The Sun. — London, England, 1825-05-27 00:00:00

I• ••••.- : - - 40 ttp,,lttuo 1j14:1 *2 - '414 4 Ts: ' l4 l • •.. _ • . _ . <// ty et / • - rl z/ ia /17 a2.--3-7rat-t„, _ • , • 4 -- • . • is 6 •: =~ac. r i!•,:....!: , .,.: i' ; :..',:: -.7-:. .. t.• , . •:c•. ; ..~:... - ; s:\ FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 27, 1825. PRICE SEVENPEkeII. NumnEß 10,205 i-tDAIIIICALTY-OFFICE, May, 23, 1825. • °TICE is ltere.by . ,,g'izien, that a Session of y. 1:11 Oyer and'Terminer and Gaol Delivery, for the Trial of Offence's cononttled on the High•Se4s . , wit kin the Jurirdic tio!s of the ddmiralty of England, will he held at ,In.vtie Mall, in the Old Bailey, London, on Monday, the 27th day of June next, of Eight o' Clock in the Morning. rind all Sheris:,•, Gaolers, and Keepers of Prison's, in whose custody any Prisoners, charged with Of eures com mitted on the High Seas, or within the Said Jurivlietion, may be, are hereby required to transmit a copy of the Com- Mitneent of eCerY'.Sueli Prisoner to Mr. Bushnell, the Solicitor of the 4diniratty, un Spring Garden Terrace, London, in arder:that the net essary measares may be taken, for removing al: such Prisoners to His Majesty G,tol of N'cuate, for Trial at the said intinded .cession. And all Mayurs,Jasti - es, 'Coroners, and other O//leers, before whom . any - fortisitions, -Informations, Exitininations, ur BecogAizances, may hare be'esi taken touching any suck (fence:; are.reepeired . to trans om? the sanie forthwith to ;fir. Thomas Shelau, Me Clerk of ,Irraigns of I he, High Cour! of ...11Inaralty of-England, ret,his Office, at the ,Setsi9ns' House in the Old Bailey, LondOn. J. W. CROKER. ROYAL ACADEMY, SOMERSET PLACE. THE EXHIBITION of the ROYAL ACA : -DEMY IS NOW OPEN. AttrnislOKl (from Eight o'clock fill Secrn), is Catalogue, Is. HENRY HOWARD, R.A. Sec GROUNDAtENT COMPANY.— Capital £250,000, in Shares of £25 each. No further Applications for Shares can be received after the 314 instant. The Committee of Management are ready to receive propo lais for Scites of Building Ground, Giound Rents, and Re- versions. Prospectuses, and every requisite information, may be ob tahoed of Messrs. Andrews and Chit, Joint Solicitors to the Company, 28, Great Winchester-street, or 13, Holborn-court, Gray's Inn. ALL NEXT TUESDAY! RISH having distributed Eleven Capital Prizes vno"g his best Friends, the Public, on the very last D;ailing, solicits a continuance of their favours in the pre tent Lottery, containing Prizes of increased' Value, and of greattr Variety, viz. - of Two Two TWO £30,000, . -1 £lo,ooo .£5,000 . • Besid e s T W ENTY o th e r Capitals,_ and NO BLANKS As every Number will be sure £5 at least. ALL IN ONE DAY, 3f.st MAY. When ever} I • Num b er will he decided, and every Tiket a Prize. BISH ban been - peculiarly fortunate in selling Prizes of .00,000. There have been only Two Schemes. containing* Three Prizes of X 30,000; in the first. BISH sold ALL THE THREE ; and in the last; be sold Two out of the Three Prizes of Thirty Thousands. BISH also sold the First £Bo,ooo ever drawn,—the Last L 30,000 ever drawrit—in the last Three Months of last Yeas he sold Two Prizes of £30,000 and Three Prizes of I:MOW—and in the very last Drawing, Ilth April, BISH sold and shared No. 7,034, a Prize of £39,000, in Sixteen Sixteenths; and Ten other Capitals, in a variety of Shares. Ticliets and Shares are on Sale at DISH'S Offices; 4,-Corn bill, and 9,' Claming-Cross, London. IIES• .* The Lottery will be all. d ra wn NEXT TD:yi arra Nu More Lottery Act will he passed by Parliament. THE DECCAN ARMY. (3 1 1. Wednesday next will be published, price Three Shillings and Sixpence, BSER.VATIONS on the SERVICES and CLAIMS of the ARMY of the DECCAN. Printed for and Sold by WHEATLEY and ADLAILD 7 108, Strand. • CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. This Day was published, price 15.6i1. A LETTER to the EARL.of LIVERPOOL ; - ; "-11,, containing an Inquiry into the Policy of now conced rs.snllll the probable Consequences of now Refusing Ectumcipation : with new Proposittons relative to the 4 . ll l4ncipation and Disfranchisement Bills; and some Facts t elittive to Irish Catholics offered to the attention of the electors of Great Britain. By WILLIAM GRAYDON, Esq. Author of Reflections on the State of Ireland." Published by J. Ridgway, 169, Piccadilly. • Of whom also may be bad, just published, the Second Edi - lion of REFLECTIONS on the STATE of IRELAND the litoeteenth Century." • QUININE LOZENGES, r • - ",r, relieving Heartbur n, Flatulence, Ind i g estion, Nausea, LO S' of Appetite, ‘i aterbrash, &c. and giving Tune to the iittimach. ILYall the recent discoveries in Vegetable Chemistry, none has been rec eived b y the I.:!tcultv , ith rn .ore• satisfaction than that produced by the French "s", from Peruvian Bark. The inconvenience formerly kxPerienced in the administration of I3ark, from the bulk ne -t"arY to form a d o se, and the irritating e f f ects of the fibrous rsqticles it contained, rendered the Patient often unable to r i list with it, even where no other remedy, seemed accomplish likely to aecoplish the objec t in e very other , of the Prac t ho er• T he D e cocti o n, Infusion, and ut e, had also iticonveniencies, either from the quanti t y or qua lity uf • h htenstru a ' 4l. h e • ..1 11 0 Sulphatefebrifuge of Quinine is found to possess all the tonic O tt properties of the Peruvian Balls, tit a condo! . It .afe, deprived of the extractive and resinous m atter. th an one contains all the essential propertiei of rst her more den . , one drachm of the Bark in its natural state; it is