Indictable Offences (Ireland) Bill, the Summary Convictions (Ire land) Bill, and the Protection of Justices (Ireland) Bill, which were read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday, March 9. Lord J. RUSSELL brought in the Parliamentary Oaths Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be road a second time on Monday, April 16. The House then adjourned, at a Quarter past Seven O'C:ock. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 23. (Sittings At Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice WILDE and a Special Jury.) KINCAID ♦ND OTHERS V. WILLIS. In this case, which had not concluded when our report left, evidence was given to show that it was the duty of those on board the tug -boat implicitly to obey the orders of the pilot, whatever bad effects might follow. The CHIEF JUSTICE, after a careful summing up, left the following questions to the jury :—Whether the de fendant falsely pretended to the plaintiffs' servants that the plaintiffs had engaged them to tow their vessel ; whether the plaintiffs' servants believed that statement ; whether they handed a rope to the defendant's servants to tow the barque ; whether the defendant's servants at tached the hawser to their steamer ; whether they cast off the hawser by the order or authority of the plaintiffs' servants; and whether, if the order "to let go the rope" was given, it must reasonably have been understood to mean then and there, or in a qualified sense according to the circumstance ? The jury retired, and at half-past eight o'clock re turned into court with a verdict fur the plaintiffs. Mr. Greenwood was this morning called within the bar by the Lord Chief Justice, the Learned Gentleman hay ing been appointed one of her Majesty's Counsel. BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT. Feb. 23. MASTER AND WARDENS 01 THE APOTHECARIES' COM- PANY V. RAPHAEL LOUIS LOBO. This proceeding was instituted by the above company against the defendant, for acting as an apothecary with out being duly qualified. Mr. Griffits, a barrister, appeared for the company; the defendant, who is a foreigner, appeared in person. His HONOUR inquired whether there was any doubt as to the jurisdiction? Mr. GRIFFITB replied that this proceeding was taken under the 55th George 111., c. 174, s. 26, which pro vided that the penalties for the infringement of that enactment should be recoverable in any court of record in England or Wales. The case then was proceeded with, when it appeared that the defendant had attended one patient for pneu monia, and signed a certificate of the cause for the re gistrar of the district. The Learned Counsel quoted the case of the Apothecaries' Company v. Lotinga (2 M. and Rob. 495), where Mr. Justice Cresswell held that an apothecary is a person who professes to judge of in ternal disease by its symptoms, and applies himself to cure it by medicine; also the case of Woodward v. Ball (6 Car. and Payne, 577), in which it was held that mix ing up and preparing medicines prescribed either by a physician or any other person was a practising as an apothecary. The same rule was also held in the case of the Apothecaries' Company v. Allen (4 Bar. and Adolph. 625). His HoNoue. intimated that that description would in clude chemists. _ _ Mr. GRIMTS replied that undoubtedly it would, and his clients were desirous that the public should be made aware that in future they should be more efficiently pro tected. His Honour's own recollection would supply him with instances where fatal mistakes had occurred from unqualified persons mixing drugs upon a physi cian's prescription, and in future the Apothecaries' Com pany were determined that only properly qualified per sons should do so. At the same time the Apothecaries' Company were not desirous of inflicting any vindictive punishment, and if the defendant would admit the fact of having practised, undertake to pay the cost actually disbursed, and promise not to practise until properly qualified (for which it was understood he was preparing himself), the company would forego the amount of tho penalty. The defendant hereupon interposed, and ultimately it was agreed between him and Mr. Eyre, of Devereux court, solicitor for the prosecution, that these terms should be accepted. His Howoun then said that judgment should be en tered for the plaintiffs, not to be acted upon except as to costs, without application to the Court. