The Sun. — London, England, 1834-03-14 00:00:00

for the last 130 years they, as a body, were never found upon any one occasion to take a part fivourahle to the liberties of the pcoide; that, on the contrary, they in variably opposed concessions, whether to Dissenters or Catholics ; that, far from wishing to enlarge, they were disposed to oppose the progress of liberal opinions ; he could not fee any good that could result from their having seats in Parliament. Upon all questions of public liberty they formed hut a negative quantity, always on the wrong, never on the right, s i de. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said it was a favourite opinion, and entertained by many, and frequently expressed, that all the various interests of the country were represented in that house. He owed his seat there to a large and highly respectable portion of the Protes'ant dissenters of this 'country; and he would, from no inducement, either reli gious or political, shrink from openly avowing his send talents upon this or upon any other question ; he felt that it would ha a shameful abandonment of the interest of throe who sent him there—an abandonment of their just and reasonable expectations—if he were now to permit this question to be smothered, as it were, in i's very birth without declaring what his opinions were. He would not now enter into the merits of the question as be origi nally proposed, and indeed bad prepared himself to do. Another opportunity must arise, and then he would be ready to take his part in the discussion. Not the shadow of an arcLaatnent was offered against the motion. They who were determined to vote against it were totally silent. The motion, if disposed of in this way, without argument or observation, would at least have this result : it would prove to the country that the continuance of the bishops in their seats in the other home of Parliament had not a sine le supporter in that hotw. Was this to bo treated like sonic paltry question of tithe, or one the oloject of which was to determine whether or not a poor man should drive to market in an untaxed cart? There was no question that entered ,tore deeply into the feelings of the people at large than this—none in which they considered their most important interests more deeply involved ; anti that feeling was gaining ground, was more rapidly ad vancing every day. It was in vain, therefore, to think of disposing of it merely by silence. There was a principle now at work, to which, if concession were not made in due time, the question ere long would be, not whether the bishops of the established church should retain their seats in the House of Lords, but whether the establishment should be retained at all. The dissenters bad no wish to overthrow the established church. There was a concessive spirit in them ; and when they were charged with entertaining a desire to seize upon, and ap propriate to their own uses, the temporalities of the church, be treated it as a calumny on the feelings and the pt inciples of that most respectable body. They aid not covet the good things of the church. They disliked its worldly character, so little in unison with the gospel, and they wished to see it reformed. If they could not hope to obtain reform through the agency of calm reasoning and argument and dispassionate inquiry in that house, they must only seek it from some otter source, and direct their attention to those other means of influence by which great questions of this nature were, stainer or later, de cided. Tithes were not theology, dogmas were not dcc trine, and the church of England must fall when she once ceased to possess revenues. The doctrines of the church were distinct from her connection with the state. They rested on quite another basis, and would flourish more vigorously if altogether dissevered from the cornice Lion. The church of England, as displayed in her doc trine s and principles, was dear to the people, dear to the dissenters, as well as to the members of that church themselves ; but its doctrines were distinct from its institutions as established by law ; and if they dissolved the union between the temporal and spiritual authority that church would still ceminue not only to exist but to flourish. Man would then see its principles in its purity, and in its professions its faith. Nothing tended more to promote indifference and even infidelity than to see the political gorgeousness, the trap pings of worldly greatness, in which bishops 'vete decked; nothing was more repulsive to men of sincere faith, nothing more inconsistent with the meek and hum ble genius of Christianity. Nothing, on the contrary, would tend more to the spiritual goof of the people, no thing reconcile them more to the establishment, than to relegate bishops from their seats in parliament, from all the cares of temporal lordship, to their proper and appro priate scene of action. From what hitherto appeared in the course of the debate there did not seem to be much concord among those who showed any disposi tion to suppott the motion. An honourable gentleman near him (Mr. Tennyson) said his nhjection was not to the bishops having seats in the House of Lords, but to so many of them sitting there. The honourable member would be content if there were a few, as in the case of the Irish Bishops, to represent and to watch over the interests of the whole body. Now for his part he did nut quarrel with the number—he quarrelled with the ptinciple, and if theme were bishops to remain at all in the House of Lords he scold just as soon have the whole retain their seats. In the degree in which the cause of religion was to be advanced by episcopacy, in that degree he would admit it was important that the church estsblishinent should be complete. That with which lie quarrelled was not a spiritual hierarchy, but the alliance of church and state—of a spiritual institution with one that was or ought to be exclusively tempotal. It might be said that the Dissenters desired to have bill ops of their own in P men% To attribute to them any such wish would be a most unjust and groundless libel upon the nut:-confoemists, and it was equally a libel to assert that they wished to appropriate the temporalities of the establishment. Their object and their desire was that religion should have no connection with the state; that the objects of both being in nature quite distinct, so too should be their existence. They were of opinion that the history of the last sixteen cen turies of the Christian era, since first this unhallowed connection was established, proved tbat such connection only impeded the progress of true religion, of the genuine principles of Christianity. Within the short space of the three first centuries, Christianity, by the mere force of truth, of purity, humili y, and charity—by the zeal and holiness of its teachers—had triumphed over the greatest obstacles, over the refinements of pride, the cruel ties, the persecutions, and superstitions of Paganism. It subjugated the power of imperial Rome, and bought down the pride of the Caesars. Nothing was found ca pable of restating its simple and sublime doctrines. How ever profitable, therefore, in a temporal point of view, cant, subserviency, and parliamentary pliancy might be .—however imposing and attractive the splendour of the Crown—whatever sanctity might seem to belong to the mitre, whatever solemnity to the crosier, Christianity did not require their aid; and all the dissenters desired was to let it stand on its own inherent and imperishable preten sions.