err- , svii":.e:herefore, that in debilitated Stomachs, arising from ' In th e cause, no Medicine can be more desirable. the s u i t formula from which these Lozenges are prepare d ' th a t Phme of Quinine forms the chief ingredient ; but, t heth e „ e effects may be more adapted to the object tor which are intended, it is combined in such proportions with 441 d Ab sorbents, Anti-acids, and agreeable Aromatics, as l oss o u f u t e o r n t e h . em applicable to every Stomach labouring under % Id 4, tro.sett at Is. ad. by Butler, Chemist, 4, Cheapside ; A Pr v in d e l i tsa a i' D d r c u oi gi t s 3 t4 6,New Bond-street, London ; and by the in the Kingdom; of whom may be had ..s. Mated Loe . nges of Cayenne, for recent t - , &c. Sr I4.trt,tl...sruoaint,g rieitliamx,uttioon theUvnla, .11oar.senes, als o agree sis. 9d. us in Fatigue , Field Sports, &c. in boxes, . n Be est , . Li caref u l t o as k f or B ul l et ' s Q u i n i ne Lozenget. ter s Acidulated Lozenges of Ca) cone. PAitLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY, MAY 26. The Earl of DERBY presented two petitions fi.om Bolton-le- Moors, one from the journeymen cotton-spinners, praying for a limitation of working hours; the other from the inhabitants of the place, in favour of an alteration in the Corn Laws.—Laid on the table. BONDED CORN. The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented a petition from the land-owners of Hadlcigh, in the County; f Suffblk, against the Bill for allowing the introduction and sale of Bonded Corp. The Earl of ..11ALMESBURY was understood to suggest the propriety, of delaying the Committee on that Bill, on ac count of the absence of certain Returns, which were not yet be -fore the House. After some conversation, the Earl of LIVERPOOL • con sented ta put off the Committee till next - Tuesday, on condition twat there. would be no objection to the Bill being read a third time on the following day. - • The petition . was then laid on the table, with two others to the, same effect. from hundreds in the same county. Petitions in favour of the Equitable Loan Bill were presented by the Duke of Rictimo).rn and Earl of TatikEttviLLE, from Birmingham. and Whitby.—Laid-on the table. - ROYAL MESSAGE. The Earl of LIVERPOOL brought down a Royal Message from the. Crown, in whiCh 'his Majesty expressed his desire to grant an annuity toiler Royal Highness the Prince Alex andrina Vittoria of Kent, and his Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Alexander Ernest' Augustus, the son of the Duke 'of Cumberland, and recommended to -their Lord ships to concur in making a provision for the families of their, Royal llignesses the Duchess of Kent and the Duke of Cumberland. • - The Message was then read from the Woolsack, and On the motion of the Earl of LIVERPOOL, it was ordered to be taken into consideration to-morrow. BILLS. Mr. Bu.oanEN and others from the Commons brought - up the Exchequer Bills for Public Works in Ireland Bill, the Ca nada Incorporated Company's Bill, and a great many other Bills, which were read a first time. Mr. RUUD presented Returns from the Equitable Loan Company, pursuant to the orders of the House.--Laid on the table. QUARANTINE LAWS. • Earl DARNLEY complained, that the returns which had been laid on the table and printed, on the subject of the Qua rantine Laws, were not perfect, and expressed his intention to morrow or Monday next, to move for copies or extracts of any communications which might have been received by his Ma jesty's Government on this subject, from the British Consuls in the .Mediterranean. He also wished to know whether it was true, that foreign Powers had already laid restrictions on the entrance of British vessels into their ports, in consequence of the expected removal of our Quarantine Laws. If this were the case, it would become a consideration whether our trade would not suffer more than it. would gain by the measure. The Earl of LIVERPOOL recommended to the Noble Earl to suspend his obsetvations till the Bill should be he fore the House, that he might exactly know what were its provisions ; for a wrong idea prevailed that It was intended to alter our Quarantine Laws and to set the whole system loose. There was no intentionwhatever to abolish the cus tomary airing of vessels and objects coming from the Levant. It was only proposed to do , away some very inconvenient re- gulations which were totally unnecessary. If the Noble Earl would postpone his motion- till Tuesday next, it would pro bably be then in his power (the Earl of Liverpool's) to move the Order of the Day for the first or second reading of the Bill. Earl DARNLEY hoped that the Noble Earl would be able to state to-morrow, or at the latest on Tuesday next, whether British vessels had experienced any di ffi culty in entering fo reign porls in consequence of the measure now in progress. CATHOLIC CLAIMS. The Marquis of - LANSDOWN presented a Petition from the town of Beaminster, in the county of Dorset, in favour of the Catholic Claims. The Noble Marquis stated that he pre sented it althouo the Catholic Bill had been rejected, because he did not consider the question as finally disposed of. It was one, on the contrary, which must continue to come yearly be fore the House, till justice should be done to one third of the population of the empire. The LORD CHANCELLOR was understood to say, that he should not oppose thepetition, but that he had received seve ral petitions himself of a different nature since the rejection of the Catholic Bill, which he had not presented on account of the decision which the House then taken.