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Newcastle• on-Tyne, Feb. 22. (Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.) Thomas Mitchell, aged 25, was indicted for the wilful murder of Hannah Bruce, to which he pleaded not guilty. In the course of the year 1847 he had formed a con nexion with a young woman named Sarah Bruce, the the daughter of a bard-working waterman in the town, and they accordingly lived as man and wife in some miserable tenement in the neighbourhood of the Town quay. The birth of a child (the unfortunate victim of the prisoner's violence), in the month of September in the same year, was the result of their intimacy, and the mother finding that his attention to her had abated after repeated promises to marry her had been made, she procured an order of affiliation on the 20th of March, 1848, and he was directed to pay 2s. per week for its maintenance. The money was paid, and for some time they seemed to be on good terms together. A few weeks, however, previous to the murder of the child, he proceeded to display the most vindictive feeling towards the mother. Ile beat her, and told her that he should take the child away and send it into the country; but she refused to part with it. On the evening of Sunday, the 25th of Juue last year, the sister of Sarah Bruce took the child into the yard leading to their dwelling, Bud yfhile there the primal); cacao up, CUTTING WITH INTENT TO MURDER. John Dunn, aged 21, was charged with having, on the 15th of October last, stabbed, cut, and wounded Ann Moffatt, with intent to kill and murder her, Mr. Otter and Mr. Fenwick conducted the prosecu tion; Mr. Taylor defended the prisoner. It appeared that the prisoner was a shoemaker, and lodged with a person named Johnson, in Laidlea's Entry, on a flat. Mr. and Mrs. Moffat lived on the same staircase, and an intimacy sprang up between the pri soner and their daughter, a girl seventeen years of age, and he became her suitor. For some cawe or other she slighted him, and the prisoner expressed his deter mination to her to revenge himself if she kept company with any other young man; or, to use the phrase of the prosecutrix, " if he caught her with any one he would be very apt to give her two black eyes." Early in Oc tober the prosecutrix (Ann Moffat) took a walk in a place called Tesman's Dean with another young man. She saw the prisoner following her. On her return home, whilst going up stairs, the prisoner ran up behind her, and said,—" Stop, Ann, I want to speak to you." She told him to let her go; she wanted to have nothing to say to him. At that moment, by a gleam of light on the staircase, she saw that he had an open razor in his hand. Finding he was closing upon her, she seized his hand, when he drew the razor through it. She was rushing down stairs, and the pri soner struck her a blow on the head, which knocked her down stairs. She fell on her face. The prisoner put his knee on her back, and, placing his left hand under ber chin, lifted up her head, whilst he drew the razor across her throat with the other hand. She screamed out, and he got up and left her, saying—" There, you b—, I have done the trick; you will do so no more." She became faint; and the neighbours, being alarmed, came in and sent for a surgeon. Both her hands were cut. Luckily for the prisoner, she recovered, but her bands were crippled. The prisoner was taken into cus tody next day. The jury found the prisoner Guilty of cutting with intent to murder. His LORDSHIP then ordered sentence of death to be recorded against the :prisoner. He could give him no hope, further than that his life would be spared. Several minor town cases were tried before Mr. Jus tice Coleridge. The county cases will be tried to mor row. The Civil Court did not sit to-day. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. A lady and her daughter presented themselves before Mr. Hardwick, and begged to be allowed to make an ap plication. The lady said she wished for protection from her husband, who had left her without attendance suit able to her station. Her husband, she said, had turned the domestics out of the house in Park-lane, at a late hour last night, and she was now without male or female servant. In addition her husband had threatened her life, and had so constantly pursued her with annoyance and menace that she was compelled to seek the protection of the law. Mr. HARDWICK—Who is your husband? Applicant —His name is Haughton Hardinge; ho writes " the Reverend" before his name, but I am not aware of his ever having filled any post in the Church. Mr. HARDWICK—What do you wish me to do? Ap plicant—To give me protection for ray person and my property. The truth is, my property is settled on my self, and wholly out of the reach of my husband. This is the cause of the shameful treatment I receive. The object is to destroy my life to get at my property. Mr. HAanwicx—Would not a separation be advisable? Applicant—l have offered to settle an allowance on my husband if he will keep away from me. Some time ago a woman made her appearance who called herself his wife. She caused a great disturbance at the house, and, I believe, was punished by an imprisonment of three months. To show you my husband's character, I beg you will read these paragraphs in the newspapers. The applicant produced the Morning Post and