The Sun. — London, England, 1827-06-01 00:00:00

le, a: tnl :n into furthvr consideratiol Weehasedayenext.! Mr. KENNEDY also awed that a copy of the exami nation of - witneeses should be laid before the House.— Ordered. . Sir CHARLES WETHERELL postponed his motion on the subject of the Coventry Election, to Wednesday next, A ,Message from the Lordseimiounerd their Lord.slaips' assent to several private bills. Major BERESFORD presented a petition from Ber wick- upon-Tweed, against. tine Salmon Fishery Bill. THE SIX ACTS. Mr. HUME proceeiled to move for the repeal of one of the Six Acts Pastel in 1919, to - preserve the peace of the country,, He had divided against all those Bills, for he cnneei:eed they seriously afii.cted the liberties of the tame_ try. "rfe bad determined in the last Session of Parliament to Ong forward this question, im - t he wee not sorry thatthe postponed his intention, for he belied that the change of ministry would prevent his proposition from being met with opposition. Ai he before ohaetved, the Six Acts had been passed at a period of great public agitation and danger. The enaissariees of sedition were abroad, and die.- content and dissatiefaction - firraded the country. It Was at this period those Acts were passed wide', he contended were an infringement on public liberty. Two of tbeee Acts Leal now expired, and no effort was made to rettiw than. Four, however, still remained' on the Statute-boqk, and when he heard the late Secretary for the Home lie partnlent vaunt that no Act had been passed doting his Mi nistry to a b r id ge t h e liberty of the subject, nor no Actof that nature revived which had expired, he thought that the Right Hon. Gentlemea a Dir. Peel), if he carried his reasoning a little Luther, might have seen tl‘t on the same Enin ,s lele he ought to have moved the repeal of the remaining F our A c t s , w hi c h had not eir pired. One of these Bills, that for the repressing of meet ings of the, people, expired in 1821, and he was inclined most stro ng l y to b e li eve t h at Mi n i sters, in allowing it thin to esotiire - , admitted there was no necessity for the continii ance of those restrictions on the liberty of the subject. Ile was the more disposed to be of that opinion, because the, Government, at that time, allowed their Attorney-General to say, that these Bills were not to be looked upon but to be taken as& general whole, for the preservation Of the peace of the country, sanctioned only by the very peculiar circumstances in which they were placed.— Another of these Bills, allowing a search to be made • for fireearme, had also been allowed to expire. Anothir Bill, to prevent the training of any persons to the uite of arms--a prohibition in his opinion highly obnoxions in at country where each individual might be called upon to defend hie rights=—still existed in force. Another- of these Acts,. and the fourtle.... e that to pr even t th e d e l ays o f perso n s on tnal—waa, 'l his opinion, of the least consequenci,. although a ' t ercet deal had been made of it at the timi. That 13;r1 was, like the Act he had mentioned before it, still in operation. The Acts, however, to which he parti- Warty wished 'to call the attention of the House, were • thaptera 8 and 9. By the first, chapter 8, called the Blasphemous and Seditious Libel Bill, every person con victed of a second libel was liable to the punishment Of transportation. It had been his intention last year, to move for the Repeal of that Act of Punishment; but finding, upon consideration, that it was but a con eequeut of chapter 9, he now meant to propose, first, the Repeal of the, latter. BY one of the provisions of these Bills, a. 1.1 printers, before they could erect a press, for the ; , üblication of works of a certain value, were hott!!, to find a security of 3001. in London, and 2,50/. in the country. Ity another clause, it was pro svided, that no indiVidtial could print or publish any pam phlet, containing less than two sheets, and sold for leas than sixpence, without being subjected to the stamp duty, provided that it contained.any article of newts or informa tion upon commerce. This provision he thought decided hostile to the liberty of the press; and it was even avowed, by the Attorney-General, at the time, that hi s o bj ec t wa s to restrain th a t lib erty. The Attorney-General declared, too, that the Government did not so much desire to in awn the revenue, as to put an. end to the twopenny trash rliich deluged the country,._ Ip a..political country, like this, he thought such a restriction calculated to check thp progress of that information; bywlirc7 our best institu'- tions were supported; and to put an end to the promule gation of all difference of opinions. 'Since the AA was passed, every endeavour had been made, by the Governj ment and the country to put an end to that state of igno; ranee in the people, which could alone. render the dal« eion of retitled knowledge dangerous; -and he conceived, . therefore, that there novr existed -no - reason why the progress of information should be checked by a regulation which was avowedly not intended to. -benefit the Revenue: —The Honourable Member then proceeded to express his objections to that regulation, which allowed any inch. vidual, accused.Of libel; to be brought before two Justice 4 of the Pewe e and compelled, without-any appeal to a Jury ) , to find recognizances for their answering to the charge of libel, when they may be called upon. But this was not all. There was another power to which he also strnnglf objected—that which gave Magistrates permission to exact securities from a person thus charged with libel for hii good behaviour until he might be brought to trial, an, that, too, without defining in any manner what was the good behaviour required; the restriction of the printing of any political work in numbers, until after it had been puhl lished for two years, was another regulation highly unfa-1 vourable to the diffusion of knowledge. He could not better define the object of the Bill which he wished to rel peal than by reading the Resolution moved on the let of December 1819, by Lord Londonderry, previous to the bringing in of the Bill : it was as follows : " That all Pamphlets or Papers commonly so called, and all other' , Papers containing public news, or intelligence or oca currences, or any remarks or observations, address, or letter thereon, or upon any matter established ill Church or State, printed in any part of th e U n i te d Kingdom, to be' dispersed and made public, which shall not exceed two sheets, or which shall 'be sold or exposed to sale for a less suns than sixpence, exclusive of th 4 duty to be charged thereon, shall be deemed, and taken to be, Newspapers, within the meaning of the several Acts in force relating to Newspapers, " and be subject to the ' like duties of stamps." Upon this Resolution the Bill was founded, and having now stated its object and its provisions, he would proceed to explain the reasons whY he thought it ought to be immediately repealed. As a measure of revenue, the Act had entirely failed, although at the time the Bill passed it was alleged that it would, lA • productive, and the regulation-that no pamphlet should ht i published on the first, second, or third days o f th e mon th was absurd and unnecessary. It was fit to state that he-i tween the present period and the year 1819 a marked distinction was to be drawn. In 1819 distress and diffil culty pervaded the kingdom, and riotous disturbances werd excited for the purpose of inducing the 'Government to grant relief. Now the diffusion of information by . the circulation of tracts, and by mechanics' institution's, had tat much improved the minds of the people, that all attemptl to produce . disorder must fail. Excepting some slight coma motions occasioned by mistaken notions regarding mit- E chinery, there had