—The petition was then laid on the table. NATURALIZATION. Viscount MELVILLE rose to move the first reading of the Bill, of which he had given notice yesterday, for making some alteration in the mode of obtaining naturalization. As the law now stood, it was not only required that persons should have taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, but that within one month before naturalization they should have received the Sacrament according - to the forms of the Church of England.— It was the same with respect to restoration of blood ; for though by the Act of Union it was settled that no religious test should be required from individuals belonging to Scotland, yet persons so situated as the Earl of Mar, whose blood had been restored by Act of Parliament, were obliged by the present law to take the sacrament according to the forms of the English Church.— No w it happened that many individuals, though Protes tent, n ever were or could be of the Church of England, and it was a great hardship for them to be subjected to such a test. That a person should be a Protestant was all that was requisite, and the taking the Oath of Supremacy sufficiently proved it. Their Lordships knew that an Alien, even when naturalized, did not enjoy all the prerogatives of a natural born subject. With respect to the mode of naturalizations as in the case of persons restored in I blood, and the present Bill would put itin their Lordships' power, and sufficient cause being shewn to justify absence, to allow the Naturalization Oaths to be taken elsewhere, and proofs - of them being so taken to be received at the Bar. He should now move the first reading of the Bill. • After a few indistinct words from the Earl of LAUDERDALE and LIVERPOOL, the Bill was read a first time. SLAVERY. Earl BATHURST presented printed papers relative to the situation of Slavery in the Colonies.—Laid on the table. LAWS OF FORFEITURE_AND ATTAINT OF BLOOD. Lord HOLLAND moved the Order of the Day for the se• cond reading of the Attainder Bill. On the motion of the Noble Lord the Act of 7th of Queen Elizabeth, sec. 10, chap. 21; that of the lith Geo. II.; and that of the Geo. 111. were read pro forma. Lord HOLLAND then said, that in submitting the motion to their Lordships, although he was satisfied that it was found ed on principles that were natural, that were just, that were those of sound policy and good faith, he felt it necessary to make some apology, lest he might be subjected to a charge of presumption, in attempting to induce their Lordships to do that which they had not been induced to do, although solicited by some of the highest characters this country had ever pro duced : for in the attempt he now made. he remembered that Lord Somers, Lord Hardwick, Justice Blackstone' and Sir S. Romilly, had failed ; if th en h e , w h o h a d neither the weight or the knowledge of some eminent men, came forward in the hope of doing that which they had been unable to do, he feared he should be accused of vanity. B ut h e h a d b e en induced to make the attempt because of many little circumstances to which it was not material to revert, because there was someting in the na ture of the times encouraged him, and because the House had been for two seasons occupied, .at the suggestion of a Noble Lord( Melville)opposite, in improving thelaws of that part of the united kingdom called Scotland ; and occupied also in removing some of those laws which had prevented the restoration of noble families to the rank to which they were entitled by birth. At the present time there was no competitor for the crown, nor no fear of treason among any part of his Majesty's subjects. He was induced therefore to hope that the present time was a most au spicious one, and that unable as he was to do justice to so im portant a subject, the circumstances under which he brought it might warrant him in the beforeanticipation th notice its s o s f u c t elrs fresult. Ile should have been more pleased if the Noble Viscount (Melville) had himself proposed it, but that Noble Viscount was'oecupied with other subjects, and h a d that day brought in a Bill to remove some of those evil consequences that flowed from laws which affected that part of the country to which the Noble Viscount was naturally attached. The object of the Bill of which he (Lord Holland) now moved the was not in any d egree to l essen the punishment for high treason. It was m ere ly to Unlit that second reading, punishment to the guilty, and to shelter the innocent from its consequences. 'lt was not to excite any morbid"sensibility to wards those who had committed crime, but to do justice to wards those who had committed none, and who could not com mit any. .The object of the Bill was especially to restore to Scotland its ancient law, the law to which- it was attached; and to carry into effect the intentions of the British legislature, which had been twice held out to that country. .He well knew that in proposing any thing that appears to be approaching to any alteration in the criminal law, he should have to encoun ter the bug-bear Innovation, but nothing of What was reasonable in the objection to innoaation could apply to this Bill. His tion had been recommended by the authorities of many worthies who had gone fro M—who, thout:li they saw it would be tit and proper to alter the general system, were aware that the time was not then arrived to do it. Witbrespect to one part of the coun try, his motion would not be for innovation but for restitution, it would be merely to place the law of Scotland as it had been before the passing of an alien law to remove an anomaly which was contrary to the