other papers, with an account of the examination of one Thomas Haughtou Hardinge, an Irish clergyman, in which it was stated that out of the applicant's income of 9001. a year, she had offered to settle 2301. on him, if he would separate from her. Mr. HARDWICK, the applicant having declared that she went in bodily fear from the threats which had been used towards her, granted her a warrant. WORSHIP-STREE7'. Samuel Turner, a cabman, was placed at the bar before Mr. Hammill, charged with having violently assaulted and seriously injured Anne Conway, a poor woman in an advanced state of pregnancy. From the statement of the woman, who was in such an acute state of suffering that her evidence was scarcely audible, it appeared that she endeavoured to procure a livelihood by hawking combs and brushes about the street, and that on the previous afternoon she went into a public-house in Shoreditch to dispose of her goods. The prisoner and another man were standing drinking at the time in front of the bar, and as soon as she made her ap pearance the prisoner snatched one of the combs from her basket, and refused to restore it; she made an effort to recover the article, when the prisoner instantly struck her a violent blow under the aye, and, seising hold of his companion, dashed him with all his force against her, and she sustained such severe internal injuries that she had endured extreme agony ever since. Upon observing the serious consequences of his brutality, the prisoner precipitately left the house, but was immediately pursued by several persons who had witnessed his conduct, who called a policeman and gave him into custody. Mr. HAMMILL said, it was a most dastardly act, and as there was every probability, from the present appearance of the complainant, of a premature confinement resulting from his conduct, he should order the prisoner to be re manded for a week, to afford time for the condition of the woman being ascertained, and in the meantime direct the complainant to be conveyed to the hospital, where proper surgical aid would be turnished her. CLERKENWELL. John Copeland, a butcher, residing at No. 8, Sumner street, St. Andrew's, Holborn, was charged on suspicion of the wilful murder of his son, John William Copeland, aged five years. Mrs. Sarah Bandford, of 29, Acton-street, Gray's Inn road, said she had known the prisoner a year and a half, by his calling to see her husband. He had always spoken of the deceased as being very dirty. About two months ago, when visiting them, ho said he could not breakfast at home ca account of its dirty habits, and he would burn it; her husband was then present. The ac cused than also said that the child was a thief, and he could not keep anything from it in the shape of eating and drinking. She did not know the child, but bad heard him say it was a boy. When she heard him say he would burn it she remonstrated, saying " For God's sake do not do that, Copeland, er you will be taken up," and urged him not to ill-treat the child in any way. He answered that no one would take care of it; he had tried everything, and could not make it better. Had since beard him say on many occasions, " I wish it was dead." He had represented the child to be strong and healthy, and that nothing would hurt it; that was on an occasion when he told me had put it into a pan of cold water. He has said to me that his wile ill-treated the child, and when she had expressed surprise that the people in the house had not heard of it, he bad replied that they could not hear anything of it, and if he complained to her about:it she behaved worse to the child. The prisoner first mentioned to her the melancholy death of his son by burning, after the wife had been committed on the charge of causing its death under a coroner's warrant. His account was, that they had left it for a short period, and on their return it was in flames; that it had a fit the day before; and, further, that three days previously it fell upon the fire, and had done so once betore. When he told her of its sad end she reminded him of what he had said to her, remarking that he, no d( übt, had made similar observations to others, which had led to his wife's apprehension; and on asking him why he was not in custody, he said he was never at home to see when the child was ill treated; that the witnesses gave shocking depositions against her before the coroner, but said no thing against him. Mr. James White, surgeon, of Little Warner-street, Clerkenwell, was next heard. He said that on the Fri day before the child's death he was called by the prisoner to attend it at a, Sumner street, Back-hill, Hatton-gar den. He instantly accompanied him, and saw the de ceased lying on some clothes on the floor. There was no bedding in the room, which the prisoner quitted the moment he entered. On examining the child s eyes ho found it was alive, and ordered the mother