The Sun. — London, England, 1834-05-16 00:00:00

to den" e proposed measttra, chit woug incie o; of parliament: He should like to Item What the 114 gallant gentleman reeanl. by ependence: If k. meant that the parliament 'snottld lie independent of the was a eanatitutional doctrine ; if df the peers, it li a 4r,°etritte still more constitutional ; bid if he Meant it s ktb sue independent of the people, it *as a doctrine most t itutional. (Cheers.) The objection, that new 124,, } : e rs would be ignorant of the forms of the house to l 4, e asily be obviated by the publieation lif e shor t. toe, Whi c h, i n d eed, would be O f t h e greitest advan tretl,,members of the existing p ar li amen t ; and so far detti n u nkingt as bad been urged, that th e f requenc y o f Lai k i -u s Would lead to great expenditure, riot, and de thatfrn, he thought it would have a tendency to correct a• • "'n---an evil which might be mat attributed IA the y,Ttneraent attendant on the present reipieney and no : such scenes. In short, he ti* no more di ffi culty i h o to arise from elections for members of parliament at iir:t intervals, than now arose fr.lin the Cie.ptign of blink +4"W* or other public ilinetionariegi He aid not see L o , t ;'€tessity for member* initiVsing on themselves a heavy 14, 8 'n of canvassing. He did not usually like to speak of did elf, but ho could safely say, that representing as he tt) ,wn containing 100,000 inhabitants, he had ne'yer Pace re d a single voter, nor had his election cost him sm ash; expense. (Hear.) He could certainly bear testi ~rdWith great pleasure, to the talent which the noble ts,„ ° PPosite had exhibited, but he must say that his ar: eaCts had not convinced him. The noble lord had tad i . :, ° ltred to draw a distinction betafeeti, public opinion but "P u lar clamour. It was easy to apply either term, when was not always so easy to distinguish the difference. Pro 4 t he people cried out for the Retorin Bill the Tories wh o "" l oced it to be an unthinking elknouri whereas those tbetoekwanted the support 01' the _people—that support by ." 5 f which they were carried into power, hailed it as t%iiexpression of an enlightened and intelligent public 7 t !. Then it was worshipped as the nix pull, vox the n ; b ut now, when the saute was turned against , it ~ezol inema s no longer taaognised as public opinion, but u •- rd - is mere popular clamour. This appeared to be t Y true distinction. (Hear, hear.) The objection legates uld tend to make members of Parliament mere Iwas, he thought, equally unavailing. s° ° • R nel DAVIES explained. t erm UNDFORD said, that if members newly en whog that house were unfit for legislation, many of those h e h 4 adbeen some time. ih it were unfit for argument, for p; gh not hberd one single convincing argument that r d against the motion of the right hon. gentleman the at ` 'Der for Lambeth. The object of the constituencies select men well acquainte . d with political subjects L i n proof of his position hem ight observe, that no par eat entertained measures of greater consequence than lia,, Se W hich came under consideration of i the re f orm par ent durin g the first session of their nexperience. ..2'..) Amongst others he might refer to the Irish re ion Bill, and to the Slavery Abolition Bill, w hi c h th -r e introd uce d whilst the member s were qu i te new to t fl it' du t i es . STANLEY—I did not move my resolutions till t Cterday twelvemonth, and after they were moved the fur e, consideration of them was for some time postponed. t i .„,. S ir D. SANDFORD—That was immaterial. They h one di cussed and passed during the first session. The that gallant gentleman, who had spoken, had proved s t - ".ne duration of the Septennial Act, made it virtually ho ne one. But though this might be the average,' e o Z of those parliaments sat out all their time, and he least say, with great confidence, that those which sat longest t, gatisfied the wants of the people. (Hear.) But, said the e i t . °o ' and gallant gentleman, if you pass a triennial bi 11 , hot !stilt will be biennial parliaments. This was certainly a a „,' e sired. Who asked for biennial parliaments? They hp--ed triennial parliaments, practically, and therefore h - wished th e legal duration to be made quadrennial, for saw no reason why they should not recognise in v, t ll , l . eiple:_what had been admitted to work well in prac kin,. (near.) It had been said that they were not pur q/,'a worse course in exciting the people by spontaneous ' o f what th ey did no t requ i re . But he, who had th an more recently into contact with his constituents tha t 'trrhaps any other member, could assure the house Were ere was' no question respecting whic h . the people oti mo re anxious, or to the sentiments of their members of th 'en they attached greater importance. , (Hear.) One tha t e topics of the noble lord's (Dalmeny s) speech was, th e Some allowance should be made for the enactment of 11,,,j'eptennial Bill, inasmuch as the change followed a th p er; revolution, when tyranny had just been banished th t ue country, and a great change had taken place in C°ndition of the people. fl'o ' 4l DALMENY—I said, We had just emerged Sirregal tyranny." 1) . SANDFORD—WeII, and have we not also er •ged from recent tyranny? erd DALMENY—I said " Regal." th "‘r D. SANDFORM-Well, what matter ? Whether e i e tyranny from which we had emerged were regal or e igarhical, made no difference; a great change had re sae„,4tlY taken place in the condition of the people, and the lia r : r eason applied for a change in the duration of par- to ti, ent '• (Hear hear.) But the noble lord had seemed arld thwth e v oice ' of the people should be disregarded, t o fr w hen they so ht what he did not think it convenient **g rant, the nobl u e g lord reversed the maxim—treated the the P° Puli as vox diaboli. Why the very instance which ) 1 , 4 noble s lord quo t e d b ore aga i ns t hi s argumen t. H e hf I, ef erred to th e great , en li g h tene d po li t i ca l measure aPatholic Emancipation. If the right honourable nber f or Tamworth were then in his seat, he would al M him as to the state of popular feeling at that th at ' The right honourable baronet brought e forward e , h , Measure with a magnanimity and that 1, 3 ":( 1 never be sufficiently praised, for at harto:noment carried t he only man in the country who could have I %; ° , ‘i The noble lord thought the tendency of this measure - "gi be to convert members of parliament too much 4 '4 tL a species of delegates. Members wished as strongly s lit " , noble lord that those who entered that house would to it as independent men—men who would be at liberty do:lercise their own judgment, and who were not bound li t ," e 4 and shackled by pledges to pursue any particular h ouse Conduct which he might find after entering that hl u t s- i, be inconsistent with the interests of the people. h t tl .. ou e g t h -u t :l, a l r o agreein . in p rinciple with the noble lord, he d '" the effeo P t po f sitio g li ti to hipi, that the bill would n members of parliament more in petrndent than u tli m ey a were before. What was it Made the t heir so jealous. they doubtful, so anxious to bind down the so jealous , but the length of the time for whi ch . of b n ' We re to be intrusted with an uncontrolled exercise tool d w er (Hear)—and what would be the feelings of towards men w h o should return to their constituents, and hi lt t h em we might have retained our power seven years, return it into your hands at the end of three ? h ° e ar.) He should support the proposition of the right 1 1 , - ,.."