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME thought it very desirable that bishops should be placed in a situation in which they would be removed from the occasion of voting against the interests of the people. Their seats in the House of Lords only impeded them in the discharge of their proper duties. By their conduct on the Reform Bill they rendered themselves odious to three fourths of the people, and it led the country to this conclusion, that it would be desirable to take away from thew all opportunity of coming again in collision with the people. The re was httl , if any,diffei ence of opinion upon this point. The bishops never acted together in poll acs but to do mischief. Ministers said nothing upon this motion, and for a very good reason, bectuse they had nothing to say. They had no argument except old and established usage. He respected old usages it they were good and useful, if they were profitable to the people, and not other wise. Ministers were blind to the signs of the times. They seemed perfectly indifferent to the feelings of the dissenters. The motion seemed to be thought unworthy of debate, but the time would come when it must be debated. Mr. SHELL said, from the silence upon this occasion it would appear that a gnat change of opinion bad been wrought in the noble lord (Althotp) and the gentlemen near him since the time the bishops were desired to set tl eir house in order. He did nut rise to enter into the question, but merely to record his opinion as an indiv•dual member of Parliament. If they had annihilated twelve bishops prospectively in Ireland, was it too much to say that they might now interfere retrospectively with some of the mere political adjunc's of episcopacy? Why did Iva the noble lord and his colleagues come down in the morning when petitions were presented praying for the separation of church and state, and oppose the reception of them, if they considered the present motion so subversive of the church as not to be fit even for discussion? If this mo tion was not to he entertained such petitions ought not to be received. There were nine millions of dissenters in the two islands. Motions end petitions in which any large body of them took an interest were not to be treated with neglect. It was said of the church of Scotland that it stood on the rock of poverty, unendoweci, but immutable. Fir from thinking that it would be attended with any danger to the established church if the bi s h ops ret i red from their Parliamentary functions into re s p ecta bl e se questration, they would receive ample compensation for the loss of political power in the increased respect and confi denceof the people. Mr. EWART was scarcely audible from the noise in the body of the house. We understood him to say that the real interests of the church and of religion would be better promoted iC the bishops had not seats in the House of Lordq. The boute then divided, when there appeared— Against the Motion 125 For the Motion Majority -67 HOUSE AND WINDOW TAX. Sir S. WHALLEY would withdraw for the present his motion for the repeal of the taxes upon houses and windows in consequence of the noble lord (Althorp) having introduced a bill for the repeal of the hous. tax. The hon. member made some observations on the subject which were inaudible in the gallery. Lord ALTHORP also made some observations which were inaudible. STAGE COACHES AND OMNIBUSES. Mr. Alderman WOOD rose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the plying, driving, standing, places of arrival and departure of stage coaches, omnibuses, cabriolets, and oth• r hackney coaches, and also the passing and repassing of waggons and other carriages used for the c inveyance of goods, within the city of London and the lib.rties the! e )f. He thought that no hon. gen tleman could have di iven through the streets of the metro polis without seeing the absolute necessity of passing some measure for the regulation of stage coaches, omnibuses, and other carriages. The principal regulation that he intended to propose was that the drivers should be licensed instead of the owners. He did not feel it necessary to state the other regulations be intended to propose, as they could be better considered in committee. Mr. ROEBUCK had no wish to oppose the introduc tion of the bill. If, however, the object of it was to lessen the public carriages in London, he should give his decided opposition to it. He thought it of the greatest importance to the poorer inh ib'tants of the metropolis, that a free trade should exist as regarded these vehicles. At present the poorer clerk , with salaries of from 1501. to 170!. a year, were enabled to let their families live is the purer air a few miles from town in consequence of the cheep conveyance afforded by the omnibuses. He had no objection to the introduction of the bid. Mr. HUIIIE reminded the house that the subject was referred to a committee last year, and after a long and attentive investigation of the subject it was almost the unanim , us opinion of the committee that the licensing of the drivers would be objectionable. The public had de rived great advantage from making the proprietors of stage coaches responsible for the conduct of the drivers. If it was thouAt desirable to introduce the bill he would not object, provided it was sent up stairs to a committee. Mr. H. HUGHES would appeal to hon. members whe ther the accidents that daily occurred did not render some measure of the kind necessary. Lord ALT HORP begged to be understood that in vot ing for the introduction of the bill he did not pledge him self to support it at any future stage. The act for the regulation of stage coaches hal been productive of the greatest good. Ho did not mean to say that some po'ice regulations on the subject might not he desirable, but he would protest against any interference with the perfect freedom now exist.ng with regard to the licensing of these vehicles. Mr. O'CONNELL obj , cted to the bill. Mr. WILKS said one of the objects of the bill of the worthy alderman was to interfere with the times ofarrivil and departure of the public conveyances, which he (Mr. Wilks) thought was tv.ost objectionable. Mr. GROTE could testify to the inconvenience often occasioned in the crowded streets by the stage coaches and omnibuses, and hoped some means would be devised to relieve it from that ground of compl ►int. He thought the bill had better be referred to a committee. He should ob ject to interfering with the free trade now existing as re garded these vehicles. He also conceived it was not de sirable to license cabdrivers. Mr. E. L. BULWER thought some regulations similar to those existing in Paris as regarded the public convey ances might he adopted with advantage. The motion was then agreed to, and the bill ordered to be introduced• HANGING CRINIINALS IN CHAINS. Mr. EWART moved for Jewett) brim); in a bill to take away from judges the power of directing criminals in certain cases to be hanged in chains. Mr. LITTLETON reminded the house that a bill he bad introduced, hiving the same object in view for Ireland as that of the hon. member had for England, stood this night for a third reidincz. He (Mr. L.) thought that it would be better if both the objects were comprised in one bill. He would therefore withdraw his hill, and trusted, that the hon. member for Liverpool would consent to make his measure general. - After a few wrris from Mr. O'Con NELL and Mr. SHAW, Mr. LITTLETON saw no objection to getting rid of the practice of hanging in c' ains in both countries, and directing that the bodies of criminals executed for murder s hould b e buried within the gaol. Mr. FIUME objected to burying the bodies of criminals in gaol. After a short conversation, in which Dr. Loshington, Mr. Wnlker, Mr. Ituthven, Mr. Ewart, Mr. O'Dwyer, Mr. Hurne, and Mr. C. Buller took part, Mr. Ewart withdrew his motion, and then ~btained leave to brim; in a bill for the dilosal of the bodies of all criminals sentenced to b,.; executed for murder in the United Kingdom. ASSIZES. On the motion of Mr. it. WASON, a return was ordered of the number of petitions or memorials addressed to the privy council or to his Majesty's government within the last twelve months, praying for any alteration or removal of the assizes in any ()minty of England and Wales, specifying the name of the place from whence, and the respective dates when, the same was presented and heard, with the decisions thereon, and, if any remain not heard, the reason why the delve has talc 'n place. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MASTER COOPERS AND THE ADMIRALTY. Mr. HUME intended to bring forward a motion, of which he hail given notice, in consequence of what was said the other night by the right hon. baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty respecting a difference between the master coopers and their workmen. He contended that in the differences that had taken place between the masters and their workmen the one party had a perfect right to employ their capital as they thought fit, and the other had an equal right to sell their labour as they chose, nei ther party using violence nor threats, and both being per fectly independent. The trade of coopers was very limited. It app.ared that there were not more than 50 master• coopers in the metropolis, and consequiMtly the competition for work amongst the men was immense, The consequence had been that the masters bad given a better artic:e to their customers, and the men were more hardly worked and without better pay. The question then was, were the men to be at liberty to re-consider their engagements with their masters; and he held it to be most improper that during such a dispute the government should step in and incline the balance either way. The house had heard a great deal abuse of trades' unions, but why should not such men have their clubs as well as members theirs in Pall-mall and St. James's.atreei ? Prior to 1824 the unions had been private societies, all their resolutions had been secret, and they were little fetter than conspiracies ; hut now all their resolutions were published and well known. One of the objects of the trades' unions was to obtain as great a return for the labour of the members as possible, and he did not care if they mounted to only tine or to one hundred thousand, provided they did not break the law. Where was the harm of them ? He maintained that the workmen ought to unite, for capital had great advantages. In Derbyshire, for instance, the masters had united, and on one occasion 18,000 men hail lb en sud denly thrown out of employment without having any means of subs:rence. This he called a dreadful tyranny. There was not a trade union that had not received a letter from him, and he had advised them to abstain from any breaches of the law ; and he maintained that the interfe rence of the government on the present occasion was im proper. He should move for copies of all correspondence that had taken place between the Lords of the Admiralty and the master-coopers. S r J. GRAHAM agreed with the hon. member that interference in such a case ought to be viewed by the house with the utmost jealousy. He had always thought that the repeal of the combination laws in 1824 hail been of very doubtful theory, and he questioned whether it had not proved injurious in practice. The hon. member had just laid down very sound principles, and had stated them very correctly. The labour of workmen was their only commodity, and they were entitled to carry it to the best market, and to obtain the best price for it that the market would allow, provided they abst tined from all violence.— (Hear, hear.) He contended that this most salutary rule had been violated on this occasion on the part of the men, and that it was a case in which the Government could interfere and uphold the masters. The master coopers did not excted fifty in number, and the work men were about five or six hundred ; so that their com bination was exceedingly easy, and their power over their masters was comparatively fteat. He denied the assertion made by the hon. member for Dublin on a preceding even ing, and contended that no alteration had been made for the last ten years in the quality of the article. In 1825 a difference in the qualll of the article bad been made, but a co rrespon di ng diff erence had alio) been made in the price. H e held in his hands returns from the five princi pal brewers of London upon the subject. The house of Barclay and Co. had stated that no differences h od been made in their casks for the last ten years; Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Co., limited the same statement to seven years ; and Messrs, Hall and Co., and Mes•rs. Taylor and Co., did the same. The coopers had higher wages now than at any former period, and this increase in their comforts gave him unequivocal satiscaction. He held in his hano statements furnished to hint by seven different coopers' yards, and it appeared upon an average, taking the bad men with the good, and allowing two boys as equivalent to one man, that each man earned 21. 6s. Id. a week. This, he understood, was on an average throughout the year. There was an el'owence fir beer money of 3s. 51d., and for chip-money of Is. a week, and the balance was the cash payment. li the men resisted the masters, had not into their masters an equal right to introduce new men their yards ? This appeared to him the gist of the whole question. Since the repeal of the combination I iws the men had enforced the most rigid rules upon their masters with respect to any addition of labourers ; and they had limited them in the number of apprentices in a manner perfectly unjastifiable. One firm, for taking on an addi tional apprentice, was resisted by the men, and was luined Another firm. under similar circumstances, was compelled by the men to dismiss the apprentices, to pay them their wages, am •unting to 301., during their strike, and finally to beg their pardon.—(Heir, hear, hear.) Gentlemen [eight talk of tyranny under absolute power, but what was this but tyranny and extortion of the worst sort? i There was a system now prevalent which rendered t extremely dmfficult to bring within the scope . of the law pissed by the honourable member for Mulailelex in 1824, and which contained a cinuse attempting, but not succeeding in the attempt, to s ubstitute a remedy for that formerly giv-n to the masters by the common law That act had rendered it exceedingly difficult to punish by the common law any conspiracy of workmen against their masters. Nothing was so difficult to prevent in the nature of a breach of the law as conspiracy ; and there was no species of conspiracy in which it was so difficult as in that cart ied on under the system of the unions, by meals of which a complete tyranny had beets established by the workmen over the masters. This system was called (we understood) " bringing in," and its operation was that of watching every thing that passed in the workshops of the masters and every thing done in their business, and thereby to overawe them in all their transactions, but more espe cially with regard to their negotiations with otter work men. This system had been applied to the maeter. coopers, and the lion. member far Middlesex had himself admitted that the defeat of these strikes would be salu tary. He believed also that it would be salutary, and it was because the government h id believed so that they had resolved in this case to lend assistance to the matters in order