of late years been no indication of a t ur a bulent spirit. It was inconsistent with the principle of spreading information that such a check as this Act of Parliament presented should be continued. The recent change in the Councils of the Empire warranted an act of liberality in the repeal of this Statute ; and when he looked , back at several speeches delivered in 1919 by Honourable' and Right Honourable Gentlemen, whom he now saw on: the other side of the House, he found ample reasons for the! present motion. One Honourable Member bad spoken in! warm terms of the incalculable services rendered to the , country by the public press during the struggle withl France, and strongly censured anything approaching re-1 striction upon it. Another had argued, that it was of. paramount importance that the freedom of the Press should! not be trenched upon in the slightest degree; and a third had adverted to the Clause regarding Securities, and! had contended that it imposed peculiar and needless! hardships upon printers and publishers. Of course thesei Honourable Gentleman would now adhere to the opinionst then expressed. On the vagueness of the law of libel hel could have brought down authorities to show that the same 'publication declared a libel, by teelve men in one Court, had been pronounced no libel, by twelve men in anotherl Court. In fact, the law was liable to great abuse ; and AI had been held by a number of the opponents of the Bill,l in 1.819, that it was nothing less than putting an mate,- upon the Press of Great Britain. At this moment the House and Government ought to do their utmost to conciliate the lower orders ; and surely it would not tend much to that object to continue a law which, it had been dc. dared, exposed this country to all the dangers from which those nations had suffered where a censorship bad been established. Jn a popular country, if there were one axiom more true than another, it was this__that where' the expression of opinion upon public events or public measures was restrained, the public peace was endangered, , and violence and outrage might be the consequence. He could easily enlarge on' these topics, but he apprehended that few would now disagree with him on the propriety removing from the statute-book whatever was unsatisfae- long rankled in the minds of tr the PeOple, and it became a liberal Government like t!.-Lti present to free the statute-book from laws fore eA trpon the Legisiatttre by the circum stances of the time: The only reasonable - obje'eti - Oir he Cot.'ll anticipate to his . motion *tit, that it did no t go far enou g h, and the!! ought to have included the re peal of thettlth Geo. 111. e. 8, as well as of the 60th Geo. 111. c. J ; but he first wished to remove that law which pre vented the circulation of cheap pamphlets. Ile was willing to leave the remaining-part of the work to Minister's, who, at their leisure, might consider the subject. They were now only recently in their situations, and during the vaca tion they would have time to deliberate upon the abroga tion of th e o th e r o bj ec ti o n a bl e A c t s w hi c h the motion rim offered tiia not touch. The first and Most desirable object, in his vie*, was, the dittioution of expenditure and the reduction of tatiation ; and, next in importance teas the adoption of some proposition, testifying the liberality of the principles on which the existing Government meant to act. He moved for " leaVe to bring in a Bill to repeal the 60th Geo. II!. e. 0." The ATTORNEY GENERAI—It seemed the opinion of the Hon. Gentleman, that the recent changes of Go vernment afforded a favourable opportunity for repealing the statutes to which lie objected. If this opinion were sincere, it was rather surprising that the Hon. Gentlenrian chose the present moment for his motion. The Adminis trationdhad only been .reeently formed t time Was required for deliberation and concert; and if they should ulti mately be disposed to comply with the motion, they might nevertheless, in the first instance, object to the precipita tion with which it was forced upon them. A man tof ordinary judgment, therefore, who wished well to his prio fessed object, would have pursued a course diametrically opposite to that which the Hon. Gentleman had taken. The Hon. Gentleman bad declared that he brought Ore question forward in a friendly tone; and, iii a friendly tone, on the very night he, (Sir J. Scarlett) took his seat, after his re-election, be had received a note from the HOD. Gentleman, informing him, that if he (Sir J. Scarlett) did not move the repeal of the 60th Geo. 111. C. S. he (Mr., Hume) would submit s uc h a propos i t i on . Th e H on. Gen tleman had stated that such a course would render the Government extremely popular; hut if so, it was hardly fair for him to endeavour so rapidly to run before the Go vernment, and deprive it of that popularity which be pro ruited.—(Cheers.)—The Hon. - Gentleman, in a friendly tone, no doubt, had 'favoured the Hmise with various Oil skins to the speeches of 1819 ; but it ought not to be for gotten, that. that was a period of great public agitation, and when it was least reasonable - to expect that Members should be bound by the extreme opinions they had uttered.-- (Hear,' hear.)—The Hon. Gentle:mari had omitted, how ever, to state..--wbat was very material, though not for his purpose—that the speeches applied to the Bill in its first shape, and that in its progreers through Parliament, perhaps in consequence, jn some degree, of those very speeches, it received considerable* alterations and improvements. Time Right Hon. Member for Knaresborough, who 'toak the lead in the discussions, expressly- stated his approbation of that part of the measure which put certain periodical pub lications on a footing with newspapers. Besides, it was neither Parliamentary.logic, nor just reasoning (however consistent with the Hon. Member's usual mode of think ing), to say that, because a Bill is hypothetically opposed, depending upon experiment, those who resisted it in the outset were bound to support its repeal after a lapse of nine or ten years,' daring-which it had shewn itself a use ful agent in the prNervation'of the well-being of the State. —(Hear, hear.)--Looking at the merits of the 60th Geo. 111. c: 9, he should say, that there were some parts of it so advantageous that he would not consent to the repeal of them : its object was to place upon the Same footing as newspapers all small periodical publications published at a shorter interval than 26 days, and containing narra tives of public events or comments upon them. The rea son was obvious—that what were in fact newspapers might not be published once, twice, or three times a week, or oftener, at the price of only twopence. In that form a number of seditious and blasphemous productions, the existence of which was reprobated and regretted on all sides, had been circulated. Various modes were suggested for putting an end to their distribution among the lower orders in particular : some thought that prosecutions by the Attorney-General ought to be more frequent, and he (Sir J. Scarlett) had been among that number ; others were- of ,opinion that a measure was wanted that might lead to the detection of the authors of the poison so indus triously disseminated ; and no man doubted that if such an object could be attained, it would be highly advantageous to the public interest. It was in a great degree accom plished by requiring the affidavit at the Stamp-office, for pamphlets of a certain size and price,- in the same-manner as the proprietors of newspapers were registered. No man doubted the policy of the law imposing the necessity that the names of some of the proprietors of every newspaper should be seen at the Stamp-office. It' enabled parties libelled to trace the authors .and. to obtain a remedy, tulle it had not at all prevented the Press from attacking with severity either public or private men. -He (the Attorney- General) was a warns friend to the Freedom of the Press at all times, and in all places, and he would assert that there never was a period in its history when it possessed greater freedom than at the present moment. The Hon. Gentle man had adverted to the title of one of the Bills, but he '(the Attorney-General) was not aware that there was any individual with whom lie was acquainted or connected, who was particularly desirous, at this moment, of having an opportunity of putting forth blasphemous or seditious publications, to which the 60th Geo. 111. c. 8. was an obstacle. The Hon. Member might be differently circum stanced, and some of his friends or acquaintance might therefore naturally wish for the repeal of the law.