to bring him some water and castor oil, which he administered to it, and also placed its feet in warm water, and thereby caused its revival. After this the poor lathe sufferer called for bread and butter, with which he supplied it, and it eat voraciously. By Mr. TYRWHITT—The deceased i was in a dread fully emaciated state, so much so, indeed, that on the parts of its person he examined there were not, he believed, six ounces of flesh, It had a few old burn marks about it. After be had done everything neces sary on the emergency, the mother asked him t o sen d her some medicine for the child, which he refused to do, telling her it was more the case for a butch er , an d if she would come to his residence he w ou ld prov id e her with mutton to boil for it. He considered it a case of very great destitution. .The mother a ft erwar d s v i s i ted him, and he gave her nourishing food, for which she ap peared very grateful. On the next day, about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, he was again called into the pri soner's house by some children,:and he found the deceased on the lap of its mother, who was bathing it on the head, neck, and arms with oil. Those parts had been recently burned, end he gave directi-ns for its removal to the hospital. There was a smell of fire in the room, ari,ing as he soon perceived, from the smouldering of clothing, consisting principally of dark coloured stuff. The mut ton, or a portion of it, was then stewing on the side of the fire, which circumstance made him think that the child might have got to it. By Mr. TYRWHITT—Those injuries might have been occasioned by the child falling back on the fire, or by its pinnatore or bed•gown being drawn close to it. The poor creature might, in its then weakly state, have reached Ve fireplace. Mrs. Dlary White, of 8, Sumner.street, said she had lived in the same house with the prisoner and his wite and the deceased, and on the Saturday in questiA n she heard some one go out and come back very soon, and scr•am out for help, at which moment the deceased was also screaming. She entered the prisoner's room and saw the child en the floor, and it said to its mother in a very feeble voice, " Mother, I have been screaming for you." The room was then full of smok.~ from the child's clothes, which were on the hearth. There was r fen ler in front of the grate, which is only a foot trt m the fl riog. By Mr. TYRWHIT—She put her fingers bctween the bars of the grate without burning them, and likewise stuffed her apron there without slug. ing it. This being the whole of the evidence forthcoming to-day, Mr. TYRWHITTT said, be had decided upon commit ting the prisoner tor trial, but would remand him to a future day for the attendance of another material witness. BANK OF EMI-LAND. (From last night's Gazette.) An Acc.unt, pursuant to the Act 7th and Bth of Victoria. eap. 311,ftir the Week ending on Saturday, the 17th day of February, 1849, MUM D&PAATMENT. X. Notes i55ued........ 28,596,79 e 28,595,79 A K. MARSIIA.LL, Chief Cashier. Dated the 22d day of February, 1849. JIANKINQ DEPAITIMIN T. Government debt 11,015,100 Other securities •• • • 2,984.500 Gold coin and bullion 14,093,725 6iiver bunion ...... 501,071 X 28,595,795 Proprietors'espital.. 14,553,000 Beat 3,580,487 Public deposits (in cluding Exchequer, Commissioners of National Debt, Sav ings -banks, and Di vidend accounts) . • 5,303,317 Other deposits .. . • • • 10,491,5G0 Seven day and other bills .•. • • • •.•• • • • 1,114,470 Government secnri- I. ties (including Dead Weight Aunuity).. 14,022,467 Other securities .... 9,916,264 Notes ......... •• • . 10,308,040 Gold and sllYer coin.. 796,668 X 35,043,134 1 X 35,043,134 M. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier. ,1a49. Dated the 21d day of February. Tin; AURORA BOREALIS.—On Monday night, about half-past nine o'clock, there was a singular and beau tiful appearance of this phenomenon observable on the face of the firmanent. It streamed upwards at first from the eastern horizon, nearly to the zenith, in one n arrow an d un broken line of light-coloured vapour. After remaining nearly stationary for a few minutes, it became diffused at the top, and, breaking into small masses, or waves, seemed to be borne westwards, as if by a current of wind. On passing the zenith, the direction of the force seemed to be changed, for the line was then bent towards the south-west, and by and by it assumed the appearance of a luminous ; but, with a constant waving motion, it moved onwards until it gradually disappeared at nearly the opposite point of the horizon to that in which it first appeared. —North British Mail. ORTHOP2EDIC HOSPITAL. The annual general court of the governors of this hospital was held on Thursday, in Bloomsbury-square. The annual report stated that the total number of patients during the year was 1,130, the greater part of whom were cured or relieved. Many patients remain now in the hospital, two of whom had been sent by her Majesty's command. They are two children afflicted with double club feet, and who belong to a poor family, four of whom are similarly , eformed. There were 270 patients waiting for admission, for although several additional beds had been set up during the year, the funds of the hospital were quite inadequate to the demands upon them. The in come for the year amounted to 1,6361. 