nature, and might produce dangers affect ing the prosperity, of that country. Could that be called inno vation which was sanctioned-by the British' Parliament Of the last century, and which was not carried into effect, merely be cause at that time there existed a competition for the Crown, and the Act might have been attributed to a party, or to a fear of consequences that might have been anticipated. The British Parliament, however, did _approve of-the principle, and left such approbation on their statute Woks:: This law was the remnant of an old system, to remove which would be to render the laws consistent and uniform. Ile was sure the Noble and Learned Lori on the Woolsack would not urge against the Bill ; the argument of antiquity, because, within a few years that Noble and Learned Lord had rentoved the most ancient relic of Briti;sh jurisprudence, which was more ancient than the Woolsack, and even than the Crown itself— the appeal of murder. The Noble and Learned Lord had done this away. And why ?' Because -it was no longer suitable to the times under which we lived, and because the, people of this . country, to whom it was given; or rather by whorn it was taken and made; had a better system in that protectien which the law gave them. It was in the time of Henry VEll.•that the law was-passed, which declared it to be politic and just to prevent the commission of We by punishing the inntiecrit ftir the acts of the guilty. - We had the authority of Bishop - Burnet to say, that in the Act of Union it was intended to assimilate the law Of treason, and to preserve to the kingdom of 'Scotland an im munity from the law of forfeiture . and of corruption of blood ; but there was so much difficulty in the way of this arrange ment, that it was then postponed, although with a perfect un derstandingahat Scotland should have this immunity. How ever in 17.08 or in 1709,, a :Bill was introduced, 'which con tained a clause fOr extending the consequences of attainder to Scotland. Anil,how was it received? It produced a strong debate in which Bishop Burnett stood up, and on the ground of justice and of prudence, besought their Lord ships not to adopt this clause. In the valuable records left by that Prelate of what then took place in the. House, he stated that the venerable Earl Cowper, who presided, and many other Noble : Lords, were agreed as to the justice and propriety of rejecting this - clause ; but . they saw the danger of doing so at that period, when there was, or when it was foreseen that there would shortly be a competitor for the Crown, and the Bill, in consequence, after a long debate and many divisions,. passed the House. A' protest against , it wai e however, entered on their Lordships' books , and that protest was signed.by no less than twenty-two Peers, of which number there were thirteen out of the sixteen Peers of Scotland. The r Bill then went down to the other House , a nd'h o w was it there ? There,' Bishop Barnet states , w a s 'a har d stru gg l e to throw out the clause, and that struggle was successful. The . House of CommonS not only threw out the clausee--they were 'not contented with merely so 'doing—but they added another clause to the Bill, extending to England as well as Scotland, this exemption from the attaint of blood. Their Lordships of that day did not .think it • wise .to treat with contempt a Bill brought up by the Commons. They were not childish enough. to tell the House of COmniorat'that they did not speak the sense of the people they represented ; they did not say to that people " No, though your hopes arc great, they shall he blasted— although your prayer is recommended by the House of Com mons." No, the Ilouse of Lords acquiesced in the clause the House of Commons had passed. They did, indeed call for a temporary suspension of it during the life-time of the Pre tender, because they feared the attachment of the people of Scotland to that doctrine—which he would call a blasphemous doctrine—the doctrine of Jure Divino, which was now known by its smoothest name of legitimacy ; but which, if it had been acknowledged, would have deprived us of the blessings of the House of Brunswick. During the rebellion in Scotland, this law was exercised with great severity ; but about thirty y ears after the period of the passing of site Bill to which he had al luded, there was another rebellion in that country, and there was then a competitor for the Crown. What was then done ? Was it moved to make this law perpetual ? No, it was merely moved to continue it during the lives of the sons of the Pretender, on the principle that if it were necessary in One case it was necessary_ in the other. In 1744 the question was again brought forward, and although it was then hardly contested, the objectionable clattses were passed. At that time, however, Lord Hardwickesanctionedthe principle of the Bill now before their Lordships; almost all the objections against that Bill were at the present moment done . away with. He thought he had proved that, in good faith to wards Scotland, and in sound policy, the passing of the Bill was rendered necessary. But if all'those'arguments in favour of it did - not exist, on the grounds of general principles, of hu e manity, feeling, policy, and prudence, he 'thought their Lord ships bound to adopt it. He knew it had been said that pro perty ng of the law—an offspring e by-the-by, as old as a i ia s s pa ah r e en offp t : a r n i and that prop er ty i s o n l y h e ld b y f avour o f . the law. He knew also it was sometimes said that all puni e hment* mustmare or less affect innocent people—that they must nt any rate