—(Hcar, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman complained that, as a mea sure of revenue, the Act had failed of its effect; it might be so ; but if it were, the information would come with more propriety from the Chancellor of the. Exchequer, as soon as he had had time to ascertain the point. In 1819, opinions were much divided on the subject of the Six Acts; they all received general opposition, but certainly that which was the object of the motion of to-night was looked at with much less antipathy than the rest. Neither did it follow,. that -because an Act was resisted as a whole, there were not parts of it, which, taken by themselves, might not be approved. The Hon. Gentleman had contended that because a temporary law had expired, a perpetual law ought to be abrogated ; anti by a felicitous mode of reason ing peculiar to himself, he had argued that temporary and permanent Acts were to be viewed precisely in the same! light. Such logic, perhaps, became the Hon. Gent. to use, but would not become the House to adopt.—(Hear.) It did not satisfy his (the Attorney-General's) understanding, al though it might be quite convincing to the mind of the lion. Gentleman.—(Hear, from Mr. Hume; answered by laughter from the Hou.e.)—Mcat of the Honourable Gentleman's arguments were consistent with the form of syllogism which has with him so peculiar a favourite. In his (the Attorney-General's) judgment the Act ought not to be repealed ; and in 1819 he had been of opinion, that a great part, of it ought to be made the permanent law of the land. Of the facts he knew nothing ; and probably the Honourable Gentleman AV tl3 far better acquainted with the grievances of printers and circulators of small publica tions than he could•be. Whatever had been his specula tive opinions (and he did not' chink from them), on the securities of which the Honourable Gentleman had spoken, he should not think of repealing even that part of the Bill at this moment, on a sudden, and without previous examination of the subject. The Honourable Gentleman had said a great deal about the diffusion of information, and he (the Attorney-General) appealed to any man, whether the Act in question had at all checked that diffu- sion in cheap publications.—(Hear, hear.)—lt only ap plied, in fact, to a certain species of publication—periodi cal, anti of a certain size and price —and they were sub jected to the stamp imposed upon a newspaper. He (the Attorney-General) should be glad to hear why they ought not to be subjected to it? The Honourable Gentleman was sometimes the warm advocate of the Daily Press; and why should the Times or Morning Chronicle be exposed to a stamp duty, while publications under two sheets, and: containing the same matter and similar remarks, were free from such an exaction ? He did not know that the public press had any feeling about it; but if it were right to im-. pose a stamp duty at all upon newspapers, which had not been questioned, where was the Justice of exposing them to a contest so unequal ? So with respect to the other part of the question, although he was not prepared to assume that the Press was not so seditious and blasphemous as when the Act waa passed, yet it might be that it was not so, and it might he that the Act bad assisted in the reformation. If the llonourable Member for Aberdeen had confined his observations to particular clauses of the Act, l►e (the Attorney-General) might have taken a different course. He begged, however, not to be considered as pledged on the subject. He had not the slightest inten tion to say any thing offensive to his Honourable Friend ; but really, with all his respect for his Honourable Friend, and feeling much obliged to him for the good he had done in certain respects, he was by no means prepared to take his Honourable Friend as an authority on subjects of ge neral legislation. As his Honourable Friend had not been I able to state any particular fact of evil produced by the measure, he (the Attorney-General) was not prepared to rely on his judgment and opinion with reference to the question of its general character and tendency. Hu hoped he should not offend his Honourable Friend by this decla ration. His Honourable Friend had many claims on the gratitude of the public ; but he had no claim to make him a sound authority on all points of legislation. He thee& fore Would not pledge hiMself with respect to this or any other Bill. Certainly, nothing that had been said by his Honourable Friend would induce him to adopt his Honour able Friend's proposition ; and therefore, however kindly his Honourable - Friend no doubt meant it, he must op pose his motion; aml he begged to add, that he did so without any concert or_comrntinicatioh with others, always wishing to act without any regard to popularity. For these short reasons lie should give his decided negative to his Hon. Friend's motion. Mr. PEEL obserVed - that no man had any right to com plain of the course which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had taken. 'lt was undoubtedly a much more manly and honest proceeding than if he had absented him: self in order to evade the difficulties of hie task. He also honoured the Right lion. and Learned Gentleman for the candour of his declaration, that in the official situation in Which he was placed, he could not lightly determine on the question proposed for his decision, but must take time to examine and consider whether the 'practical merits of the measure to which the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had called the attention of the House were or were not such as would induce him to support its continuance.—lle (Mr. Peel) must say that he wished that certain other indivi duals had followed the example of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman ; and, having foiled reasons to resist the measure when originally pioposed, had been good enough to state the reasons which now induced them to resist the proposition made by the Hon.. Member for Aberdeen. Such a step would have been much more creditable to the per sona to whom he alluded, than staying away, and shrink , ing from the performance of what no doubt was a difficult and delicate undertaking. But, while he acknowledged the superior manliness of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentle man's conduct, he certainly did not think that the particu lar grounds on which he opposed the motion of the Hon. • Member for Aberdeen were at all satisfactory. He meant satisfactory, as respected the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman's reasons ; for they were most satisfactory in reference to the reasons of those by whom the measure was originally proposed. Recollecting the obloquy which, In 1819, had been thrown upon those measures, which it was declared had been devised for the purpose of impos ing restraints upon the liberty of the people, it was cer tainly satisfactory to him to hear his Majesty's Attorney- Genoa! maintaining the policy of the measures; it was certainly satisfactory to him to find even this tardy tribute paid to the memory of a Noble Friend, who had been more grossly calumniated than any statesman that ever lived in this country. Time late Marquees of Londonderry was the person by whom these measures had been propos ed : and for proposing which in times of great difficulty and alarm—in times when the tranquillity of the country was threatened in a variety of shapes--his name had been loaded with the deepest obloquy. • From that ob loquy, however, it was now relieved ; and the speech of the Right lion. and Learned Gentlenian had retrieved his Noble Friend's memory- from the odium which had been so unjustly and - ungratefully cast upon it. Some of the measures which were passed in the' year 1819 were tem porary, and had been allowed to expire; the one. under consideration was of a permanent chatalder. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said, that this particular measure bad been but slightly opposed at the time of its enactment. The fad, however, was, that - these was no one of the measures referred to which met with more de termined opposition. In its progress through the House, various 'Amendments were introduced into the Bill ; but those Amendments were by uo means satisfactory to . its opponents ; which was proved by the fact that the third reading of the Bill, after all the Amendments bad been in troduced, was strongly resisted. While lie stated all this, he at the same time repeated that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had done his duty. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, whatever might have been his reasons for resisting the Bill in 1819, was perfectly right in stating that it had not been found in practice to invade any of the great priociples of the constitution which, at period at which it was passed, it was said were menaced with utter destruction. In justice, however, to his Noble Friend, lie must take advantage of the - Right lion. and Learned Gentleman's admissions. If• the practice of the bill had not been that which had been predicted ; if it had not imposed fetters on the press, depriving it of every sem blance of liberty—let the memory of his - Noble Friend be rescued from the foul imputation under which it had la boured. He (Mr. Peel) by no, `means quarrelled with the Right Honourable and Learned Gentlenian'e vindi cation of his present conduct, . he only begged leave to observe that the vindicati o n c om p re h en d e d a compute vindication of the conduct of his Noble Friend in 1819. When his Noble Friend had proposed' this measure, he wet - told that its tendency would be to repress the ris ing genius of many a young - man, who; like Burke, re sorted to the press and to the exercise of hie talents as a writer for the means of honourable subsistence. All this his 'Noble Friend had positively denied. It now appeared that in that denial his Noble Friend was perfectly justified. The admissions of the Right Hon. and Learned Gent. proved that he was so. It was now-proyed that in point of fact, the measure had not been productive of all those dreadful mischiefs which its opponents had anticipated from it. If it were, or might be right, to continue the measure at present, in times of comparative quiet and security, when the va rious attempts which had been made to disseminate sedi tious and blasplaemotneeentiments had utterly failed, hav ing been repressed—not only by prosecutions, by the good sense and right feeling of the public ; how - much more justifiable was it on the part of his Noble Friend to propose the measure in 1819, when the most insidious and persevering efforts were making to corrupt the pub lic mind by the diffusion of the most infamous publica tions that ever disgraced the press of ally country.—.. The House would recollect that in 1819 the Grand Jury of Chester approached either Parliament or the Throne (he did out recollect which,) stating the evils which they apprehended from the ceaseless exertions which were 'ttling to corrupt the people by the circulation of sedi tious and blasphemous publications. They especially in stanced as a proof of the existing danger, that the servants of families were actively corrupted by the gratuitou's and se cret introduction into the very houses of their 'masters 'of publications replete with sentiments hostile to all the in stitutions of the country, and calculated to sap the foun dations of every moral and religious duty. If a reference were made to the correspondence of that period between Sir John Byng (who was in the command of the Northern district). and his Majesty's Government, it would appear that in one week, six attempts had been made to corrupt the soldiers in their barracks. He (Mr. Peel) reverted to all these facts as affording a conclusive proof that the con duct of his Noble Friend, not only with reference to the temporary measures which had been allowed to expire, but with reference to the permanent measures, one of which was under the consideration of the House—all of which. though more or less resisted in their passage through Par liament, his Noble Friend had eventually carried—was not only justifiable, but in the highest degree praiseworthy......: His Noble Friend had been subjected to lunch odium as the author of these bills, and it was but just that an oppor tunity like the present should be embraced to dear him from every imputed dishonour. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said a few words in ex planation, the tendency of which was to show that he still retained his objections to several of the clauses of the Act; and that indisposition had prevented him from taking a very active part in the discussions in 1919. Lord MILTON thought that it was very:difficult to as certain whet was the Right Hon. Gentleman's main object in the speech which he had just addressed to the House.— It wan difficult to determine whether his principal purpose had been to excidpate his Noble Friend, the late Marquis of Londonderry,-fer his conduct in 1819, or to attack cer tain other individuals for their conduct at the present day. In both instances he (Lord Milton) thought that the Right lion. Gentleman bad entirely failed. The Right Honour able Gentleman had defended the conduct of the Marquis of Londonderry, in 1819, on the ground of the resistance now made by his Right Hon. and Learned Friend to the motion for the repeal of one of the Acts of 1819, to which particular Act confessedly the slightest objection was at that period made. Because his Right Hon. end Learned Friend, in 1827, resisted a motion improperly and incon sistently made, the Right Hon. Gentleman defended the whole set of measures passed in 1819, although those mea sures had been opposed by his Right Hon. and Learned Friend, as welt as by other persons, on whose absence from the House--whether absent or present he (Lord Milton) neither knew nor cared—the Right Hon. Gentleman had been pleased to remark. To him it appeared to be very singular that the Right Hon. Gentleman should think that he had succeeded in defending his Noble Friend, because the repeal of the least objectionable of that Noble Lord's measures was now opposed by an individual who might, perhaps, have voted against all the measures originally. For him self, he was too humble an individual to have his opinions adverted to by the Right lion. Gentleman. To whom exactly the Right Hon. Gentleman referred as absent, he (Lord Milton) was at a loss to know; but it did appear to him to be exceedingly singular that the Right Hon. Gentleman should fancy that he had made a triumphant defence of his Noble Friend. If I,e understood his Right Honourable and Learned Friend, he had said that the continuance of some of the remaining Acts might re quire consideration. He (Lord Milton) thought that some of them might, in a future Session, be advantageously repealed. There were, some, of - the remaining measures. to which a stronger