• Member for Lambeth to the extent to which it went, p 0 .. -- 7,rstandi ng that it did not bind him to any,speeific pro be — ft as to the duration, as he thought four years would te r Pe ferable. He urged the house and he urged minis ttitilca,srittteoriassent to this motion, for the sake of their own He assured his Majesty 's government th at agal e nst 'as a strong feeling prevailing in the coun try on theirprat**, in consequence of a supposed adhesion failed i to Tory principles, and he feared that . if they _ 0f .r ," 1 acting up • office to their professions, when 9 ° tit o"Lee , if theyde l t n e 'tied on using their influence to link this motion, they would destroy the last remaining affection that bound them to the people of this t Ai_ • ( Loud cheers. ) p a ,, i ." JAMES should vote for shortening the duration of .meats. The house had heard many propositions ; Proposed five years, some four, and the right hon. er th ree . H e b elieved no one had proposed six years. 1 0 W he should prefer six years to seven (Laughter), utit he should rr five to six, four to five, and three to f t otir. (Hear, he a r .) He was not at present inclined to go reyond that ; . but had a plan which he intended to propose committee, if the bill went so far, that one-third of the '"lnbers of this house, to be selected b ballot, should go in rotation annually. (A laugh.) t would avoid the ', 4 Ve and turmoil of a number of contested elections, and, 1,;,;"' opinion, was better than any plan which had yet -4 ProPOSed ( Hear, hear.) ALTHORP(Lord said that his noble friend b e hi n d him t 4,4 Dalmeny) had r e expres7dona hope that hon. gentle without those frequent f er _''nuld discuss this whitpees to what had pasgsueeds.lia.tely, so much in fa s hion, ary resurrection almost entitl e d them to the appellation of parliament rat men. Now he did not . mean for one mo t° deny th a t h e h a d, a t different t i mes, voted for the t aeal of the Septennial Act. (H ear .) He did not re- Zber that he had spoken on the subject, but he had r tainly so voted. He had voted thus during the con 1- D,tottice of an unreformed parliament, and he would state istinctly the grounds on which he did so. He never then eO tertained the least hope of carrying the great measure of I t 'arlia me ntary reform ; and knowing that so large a por tit., of the then member s of that house were sent there on t t' is e nomination of individuals, he thought it desirable that ~e Power of the people over those whom they did actually i.ect should be increased to the greatest possible extent. (he ar.)` l "l l He did not agree with the hon. gentleman who v,just now, that the effect of this measure, if carried, co ° old h e to diminish ' the dependence of members on their ir,°:tituents ; on the contrary, he thought it . would greatly it w e aa ase it. (Hear, hear.) . H . e_was no prof.gdto targue ---144Contrary to all the principles he independent , o do so their - : 'umbers of Parliament should be independent of but c on stituents. (Hear.) They oughtto be dependent, pendent t t lie same time he thought they should n ot mutation ede- f ° Pknio n n every . sudden and unconsidered .d o *i o n out on opinions fairly formed after due consi era - . arid deliberation. (Hear.) It appeared to him that, no lutrltoer the h fr . present duration of Parliament, therewas that he ern a a d —r in that house who did not, on every occas i o n h _ r essed them, feel that he was responsible to con kisma an r .' t s , and that his vote on every question was te ) I nfluenced by their wishes. (Hear.) It appeared to ar gue this was - a question of degree. He should not inch ' t as an historical question. He was generally more I), a - ; n ed to argue questions in relation to their practical th ah -r • i gs and utility at the time they were brought forward, Np,a; MPlieitly to follow historical examples. (Hear.) It hest r ot sufficient to prove that at any former period of our ri g h - t r iy Y o S r epte wr nnial Parliaments were established either ongly ; the question was, would it now be advantageous to resort to Triennial Parliaments or not ? He was of opinion on the whole, judging from-the feeling ' and conduct of Parliament, that at, the tiregent momentthe influence of the conitittien4 in that house Was as great as Wa'S degni-able ftir eirrYing cri the gdernitletit of thb country. (Hear, hear, from the opposition, and counter cheers.) He knew very well that gentlemen who were in the habit of voting in a minority in that house never thought that to be the case. It w,as a ,nattiral inference. (A laugh.) Gehtleitten *lto found the decision of the holise directly against their opinions, were no doubt apt to,think that the house decided against the opinion of the people at large. It was possible that on some indiiidnalquestionS the Douse might decide agaOst the OpitilObS Of the people ; the ijttecttotl was. the all the circtirpstances of those ques- , tibils into consideration, the decision of the house was not such as should ;avoura - bie opinion of the public, and such its was likely , ultimately to obtain it? He was aware that Sti c h 4 mode of grgitinefit bright pcisslblybe • ; but he did not believe that the people of tug= land generally wished the members of that house to act as their delegates, bnt that they placed considerable reliance on the opinions of those whom they had selected as most worthy of ,their confidence, and desired them to act ho neatly on their o*n judgment., (Hear:) It certainly was the wish of the people of England to select those persons with whose opinions the agreed, but if they coincided vyith the gtinefal principles Of the candidate, he believed they Were perfectly ready to trust to his discretion in matters of detail. It did not then appear to him that there was anything peettlier, to the present time which j made it deiiritble to diSetiss the question. The hthi. mem• her fur Paisley statedi In answer to an observation of his noble friend's (Lord Dalmeny), viz.—" that the Septen nial Bill was passed immediately after our emancipation , from regal despotism"—that we had now but just been emancipated from oligarchical despotism, He certainly Might fairly be supposed to estimate the benefits of the Reform Bill as highly as any one, but he would not go so ' far as to say_ that we had emerged from a state of des potism. Though we had emerged from a state of oligar chical influence, greatly mischievous to the country, yet he could not describe it as a despotism, nor compare it to what occurred during the time of Charles 11. and James 11. (Hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman (Sir D. Sand ford) had proposed to come back to what had by practical ' experience been shown to be the actual and usual dura tion of Parliaments, and to make the legal duration corre spond with the actual average. The house must be surely aware of the fallacy of that argument, for if the legal dura tion of Parliaments were three years, the actual duration must necessarily be much less. Sir D. SANDFORD—I propose that the legal duration should be four years. Lord ALTHORP—Granting even that it were made four, it did not by any means follow, that because the ave rage duration of septennial Parliaments was three years, therefore the average duration of quadrennial Parliaments would be the same. He would not disguise from the house that the effect of the Septennial Bill had been to increase the influence of the Crown. ( Hear.) One rea son why the duration of Parliaments had been shorter than the law permitted had been, that the governments had taken advantage, as had been truly stated, of the pe riod when it was most convenient to dissolve with the greatest prospect of advantage to themselves. The real question before the house was, whether, in the present state of the country, the popular voice had not sufficient influence in that house, or whether the influence of the Crown there was too great. His opinion, from every thing that he had seen was, that neither of these contin gencies was likely to occur. The gallant colonel stated, in rather exaggerated terms, that the frequency of elec tions would lead to great interruptions in the business of the house. To a certain extent that would undoubtedly be the case. At the end of the last session of Parliament, although it had not been denied that there had been great interruption in the proceedings of the house, yet much bu siness had been done ; and if in the present session the va rious propositions brought forward should be carried into effect, it would be impossible to complain that