that the strike might he defeated. To supply the immediate demands of the trade they had let the mas ters have 200 butts and 50 hogsheads from the stores at Deptford, and in so doing he contended that they had been supporting the law against parties who were ille gally combining to defeat it. It must not be forgotten that the combination in this trade had consequences beyond those produced in ordinitry crass. It went very much to affect the shipping and commercial interests of tee country, which must be deeply injured by being unable to prosecute their usual operations at this season of the year. Whitt the government had now done was the vet), course successfully adored by Mr. Huskisson in 1825. when a considerable injury was threatened to our shipping by a strike of the shipwrights in the Thames just at the moment of the opening of the spr ng trade. The govern ment then permitted merchants' ships to he repaired in the Kings yards. The present case was exactly analogous, and, seeing that it felt within the same rule, the eovern rnent pursu-d the same course when the application was made to turn, and he had no hesitation in placing eefore the house copies of the corr. sporidence through which the proceedings were taken. Tne government did not deem it necessary to take any further steps white these proceedings were pending; hut if, after the lrip•e of a certain dine, some amicable settlement should not have been come to between tee masters and the men in the interval, it would be their duty to see that the great intereste of the country were protected against such comainations Mr. O'CONNELL was afraid there could be very little hope of an amicable settlement when government inter fered in a dispute between masters and their men, and took part with the toasters against the men. The men had done no illegal act. If they had, it was the duty of the law officers of the crown to interfere and proceed against them. Had not the men, if their terms were not agreed to, a right to gay they would not work ? The workman's labour was his capital, and he had a right to make any terms he liked for its disposal as touch as the master had fur his. The la v placed limits upon this right, and said he should not use menace or force to °tu f o:, sh e tei ins upon which his tibour was paid, and while he kept honsel. within those limits he committed no offence. They kad a right to require of the matte a as much money as they chose, and, it they thought to their advantage, to say that there should be only a certain number of appren tices employed. They had a right to do this : and if their terms were extravagant or unreasonable, let the master coopers go to Ireland or elsewhere, where other labourers wets so be obtained upon ether term!, and em ploy them if they liked ; and then if these workmen held up any hand, or attempted to eateaten those newly em ployed, the government were at liberty to punish them, and were hound to punish them. But they nod no right to punish them where nu offence hail been corninit , ed. He was told that the general interest suffered from the dispute and the suspension of the work. That was no justification for an interference not warranted by law. It was well known diet the present state of time law per mitted the masters to combine as well as the workmen, and that they did combine. If they did not meet in puerile houses they met in their own parlours an: concerted their plans. As to the allusion made by the right hon. baronet to the repeal of the acts which made it difficult to apply the common law, what was the common law ? Why, any thing which it pleased the judges tat sty it was. Both in law and in principle these men had a right to unite far the purpose of obtaining a better remuneration for their I boor. They a•serted they were ready to prove the statement of the right bon. baronet, as to the amount of their wages, to be unfounded. They were ready to prove that the wages they received on the average of workmen and the year, dial not amount to more than 20s. a week. Mr. LAIIOUCIJERE contended that a stronger case of compulsion, teough avoiding the letter of the law, was n e ver made out than that sated by his right hon. friend. Time hon. and learned gentleman had asked, why did not the master coopers resort to the general market tor a fresh supply of hands? They did so ; and what was the conse quence? 'Why, that such was the terror of the constant system of esaionage kept up by the onion, that by the time the new men had b een t wo or three days at their work, they were induced to join the others. He contended that the government had taken the precise course demanded by the emergency, anti he trus eti, for the sake of the men, that time matter would speedily be settled. Mr. G. F. YOUNG was pre e ared to defend the course pursued by the government, as bolting a complete analogy to that adopted by Mr. Huskisson, and to maintain that like that it was an interfer nee on behalf of the trade and commerce of the country. The hon. and learned gentleman had said that no breach of the law had been committed. Perhaps not in a strictly legal sense, but he contended that there had been a moral intimidation exe cised which c alled for extra legal control till, oh," teem Mr. O'Connel The hon. and learned gentleman also told teem the free dis posal of labour ought nut to he interle. ed with. Now the worst feature of the tyranny exerc std by the unions was that one portion of the men interfered with the labour of the others. He denied, upon authority in which he had every reason to place confidence, that there had been any conthinition of masters since the law of 1825 came into operation until this strike was made as the result of a combination amongst the men. He could also, upon the best autho rity, cenfirtn the statement of the right hon. baronet as to the wages obtained by workmeu in this trade. The average wages upon the last year was 21. 23. per week, taking the whole year round, exclusive of the allowance of beer, which was one p e nny i n th e s hilli ng. Besides t hi s a ip ve m ra o g n e e there e o I n: a . s per an than,allowance mk called ing th c e li money, hwaangteosu, n ast had been stated by the right bon. baronet, 2/. 6s. 6d. And of the men who received these wages one. fourth of them were of an age exceeding sixty years. But many of them made much more than this. He hail in his hand a statement showing that one man made within the year 139/. 17s. 101., which was an average of 21. 103. 2d. per week. He was not complaining of this, for if they got Si. per week he should be very glad if the state of trade enabled those engaged in it to pay such a sum. But what he complained of was, that at a time when the shipping of the country was in a s t a t e o f d epress i on threatening its ruin, these combinations sliculd be per,- mated to endanger its total destruction. Such a system went to establisa the most odious tyranny over the com merce of the country. Mr. FRYER was decidedly opposed to trades' unions, though a radical reformer. He was opposed to them be cause he knew they could do no good. It was impossible fur tee men to make the toasters pay higher wages, be cause they bad not got it to p a y. Wh at he wanted was it combination of masters, and workmen too, against the First Lord of the Adtairalty.—(Laueliter.) H e want ed a combination against tee corn laws.—(Hear and laugh ter.) He would tell the house what happened to He was a master of two or three hundred workmen, and these poor men thought they could benefit their situation by resisting him.