125., and the expendi ture to 1,5691., leaving a balawN of 66/. 135. 3d. This report was unanimously received and adopted, and after the trans. action of the usual business the meeting separated. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills a Sure Re medy for Coughs, Colds, and Oppression of the Chest. —These complaints being accompanied more or less by fever, the most prompt measures should be adopted to reduce the febrile action of the system, and allay the irritation of the affected parts. for which purpose no thing surpasses Holloway's Pills; let the sufferer then have immediate recourse to a few doses of this inestimable medicine, which will speedily remove all weight or pain in the head, pains in the chest, or a troublesome cough, and the reby promote an easy respiration, and effect • certain cure. Fur asthma and all affections of the lungs they are equally efficacious. Sold by all Druggists, and at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. The news received by the Overland Mail is a suf ficient reward for the anxiety which its delay had occasioned during the last four days. Both politically and commer cially, the accounts may be called highly satisfactory ; the success of our arms at Afoultan has been attended with less loss of life than might have been expected in storming so strong a fortress; it is therefore a subject for great thankfulness and establishes the fact that nothing can withstand the indomitable courage and determined perseverance of the British army. The demand for our manufactures continued brisk, both at Calcutta and Bombay. particularly at the latter place, where stocks of Manchester goods were low, and many parcels h a d b een sold to ar rive; it was not, however, expect e d th at pr i ces wou ld go higher than present quotations, and therefore it is to be feared that the late advance in our manufactur ing district; will not command a corresponding ad vance in India, particularly as the supply will be ample from the quantity shipped during the last three months. The lighter fabrics of Scotland have not been 3 0 eagerly purchased, but were in good demand at fair prices- The Export market at Calcutta was rather inactive, but the value of all kinds of produce, with the exception of sugar,Wsg well maintained. Cotton was in good demand at BombaP at rather higher prices. Exchange had advanced to ls. 1 0 0' per rupee, and a further improvement was anticipated. , FALL OF MOULTAN.—Among the enterpri s ing an meritorious officers wounded during the operations ofJanuarY 2, we find included the name of Lieutenant W. C. Ander son, of the Ist Regiment of Bombay FUsiliers, which too/ . ' leading a part in the duties of that ar d uous day. Havilt,g; however, had an opportunity of se e ing a l e tt er wr itten b y this young officer to his connexions in England on the t.°l - day, namely, January 3, we are enabled (and have pleasure in doing so) to state that Mr. Anderson was fortu nate enough to escape without injury from both the severe affairs in which the British troops were enga ge d b e fore 5 0 d within the walls of Moultan. Mr. Anderson is a nephevi ° f the eminent gentleman of the same name w h o h as , with?! the last week, been announced to the publi c as th e nod) appointed governor of the Mauritius. DESTRUCTIVE FIRE IN LIVERPOOL,—On %%rebel' day evening, about half-past six o'clock, a fire broke out on the premises of Messrs. Murray and Brown, engineers. 4!‘ c " in Lydia Ann-street, by which the whole of the buildings and machinery were destroyed, the combustible nature of the, materials and the force of the wind baffling all the efforts ?' the fire-engines. Fortunately the exertions of the fire bri gade prevented the conflagration from being spread to the neighbouring buildings, in which was property of grea t value. The origin of the fire is as yet unknown. The lose is estimated at between 3,000/. and 4,000/. The machinery was insured in the Manchester Fire-office for 2,000/. ; the building in the Imperial Fire-office. NUMBER OF LAWYERS IN LONDON.