little or no business had been done. He allowed, that in the last session there had been a greater interruption of public business than there ought to have been ; but it was consonant to his experience that such was generally the case in the first session of every parliament. Gentlemen came into the house unacquainted with the forms of par liament, and in their haste diligently to perform their new functions, gave notice of a greater multitude of motions, which were, perhaps, not necessary for the public service. There had been less delay from that cause in the present session of parliament. His argument was this, that although, when the powers of the Crown were as great as they were before the passing of the Reform Bill, and the people did not in fact elect their representatives, it might be desirable to give additional power to the people ; yet now that the people did elect their representatives, the power which the people formed was quite sufficient under the Septennial Bill. Thyse hon. members who thought that the opinion of the people on every question considered in that house ought to be immediately resorted to, ought, if they supported any change at all, to support annual par liaments! for the question of whether the parliament, in- ' stead of continuing seven years, should continue only five, or four, or three years, was merely a question of degree ; and, in his opinion, those who thought with him that the members of that house ought to act according to their de- - liberate judgment, and not front any sudden or immediate impulse out of doors, had heard nothing to prove that seven years was too long a period for the duration of parliament. On these grounds, he should object to the proposition of the hon. member for Lambeth. Mr. O'CONNELL, in answer to the last argument of the noble lord, would beg to ask whether the members of that house came there to do their own business, or to do the business of the people ? Whether they came there to do what they themselves wished to do, or to do what the people wished them to do ? In his opinion, it was to treat the people with contempt to talk of the necessity, on the part of that house, of guarding against the follies and weaknesses of the people. What interest could the great mass of the nation have in desiring anything that was not calculated to promote the public good ? Particular con stituencies might have prejudiced and partial views ; but the great aggregate of the constituencies of the country could have no object but the public good. Was that exactly the case in that house? Was it not possible that in that house private interests might occasionally militate against the public good ? Did no personal advantage ever result from voting with the treasury bench ? Had government no colonies for young lords—no ships for captains—no regiments for colonels—no official situations for lawyers or attorneys ? (Hear, hear.) Why, the present government had more extensive patronage than any of their predeces sors. Was there not the patronage resulting from the col lection of nearly fifty millions of revenue ? Was it not said the other evening, that no fewer than one hundred and five public officers had been sent out to Canada? Surely those gentlemen had not been chosen by chance, except perhaps it was the lucky chance of being in a majority with his Majesty's ministers. Government had the patronage of England, of Scotland, of Ireland, and of the East and West Indies. Under those circumstances, was there in the duration of parliament for seven years a sufficient security for the honesty and independence of the members of whom it was composed? Yet who could deny that the people had a right to possess a control over that house ; for it was the house of the people ? The members of that house were trustees for the people ; and the objection to their remaining too long in their office was, that, like other trustees, they might be apt to fall into the error of think ing that the property placed in their hands was their own. (A laugh.) Would any hon. member think of appointing a steward or a land agent irrevocably for seven years ? Would he appoint such a person for any longer period than that which would enable him to judge of his integrity and capacity ? Seven years was too long a period for the du ration of parliament. Even three years was too long, but he preferred that period to one year, because it had a pre cedent in those good times to which it was desirable to return. There was one more consideration which ren dered him adverse to the duration of parliament for seven years. In seven years seven generations passed away; and in seven years seven generations arrived at that period of life which entitled them to exercise the elective fran chise. By extending the duration of parliament to seven years, therefore, they excluded for much too long a period a number of young and healthy persons, of generous and ardent minds, from the exercise of rights to which they were justly entitled. But the greatest of all the objections which he entertained against Septennial Parliaments was that which he had already stated, namely, that the mem bers of that house were the trustees of the people ; and every bod, knew that "short accounts made long friends." Mr. 0 REILLY entirely dissented from the doctrine of the hon. an d learned member for Dublin. He contended that the members of that house were the free and inde pendent representative s of the people, and that they ought not to be treated as attorneys or present system, annual par liaments were substituted for thethe mem bers of that house would consist either of persons ' of im mense property, who would buy the votes of their consti tuents, or persons of no property, who would pander to the prejudices and passions of the people. Mr. ROCHE supported the motion. Mr. SHEIL contended that the admission made by the noble lord, that he voted for abrid g in g th e duration of P . ar liaments before the passing of the Reform Bill, was in fa vour of the motion of the hon. member for Lambeth. For what change had the Reform Bill made which should induce the noble lord, and those who formerly supported the abridgment of parliaments, to change their minds and op • - pose it? The noble lord said, that it was because the in fluence of the crown and the aristocracy had been dimi nished, and because the influence of the people had been increased. Was that true? Had the influence of the aristocracy been substantially diminished? During the de bates on the Reform Bill they had been told by the oppo nents of the measure that its tendency would be to augment the influence of the aristocracy ; and recent events had gone far to prove that such was actually the case. And had the influence of the crown been diminished? Why the acts passed by the present parliament absolutely spawned with placemen. He did not charge his Majesty's present Ministers with em ploying the influence created in an unfair manner ; but the influence had been created nevertheless. Instead of going into any abstractions, the best way was to ask the ques tion, whether the present parliament ought to last seven years ? What had it done? It had renewed the Bank Charter ; it had passed the West India Bill, and the East India Bill ; and it was considering the Poor Law Bill, and the Local Courts Bill. But had it no account to settle with the people . ? How many members of that house owed their seats to ,the dissenting interest? ,If the claims of the dis setiterS had been neglected, thOlt not those members to j be sent back to receive the uugiaill tlf tliost by Opin they had been constituted ? If they repudiated the ciaimi of the dissenters, and then remained in parliament for five years longer, would not the raisions of the people be in erea.4eds wotdd ncit their resentment be embitt , r during that IT* period? hot the Pielifilgl,o,, the, eountry be in a much.more eiasPerited,Statesin WA than in i Wh a t t asked was tq go pack to the principles declared the nrettinble of the bill nitrdcluced by, the great Lord Somers. He was utterly it to understand t ex traordinary