—(A laugh.) Well, they stopped work for about five weeks within the last eight months. What' he told them was this :—" You may combine if you like, 'iut I can't pay you more 'wages ; 1 haven't got it. But," I said, "I'll tell you what I'll do ; if you'll combine with ne against the cursed corn laws—(Great laughter)—then ;ou shall have three barrels of American flour instead of t ' 3 lO. ”—(Laiighter.) Mr. BAINES w is sorry to see the Government depart from a principle which they had laid down themselves. When the master clothdressers of Yorkshire called for their assistance, under similar circumstances of combina tion amongst their men, the Government replied, that the law as it stood already gave them sufficient powers to withstand such combinations, and there was no necessity to call for the interference of government in their behalf. That answer nppeared to him to be so judicious a one, and gave such satisfaction to the workmen, who learned from it that it was not intended to array the strong against the weak, that be was sorry to see a different course adopted in the present case. He did not see how the coopers of London h,:l any more right to claim as sistance from Government than the clothdressers of York shire. Government by this act had established a very bad precedent, and placed themselves in a very awkward situation, wi , h the irritated feelings of the working classes arrayed against them. Lord ALTHORP, whose introductory remarks were imperfectly heard, was understood to say that this, though a case of individual dispute, was still a question of general importance, inasmuch as it involved the very principles of the law of combination , . He would not dispute that men had a right to sell their labour for the highest price they could obtain for it. He would concur with the hon. member for Leeds, in the general principle that govern ment ought to lend its interference, except under &mum stinces to prove that, in any particular ease, such inter ference was fairly warranted ; and be thought the present was such a case. It was an error to state that the infor m itions upon which government had acted were received from the masters. It was not so, hut from the pur. chasers, the employer of the masters, that the application for assistance had come. The case appeared to be this•-:-- that the working coopers had combined not only to deprive their masters of their own services, bur to prevent other workmen from taking the employment they had rejected. He (Lord Althotp) did not pretend to Ire a lawyer ; but still he did think, that for any body of men to combine to prevent their toasters from enjoying their free and un doubted privilege of employing whatever men they pleased (though no illegal means were adopted in so doing) was in itself an improper comnination. It was improper and unjust not only against the masters, but against the men also, whom they thus prevented from selling their labour at the best price they could obtain, and were willing to take for it. It was true they (lid this without resorting to actual infractions of the law, yet still such conduct could not but be viewed as highly reprehensible and dangerous. There were two courses open to remedy this evil, either to pr , vide a new law, or to support the masters to such extent as might appear fair and reasonable. Now, be did hink that a new law was necessary—(Hear, hear)—and he thought that, by upholding the masters to a certain extent, these combinations .night be put down. Mr. ROEBUCK observed that such combinations were not confined to the coopers' business, but were common to every trade in Emcland. Lord ALT HORP—It might be so, but still the corn binatien under consideration was an improper one. It had the effect, in par - , of putting the master coopers out of employment, an I the working coopers also. Unche these circumstances, the master coopers had applied to his right lion. friend for a supply of workmen. In comply ieg with this request the government had not done more than any set of commercial or manufacturing men would have done to assist another establishment and-r similar circumstances. Workmen were sent up to town ; they did not, however, enter into the existing combinations, and, after they bail been in town a short time, they mound their situation rendered so disegreeatie by this tyrannical interference of the factious lebaurers, that they were obliged to go hack again.—( Hear, hear.) Ile thought that government were quite justified in the course they had pursued. He and his right hen, friend li d consulted with thir colleagues upon the subject of this application, and they all agreed that they should act as they had done These combinations were carried on very systematically amongst the workmen, who kept tvatch about the pre mises for any I tbourers who might se.-k employment there. Wheu cerribinationidan this nature were carried on to such an extent, not only against the masters, but ageinst their fel ow-workmen, he thought the government were justi fied in giving assistance when applied to. He (Lord Al thorp) regretted to see such proceedings, because lie had agreed with his right hon. friend on the question of the r, peal of the combination laws. It would he quite im tio-ihle, if things wen , on thus, to retain those laws in their present state, which had the effect of preventing the inutacturere from entering into that competition an es • smtial to the free interests of trade. If this continued, government would have to yield to the popular clamour which must be raised, and take these laws again into considi r itinn. Mr. ROEBUCK was quite wiling to admit this was a question not only affecting a particular trade. but one upon vvliitth the very framework of society depended. Tire noble lent said there were peculiar circumstances in this case which justifi:d the interference of glverninent. But what were those peculiar circumstances ? There was not a single branch of tra-'e in London which was not daily subject to similar combinations as the present. In some instances these combinations were countenanced by Act of Parliament, as in the case of attorneys, who were not al lowed to have more than two articled clerks at a time. This was to prevent the increase of the number of at torneys. And it was no violation of the law to say, We will not work for you if you take an extra appren tice." He thought the interference of government in the present case was not justifiable; it tended directly to de stroy that equality and balance of rights which existed be- tween the workmen and their masters. Experience showed that these strikes amongst the workmen failed to raise the wages above a certain point. The trades' as sociations had themselves discovered this to be case, and in a newspaper which advocated the cause of the unions had declared that it was no longer expedient to support the unemployed 'hands in idleness, but that the funds of the union should be in future employed to supply them oath work. This experiment would prove to them that, w,th all their combinations, prices could not be raised above a certain standard. The way government should act, t f iblbe t I ,eua, e nwrtro r cnr e ti oe f out o fvd r ahe e, th e concluded e w sebe yyu a t elh s i s,one knowledgebinoreso t fxet t ivu; take, seen ,nwattthat any pt arart ekhtmsembtoseen righl, a asayt r da.ntbhdye arguments t d p i o r e e o af t interference, g pdt eecase theyg means fairly n era of the pr e ss. By t h ese means t h ey would begin to be, T i he so h r o ry n. to member hear the noble lord ( klthorp) express himself as he bad done in respect to the repeal of the combination laws. When Out noble lord spoke of the danger of the present sys tem, and of the probability of Government being obliged te yield t e the popvlar clamour that must be raised, he was surely not aware of the mischievous effect that de claration 'night have upon millions of the people who would read his speech next morning. Mr. 