objection than to the rest originally existed in ins mina ; ants the "force of which objection he still fully felt. He particularly alluded to that Act which inflicted, as the punishment of a second conviction for libel, transportation for life. That Act still disgraced the Statute-book. .He was bound to say, that a great deal of his confidence in his ,Majesty's present Government would depend on the scanner in which they dealt with an Act so inconsistent with.the liberty of the subject, and so lital to the freedom of the press. With respect to the Measure now before the House, it Appeared to him--after the declaration of hiS 4ight Hon. and Learned Friend, that these measures must come under the consideration of his Majesty's Government—that it was of little consequence whether or not. it was repealed in , the present Session. The Right Hon. dentlenian must therefore pardon him fur thinking that those whom he (Mr. Peel) had twitted with their absence, were justified in not being present At the discussion of a motion for, repealing a measure the pre cise period of the repeal of which was of so little import ance. The Right lion., Gentleman would give him leave to remind him of his own declarations with respect to the merits of those measures generally ;—these measures the expediency of proposing which by his Noble Friend he had so warmly defended. When on quitting office -the Right _Hon. Gentleman had stated to the House the circumstances which had induced him to do so ; in the expositien into which he had entered of the motives by which lie had been actuated,, be had never dared to take credit for not renewing the Acts which had expired.—{Some one ob served that Mr. Peel had taken credit for not proposing the renewal of the Acts in question.)—That then was his (Lord Milton's) case. If the Right Hon. Gentleman did take credit for not proposing the renewal of these Acts, his doing so proved that he considered them to be ob noxious measures. Unquestionably they were measures, the general character of which was inconsistent with the spirit of the English Constitution. As, however, they were so soon to be taken into consideration by his Majea ty's Government, it appeared to bins to be of very little importance Whether he voted in favour of the motionjof the Hon. Member for Aberdeen or against it, or walked out of the House and abstained from voting at all. Mr. PEEL, in explanation, observed that he had already described, and justly described, the Act for the repeal of which the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had that evening moved, is one of the measures Which had been most warmly opposed in 1819. The Seizure of Arms' Bill bad not been opposed at all ; nor had the Training Prevention Bill. The Bill for preventing Traverses in Courts of Justice, and the Seditious Meetings' Prevention Bill (which had expired, and to renew which he had been applied to, but bad refused), were opposed with great pertinacity; but by no means with greater pertinacity than the Bill the repeal of which was now proposed. He repeated that he thought those who had opposed the measures in 1819, and who had recently accepted office, would have chosen a better course if they had followed 'the example of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.. explained : but his explanation was directed across the:table, and was in so Jew a tone of voice that it 'was utterly inaudible in the Gallery. Mr. LENNARD . thought it was a little unfair, on the part of the Right Hon. Gentleman, to attribute to the Right Hon. and Learned Attorney-General approbation of the whole Six Acts, because he had not expressed unemii- Vocal disapprobation of one of them. He begged to recall to the House, that he haul himself moved for the repeal two of the Acts. He had not included the Act under con sideration in his motion, because he did not at that tithe, nor did he at present, think that its total repeal was neces sary. But he saw that there were persons, both in and out of that House, who were very much inclined to misre present the whole question. Although he was not dis posed to support the total repeal of this Bill at the present period, there were clauses in it which at a future period he thought might be very advantageously got rid of. The Bill was divided into two parts. The first related to the Re venue, and put small periodical paniphlets on the same foot • ing as newspapers. As far as that part of the Bill went, no case had been made out against the Bill. Nothing that had fallen from the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had any tendency to snake out such a case. When he looked at the other part of the Bill, however, he allowed that it contained some very objectionable provisions. One was a clause call ing on a .printer to enter into certain recognizances pre viously to his commencing trade ; another, a clause em powering, Magistrates to ,call on persons brought before them for libel to give security for-the preservation of the peace. The first was an unnecessary restriction on the li berty of the Press ; the licentiousness of which he believed the old law was abundantly adequate to repress. He would not trespass longer on the attention of the. House. He bid frequently expressed his anxious desire that the Press should be unfettered; his opinions on that subject yemained un changed. Nor, did he , consider that he could he justly chargeable with inconsistency if he did not vote for the :motion of the klon. Member for Aberdeen. He had for some. years supported many of the measures of the present Right Hon. Chancellor, of . the_ Exchequer and hi s collea gUes. would give them his confidence as long as lie found that they Were not disposed to sacrifice what appeared to him to be indiapensible principles. He should vote against the motion ; but he begged at the same time to ob serve that on a future, occasion he trusted the House would have an opportunity of . considering, with a view to their repeal, the two cladies in the Bill which he bad described. Sir ROBERT WILSON, said, that while he admired the motives which had induced the Right Hon. Gentlemah who had' lately held the.office of Secretary of State to eulo gize the memory of his Noble 'Friend, he could not but think that such. eulogies were something indiscreet, anti were often calculated to provpke injurious discussion. - For his own part he had never heard, either in that House or out of it, but one opinion, with respect to the measures of 1819. The Right Hon. Gentleman, in his own state ment of the motives which had induced him to retire from office, had, as his Noble Friend the MeMber for Yorkshire had justly observed, taken credit to himeelf for conduct which was in direct contrast with that of his predecessor. With respect to the present motion, he (Sir R. Wilson) thought that the Right Hon. and Learned Attorney-Gene s ral had most properly and wisely recommended that the consideration of the subject should be adjourned to another Session of Parliament. The repeal of the Act might bring with it some popularity to ministers, of which it would be un fair to deprive them by any premature proceeding. It would not only be unfair to Ministers, it would be unfair to the public—the welfare ofwlsom he most sincerely believed was connected with the existence and strength of. the present Administration. For that reason, if he had no other, he should oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen ; the taken by whom on the present occasion he the more particularly regretted, as that ,Honourable Member, haul pledged himself to him (Sir R. Wilson) individually to with. draw his intention of bringing forward the motion. Such conduct could not be too strongly censured. He (Sir R. Wil son) had passed over to the side of the House on which he then sat, not. by the circuitous movement which others had adopted in similar circumstances; he