metamorphosis which his Majesty's ters had undergone on the subject of reform. Their efforts to obtain a reformed parliament had been ITy and determined ; but now that they had ob • tinned tinn it; grid tVat they were urged to Ifo on, they shrunk from the proposition of the hen; rneirib'ef for Lambeth. His Majesty's Ministers ought to know that the public opinion was very decided on this question. His Majesty's Ministers ought also to know that there was a great change in public opinion with respect to themselves, and that the confidence which the people had formerly reposed in them *is materially diminished, Was that denied ? Look at Dudley, and at the other distinct indications of that dimi nution. Did they suppose that the way to remedy the evil, and to diminish the distrust which the people began to entertain with respect to them, was to oppose such a proposition as that under consideration? Mr. Secretary STANLEY observed, that the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, had told them that the public feeling had undergone a great and substantial change on the subject of the duration of Parliaments. He (Mr. Stanley) had, however, yet to learn, either from outward indications or from the nature of the attendance in the house that evening, that such was the case; When the lion. member for Lambeth brought forward a similar pro position last year, there were what might be called a con siderable number of petitions on the table, praying that the duration of Parliament might be shortened; but, in the present year, when the hon. and learned mem•• ber for Tipperary . asserted that a great change had taken place in the opinions of the people, and that Parlia ment and Government had lost the confidence of the people, there was, neither for quinquennial, nor for quadrennial, nor for triennial, nor for biennial, nor for annual, nor for (what the hon. and learned member for Dublin would recommend) sixmonths' Parliaments, a single petition, or scarcely more than a single petition, before the house. Before the hon. member for Lambeth could ex pect his proposition to be supported, he must show that there was a great practical evil to be remedied—that ordi nary remedies had been tried and failed, and that some thing new must, therefore, be resorted to. The hon. gentleman thought of returning to the spirit of the consti tution by going back to triennial parliaments. Now, never was any argument so futile, or so contradicted by facts, as that triennial parliaments were the constitution of the country. How long did that constitution last ? Ac cording, even to the hon. member for Lambeth, twenty two years ; and was that which lasted only 22 years to be considered the constitution of the country ? He (Mr. Stanley) was not contending that the parliament of 1716 was either right or wrong in extending the duration of parliament to seven years. It was a period of great ur gency ; and the same right that warranted previous par liaments in saying that the duration of parliament should be three years, warranted the parliament of 1716 in saying that the duration of parliament should be seven years. The fact was, that it was no more the constitution that the duration of parliament should be three years, than it was that the duration of parliament should be seven years. Hon. gentlemen talked of the advantages of triennial par liaments, and dwelt upon the expediency of not adjourning the operation of the complaints and remonstrances of the people upon their representatives for a longer period. But the hon. member for Lambeth had taken great pains to show, that during the hundred and twenty years of the exis:ence of septennial parliaments, the average duration of parliaments had actually not exceeded three years. (Hear, hear.) By the constitution, as understood in former times, the duration of a parliament might be as long as the life of a King. In the reign of Charles 11., a parliament had actually continued for sixteen or seventeen years. Yet, because since the passing of the Septennial Act the average duration of parliaments had been only three years, the hon. member for Lambeth, contending that that was the constitution, made the motion that was now before the house. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had asked whether any man would give his agent a power of attorney for seven years? Certainly not. No man in his senses would give his agent a power of attorney for a single year. But the members of that house received no powers of attorney. They did not sit there as the dele gates of the people. The day had not yet come when they were to be termed legislative attorneys. The hon. and learned gentleman had asked if the members of that house were wiser than their constituents? He (Mr. Stanley) did not know. Some of them, he feared, were not so. (A laugh.) But the true reading of the consti tution was, that such persons ought to be sent to that house as the people thought could be most safely trusted with their interests—interests which would be equally be -trayed by yielding to corruption, as by courting the fleeting popularity that might attend flattering prejudices and pas sions of the people. (Hear hear,) Having selected a man possessed of character, possessed of knowledge, pos sessed of experience, a wise constituency would say to him, " Go to the House of Commons, and watch the great inte rests of the state ; go, not as our delegate, nor restricted to the consideration of our immediate interests or our immediate opinions ; but go as one of the general body of national representatives, to deliberate with independence, and to advocate those measures which may appear to you to be essential to the welfare of the country at large." (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member for Tipperary said if the dissenters were treated with neglect—he would not say with disdain— when hon. members returned to their constituents they would in vain try to be sent again to that house, and he had drawn from this what he supposed was meant as an argument in favour of the question then before the house. Now he would accept the challenge—he would enter the arena with the hon. and learned gentleman, and he would say that he (Mr. Sheil) had singled out an instance which, more than any other, put at issue the system on which the hon. and learned gentleman acted, and which lie (Mr. Stanley) was disposed to reject. No one, he de clared, held in higher respect than he did the great, ta lented, and influential body comprised under the name of Dissenters—he had the honour of having the support of a great number of them at the last election ; but this did not hinder him from saying that if hon. members came there for anything, they did not come to canvass one particular subject ; and that in any subject which they did canvass they must always act with regard to particular feelings or prejudices, but for the safety of the state, and the general government of the empire. They were bound to consider whether the demands of the Dissenters were just and con sistent with reason, and whether they could be concededeven on the ground of expediency. He would say that if parlia ment were liable to be dissolved, and hon. members to be sent back to their constituents in the first heat of disap pointment—even though they had voted from the purest motives, and so as ultimately to be of benefit to all—still keeping the case of the Dissenters in view, great evil might result to the best interests of the country. What were the circumstances connected with the Triennial and the Septennial Acts? In 1734, just one hundred years from the period at which they were speaking, Sir W. Wyndnam —perhaps speaking from the very place which was now more ably filled by the honourable member for Lambeth (A laugh), declared, as had been declared that evening, that public confidence was sinking—that the power of the crown was increasing—that placemen were multiplied— and that the House of Commons was so inundated with naval and military men, that it might be called the officers' parliament—and that, therefore, it was absolutely necessary