'l'. ATTWOOD thooght it highly imprudent on the part of the right hon. baronet in thus throwing him self into tie bread: upon the present occasion. These combinations were not confined to any particular trade or any particular locality the principles extended throughout England and Ireland, as well as France and other parts of the continent. Government were therefore premature in making war upon the poor journeymen ceopers, and would have acted a nobler part if they bad turned their arms upon the Emperor of Russia, as they ought to have done.—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear.") The hon. member knew that, since the present combination laws, there had been a great fall of prices all owing to the change in the currency.—(Hear, and laughter.) The workman had as good rights to keep up his paper wages as the First Lord of the Admiralty hail to take his paper salary or paper rents, or as the fundholders had to their paper dividends. He knew, from his own inquiries, that in Birmingham in 1822, when meat was 3d. a pound, and bread cheap in proportion, that the wages in paper money were about double what they bad been in 1792. Yet the workmen would not consent to receive lower daily wages, and would work sometimes only three ,days in the week at full prices rather than take employ meat for the whole week at a reduced daily rate. He (Me. T. Attwood) knew very well that masters could not a fford to pay these wages, yet he could not blame the workmen for trying to keep them up. It was better for the noble lord at once to seek refuguefrsopmreatdhedcrowding t demands of the people in the regions of paper money, a no longer advocate a system that must an d confusion throughout the country.—(Hear, (rear, end a laugh.) Mr. R. GRANT said that hon. members had talked of the interference of government as if government had exer cised its power and used force in favour of the masters—as if the Attorney-General hail exercised the power of the law i n putting down all combinations of the workmen to right themselves. Nothing could be a more complete delusion in itself, and nothing more instrumental in propagating a complete misconception of the principle on %%lien govern ment acted Time hon. member opposite said the men were at liberty to place whatever price they pleased on their labour. No doubt they were. He (Mr. Grant) fully agreed in that. But then the liberty should not surely be A) n onu o tri n e e irfs and h d be e oyn d ed to seek protection frmiihe injustice and oppression of their tt a oe s e t t e wi r o s rni s n e gf e r k ofmr p o r m o g ie c yt t ei i : o erna n m f e r to, higher g‘h t y l ae ie r employers, so shoul unjust and oppressive co-operation of bodies of their la wages perhaps than they could afford to give.—( Hear. ) asked not (14h:4:th:1:ern:other. If the men were at liberty government censurable for extending it?—(Hear.) The government granted the aid required, not as a government but as traders—(Hear, and laughter) —as the protectors of the trade of the country. If the masters asked govern ment fur lawful aid, then it was lawful for government to grant it. The government, be it recollected, granted the aid, not to the master coopers as coopers, but they granted it for the benefit of the consumers of the country.—(Cheers.) If the men said that, in place of working 13 hours a (lay, they would only work 12 or 10 hours, and would require the same wages, that the profits of the master could not fairly allow such a deduc tion as that reduction of labour would require, then the masters were just:fied to combine in return. The Go vernment did not exercise its power, nor was it its prac tice to do so, in enforcing the law for the punishment of the original combinators ; but when asked in a severe case it granted the aid required within the law to uphold a more tlian if om ccom.. - commercial class, and for the purp ose of su pp ort i n g the general interests of this com m e rcial countr y .—(Hear, 1 1 : in ea ti T o n laws—nothing was binations were carried on to an injur ious extent, then trade should be protected; and he trus ted that no co-o p erations a l noth n i o n t g hi t n h g at he lie dehparteecdated more—but of the workmen, and no incentives to that ca-operation from more influential quarters, would ever render it ne cessary to restore laws which he, the hon. member oppo site, the house, and the country were glad to have re pealed.—( Cheers.) The Government in what they i‘.,id did their duty. They did all fur justice and the common good. Mr. O'REILLY (who spoke under the ga ller y ) said that under the present system of combination th ere was no such thing as flee trade for the industrious and honest aria ins of the country. Combination met the free exer cise of industry at every turn. He would, by way of illustration, state the (rem of the master shipbuilders of Dublin. They were forced to employ old and compara tively useless men, because the young men who %vete brought withi n t h e vor t ex o f com bi nat i on would not, or dared not, work for them.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore if a ship required repairs she could not he repaired inDuhlin, but the shipowner was obliged to send her to England or Scotland, there to be repaired by Irish artisans, perhaps, who ceul-1 not find employment at home. In his (Mr. O'Reilly's) parish, consisting chiefly of a fishing popula tion, the fishermen could not get their boats mended by giving the common wages given to carpenters all round the country. There were a few persons there who mono pined the ship-carpenters' business, and they required double wages. There was no one more unwilling than he was to revive the combination laws; but if threats and combinations were carried to a successful point by the la bourer-, then he hoped there was a moral power in the country, or in the government, to offer a suceessful resist ance, and that ne roaster would be prevented from em ploying as many Jai wirers and apprentices as he pleased. Mr. HUME said that the eeneral feeling seemed to be t at the labourer should have a right to ask what waves he pleased. But he (Mr. Hume) should at the same time admit that if in'imid awn were used by the labourers that should be checked ; emir p erti. s should ca-operate, and it was tin it interest, as it was tl eir duty, to make mutual cot-re-sions, as the public interest was concerned in it. The twition wds t' en act eed tn. COSTS OF CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN IRE LAND. Mr. O'DWYER moved for a return of the amount of cons payable to the crown s( licitor, and the sum to coun sel engaged for the ci own, in the case of the King v. Bar rett, trii2 , l in the Court of King's Bench in Leland, in Michae mss Term 183:3; with a specification of the va. r,ou- occasions, whether on motions, arguments, opinions, consultati.ns, trial, or otiierwise, counsel received fees; di•scritiing when counsel ap,:eared in court, the number of counsel employed or consulted on each occasion; and a statetn , nt of the rank of all counsel employed, and their names, ond the amount of fees paid to each on the several occasions, and in the aggreg ite. The single pro secution against Mr. Barrett cost 7001. Such an enor mous sum shoWd be accounted for. It was known that 50,0(101 were expended by the Government in criminal prosecutions in Ireland, awl the country oaght to know how so much money was expended. There was one pe culiar feature in the late prosecution, and it was that an eminent barrister, who was never employed in that depart. ment