passed boldly anti unblushingly. Ile went over to that part of the House _ . where he saw the colours of liberal principles flying;—tna Ministry whose object it was to support freedom, and to enlighten the country;—to a Ministry who maintained the Royal prerogative and asserted the liberty of the subjeat ;, to'a Ministry who preserved at the same time the favour of the Crown and the suffrages of the people ;—to a Ministry who, if they persevered in the course which they had com menced, would consummate the safety, prosperity, and glory of.the Empire. It was this consciousness of the liberality of the present Government ,which had induced the Catholics to suspend their prayers for the present Ses sion, and to trust to the course of events and the progress of intelligence for the success of their cause. It was the consciousness that the dearest interests of freedom were no longer in jeopardy which kad induced the Advocates of Parliamentary Reform to .enspend their efforts, and to be satisfied with the hope of ultimate success, which insist flow from a Government ably and honourably adminis-; tered. It was the consciousness of the liberal tendency of the policy of the present Administration Which had so . _ lately induced ,the Dissenters of the Empire to defer their solicitations for relief to another Session. It was the same feeling which induced him (Sir R. Wilson) to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen; and to resist any attacks which might be made upon his Majesty's present Ministers, whether they proceeded from an open and generous foe, or from a sly and insidious friend. He would do all that he could to defend them, either from open assault or from secret sapping. Mr. CANNING said, he could not abstain from adding a few words to what had already been said upon the sub ject, as he was anxious to state the grounds upon which he thought himself compelled to resist the proposition of the Honourable Gentleman. The whole basis of that Honour able Gentleman's motion was false. If it were true that every man, because he had supported or opposed a measure in its progress, was bound to continue to support or oppose it after it had passed into a law, the consequenCe would be, as the Honourable Gentleman contended in the present instance, that a partial change of Government ought to be accompanied by a partial change of measures, and that a total change of Ministers should be followed by an entire sweeping away of all the former acts of Government. This appeared to him to be about as reasonable a proposi tion to address to the Attorney-General, as it would be to address him in that capacity in which he excelled all other men—the capacity of an advocate—saying, although the Judge, the Jury, and';the Lawyers decided against you, and the country acquiesced in their decision, i, Deverthe less, bind you at all future times to the strict expressions of your opening speech, and you are at my call to sup port the arguments which you then used. If experience were to go for nothing—if the law, and the acquiescence ,of the country in that law, were to pees for nothing—if this were not the case, it was utterly preposterous to go back to the opposition offered to the passing of this Statute, and to call for its repeal upon the grounds that it had met with opposition at the time of its enactment. Did be (Mr. Canning) therefore ineen, that if the country found the operation of an Acr to be inconvenient ; if it dis appointed the expectation with which it, was passed, or had created evils of more importance and of greater mag nitude than those which it was intended to correct—did he mean to say that it was not subject to repeal ? Did he mean to bold as a doctrine, that - because a Bill had passed into a law it was therefore immortal ? No such thing ! All he meant to say was, that the question of repealing any Statute must stand on its own ground. Upon the news e sity alone must the question of repeal be decided, and not in reference to the circumstances under which the Bill was introduced. The question upon this, as upon all similar cases, was not how the law 'originated, but whether in the law itself there were anything so absurd or inconvenient that Parliament in its prudence and wisdom was called upon at that precise moment to repeal it ! The argument of the Hen. Gentleman (Mr. Hume), that because this law was part and parcel of a system of laws passed at the same time, and a portion of which was perishable, there fore the perishable part, when it died, sheuld connect its mortality to that which was intended to survive—sueh an argument, he thought, was so absurd, it was so incon sistent, that he knew not how to deal with it. If, at the time of passing these laws, Parliament had judged that some were to exist perpetually as part and parcel of the law of the country, and that others ought to die, it was clear that Parliament had anticipated when it might repeal some of the laws, and that it wished to avoid that inference as to others: Was it to be argued from such date. that Parliament was now bound to repeal the laws that had been enacted permanently ? Was there any thing so objectionable in the nature of this law, that the House was called upon by the voice of the country to re peal it ? If it were so, all he could say was, that never was the voice of the country more silent. They might go from one extremity of the kingdom to the other ; they might wander in every direction, and they would he obliged to tell the people that such a law existed, before they could get theth to form an opinion whether they ought to object to it or not. A more wanton excitement of the knowledge of the country for the purposes of creating objections, could not be found in the history of Parliamentary proceedings. But it seemed that this law extinguished the liberty:of the press. It checked its energies, depressed its spirit, and changed its tone. It converted its complexion of health and vigour to a sickly hue—so Gentlemen opposite would have the House believe. He (Mr. Canning) should like to see any foreigner coining among them, or any man returning after an absence from England of 10 years—he should like to call upon him to state what special grievance he observed to exist in the country. Would ho answer. " Why nothing now is printed—nothing is said of anybody by the Press —there is a total stagnation of satirical jokes, of sarcasm and slander. What has.become of the freedom of opinion ? Everybody abstains from animadversions upon private cha racter —every thing is sleeping or dead. The Press is broke up—its occupation gone ; there is .no such thing now as type and paper." This would be the great grie vance pointed out; and to remedy such an oppressive, in tolerable evil, the Hon. Member opposite brought forward kis Bill.—(Laughter,)—What would be the effect of car rying this measure, and how would its success stop the chasm which the Hon. Proposer lamented ? The existing Bill pressed against blasphemous publications comprised in two sheets. The Hon. Member for Aberdeen said,— "Let us have blasphemous publications in two sheets; I hope you will, repeal the Bill that prevents our having blasphemous libels in two sheets.