to repeal the Septennial Act. But he would ask, was there any comparison whatever between the pre sent period and the one referred to, when it was, in fact, acknowledged that votes were as much the objects of sale and barter as any commodity brought to the market ; and when the object was, by diminishing the duration of par liaments, to make a bribe not worth a man's acceptance? (Hear.) But was there anything of this kind in the present day? Certainly not. But it appeared they were none of them prepared to say how long parliaments were to last, though many agreed they should not last so long. One was for quinquennial ; another, triennial; and another (Mr. O'Connell) for annual, or, he dared to say, for six months' parliaments. The hon. and learned gentleman (Sir D. K. Sandford), who had just taken his seat, said there was nothing like a first year, and this certainly was natural enough with him, under all the circumstances (A laugh), that the glow of generous feeling was not then off —that the fresh feeling of the hustings still prevailed, and his opinion 'was in favour of quadrennial parliaments ; and then another was all for triennial parliaments, where the first year would be all fresh and fervent, and in the last would be revived the patriotic enthusiasm inseparably con nected with the hustings. Why, it was on that very ground —it was for that very reason, that he objected to the proposi tion before the house—satisfied that with such an influence constantly working on his feelings, however conscientiously disposed, he could not perform his duties usefully to his country. (Hear.) To this immediate influence it was that he mainly objected. Indeed so strong were his objections to the different periods proposed, that he really thought, if lengthstc e a t tnh n ta ge thth aat t t h ere they n orne ewn,i would dd be, he have acting h a s nnun o u ul aid d erpa p p r e e rlrp f i e a r emt t ue o aint g sc. o om th psu e eies f iin u og l n l e m p i r e e a ju ch di i e n e d s i o v f id t u h a e l ir qu c e o s n ti s o t n itu th en e t y s_ wo t u h l a d t have t o w c o o u ld be the organs of public reason_thatparty they m e y e en, o ai t i a d d n o b t e t h a m e e r n ep a r b e l e s e t n o ta po t i v p e u s l a r o f will before the good or evil results of any measure could be fairly ascertained—th a t it wou ld be impossible to carry on the business of the country without constant risk of collision between that house and other branches of the constitution—that the monarchy itself would be endangered —he could not bring himself to consent to any alteration of the Septennial Act. Mr. M. D. HILL (amidst loud cries of " Question," . and continued confusion) believed the prognostics of the right hon. gentleman would prove to be wholly unfounded, and that the repeal of the existing law would tend rather . , to strengthen than to weaken the foundation of the consti. tution. As to the assertion that if the law were changed members would be constantly Voting under a sort of com pulsory influence, and would be alw'ays in diead of their constituents, he must express his opinion tlat those who Tade it could have but a very sorry opinion of the candour of fair dealing, of their fellow-countrymen. How many members Of thii*iir their voted against the ex pressed w i s h es o f their constnents t anti after explaining their conduct, though perhaps it might nol be fully ap proved of, had yet received the fullest credit for the ill ' #'egtitY of their motives, and been cheerfully returned again pi that !louse, Hear- ) Mr. E: L. BtiLWER (Midst great uproar) was un girst,o9l to . declare; that throlightkit the whole of the ram titieeeti of We right,hot. Secretary for the Colonies, he hadnot heard tiii.4; s'ertielice Click contained anything approaching to an argument. Lord EBRINGTON would oppose the nicitidiu carrying the great measure of reform, many fears had been expressed that it would be only a stepping-stone to other Mettsttres, which it was said would be pregnant with the greatest 146.14,trat think so. He gave the measure his full es t support, and lie rejoiced when it had been suc cessfully carried. He had since met mss coliOtittient.,, and he had candidly told them he could not support the present bill, and they had nevertheless returned him. He felt it his duty, therefore, to oppose it. Sir WILLIAM CHAYTOR supported the motion. He would vote for five or three years' continuance of parliaments: Lord JOHN RVSSELL said there was no question of the duration of parliament before the house. The time ought to be determined before the proposition was intro duced. Was it for five years or less? He hoped the hon. gentleman would state distinctly the precise period to which he would limit the sittings of the house. Was it a trien n i a l par li ament h e soug h t ? Did he require that the Crown should dissolve the parliament after it had sat for such a definite period? The present parliament had sat for two years ; it had settled some most important questions, and others of equal moment were then under considera tion. It had obtained much experience, and would the hon. gentleman then call upon the executive to put an end . to its further deliberations, and at a period when the expe rience he spoke of might be most usefully and beneficially exercised ? He considered the question, if carried, would be a most pernicious one, and he called upon the hon. gen tleman to state it fairly, and required him the more par ticularly to do so, that they might at once determine whether they were to have a parliament for one or six years. Colonel EVANS rose, amidst loud cries of " Ques tion." He would not detain the house many minutes. He could not avoid expressing his surprise at the attempt made to commit the house to the statements of the right hon. gentleman who had introduced the motion. He (Colonel Evans) would vote according to the forms of the house, and not according to the speech of the right hon. gentleman. The attempt, he would assert, was only made because nothing bett er could be urged. Indeed the efforts made to mystify the subject were extraordinary. It was unworthy the candour and dignity which should distin guish the conduct of those whci were opposed to the mo lion. The question was really to limit the duration of Parliaments, and not confined to any particular years. Ought seven years to be the proper duration for the great and important trust of legislation ? That was the actual question, and to that question alone he hoped honourable gentlemen would confine their attention. Allusion had been made to the proceedings of the last two years. True, Parliament had done much within those years ; first, they had passed the Coercion Bill (Hear), secondly, they had voted twenty or thirty millions of the public money to the masters of slaves, and they were then entertaining a pro position to deprive the country of all local or parochial go vernment—to place an annual expenditure of seven mil lions in the hands of his Majesty's government. He would ask, after such a course of proceedings, how many of those who supported ministers could hope to successfully meet their constituents when the day of future election came ? Mr. TENNYSON replied. The motion he had made was the same as had been introduced some twelve years before. He merely_ asked leave to bring in a bill to shorten the duration of parliament, leaving hon. gentle men at liberty to fix the time when the functions of the house would expire. The question was whether seven years were too long, not whether three years were too short. Those gentlemen who voted with him would re cord by their votes that septennial parliaments were, in their opinions, injurious to the public interests, and those who voted against him would declare they were not. If the bill went into committee, he (Mr. Tennyson) would propose a clause to limit the duration for three years ; but that was the question for the committee, and the noble lord, with great experience and admirable tactics, would not commit him further. The hon. gentleman then pro ceeded to calculate