suffer in theit feelings. But this was the imperfection of hu man punishment, and surely could not be taken as a principle on which to act. He knew, also it was argued that in cases of murder and forgery, and some other crimes, there was a stigMa on the children of those who committed the crimes which did not rest on the children of persons guilty of high treason ; and that therefore, as there would not he. hereditary infamy, there ought to be hereditary poverty., But such a principle was most unjust ; a sense of moral justice itself made it odious, and any law must be impolitic that was contrary to moral justice. He believed that the laws of forfeiture' had caused more rebellions than they had prevented. France, whera it was in its state of wildest anarchy, refused to adopt such a system as would con sign to infamy and to poverty innocent and unoffending men ; and the Government of the Bourbons, with all their boasted le , gitimacy, would never be secure, because under that Om ern , merit the nation was composed of two parties, those who had bit and those who had gained. Under those circumstances, he • would move the second reading of the Bin. Lord COLCHESTER said that ilie Bill of the Noble Lord went to repeal a law lie had . proposed 26 years ago, and since that period he had not seen any reason to alter hie mind. The principle of punishment for high treason was in all ages and countries the same ; and men disposed to endanger a State ought; in his opinion,- to be restrained by every law that could touch their feelings and their hearts as well es their interests; and nothing, could more effectually du this than the dread of involving a whole race in infamy and rniefertune. Parliament had thought proper to unake,that law perpetual which formerly applied . only to the period of the lives of the Pretender and the Pretender's sons. Now the Noble Baron (Holland) Noll4ht to sweepeiway at once this law, which lie (Lora Colchester) con sidered necessarea As lie could not agree in the principle of the Bill now before the House, he wawa meet , as an amend ment, that it be read this day six months, The Earl of HOSEBERRY was of opinion, that there were very many reasons why their Lordships should pass the Bill brought forward by the Noble Lord (Holland) • above all because a pledge had been formerly gi ven b y this country to another, which was broken only upon certain grounds which did not now exist. The authority of Bishop Burnet might be quoted to thew the necessity for annulling the ob noxious laws at some period or another, and•that authority was very strong. lie could not conceive how a doubt could exist as to the injustice of taking away from any person those rights to which he would tie entitled but for the crime of another.— But although their Lordships determined to continue those laws in this country, lie would appeal to their justice against conti nuing them in , 4 cotivid, where they were always opposed, and never consented to, except for a season.. He would appeal to their Lordships in confidence, and ask whether, under present circumstances, any mats would come forward to propose to Par liament, or any Parliament be so . unjust sad so i mpolitic as to Pass such laws — la ws which v heads visited d crimes a the guilty upon the of the innocent .hi s pinion, ther e f ore , t h e Bill was a just and a p r oper one, anti he would support it. Lord MELVILLE said, the, Noble Load had tbunded his Bill, in a great'degree, on a supposed breaeliof faithavith Scut. land. But he (Lord Melville) thought that Noble Lord had carried his argument to a greater extent than he was warranted in doing. The law of that Country, down to 1690, enacted, that in cases . of treason there should-be a forfeiture of property and of lionouts. He Mated this on the authority of Mr.• Baron Ilume. - The Act of-1'690 certainly annulled this. He (Lord Mel Ville) thOught the law of forfeiture a salutary provision. As to that relative to the corruption of blood, it appearectto - him not to be founded on principle. And if the Bill, or the former Bill brought into Parliament by Sir S. Romilly in 1814, had gone no farther than to do away with this law, he should not have opposed it, but lieCaulii not go to the extent desired by the Noble Baron. Lord REDESDA LE said, that the object of the Bill was to do away with that which was the law of Scotland down to 1690, and' was then Only modified. It was to prevent the.commission of crime that this law continued to . be the law of this country, and until the year 1690 that of Scotland. It was denied that 'the law had any such effect, but if it had not been so under stood it wash.] not have been So continued. Hilted heard an anecdote in point: Miring the year 1745, a Noble Lady forged a warrant from the Secretary of state,,and arrested her husband. —She afterwards cennnunicated the circumstance to the Secre tary, and had her husband released ; ever afterwards boasting that she had saved . the property and the honour of her children. He considered this law, therefore, as one of perfect policy, and as one which unquestionably did tend to the prevention of crime. There-were other provision's in the Bill to which per haps he should not object, but there had been a practice of late of mixing up prepositions to which there would be decided o 1:. jectinns, with others to which there would be none. To such a . practice he would object, and would wish every proposition to stand upon its own basis. He would therefore support the amendment of the Noble Lord (Colchester.) The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that from the import ance of