—(Laughter.) —To this he (Mr. Canning) replied, that the blasphemy to be brought under the Act must not only be comprised within such a specific compass, but the author must value the produce of his brains under 6d. These were the three essential qualities required to bring a publication within the meaning of the Act, namely, blasphemy the size of two sheets, and value less than 6d. These were the three objectswhicli the Act intended to repress, and by which the Honourable Member was of opinion that the general liberty of the Press was extin guished. To be sure, blasphemy was a most volatile, changeable essence ; but if any men, wished to lay his hand upon the hallowed work that restrained it, and was desirous to restore the freedoni of the Press, the object was not difficult to attain. Let the gentleman who had so much blasphemy on hand, tack an additional sheet to the proscribed number of two—let him come out on the 28th instead of the 26th day—and let him " screw his courage to the sticking-place," and charge sixpence-halfpenny for his 'productions, and he avoided the law. . Considering whom the law affected, and under what circumstances it operated, he did not think it amounted to a grievance of the first magnitude. He was confident that this was not an Act which the people of England viewed with any great degree of uneasiness; nor did they think that there was such a deficiency of vigoai or spirit in the press that its contiimance upon the Statuteelmok should be opposed. Never was there a period in which' ieful information upon ail subjects was in the habit of being so extensively diffused amongst the public, and at so cheap a rate. It penetrated deeply into the lowest classes of society, and effected a great moral and intellectual improvement,—(Hear, hear.) --The adMinistration of a free press, purged of the mis chief which this Act was calculated to suppress, was a source of useful information to the public, .and Parliament aught not to 'poison the wholesome stream by letting forth that current which had been an happily dammed up. Lord Viscount lIOWICK expressed himself surprised at the remarkable "discrepancy bet Ween the sentiments uttered by many gentlemen on this occasion and those which they had been in the habit of expressing so strenu ously before they had quitted the other side of the HOuse. ......(Hear.).--He thought it essential that the House should assent to the proposition .of the Bon. Member for Aber deen ; and he thought it equally essential to the character's of many that they should not, by opposing the measure, de part from what they had formerly declared to be just and proper. He could not agree with the Right Hon. Gentle man opposite (Mr. Canning), that this was a Measure of little importance. The Act was productive of great mis chief. The clause which enacted banishment was no likely to be called much into practice; but such a law was disgraceful to the character of the country, and it operated as a clog upon the energies of the Press. The law, as it then stood, pressed equally upon proper and improper works; for no own, in many cases, could guide himself clearly by the law of libel as it then stood. A MEMBER, from the Ministerial Benches, observed, that he did not think this a right time to press for the repeal of the law. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that papers, such as this law was aimed against, ought not to be exempted from its Operations, unless newspapers were equally unrestricted. Mr. WARBURTON said that it was not right for Hon. Gentlemen, now on the Ministerial Bench, to pretend that this Act was not known, or that it was likely to be in disuse; for, at an early part of the Session, the Hon. Member for Winchelsea had expressed a wish that it should be repealed. He wished the motion had been to amend, rather than to repeal the Acts, as many Members who now opposed the motion, would then have supported it. It was not enough to show that no practical inconvenience was, at present, felt by the Act—who could answer for its not being put into operation ?—it was sufficient to prove that -the principle upon which the Act was passed was bad, and l►e should, therefore, support the motion. Mr. HUME arose amidst loud cries of "question." The Hon. Member koped lie should be allowed to reply ; he was not aware of his having lost that privilege.—(Hear, hear. )—..He said, he thought lie should be able to show that some of the . Hon. Members who opposed the motion, and particularly the First Lord of the Treasury, did not appear to have read the bill, or to know any thing about it. The only three things which the Right Hon. Gent. supposed to be connected with the bill, happened not to be mentioned in it. A Gallant Officer opposite (Sir Robert Wilson), had said, that lie came there to defend Ministe►s against an open enemy, or an insidious foe. If he meant to apply those words to him, he should only say, that they were totally inapplicable to the measure before the House, or to any thing connected with it. The Attorney. General had most grossly mie-stated the circumstances relative to his (Mr. Hume's) bringing forward this motion. What the Attorney-General had been pleased to call the first interview between them upon this occasion, was, in fact, the third. The Hon. Member then read a letter, which fully proved that lie had given the Attorney-General and Sir R. Wilson full notice of hie intention to bring forward the present motion. He could tell the Gallant Officer, that neither in that House nor out of it should his (Mr. Hume's) actions be such as could not bear the light. If the Gallant Officer assumed the privilege and right of changing aides of the Home,. he hoped that he would not refuse him (Mr. Hume) the equal privilege of remaining where he always had been. Let the Gallant Officer read to the House the letter which his (Mr. Hume) had written to hini, and he (Mr. Hume) was prepared to read the reply. The House would then see how matters stood with respect to his (Mr. hlu►ne'e) having given any pledge not to bring this measure forward. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Attor ney-General had defended the whole Act, which prevented his going into the principal items ; but he must say, that if general principles in inch a cue were nut to be acted granted. stato - upon, the character of legislation was violated. The s e could not be supported by the Attorney-Gerreral, if helm: consistently with the Opinions he had expressed when sittingo on the Opposition side of theHouse.---(Hear. )—He had ° he declared that the Bill in question tr e nched deeply upon the liberty of the subject, and was altogether objectamabl e principle. The Act went to maintain an odious, unconst` tutional censorship of the Press. The 'arguments °, the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning) were sing!''t lady fortunate in supporting the cause they meant to a s° , The Right Hon. , Gentlethan %had argued for the prOP l :l e of continuing the law, because it was of such a n erd's that any man, by a few tricks or contrivances, could ois feat its object.—(Hear, hear, hear.)--Let any man , s y s the. Right Hon. Gentleman, tack another sheet to his r - ' vious two, and charge more than sixpence foe his prod:, tions—and by such tricks he evaded the Statute. lt,„J singular, that any Gentl e m a n sho u ld b e d r iven to defers the policy and necessity of a law, by, proving the foul with which it might he violated or evaded. If tb e •ht were really so inoperative and unimp or t an t as the Big o it Hon. Gentleman asserted, what a fine opportunity we s for him to show a liberal spirit, and to pay a tribute ton ic lic freedom, which, whilst it sa ti s fi e d th e p u blic, co st ' 4 , Right Hon. Gentleman nothing. The Right Hon. denim had attempted, by wit, and a joke mixed w it t series of fallacies, to mislead the H o u se . A m o n gst the l a : " ter,• the Right Hon. Gentlem an h a d, t o hi s as tonishie es . assimilated the duty and privil ege o f a Member of House to those of an advocat e at th e b ar . H e (Mr. fluP i c had always thought th a t it w as th e p aramoun t, the 41 0 ' 1' 4 duty of an advocate to take any side, to use any argw i f o f or support any principle which co u ld s us t a in'the the client who hired him. Such, at least, was' the o°l privilege of the forensic profession; nor did any lawye r ; eider, that in pursuing such conduct hi s c h arac ter - WO, * 7 nished or impeached. This being the case, judge of hie Hume's astonishment, when he heard th e Right lloneP ' isle Gent. (Mr. Canning) assert, in defence of the Ant, b e ney-Get. era], that the duty of a M e mber of Parliament er:ss that of an advocate of a cause—th a t, consequ ently t , to have no principles of hie own, but might follow 1 ;1 0 ever the interests of himself or his party required.