the average existence of the last twenty-two parliaments, which, he contended, extended to six years. After some further remarks, he said he re gretted the apathy of the people on the subject. (Hear, hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen might cheer him. He well understood the meaning of such cheers ; but he would contend it was a bad sign of the times when the people looked with indifference on what was going forward in parliament. Mr. STANLEY (Cheshire) would only detain the house while he moved an amendment, that the duration of parliament be limited to five years. He did so that hon. gentlemen might know what they were voting for. The gallery was then cleared for a division, the amend ment was withdrawn, and the house divided, when there appeared— For the original motion lB5 Against it Majority against the motion... —5O Mr. EWART postponed his motion with reference to the Royal Academy till next session. Mr. JERVIS obtained leave to bring in a bill to regu late the admission of freemen in municipal corporations. Mr. E. COOPER obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend an Act passed in the 59th Geo. 111., so far as it relates to the hearing of appeals at Quarter Sessions in Ireland. Mr. HALCOMB moved for a select committee to in quire into the present state of the harbours on the coast of Kent and Sussex ; and particularly upon the best means of preventing the accumulation of beach at their entrance, and to suggest such improvements as may be deemed ne cessary or desirable for affording greater safety to the ship ping of the country. If it were not for the formation of the shingle bars at the entrance of these harbours, instead of there being only one harbour, Ramsgate, being open for the shipping to fly to, there would be eight. The expense of the inquiry would be very trifling. The motion being put, Sir J. GRAHAM altogether objected to this very ex traordinary motion, and he would frankly state that his rea son for doing so was his belief that the only object was to induce a great outlay of public money, by sending down surveyors to examine the different harbours on the coast, which survey was quite unnecessary. Mr. G. F. YOUNG agreed with the right hon. baro net that this was a most extraordinary motion, and therefore he should strongly oppose it. Sir T. TROUBRIDGE supported the motion. A MEMBER said, it was too much to expect the house to give up its time to such an inquiry. M r . STRICKLAND hoped the house would not grant the inquiry. He was connected with harbours in the north which were equally entitled to the consideration of this house. Mr. HUTT objected to the waste of the time of the house that this motion would occasion. After a few words from Mr. MURRAY, Sir E. KNATCHBULL said, if the motion had been more specific, he would have supported it, but, under the circumstances, he recommended its withdrawal. ,•• Mr. HALCOMB, in his reply, did not want the public money for these harbours. The house then divided, when there appeared— For the motion 0 Against it Majority against the motion —B6 REVISING BARRISTERS. Mr. TOOKE moved that there be laid before the house the substance of the observations communicated to govern ment by the several revising barristers, under the English Reform Act, containing the result of their experience in the performance of their duty, and their suggestions for improving the working details of that act. The motion having been put by the SPEAKER, Lord ALTHORP said, that these communications were m ade to government as private communications, and it would be establishing a bad precedent, he thought, to lay them on the table of the house. The effect of such a course would be to deprive government of the advantage of receiving confidential communications to assist them in their deliberations. Mr. AGLION—R y wished the information was granted. Mr. HUTT desired to ask the noble lord, whether his Majesty's government intended to introduce, this session, any measure for the amendment of the Reform Act ? Lord ALTHORP was understood to reply in the affir mative.__ S thought that the motion had much better be withdrawn. WhHmAdwnE. Mr. TOOKE then obtained leave to withdraw his motion, which he did. Mr. MAXWELL, after some observations respecting the distressed state of the hand-loom weavers, in Glasgow, moved for a select committee toinquire into their condition. Mr. JAMES seconded the motion. Mr. POULETT THOMSON assured the house that none could feel a greater regret for the situation of the poor people than he did ; but he thought it would be ex tremely unwise and improper to consent to the appoint ment of a committee. It would be only leading to hopes on their part which could not be realized. The effect of the motion of the hon. member would also be the forma tion of local Boards of Trade, which would be most inju rious. But besides these objections to the motion, the late period of the session constituted another. Before the ne cessary witnesses could be got up from Glasgow, and the committee be ready to proceed with the inquiry, the ses sion would be so far over' that inquiry could only be just commenced. If it were early in the session, he thought it ould have been desirable to take up the subject, in con- , . neetion with a general inquiry into' the state ot . wages 6( operatives throughout the country: Mr": WARBURTON did not think a subjc.,ct of this nature might to be discussed with such a house (there N:vere.not fifty members present), and therefore he tiought the debate should be adjourned. CBloiter TORRENS' wished to ask the right hon. gen tleman whether he as to understand, from what he had just said, that the golernmetit had resolved on insfitufng, early next session, a general inquiry into the state of the wages of operatives throughout the country? I': THOMSON wished the gallant colonel and the house to uncie'rstand, that he gave no pledge on the part of government on the siitie/It. He had merely expressed his own individual opinion as tet the desirableness of such an inquiry. Mr. GILLON said, that as not only the cdtafcrt, but eVelte tile very existence of these poor people, might lie etid fo,depehd on this question, it surely was not too much to /sic fOt ihe*.appointinent of another day for the discussion of the subject/ Strangers were tiled ordered. to withdraw, but no divi sion took place ; an arrangement having taken place among the hon. members, that the debate should he adjourned• till Thursday next. The debate on the Baron de Bode's bill was adjourned until Thursday after the recess. The other orders of the day Were them disposed of, and the house adjourned at a quarter to tWo: LIST OF flit MINORITY Of 187 (Tellers included) who voted against Mr. Tenny son's Motion, for leave to bring in a Bill to shorten the duration of Parliaments Ayes Noes Abercromby, Right Hon. J. Adams, E. H. Adam, Admiral C. Aglionby, H. A. Attwood, T. Baillic, J. E. Baines, E. Baldwin, Dr. Barnett, C. J. Barron, H. W. Barry, J. S. Barnard, E. G. Bannerman, A. Beauclerk, Major Bellew, It. M. Bewes, T. Bish. T. Blackburne, J. Blake, J. M. Blunt, Sir C. Briscoe, J. I. Briggs, R. Bowes, J. Brocklehurst, J. Bouveric, Captain Ilrowne, J. Brothertal, J. Butler, Hon. P. S. Bulwer, E. L. Buckingham. J. S. Cayley, Sir G. Chaytor, Sir W. Clay, W. Collier, J. Dashwood, G. H. Denison, W. J. Divot, E. Dobbin, L. Dundas, Captain Dunlop, J. Dykes, F. L. Ellis, W. Etwall, R. Evans, Colonel Evans, G. Ewart, W. Ewing, J. Faithfull, G. Fielden, J. Fellowes, H. A. Fenton, J. Fergusson, Sir Ron. Fergusson,•G. Finn, W. F. Fitzsimon, C. Fleetwood, 11. Fryer, R. Gillon, W. D. Gaskell, D. Grote, G. Guest, J. Gully, J. Hall, B. Handley, B. Handley, H. Hawes, B. Hawkins, J. H. Harvey, D. W. Hay, Colonel L. 187 237 Hill, M. D. Hodgson, J. Hodges, 'l'. L. Hornby, E. O. Hughes, Hurst, R. H. Humphery, J. Hutt, W. Ingham, R. Ingilby, Sir W. James, W. Jervis, J. Kennedy, J. King, E. B. Lalor, P. Lambert, H. Lambton, H. Leech, J Lefevre, C. S. Lister, E. C. Locke, W. Lloyd, J. H. Lushington, Dr. Madocks, J. 