the subject, and his respect for the Noble Lord who brought 'it before the House, :he felt it necessary to say a few words. •If the Bill.hatl only applied to the laws that related to Murder, or to petty treason, he should not have objected to it ; hut with respect to the crime of high treason he thought the-law ought not to be altered. I le should have more objection to do away with the laws relative to forfeiture than to those relative to the cOrruption.of blood ; as he thought that , in the former there was a great security fOr the public good; welfare,and tran quillity: In the Bill of the Noble Lord there were many in accuracies, anti if it wereitigo through a Committee, he should propose many amendments and alterations. He would repeat, that he did not think there' was the same necessity for the laws respecting the corruption of blood as there was for those of for feiture, awl that they should not so much apply to murder and to petty treason as to high' treason. He thought the Noble Lord had better bring in another Bill differently formed. If the Bill were to go into a Committee, he (the Lord Chancellor) wou ld move to leave out the words " high treason," and to allow the words" murder" and" petty treason to remain. Lord HOLLAND; in reply, contended that the Bill did not repeal the Act of 'William - I I 1., and he had drawn up a clause to that effect. StrangerS. were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, :when the numbers appeared— -.. appeared, on,- the petafioner s• own showing, that none of the transactions to which he referred occurred later than-,17 yeara ago, arid that some of them took place at so distant a period as thirty years since. The severities alleged to have taken place in the year 1796, of which he Complained, admitted . pf.legal remedy, and-the law was open to him, but what does he do ? lie postpones moving in the matter until every one capable of giving- testimony already sleeps in the, grave. The petitioner had been .taken up . during • the disturbances of the year .1803, and-yet accuses, Dr. Trevor of relentless hostility, as if he had been the cause of his imprisonment. it was in vain', to say that inquiry should be instituted. There did not then exist the power of inquiry, for the witnesses of these transactions were dead. Under Mr. Coyle's own hand there was evidence that Dr_ Trevor could not likiw been guilty of the offence% charged against • him by the petitioner, for it appears that he advised his removal from the gaol ofNewgate in Dublin, to that of Kilmainham, a proceeding confessedly of great humanity and indulgence. . He then read to the House a letter from Mr. .CoYle to Doctor Trevor, thanking . him for his humanity and kindnest on the occasion referred to. Not only had Mr. Coyle written that letter, but he had, in conjunction with some of his fellow-pri soners, .published their thanks to the,person then so much vili fied by the petitioner.- If there had been the slightest founda tion for the allegations thert brought, why was not proof of them offered before the Commission which sat in 1803 ? That Com - - mission was composed of the then Lord Chief Justice of Ire land, Mr. Justice Daly, Dean Verschoyle, Mr. Disney, and others of eminent integrity, humanity, and wisdom. The parties were then free—years after their confinement, and possessing every facility.for obtainingjustice, yet Mr. Coyle declined coining before that Commission, because, forsooth, it did not follow the practice of Courts of Justice by being open - to the public. As to the general character and conduct of Dr. Trevor, he could, from the knowledge which he had of him, bear ample testimony to his merit. Ile concluded by protesting against such an applica tion as this on several grounds, and chiefly on the manifest in justice of calling upon people in office to answer chatges after letting them sleep during- a period of 17 years. - Mr. AIIEHCItOIIISY eoncurred with the Right Hon. Gentleman in thinking that, after such a lapse of time, it was difficult, if not impossible, to institute an inquiry _with any ra tional prospect of being able to do substantial justice. The im pression on his mind certainly was, that there never had - been any individeal in the history of any country more severely treated than the petitioner had been. This was a conclusion to which be did not rashly come ' :for he had lcbked in most of the books from which be Couldhave derived information, and weighing the evidence on both -sides, he hesitated not to say that Mr. Coyle had been made an object of extremely rigorous prosecution. There was one strikingfact to which no contradiction had ever been given, which was, that when the petit otter had come for ward and successfully prosecuted a public delinquent, the tio- Vemment of that day interposed to shield him from the just re tribution of the law. Mr. Secretary: PEEL had no personal knowledge, nor could any Member of the present Government have any personal knowledge, of those transactions. The Magistrate alluded to had been deprived of his commission, and . theadlegations against Dr. Trevor had been disproved on the inquiry. Of the character of Dr. Trevor he spoke in the highest terms, and observed, that it was obviously unjust to raise an inquiry at this late period, and after a lapse of seventeen years. Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON wished to know what objection there existed to institute an inquiry. The militate details act forth by the petitioner, had not been contradicted, and that Were still soma witnesses alive who could corroborate his state,. ments. Ile yetrontinued' to labour under the effects . of-the wounds lie received from the falling on him,- from the /.7-aeleiN hnnds, - while in a narrow cell, the heavy irons which usitulti confined his limbs. The petition was then brought up and read. • - -After which ITH made a few observations. in re ply, when the petition was ordered to be printed. ••• , • THE- STATUTES. •- - Content - - - - 12 - -,-: - Not Content -, - - 15 Majority against the 'Bill - -3 ' The ()chef Orders of the Day were then gone through, and the "HOtts#iidjeurnett at lIALF-PAST EIGHT O'CLOCK. HOUSE OF COMMONS. At p Four o'clocktheHouse from Friday t. theSpeakertook the las ad, after an 1(, journment - _ ED INII ti it 011 AND LEITH WATERWORKS. The Report of the Edinburgh and Leith WiterSiorks Bill was brought up by Mr. B. -Drummond. Upon the Motion that the Report be received — Mr. SYKES moved, as an amendment, that the Bill should be recommitted, on the ground that he (Mr: Sykes) had voted in the Committee from missaPpreliensioa, and in contradiction to his present opinions. fie bad attended the. Committee up stairs, and, after inquiring into the merits of the Bill, reeolved to oppoied it. From the confused and irregular • manner in which the business of the Committee was executed, however, he found that his vote had been taken in favour of the Bill, whilst he intended .to vote against it. Ile had immediately ap pealed to the Chairman, but was informed, that as the vote was taken it could not be recalled or altered. Under these cir cumstances he thought it his duty to appeal to the Hotise, and moved the recommittal of the Bill. After a short conversation between Alderman Smith, Mr. Marjoribanks, Sir Re Ferguson, Mr. Gordon, Sir fileik; Mr. LAW COURTS. J. Smith, Mr. M. A. Taylor, and the Speaker, 31r. Sykes Mr. 110BHOUSE moved for returns of the number of Re consented to withdraw his motion, and the Report was received. cordsin his Majesty's Courts of King's Bench, Com Mon Mete., The Bill was then reaclas third time, and passed. and Exchequer, in this country, during the years 1820, - 1821, MESSAGE FROM THE KING. .-- • 1 1822, 1823, and 1824. Also returns of the 'number of ceases The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought down tried .during the same period, and. the nature of the verdicts; a Messave from his alajesty, whichewris read by the Speaker, and whether for plaintiff or defendant.---Ordered. - • ~ and was to the following elect : . : RIESSAGE- FROM - THE LORDS. ' •- A Messenger appeared at the Bar from the House of horde as tier Royal Highness Alexaralrina Vittoria (daughter of . and. the SPEAKER informed the House that their Lordship; her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent), and his Royal High- had-agreed to several private Bills without any amendment.' ness George Frederick Aleiander Ernest Augustus (son of his • - BREACH. OF FitIVELEGE. . e - -- • - - - • Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland), having nos - arrived Robert le Poer French Pilkington should be brought to the at an age when suitable provision is necessary for their honour- Bar. a ble support, maintenance and education ; and his . Majesty . The Serjeant at Arms having appeared at the Bar with Mr. - Pilkington in custody.. being desirous'that an annuity should be granted to her Royal I ' The SPEAKER said, si Robert le Poer Trench Pilkington; Highness the Duchess of Kent, and to hie . Royal Highness the ybu have be examined before a Select Committee of this ho use, which has reported that you have confessed yourself the Duke of Cumberland, for that p ur p o s e , his majesty recoils- author, of ..a Petition purporting to come from the Protestants 'that have been guilty of high breach quence adjudged you otnhethcieoneliabdeeraralittiyonofoifiisthfeaistthtbfujelcctotmomPoanrlsiatmo make a a nd su r i e t_ _ of Balinasloe, in Ireland, aria the Committee have in constr. of the Privileges of this House. You are now called to the Bar that you may offer any explanation of your conduct *haat - you shall deem calculated to mitigate the future resolutiaweif the House respecting you." 'on his Majesty's' gracious Message be taken into Considerate ,by Mr.. PILKINuTON addressed the Chair in reply, but in so a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.--Ordered. .11flaibeelsTnet(htippemCvlisli-e7N'C' ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Moved that faint a voice as to be only occasionally audible. We understood COMBINATION LAWS. . : , ' him to say that he confessed himself guilty of a very foolish and rash act—but although he now knew he had done wtong, he never contemplated the least breach of privilege or disrespect (..7 - o lt a i e r h . Tri l a l k U er 3 s lE of p p re a s b e i n in te , d a g a a i p n es against i t t i i ioenref.vroiymai of the ti J i e ou c r o n m ey b m i m en . . lion Laws.---Referred to the Committee. -. prietors of Mills in the County of Renfrew , agai nst th e Bill Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from Ce rt a in Pro- .by thereforepep ta b i n e g gg o ei r i hav ing; to subCre i s t eli h t i e m d s t t h l f e e p n e t t ir i t t i l b y n t i o n t q h u e e s a t i o o u n s . e an d e abide their decision. He had left Ireland, and came fOrward'to . for regulating the Salmon Fisheries.—Laid on the table. i state that he was the sole author of the petition, and with that Lord STA'NLEY preiented a petition from certain Cotton Confession he threw himself on the mercy of the House. life, Spinners of Brackford, against the Bill before the House for re- should only trespass further to mention, that he had been for a guletio s eethe hours of labonr.