- -4 t he of " hear, hear !" and " no, no !")—Either wha t ...he Right Honourable Gentleman said h a d th a t meaning , n he (Mr. Hume) was totally unable to understand s '; l l. 3 . ge il Right Hon. Gent. did mean: He had certaiUll ue ' o de his friend, the Attorney-General, by giving him of conduct, of which few men would be willing oetent.j. lily to avail themselves. When Lord Castlereagh had i a i ;:j duced this bill, those who then constituted what was c „,% - s s the Opposition, had decried it as most objectionable. that they had assumed what was then Lord Castler. side of the House, they defended the bill, and °brae' ifs its repeal. This might be called consistent within the 118 of that House, and might pass without censure ; but ti r . 4 fact of such conduct would go before the public, who' t. form their opinions upon its nature, motives, and whew' results. The Right Hon. Gent., in his anxiety for arg Y ments to defend his cause, had stated that no man in i t : i t country was aware of the existence of such a law Witee te' just—was it magnanimous, to commit a wrong, or ores o r a right, because the public were not exactly eware the mischief? What security was there that the pub ° Would long continue in such ignorance ? Who could 1 1/ 0 how long it would be before this Statute might be po i operation? But how could the Right Hon. Gentle's:, know that the public . were OE were not ignorant of the t ot ietenee of this arbitrary and tyrannical law, except 1 1` v appeared before the House? And he would ask if the tab of that House had not groaned with petitions front e° 6 if part of the United Kingdom against the Six Acts ? fir e some people did forget one of these Acts, he could 0 ;14 the Right Hon. Gentleman that there were persons in itis country-who retained their original objections to this e l • ri , a latitude sure in all their pristine force. These people were ne t / 0 .,, significant either for numbers,- property, or intellig e ...o l3 It was not always safe for men to build upon an igni o l e t ? foUnded in the ignorance of their opponents. . The . _.7, 0 Hon. Gentleman, like many others of very high ets" b — r; moved in a circle in which he knew but little .of 04 opinion. His friends might pander—he would hardly to , to his vanity—but be was of course surrounded by th ro e who would not .be very solicitous to tell him tulwe t) s e e truths. He moved in too high a station to apprecia te :A curately the estimation in which the Six Acts were P o e in the country, and the present Act amongst the rest' b ide would now come to the three descriptive features Ig oe the Right Hon. Gentleman had given to the Statute . • '„0 first was blasphemy. Waiving any thing that was said pP be the undefinable, ever-changing nature of blaspheleP,,ito should merely state that there was not a word about phemy in the body of the Act. sin the tle. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (across 'the ta ble) There Mr. i UmE ti —The title was immaterial. Men wr:-,eDot .0 condemned upon the title of an Act, but upon whe t - contained in the body of that Act.—(Hear.) ft The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (across the table)' is in the ninth section. Mr. HUME continued. The Hon. Member, after Olt; further allusion to the.objects of this Bill, conclude d v o i d observing, that if Ministers wished to preserve the 5 0 0 opinion of the country, they should show every disr l " to render the . Press of the country as free as possible. het Mr. PEEL, in explanation, said that the Hon. gec a (Mr. Hume) had totally mistaken him. t wit Mr. T. B. LENNARD said a few words in explun a _nr which the noise in the body of the House rendered "' gether inaudible in the gallery. of Mr. CANNING explained, and read the preainut t e the Bill, in support of his assertion that one of its nhr was to - suppress blasphemous publications; ' deo Lord W. RUSSELL s a id h e mu st o pp os e the Me' 'le although with regret, as it gave a seeming contradicti on „ that which h a d b een t h e t enor . o f hi s - w h o l e lif e —Ake ° u r s ; port of public liberty in its most extended sense. /l c 7,,it not in that House when the " Six Acts" were passed , he was opposed t o th em every ono, with the exception:o, that now tinder discussion ; and th a t h e was frietiOn, t o because he felt that blasphemous publication s ought be circulated through the country. The Noble Lore „,,d -flounced &high eulogium u p on th e p a t r i ot i c sentirnent 9 ,: lo - high character of the Nobl e L or d (L or d H ow i c k) near "- The House then divided— For Mr. Hume's Motion. , 10 Against it 120 Majority against it ALE-HOUSES LICENSING BILL. On re-entering the gallery . we found by Mr. ESTCOURT o n hi s legs,.b u t the noise ow — go . the return of strangers to the gallery rendered the to Member inaudible for some time. We understood hin 7 0. say, that the variety of conflicting interests concerned r e .A dered it impossible for him to introduce the measure Whi m he propoied this Session. He .should therefore mov e , d leave to bring in. a Bill to continue for one year the . 11 ...„c".. the 3d Geo. 4, c. 77, for Licensing Beer and Ale in ft ' land, promising that he should next year introduce 113.- sure which would be found effective upon the subject' Mr. 11013110 USE; in seconding the motion, ar e96 se g § a hope that the present mode of licensing public -he : 1 1ot would be done away with. It was absurd to suppose, A shutting uronthe h m ou o ke ralty ' i nt such of an pu ane b a i r i l e y . hour would have any oe ' Mr. S. BOURNE had no objection to the motionl He bore testimony to the great and laudable exertions the Hon. Member (Mr. Estcourt), and was sure that I f matured measure should be introduced, it would be owt °6 to his labours and those of the Committee. After a conversation, in which Mr. Hume, Mr. Si 6 E le r, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Portman took a part , leave wa s gra n tad to bring in the Bill. t ° Mr. GOULBURN moved for leave to bring in n Bill make Provision for Ministers in Corporate To'. 4 to Ireland. And also for leave to bring in a f i ll . v i.. Regulate and Consolidate . the Laws respecting th e P.OO ',ion of Parishes in Ireland; and to make further 0-'ll4'l for the establishment of Perpetual CurlsCies. g o 0 After a few words from Si r J. NEWPORT, leav" The Covent t O E V Ie E ct N io T n R B Y in E w L as EC rea TIO a N se . cond time, ad 9 y riga'pegitreon GORDON thought, that the averages ° lao ordered Housemt on Thursday next. Co aßomille. then went into a Committee 00 the - . AfteraAnvd Te C. GOA ' E. remarks from Captain Forbes, Mr. Ca r ill prices of corn ought to be taken not merely from 36 1„rir only, but from the whole of the United Kingdom , e ‘ u rz " ' 1 0 1 ! ' posed, that instead•of the words "British (Engliebi f ro, the words " Corn of the United Kingdom of Great 13,r. and Ireland" should be inserted. ' , Mr. C. GRANT contended, that this would r atio.' ue taking of the averages too complicated, and would 01 1 en t 1 • tend to facilitate the commission of fraud than to pre', A ir. After some observations by Sir Edward Knatchbub;,.o. Curteis, Mr. Warburton, and Mr. Heathcote, th ti' tig h rnittee divided on the question, that the words ‘` 13f (English) Corn" stand part of the Clanse-- Ayes QS Noes Majority Thu Clause of course remains as it originally s tood. joie (Strangers were excluded for an unusually long, t .„,, during this division, owing, we understand, to a ch i t" ' sion in the Committee on tl7a following Curio The Members in the Hewn, it will be ohaelved, with tu`