'Marjoribanks, S. Marshall, J. Marsland, T. Maxwell, J. Methuen, P. Molesworth, Sir W. Morrison, J . Mullins, F. W. Nagle, Sir R. O'Brien, C. O'Connell, C. O'Connell, D. O'Connell, Morgan O'Connell, Morgan O'Connor Oun Oliphant, L. Oswald, R. Oswald, J. Palmer, C. F. Palmer, General Parker, J. Parker, Sir H. Parnell, Sir H. Parrott, J. l'endarves, E. W. Penlease, J. S. Philips, M. Plumptre, J. P. Potter, R. Pryme, G. l'ryse, P. Richards, J. Ritter, 'l'. Rippon, C. Robinson, G. R. Roche, D. Roche, W. Roebuck, J. A. Romilly, E. Romilly, J. Ross, H. Rotell, B. Russell, Lord Russell, Lord C. Ruthven, E. }Majority, 50. Ruthven, if. S. Sandford, Sir 11. K. Sanford, E. A. Scrope, P. Scale, Colonel Bcholefield, J. Shawe, R. N. Sharpe, General Shelf, R, L Simeon, Sir R. G, Sinclair, G. Stanley, E. G. S. Stanley, H. T. Staunton, Sir G. T. Staveley, T. K. Stewart, Sir M. S. Stuart, Lord J. Strickland, Sir G. Strutt, Sullivan, R. Tancred, H. W. 'Talbot, J. H. Thicknesse, R. Todd, J. R. Tooke, W. Torrens, Colonel Trelawney, W. L. S. Turner, W. Tynte, C. J. K. Vernon, G. Vigors, N. A. Vincent, Sir F. Walker, C. A. Wallace, R. Walter, J. Ward, H. G. Warburton, H. Wason, R. Whalley, Sir S. Wigney, I. N. Wilks, J. Wilbraham, G. Wood, Alderman TELLERS. Tennyson, C. Codrington, Sir E. PAIRED OFF. FOR. Bainbridge, E. T. Beaumont, T. W, Chapman, M. L. I)awson, E. Fort, J. Godson, 1; -------, O'kerrall, R. M. Poultcr, J. S. Williams, Col. AGAINST. lle!den, J. 'North, F. ream, Joseph Rice, T. S. Sanderson, It. 'Shaw, F. LOOM) OUT. Callaghan, D. Sandon, Lord OF THE MINORITY LIST Of 62 (Teller included) who, at two o'clock in the morn ing of the 15th inst., voted against Sir M. W. Ridley's Amendment, " That the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Religious Assemblies Bill on this day six months." Attwood, T. Baines, E. Baring, F. T. Benett, John Berkeley, C. F. Bernal, R. Blackstone, W. S. Blake, M. Brotherton, J. Browne, D. Ca lender, J. H. Childers, J. W. Curteis, H. B. Dashwood, G. H. Ewart, W. Finch, G. , Fleetwood,' H. Forster. C. Grant,RiyhtHon.R. Grant, Right Hon. C. Oreg, Colonel Greene, T. 0. Hawes, B. Heathcoat, J. Howard, Captain How tea, Lord Hughes, H. Hutt, W. Hyett, W. 11. Ingham, R. .lervis, J. Lennard, T. B. Lloyd, J. H. Maberly, J. Martin, J. Morpeth, Viscount O'Dwyer, A. C. Parker, J. Parrott, J. Pease, Joseph Pelham, C. A. \V. Plumptrc. J. P. Poulter, J. S. Pryme, G. Rolfe, J. M. Ross, H. Rich, B. K S. 'Shen, R. L. Sincliir, G. Stewart, P. M. Strickland, Sir G, Verney, Sir H. Vignrs, N. A. Wallace, R. Walter, J. Wdrbur . ton, Wood, G. W. TELLERS. Hardy. J Aglionby, H. A POLICE INTELLIGENCE. bUNGARVAN ELEC . (Fiona. the Cork Southern Beportc Yesterday halving been appointed for r !presentative its Parliament for this loitcame crowded at an early hour, and ver merit existed during the day, We have been - disapprollik, at not receiving a report of the proceedings ; hut we unt derstand that trie polling, which did not commence until nearly three o'clock, was kept up until the close of the day srith much briskness and activity—the friends of the candi ,tafes- using every effort to place their respective interests the foreground. The repeal force, it would appear, preponderated, as, at the announcement at the close of the 11.*1 day's polling, the numbers stood thus :--- Jacoh Barron 21ajority for Jacob —B JOHN AFFAIR OF HONOUR. . 65 'ILLET litiThE'S COR;;,_RSPONDE NCE WI7 11 BRIGADIER-0 ET4ISIKA L BA Co.Y. (Duplicate.---Private.) No. 1. Palace of Necessidadeg, April 24, fBa4.- My de' General—Having ever throogh life endea ...pored to follow the sacred maxim inculcated to as by our ;.;atechisrif, "to do unto all men as I would they should do anto me," aM feeling confident that, under similar cir cumstances, yott would act in the like manner, I think I should not perform the friendly part of a colleague did I not make you aware of certain reports injurious to your reputation as an o ffi cer and g gentleman, which have been going the rounds for some time in Lisbon, and to give you the opportunity of rebutting these charges and punishing the authors of such vile reports. I send you the enclosed. which will enable you to adopt the measures you may deem most advisable. Though marked private, you are, of course, permitted to make what use you General, of this letter.—l have the honour to be, my dear General, yours very truly, J. M. DOYLE, .Major-Oeneral. To Brigadier- General Bacon. (Duplicate.) No. 4 2. YRIVATE 31E31. FOR BRIGADIER-GEN. BACON . , 1(.1.5. It has been reported by various persons that after the battle of Vallonga, where some of the Lancers under General Bacon's command took a quantity of plate, money„ jewels, and various articles worth a considerable sum, General Bacon directed all those valuables to be taken and deposited in his quarters, he stating at the same time to his men that he should have all these articles odd and the valoe divided amongst the captors. It is now saidthat instead of doing this General Bacon appropriated nearly the whole to his own use, and gave but a very small por tion to two individuals of the corps. General Bacon is further reported to have appropriated several sums of money, received from the Government for the use and payment of the men of the Queen's Lancers, to his own private use ; and also to have permitted one or two of his officers to do the same. General B. is also reported to have authorised and permitted the sale and exchange of several English horses belonging to the Government for Portuguese horses, without the knowledge or sanction of her Most Faithful Majestpc Government. Whenever Brigadier-General Bacon desires it the undersigned will give further particulars, as well as the names of the parties who have taken the libert y of speaking of General Bacon in this manner. The undersigned authorizes General Bacon to make whatever use he thinks proper of this pri vate memorandum. J. M. DOYLE, Mar-General and A. D. c. to his Imperial Majesty the Regent. (Private.) No. 3. Palace of Necessidades, April 27, 1834, 2 P.M. My dear General,—Having this instant been in formed of your arrival. in this city, and not having heard from you, in answer to a letter which I wrote and for warded you to Cartaxo, on the 24th instant, I feel I should not be acting right were I not instantly to forward you the enclosed copy of it.—Believe me to be, my dear General, yours, very truly, J. N. DOYLE, Major-General. To Brigadier-General Bacon, K. T. S., &c. General Bacon answered this letter on Sunday morning, the 27th of April, thanking Sir John for the information, stating that this Vallongs story was not true, and request ing him to give up his authority. This letter, without date or post-mark, was delivered in the evening of the 30th by the postman, in presence of two witnesses, who attested the circumstance, as well as the letter-carrier. General Bacon, not receiving any answer, sent on Monday, the 23th, a note to Sir John, of which Captain Wakefield was the bearer, to call Sir John to an account, as the author of these reports. (Answer.) No. 4. April 28, 1834. Sir,—l have this moment received your letter of this day's date ; and, though expressed in rather ambiguous terms, I might possibly be led to conjecture its construction, yet permit me to say, you must excuse me from having any personal conference with you, Captain Wakefield, or any other friend on your behalf ; but at a future period I shall be prepared to be your obedient servant at your command. ( Signed) J. M. DOYLE. To Brigadier-General Bacon. This letter Sir John asserts to have been dictated by Lieut.-Col. Williams. It gave rise to the following : NO. 5. Alcantara, April :18, 1834. You are a dirty, cowardly, backbiting, infamous scoun drel ; and if you dare retrieve your lost character, you will make your appointment with Captain Wakefield to - morrow morning at nine o'clock ; if not, I shall not write to you to consider yourself horsewhipped, but I will apply the end to the most vulnerable part of your disgraceful and dishon ourable person. (Signed) A. BACON. To Sir John M. Doyle. ( 1 20 4 per r, „: 7 A t __,__ :sen , ~, _.::4,.., - ;-,, - v ~,. ,► .....1 . 