of the bar, but who would be employed by the traverser, was retained by the Government, and the object as to huy him up. He (Mr. O'Dwyer) did not wish to impu::n the motives of ihe torney_ameral ; but then he was a member of the Privy Council, and advised prose cutioas hich he was afterwards to conduct. He (Mi. 0D N yet . ) would not say that he advised prosecutions to pocket the fees, yet he should say that it was not advisable to give a lawyer an interest in prosecutions. Mr. LITTLETON said that an explanation was given in the house already three t o nes on the subject, and with respect 'o the document transmitted to the Stainr-offiee, he would only repeat what was said befote, that when hi , retention was called to the Words of the Art of Parlainent he transmitted the document to the head of the Squnp-office in Dublin, the department to which it should be pioperly referred. That was the practice usually followed in official matters. He had no objection to the production of the bill of costs, but then he hoped that the house would be put in possession of the particular expenses incurred in the several stages of the prosecution. The ordinary expenses of the prosecution would be undoulve fly light, and the additional expenses arose from the delays, vexatious he would not say, and the opposition caused.— (Hear, he The return, he was sure, would give satisfaction to the house. As to the number of counsel employed, and he would say that as m nay had been employed in criminal- prosecutions in England—Sit James Scarlett employed as many—( Elea*, hear)—. it was usual in Ireland to employ the Sergeants and the senior King's Counsel in such pro,ecutiens, and in case any accident might occur to prevent their attend ance to give retaining fees to Counsel to fill their places. Now it so happened that , the Solicitor-G-neral, Sergeant Pennefather,and Sergeant Perrin were absent from Dublin, and the Attorney-General directed that Mr. Holmes, the gentleman to whom the hon. member alluded, should be employed in their absence. That was the cause why so many lawyers were employed ; eight, or even seven were perhaps too many, but be had stated the reason for em ploying eight. He (Mr. Littleton) would tell the house that the Attorney-General, though a member of the Privy Counsel, was not consulted about those prosecutions. He had no voice or influence in directing them—(Hear, bear) —and from his well-known liberality in pecuniary mat ters, of which he (Mr. Littleton) had some knowledge, he was far above encouraging prosecutions for the sake of making money.—(Cheers.) The right hon. Secretary then moved an amendment, to the effect that the return of costs should distinguish the proportion of costs in the se. veral stages of the prosecution. Mr. RUTHVEN contended that the system required amendment. Tile amendment was then agreed to. LEAMINGTON SPA PETITION COMMITTEE. Mr. TANCRED rose to move for the discharge of the order appointing a committee to investigate an impu ted breach of privilege in the affixing of false signatures to a petition from L ea mington Spa, praying for the exten• sion of the elective franchise to that iown. He did so on in t pi h iojo e uvp g reey r : o iptf u r:o n erns d e nttohltifeeadt complaintfctroioi e mm r e m ia h tn a tey d e b h oe e t: e h i et t eh r en i t o hopbeeltei i( petition urdi:ye_ert_ c emitsiti o t.iaal in udtints it p ,e‘o l yr a n i ll u oc:,, i fn. n h g ittchi o lhe l e Forces opo i d i pr t co i le o :si n 3trihao 7 end a , isoomfbmjtehemacedtbeeedrh.yto noble t iii h ltoe e romd li n o ow n vt sde a at n tig, d tinh l uce e en ,i ed t ff r tt t hi l eee committee l c i o o i n n .mai committee d e e onlearnedthe e agreed mteom. Leamington h o l a v d , s s u a p i d o th er e n examination,w as e , and the t appeared that there was no petition as stated by the hon o l t h i t l i e s bn c ee l r a aw r fr e a e sr. pa petition from fur ther proceeding. Mr. H. HUGHES seconded the motion. Mr. HALCOMB opposed the motion. When it became known that there was a thought of extending the elective franchise to Leamington a meeting of the householders in that town rated at above nil. was hell, and out of 850 no less than 757 signed a pe ition against the projected alteration. A petition was afterwards preserved, signed by 419 persons, in favour of the extension of the franchise, and when the first petitioners found that the two petitions were noticed by a committee of the house in ,qiial tern's they were naturally greatly astonished. In consequence of information which had come to his knowledge he had stated, when he bad moved for this committee of inquiry, that 757 of the 10g. householders bad signed the first petition, that 35 had refused to sign any pe tition, and that 25 were absent. It was therefore evident that some gross deception had been practised on the house and on the committee, because the second petition had been received as being signed by 419 out of the 850 per sons in Leamington win were rated for houses above the annual value of 10/. That the matter was one of im • portance and deserving inquiry was clear from the fact that the House of Lords had that day desired a copy of the ireport of the committee which had treated the two peti- Ilona as of equal weight. He contended that the coelo* alittee ought to pd. With resect to t he eXP e tbi e t the committee was rocee not properly answerable for Much for had been incurred. The bon. and learned mernherthe llonbury (Mr. Tancred), just as the committee was on d eve of adjournire , for the day, hail entered the room s t n . rated that the heusp had made an order that certiltePfeorte tioners should be heard by their agent or coun'e l „.„, the committee ; and the hon. and learned member ins ..e, duced Mr. Joseph Parkes and another gentleman es .. t: a ' aunts of the petitioners. A noble lord 00 the andcorihee , immediately asked f , r the order of the house; learned memtier for Banbury if the house bad made (Mr. Holcomb), as chairman of the committee. i n o rder ti c i. Prevent inaccuracies, had expressly asked the 11°' and the order is und. retood to have be.at stated by him ; and if so, where was the order ? The hon. and learned member had —,,,, was [Week sat y in reply that the house had made the order, and that dou" less it would be served as soon as possible. I 0 e, °r l e lt i. quence of that statement the witnesses were detained P _. he expense inctit red. It appeared, however, on furtbel inquiry, that no such order had been made by the house. The he t ,. and learned member then argued at considerall' length to show that no petition from any party aggrieve se_v L en t teen he o s t mittee and ' signatures in , in suppo r t of his • rgurnent he quoted the Case, of Kiltn i n 1822 . - t o t t befi before genuine.tli c o l na t mi was tte e, truew h o seven stated t Mr. IL HUGHES denied that it was proved before the wr committee that seventeen of the signatures to the petitiotli qutto,stiaountirueirpirzeesenthteed.appointment of a emu' brOt e to n l tares but a Purporting to be theirs were not attached by thews!' acK"wledee that they were the P hose names tb l' a h n e t r e pteimrseonathewcaoumidmibteteerwaderueceidnfworr,oetwl tabu persons w I After a few words from Lord EASTNOR, and Afr. ' ABERCRONIBIE, Lord G. SOMERSET felt he owed it to himself afl well as the committee of which he was a member to Oi l! upon tie hon. member for Banbury to state to the houser, and before the country, what act of the committee, or 0 1 any in lividual member of it, justified him in assertlt4 that it was a committee from which jus'ice could not W ttahapteritihoens,jog,neare.,. expect ed.