—In thus attri buting so much dppepoia to life in London we must not infer from it that the Londoners are a quarrelsome racer because of the number of gentlemen through whole agency disputes are settled. The truth is, that the rev jority of the agreements and disputes of the whole eg" pire are disposed of here. This fully accounts for th e 3,191 attorneys, the 1,692 barristers (alarm a t these numbers sensibly subsides when it is remembered that all the former are not in full practice, and some Din' 4l l per cent. of the l a tt er arc b r i c fi ess), the 127 spe cto• pleaders and conveyancers not at the bar, the 112 pros: tors, the 39 notaries, and the 54 Irish, Scotch, Chanc el Island, and parliamentary agents who are not attorner' —Review of the Post-office Directory in the Daily News., Accounts from Breslau report a very firm marke t for wool. A good deal of business had been done during Or. first fortnight of the present month. English wholes * : dealers and Netherland commission agents had purchase.; actively, the better qualities of Silesian shearlings at 6 0 70, and Polish at about 50. The native manufacturers h l`; also purchased, to some extent, the qualities suited to OS% wants at 40 to 48, and Russian fleeces, in large parcels, At s to 38. Tell wool had gone at 46 to 54, Swiss at 38 4 " lamb at 55 to 68, flock at 38 to 45, Posen shearlings at 52 to 58 in smaller quantities , 06 French, Belgian, and Hamburgh account. The total * 3 2„ amounted to 1,500 cwt., and the supplies were censideral , diminished. Prices were firm, but not higher than dur ly the month of January. Contract business continued to to entered into, but on a smaller scale. BIRTHS. On the 6th inst., at Government House, Fredericton, 1 -` Brunswick, the lady of Sir E. Head, Bart., of a daug hter. , e On the 15th inst., at Kirby , Isle of Man , the lady of t° Attorney-General of that island, of a son. On the 19th inst., at Uppe r Berkeley-street, fortniss' square, the lady of J. R. Pope, Esq., of a son. On the 19th inst., at Leamington, the lady of the 1:1013. D. Ward, of a son. On the 20th inst., at Fawley Rectory, Hants, the wife of the Rev. W. Gibson, of a son. Of On the 20th inst., at Marsh Gibbon Rectory, the lA"' the Rev. A. Coote, oL a son. On the 20th inst., at Dover, the Hon. Mrs. Lloyd Arlat ili r thar, of a son. the On the 20th inst., at Admiral Giffard's, Southampton , lady of Captain Gifiard, R.N., of a son. MARRIED On the 19th inst., at Ch r i s t Ch urc h, D owns ide, in t h Of parish of Midsummer Norton, the Rev. P. 8. Dobree:h, Ronceval, Guernsey, t o Ch ar l otte , younges t daughter of late J. M. Thompson, Esq., of Regent's-park, London. W. At Morton-hall, near Edinburgh, on the 20th hle t ',' t he Smythe, Esq., of M e th ven , t o E m ily, thi r d daughter 0 1 late Sir John OswalJ, of Dunuikier, G.C.B. s treet' On the 2lst i ns t., Alb er t J. D av i s , E sq ., of Berner f J. Oxford-str ee t, L on d on , to M ar i a , f ourt h d a ughter Davis, Esq., of 11i414-street, Cheltenham. DIED. O ff On the 24th inst., at the residence of her nephew .11 James Beal), No. 20, Radnor-street, Chelsea, Mrs. 113,°11,1--(1 Beal, in the 85th year of her age, the greatly esteemed the faithful attendant of the Dowager Lady Po'worth, for long term of 57 years. eru 0 On the 18th inst., at Battersea, Miss Scales , form Barorouh, Devonshire, aged 78. On the 1 g 6th inst., at Kentish-town, aged 54, John , 500 °f the late E. Boys, Esq., Upton-house, Kent. On the 15th inst., at Ealing , Ann , widow of the late Rawlings, Esq., of Onibury, near Ludlow, Salop. On the 15th inst., at Bath, Elizabeth, relict of the I s t° Francis, Esq., of that city, aged 79. On the 21st inst., in Upper Berkeley-street, the Right /I°ll Sir George Warrender, Bart., aged 68 0 01 London: Printed and Published by MURDO TOG A No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 771.8 Sun Office, 1 1 %,,, of Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the NO Muhllynx, Saturday, k'obrpary 24, 1849! / O F Articles t f Cm: Sm Gw Au Lin lila Le: Ens C as Irol rat The p r notice, th the Ordno board the r teeive Fc for. N.B. Al conVanied Februar GI 'I,A an, NIEN fur the yen LMance fr Ot 13n f ,- , Y, from uitto, from ,t'agemo n "eaa men' D inter est itt Co nsolidan °ld 00 0/ s, SoM at 'l4 Pel4teits t, tto i i TlPorary ttioncant,rati etl'irge sof bi l t a. to )ce :i soau B alance to CA 01 Ilerchar TO THE ADLE: AS a an4o,Jur ] [l , inea ir c c, 31101;1(1 "Devon /1 I' rioroiiicttririnii' Th e Annu a l H alf the Pottensil koderat Ti; Ter Cent, El .--_____ Prospect or any of i Warded pc -----_______ LEG lio lle ntague C. F ' t Thert Ju Gth.o Josep tl- sr : ii l ei oi t t a i ll i v i e l e r y. h The De ' Q "tly ism their inter I'lareh. ns Th e sDi cannot toi 4 ,Derati on , there7er—e, tha n they Th e re , ~t irse , h, y thin Of Dies, and '' ''' r elai A T he Di "3', in 1 c.Peration toQ3' liay. the trop , ar t' .. , C r risk;."' Panic 'l . ll e Di v°Wers 0 Security 4 T(trier n° be add . 1 1. Mu Mu : 4 ' Xutiec `I on, thi London , orkcion ' u'elock re etors othe r bu The T the 1 itt 01 Marc tisho 4 1 li gat ' ur ( disti ll teeth e, of r- teeth ti klaatica flit 0,!!,1 -~ 1 411 dutie 3 t he W 1 •-; g .f l000;1