'iat -. r bor ' , - 11° - 4 '-__ 4% : 4 , ' : !1 t , 1.1) a BOW-STREET. One of the parish officers of St. Paul's, Covent garden, yesterday appeared at this office for the pur pose of contradicting a part of the report of the evi dence alleged to have been given by Mr. Walker, a churchwarden of the above parish, taken before H. G. Codd, Esq., with regard to the operation of the poor laws in the metropolis. The report in question appeared at page 108, Appendix A. Mr. Walker was there made to state that, not long before, a woman named Haggarty, belonging to the parish of St. Pancras, found her way into the parish of St. Paul's when near her confinement. The parish officers, being desirous of removing her to her own parish, conveyed her to Bow-street, where, however, they found only one magistrate (Mr. Minshull) sitting, who, the usual office hours having already passed, was about to leave. Upon the circumstances of the case being explained to him, however, he consented to re !min until the attendance of a second magistrate should be obtained, the signatures of two magistrates being necessary for the purpose required. After some diffi culty, a county magistrate was prevailed upon to pro ceed to the office, for whom, from his age and infir mity, it was necessary to obtain a hackney coach. The paragraph went on to state that, after the order of re moval was made, the fare of both magistrates was paid to their homes, thus putting the parish to an expense of five or six shillings. He (the applicant) was autho rized to state, that that part of the evidence wherein Mr. Walker was represented to say that the fares of " both" magistrates were paid, was incorrect, as the coach-hire for the county magistrate only was paid, Mr. Minshull positively refusing to ride home at the expense of the parish. He felt it his duty to Mr. Minshull to make this statement, as that gentleman had invariably declined, when offered, under any cir cumstances, to be provided with a coach. Even, on more than one occasion, when detained by parish busi ness until midnight, he had preferred walking, although earnestly requested to ride, to putting the parish to expense which might appear unnecessary. He did not mean to impugn the general accuracy of the re port, as, but for this mistake, it was perfectly correct. Mr. HALLS observed, - that care should have been taken to rectify the error in the quai ter from which it originally proceeded. The applicant stated, that Mr. Walker had already done so, having immediately written to the Commis sioners, desiring the report to be corrected. Mr. MiNstita.L said the explanation was ample and most satisfactory. He was sure that neither he nor any other magistrate of that establishment had on any occasion put the parish to any unavoidable expense. Mr. Walker had already had communication with him by letter, the contents of which corresponded with the statement now made. The applicant then retired. ' Yesterday Mr. , Alley, the senior barrister at the Middlesex Sessions, made his first appearance at the Middlesex Sessions during the present sitting. It appears that his medical attendant had sent him two descriptions of medicine, one of which, containing a powerful poison, was to be taken very sparingly, while the other was to be taken in large quantities. On last Friday morning, at an early hour, Mr. Alley took, by mistake, a copious draught of the wrong me -dicine, upon which his throat and stomach became I fearfully inflamed. Mrs. Alley, with great presence of mind, hurried down stairs, and having procured a flask of Florence oil, administered the whole of it to her husband. The surgeon was sent for, and he, on arriving, said that had not Mrs. Alley acted so judici ously certain death would have a waited Mr. Alley. The Learned Gentleman was yesterday warmly con gratulated by his brethren of the Bar ; and the Court, observing his illness, took those cases first in which Mr. Alley was concerned. Mr. Adolphus availed himself of an opportunity to recite the circumstances f . Alley M s of accident, a wh cci i d le en m t, r. an A d do e l u p l h o u g s is w ed as t s h i e ea c k o i n n d g u , c m t o r was deeply affected. REPLY TO THE ABOVE. No. 6. 8, Rua de Necessidades, April 29, 1834. Sir,—Since Captain W. left my house this morning I have had a consultation with my friends, who are decidedly of opinion that I cannot meet or hold any communication with you until you convince the public that the charges brought against you are without foundation. I was not., or am not, your accuser, but, whenever your courtmartial is held, I, if called forward, will produce the persons, who will give the documentary evidence which they placed in my hands, and after what has passed, if you wish it, I will become the prosecutor myself. J. M. DOYLE. No. 7. • ORDER OF THE DAY.—No. '2OB. Imperial Head-quarters, Lisbon, April 30, 1834. GENERAL ORDER. His Imperial Majesty the Duke of Braganza, the Com mander-in-Chief of the Liberating Army, is pleased to direct that the following order may be communicated to the army : No. I.—Major-General (0 Mariscal de Campo) Sir John Milley Doyle, Aide-de-Camp to his Imperial Ma jesty, is exonerated from his situation, and detached from the Imperial Staff. (Translation. 'A true copy.) J. M. DOYLE. Seen by me the first time May 2, 1834. J. M. DOYLE. No. 8. A translation in French of No. 4 and No. 5 was imme diately sent by Brigadier-General Bacon to his Imperial Majesty the Duke of Braganza by the Aide-de-Camp on duty, stating that he was perfectly ready to meet any in vestigation if his Imperial Majesty believed the smallest particle of Sir John's lies. M. Florent Guiot, who was one of the Members of the Constituent Assembly, died recently at Avallon, in the Yonne, at the age of 78 years. He was also formerly Ambassador to the Court of the Hague.—Paris Paper. CORONER'S INQUEST.—DREADFUL Ac- CIDENT ON BLACKPRIARS BRIDGE.—Last evening an inquisition was held at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, before Mr. Payne, the Coroner, on the body of Chas. Downer, aged 30, whose death was occasioned by being run over by a waggon on Blackfriars-bride. The Jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death, with a deodand of 10/. on the waggon. The deceased was a journeyman tailor and a unionist. THE EYE.—There are three modes of per forming the operation for cataract, and likewise three ways of treating it without operating ; the latter arc the antiphlogisttc, the stimulant, and the counter irri tant, each of which ought to be fairly tried ; and it is only when unsuccessful that recourse should be had to the knife. In confirmed cataract of several years' standing nothing can be done but by an operation ; and when the patient is old and feeble its success is pro blematical. Incipient cataract, however, like incipient deafness, may be cured without an operation ; but when neglected until it has become structural, there as in other chronic diseases, little relief to be ex pected. e t e contrary, d h it . T I ahtveheri think ko are unt that a nt some othme a sawonohsno seorefficacious advise can a t n h a b te aas dissipated cataract when forming should be let alone till mature ; on th e the better; and further, that the earli er thi s is attempt ed the greater is the probability of cure . F or this purpose apply ing a solution of the potassa cum calce to the affected organ, and combining with this a course or antiphlo gistic and constitutional treatment. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I speak only of incipient cataract. With regard to an operation where only one eye is affected, it ought not to be attempted, since the sound is thereby frequently injured by inflamtr ation supervening. Neglect of the disease in its early stage, and maltreatment afterwards, are commonly the causes which render operations necessary ; and were diseases of the eye to be generally taken in time, I am con.. winced that they are as curable as dise ises of the ear, or those of any other organs of the body.—Curtis on the Preservation of Sight I