—(Cheers.) The only mistake of which the committee cquld he accused arose from the mistake of the lion. nieml , er him. , If. He did not say it was a wi lful! mistake on the p rt of the bon. and learned member; bdt. when the hon. member was pr on e to accuse others 0111, o ught to recollect he was not himself a lwa y s correct. Tbiefl statement of the lion. member for Dover was correct. , the committee were prevented from proceeding there Wen"', he great impropriety, Lord J. RUSSELL wished the cha ir to state what the practice of the hous really was . at 1 The SPEAKER e said it was of course competent to t 3 , House to reconsider its proceedings, but be thou co would Le irregular for the house to discha r g e the g at. h 1 i tnittee. The house then divided -51 t For the motion ........ . .................. 9 Against it .................................... 4 , 2 Majority .............................. The order tv,,s dellAldinify discharged. The other orders of the day were then disposed of , and the house adjourned at a qu,rter.i , ast one. p .. . . . in_ iirrier ,• t'h .... . ding, LIST OF THE MINORITY gr, Of Sixty (T-Ili•r4 ine'uded) who Vot , d in fivour of 0 . R.ppon's Motion for " R lieving the Arcbbis'oPs..sl, 'r 1g" Bishops of the Established Church from their ...... o f Lords tire and Judicial Dtvies in the House Against the Motion ..................... 11 For the Motion ........................... ovey Majority against the m0ti0n.....„ Total in the house .............. ~T.,/p. ENGL sCOrt"'" - k VV• D -akir Adams, E. 11.-Carntirthensh Gillon, ,• t w i n ,Slc. Agl ion by, H. A. -Cockermou th Hay, ' Attwood, rhos—Birmingham Oliphant, 1 , . Baines, Edward-Leeds Glasgow , Bewes, T.-Plymouth Oswald,J.- - . ashire l;lake, sir F.-Berwick Pringle, R.--srl k, . ton , ,V. _fiadding ~ Buckingham, J. S.-Sheffield Steuart, R. Green"' Buller, C.-Liskeard Wallace, It - Fifeshire Chaytor, W. It. C.-Durham Wemyss, J- - C,drington, Sir E.-Devonport IRELAND' GalwaY Ewan, W.-Liverpool Blake, Martin- .n Co, i aithfull, G.-Brighton Evans, G.--Dubb c_a Ferguson, Sir R.-Nottingham Jacob, E .- iiungar yl ,?, blin 11-- 01 ft Fielden, John-.Oldham O'Connell, Danie .......,„, Grote, G.-London O'Connell, Dlorgan, ogle& Guest, J. J.-Merthyr Tydvil O'Dwyer, A. C. -- n i „ T ri Harvey, D. W.-Colchester Fluthvn E. S.-- , - -l i liAare liumphery, J.-Southwark ' Edward - Ruthven, _ __, rar y Ingiloy, sir \V.-Lincoln Sheil, R. L.--k,., 1 1 4 1 0 ,,,, Jame% ' W.-Carlisle \rigors. N. C. -- " r fad Oswald, We% Kennedy, J.-Tiverton Leech, J.-West Surrey Walker, C. A.-- 00. 'II. 11 13 '1. Liter, E. Cunlitfe-Bradford West Kent ilrjo ri nilta S ;n e-.. " :rralee PAIRED OFF IN %unto , ' Rider. 'Thomas-West 01 Parrott, Jasper-Totnes Bainbridge , 1 1.5,., 1 T. th P uril ti Pease, Joseph-South Durham ,Bowes, John- u m o nnto L4 h. Philips, M.-Manchestcr Staveley, Sebright, Sir J. S.-Hertf dh ' a , enja . ra i..-sti Potter, R.-Wigan ' Flein ink ALig n Gitwat Richards, J -Knaresborough Lynch,2l-, --- -, -- „ H Y " Roebuck, J. A.-Bath o'Conne• - ' a eral-B ath T. K.-Ripon Ron - filly, J.-Bridpoit Rusell, Lord-Tarktock I siitry 0 .„,n 1. :,• or s Molesworth• Sir vo Cornwall. Warburton, H.-Biidport Whalley, Sir S.-. Marylebone Wilks, J.-Boston Wood, Aldennan-London ;Paliner, it_ e--ri A'"hire TELLSO.S. Hume, J.--MiddleSeß Rippon, C.—Gateshead Ea,tno t r h : Skipwith, Sir G.—lVa y, rw ___.......--- icksh. willoughb Vyvyan, S L°C i On Mr. Towered's Motion to lt,cin,l the APP‘ nn :, Sir IL r ' -- B O ri F stol TilE sata :l irem i omo i n N ,t: ° R I 71 1r : talent Of heds Inglis, Sir H. H.— j... ....Dove t r inive rsiti a nt-- I ' ° versity Viseo _ . H.—Oxford e xg e 7bt o er n d the uni . L o e ,c a Da m s: i . yl n ee e r , o A. .P c e ...... t i :°::: : ic e: Pringle, R. —Selkirksh ire ,F -- --Dublin .. . . .. . . . 21. . .... . LIST r ° r R oi 1 . It R. i .. _ ..: Per Quarter. glandford Chant .M,., Huntingdon....... Long Sutton...—. Louth "NV \OM/WM.IM Lynn—, Newark ," ea 1 s 01 eol3 - 23 '27 Nottingham Peterborough - Plymouth Sleaforl U ppin gh am —..«—.. S.Visbech ..*,......—... Foreil THE MARKETS. CO'ikr BAlTisil , roi —......---- h „, f ietu A GENERAL A VERA MachOf front t"' o%lo l ' For the Week coiled 7, 1i34, made n hoWn s in 10 , of the Inspectors in the different Cities an Sis , od, and Wales, per Imperial Quarter. a n 5, 0 0. .• .1", 2ct 1 13 e ,„....... ''' 'Oa. Wheat................ 485. 01.1 Oats ..,,,........ 183. ~ p ea se c ot/ , 8ar1ey—,....263 74 l Rye ..,......... 333. 1 .• S ras sic 1 ,, , A. ‘" IRPERIAL AGGREGATE AVERAGES OF 51 8 T11E, ea n5,..'.356. ''.. Wheat.............. 484. IL 1 Oats „............ ISs• 2 ' , •l pea5 e,,,.... , 11ar1ey............ 275. 1(1.1 Rye ...---.. 325. RI ' M. “ T heat............ 385. Bdp.ul'OnaEtssof.........FOßs'.N O c il ° .ls o :;"" s n e cw'''' ,,,,... 92‘l66" 9d. Barley —..........216. 4d.1 Rye ............. 21s. 3 1 " tNG :1:::-- asb--.. Nv' NNW - I ci:UNTRY CO Barley. s to B. 5. so 30 g fi 02 26 5 .3 32 4 i 40 3 1 32 0 37 32 .4 4 5 41 08 36 0.5 " % .......... • -•;. t: ......... .0 .......... F 2,!. ; 0 0. ........... ...... •" 39. : 0 0 TA r 0. ........... laf•ud. d ......... W. los 11;c• 9d. P 'pei 1 " 225. RN MAR NN heat. S. to S 40 58 48 54 58 63 56 64 48 54 50 60 57 , 60 46 51 34 48 50 64 05 70 42 47 48 62 LEElls CORN IV. Wheat, Norfolk and Stith,llc, --- York. and Lincoln. Barley, Norfolk and SutThlk Yorkshire and Lin Colt -- Grinding Beaus 631 Oats, I'otatoe dealing, i or. led. to 13d. Shelling Rapeseed, English, 25/. to 23 .... 3 6 40 25 ... 02 24 j, 2,3 28 g 22 40 20 33 20 25 --" 30 43 an 38 32 20 33 . AJAX ET , oiv ..... 601 b. nshire lb. On the loth inst., in cu r ß z l o ß n. f t H re S et . the lady of pr. of a son. w ife of ch."' su• p i heeo o : . :n si J ot i . n1 1 1 1 :e e IN I ai 2 .3kD t t h eh: i oio n fnf s as t at . ~ aa t t:iEgei daughter.is atlleder lady o S f u i r i r e . y , th e On the 12th inst.., Mrs. Willeraentr: square, of a son. ~1 of ti lt' On the 11th inst., at IsTorthchurch, Herts, the 10.4 De rCeeasnt_srot,reE:tl.o, of ro s a i s e :t. MARRIED. _,„rielcOle:i On the 12th inst., at Finchley Church, Mr• Fre t ', l och , of Vauxhall, to Elizabc•.h Allen, eldest daughter 0. ghe.,, Esq., of Finchley, Middlesex. el Pf s ' ..i, SO ° f:sq. On the 13th inst., at St. Marylebone Chum..., le, rindin, Esq., to Isabella, eldest daughter of Andre°. „toll, G ell i o On the 12th inst., at St. Mark's Church, ge""-daugMer Herron, Esq., of Bermondsey, to 'Margaret WO' i . i the late George Cocks, Esq., of Blackfriars-reOL,reople-P`' On the 12th inst., L. H. Braham, Esq. , °f „f 13. ou►( Blackfriars-road, to Sophia, second daughter '' Esq., of Solomons.terrace, St. George's cast. 000, Olanii n ",i On the 13th inst., aged o n l y ar and nin e I ff,., of l iec° •• the youngest daughter of Thomas Chandlers' P —e ' Inn. On the 7th inst., aged '27, Sarah Jane, m il e as v t . e \ r V i i n di Omer Squier, Deptford, Kent, and eldes t " 8- U am xhr M id o g o e n. school. ti r " l' ...athe ° . years ." On the 6th inst., Mr. John Morris, nin e 0 86 f tb e on ° On the 10th inst., William Stewart, eldes t a il. bef W. L. Buckle, Vicar of Bansted, Surrey, ag ed - lehon e, le eies On the 10th inst., at York -building s, Dia laln gr. . 40 , 712 d year, Mrs. Mildred Leese, daughter of tile pn. TV of Milton, Kent. gr. On the 7th inst., at Counter.hill, New.croSs, i j West, formerly of Threadneedle-street, London „ t o. 0° - At his residence, in High-row, Knightsbridge, . eh Wl O4 • Esq., late of the War.ollice. v rn lun ier On the 9th inst., at Merton, SurreY, N• --- I' Esq., in his 69th year, vliAfeid:if;ltiitfrrif wtilej°laht;.. s et ik • PRtNTRD AN) PUBLIVIRD DV U ILD 0 ° V U M OFFICE, 112, STRASI%