—Laid on the table. long time in an ill state of health, and even since his confines. -Mr. DAWSON brought up the report of the Commissioners menahad suffered so much that he was obliged to call in medi appointed to inquire into Irish Charities.—Ordered to lie on the table. cal aid--a fact which he hoped would induce the House to eon rider his case with some leniency. • Mr. J. WILLIAMS presented a petition from the thegeant opera- He tip e Sawyers of Manchester, against the revival of the Conibi- a wasrms then ordered to withdraw in custody of' Ser t A. nation laws.—Laid on the table. . . BERNARD COYLE. Mr. Secretary PEEL thought, as Mr. Pilkington had.conre In the absence of an Hon. Friend, Mr. J. S3IITH rose to fsiward to make what reparation was in his power for the present a petition front Bernard Coyle, of the City of Dublin, breach of privilege he had committed, and as his health appesa, complaining of being cruelly and unjustly treated; ,and im- ed to be impaired, the House would probably be induced with piisotted, without trial by the Irish Government during the him '(Mr. Peel) to treat :dr. Pilkingtou with any indulgence. years 1802 and 1.803. There were some circumstances towhich compatible with the preseryation of their own rights and (hag he would then advert , and which went in an extraordinary de- nit,, and the good of thepublic. He did notwish, however, that gree to the confirmation - of the almost incredible statements of this indulgence shculel.be such as to be drawn. into a precedent the petitioner. • He was a man who by several acts had render- hereafter in similar cases: He (Mr. Pilkington), however, ell himself peculiarly odious to the Orange faction in Ireland, had confessed hiniself the sole author of the petition,_ and and amongst these acts might be reckoned his having called thus very properly exonerated all others front any partiripatiori out and wounded, in a duel, Mr. Ogle, the. grand master a the in the act, as well as expressed before the Committee, the orangemen, as well es his haVing prosecuted to conviction, for utmost contrition for his conduct. No one at the same time, acts of tyranny and oppression, a Magistrate resident in the .could be more sensible than he calt. Peel) of the danger of al north of Ireland. It might be asked , why he had not applied lowing such practices to pass with impunity, and particularly sooner for redress for the injuries then so loudly complained of ? as regarded Ireland. Ii ere .any thing of the kind, front the to . this his answer was—that from the period at which those comparative proximity °lathe quarter wherever it proceeded, occurrences took place to the present moment, such was . would be immediately detected ;- hut a spurious petition Prow{ the temper of the Irish administration, and such the ge- Ireland might be absolutely under the discussion of Parliament neral - feeling of the Government of the country, that he -before intimation was had of Its character. In this instance he could have had' no welh•founded hope of success, until the wished, from all the circuinstances, that as much lenity should present more favourable aspect of public affairs. In support be shewn as was consistent with the preservation of their pie of these allegations, and in proof of his utility as a manufac- vileges ; and if the House concurred in that opinion, he should turer e his loyalty as a subject, and his sufferings as a note, he move, as e sufficient punishment, that Mr. Pilkington, be de. w ould refer the House to two individuals, whose t es timony, if' tained in the custody of the Serjeant at Arbor tillto-ntoerow, given in his favour, could not be suspected of partiality, he or' better time would be, Monday next.—( I) meant Majors Sirr and Swan. lie attributed th e crue l t i es i n - Si r JOHN NEWPORT rose to secOnd.the motion,- and .flirted on him to the inveterate hatred of Dr: Trevor—cruelties trusted'the House would accede to it. Nothing could be more which reduced him to sickness and beggary, and which, in their explicit than Mr. Pilkington's acknowledgment of his error aggregate. amounted to a degree of odious 'and almost ineuP- before the' Committee. It was also. most important that he portable - tyranny. confessed himself to be the sole author of the Petition, as he Mr. GOULBURN, after few preliminary observations, thus acquitted a large proportion of persoas who might have stated to the House that he had made inquiries on the subject been suspected of getting it up to forward their own claims, at of the petition then brought under their consideration; and so the time under the consideration of the flestsie.•• *Mr. Pilking far trout a case having been made out by thepetitioner sufficient ton, however, was himself a Protietant,. and allahie connece to induce them to interfere on his behalf', there was nut the dons were Protestants, so that no imputation• now rested on slightest grounds to warrant Parliamentary interference, It. the Roman Catholics. For himself, he should tes!ta. it as re Mr. R. CO LW behalf of gir• M . W. Ridley, post poned to the .7th of June a motion of..that Hon. baronet'::, which stood for this day, respecting the Revision and ConsQli dation of the Statutes. • . CRUELTY TO - ANIMALS. Lord BELORAVE preAnted a petition from Chester, in favour of the Cruelty to Animals Bill.—Ordered to be printed. WIST' INDIA SLAVERY. • Mr. BENETT presented u petition from Pishbury, against West India Slavery. . . COMBINATION LAWS. • Mr. GOULBURN presentetl a petition from the Manufac turers of the city of Dublin, against a•repeal of the Coirrhina: Lion