The Sun. — London, England, 1834-04-29 00:00:00

)1 15 ig' be Al 3 .11_ on did the The, tet' Lb 3 Partie s ; but give him the committee and he would place guilt where it should properly and justly rest. He should prove that one of the petitioners themselves began the riot. tape,„ On some of the riotous persons were found .' e° acealed, in which were marks not perfectly intel ii,ible to himself, but which would be made clear to their .I`)eidshi S ta nda which would fully prove that these men I 1 belong the Political Union of Birmingham. (Hear. ) ere they then to disfranchise a town because strangers tvell°Ustonituhelde fad ianto it and bega n t o riot ? The committee of the e o f Commo ns cou ld not possess the means of getting of the case so well as their lordships. He 1 sa c k aPpeal to his noble and learned friend on the Wool the' w ho, i ndeed , had said that he had nothing to do with ' be order s of the house, but which he (Lord Wynford) t'ia'te,i,leave most respectfully to deny. He (the noble dodgedd lord) was the guardian of the privileges and Ilmoonities of the house and bound to defend them. He rrrefore called upon him then for his powerful support. pea`llloble and learned lord concluded by moving that the ns in the Warwick Election Case Bill should be . t, ageets at the bar, by themselves, their counsel, or their 41;:le Earl of DURHAM said it was unnecessary to take ei a i," a small portion of their lordships' time, more espe fa4 as, the speech of the noble and learned lord alluded to h e „'" which were not contained in the report from the other ,•: 1 1 ;v• Such facts he, however, felt assured had been fur i'" nisi to the noble and learned lord by other persons ; and 1 4 ,Z.'•Vly were they not furnished to the house? (Hear, that wi:le co d u e ld ou n t o . t say m ewnhyobtlheey and learned noetdbeloeerndisihuitiidsbtas.eaiendo 11ei..t., ~ they tAha first had proceeded below, abro n e o en cas d i s fr a Cr ate r:se; but it was not the first disfranchisement. _ P etlti l l 'ad been looking for precedents, and had quoted ith om , ,case where had d first h ,. nearing evidence. It was true it had been the l erd "isement was a wrong term. The noble and learned la st ~3 2 . i. Here it escaped his recollection that within the 1 v f:a nnecill , oo : b ° ,lle) Y e ear s a great number of boroughs had been dis ) - ar. ~ franchised w.thout evidence having been heard. (He . I, D etit r and learned lord himself had moved . that the o st; 1,1 referred to a committee, but his motions were of th e f n a d that noble and learned lord forgotten the case IniereDYshilling freeholders of Ireland? (Hear, hear.) argumentshahe ti a(i e b 'en the noble and learned lord then? Why ?ale forward with the same eloquence, the same al eu , , the same sympathy for the cause of those then l i m t 0 b e dePrived of elective rights, as had distinguished 1 : 150 that evenin g ? No • he had not done so : and these heard were d isfranchised' without evidence having been • , d ati their lordships' bar. Was the House of Lords then lir e 1 T h l:atee to enter into a contest with the . House of Commons? f i 1 (Nestle Tver House had already been entirely upon election preserve the i ' paritgs• Naturally they were desirous to wer Y of the house; and, consequently, via co lv mm ar i v, t_t i e e es k, c ap ,' moved and sat upon five boroughs, . : deuce Liverpool, Hertford, and Stafford. Evi ' it ' ''' nad been' re ceived, and a report agreed upon. Was „Prudent, then, would ask, to enter into such a con cfst.? It would;therefore, be a matter of policy as well as , , justi ce _ to negative the motion mad e . Th e accuse d ltb,,7Y wish e d t o b e h ear d, in order t o p ro d uce something in i p7lr exculp a ti on — no t f oun d e d upon any testimony, be el ese n o t es ti mony ha d b een produced in their • favour. i sr nc e , then, they were n o t t he part i es , their lordships kld set them se l ves aga i nst the House of Commons. The th 4 to e lo r d nex t proceeded remark upon th e s t a t emen t s e noble and le arne d l or d who had spoken before him, • di said he h a d no t b een aware that in twenty actions ver h,cts had onl y b een returned on three. Four actions had (: brought by the petitioners against the return of Sir . tw ee Greville ; and an agreement had been come to be ' ehe e4 counsel in the case of Mr. Tibbitts that the prose ( ei tor `l Tmod him should be abandoned, to guard the soli ceedeaT certain consequences. The noble earl then pro ' as it e , -- gt v e what he called a short account of the case some came befor e the committee, and, in doing so, made , allusions to the Earl f Warwick, the exact VT °ll °f which we cou ld not catc h . A t t h e period of the r ough ta ill there had b een muc h excitement in the bo ttle oe °f3 W arwick with Si r Ch ar l es Gv ille , but at etajeritY of.xt ele ction he stood a t th e h ea d o f th e po ll b y a pet -a 18 0. Hi s re t urn h a d b een pet i tione d against Ztrimittee had been moved, of which Sir Ronald res' s " was the chairman. Five days after Sir Charles niti l e t ed The committee sat fifteen days, and examined 14 4 1 . 4 4 7° witnesses. No evidence had been brought N e 0 rebut, but there had been an attempt at recri h a r to, but that was not rebutting. In censequence of I °as er "' made by this committee, Sir Ronald Ferguson ,hiezdered to bring in the bill then before their lordshis, wi t h Passed all its stages, if his memory . deceived him not, ‘as to unite ' 4 t a division taking place. The object of the bill was ~,,, the Leamington with Warwick, and thus add 800 voters flar,,e constituency and apply an effective remedy to the t,e' ant abuses complained of. The bill, he begged leave sas, d • ncl e i, ~,u1 not take away a vote which had been acquired ee ie Reform Act. As to the proposition which had e 4 I) C' s %Me, he did not think it was required by the pur the°,l e to comply with it, fo r there makingread "idejti:Clc as fully to justify their lordships to s a e , °ll „rse which the bill proposed. N o man could pretend he N ,"°atthe purposes of justice—and with other purposes shaitild then have nothing to do--demanded that they fled lea hear evidence at the bar of that house. If the noble 4 3 ap e : t r i l l ed lord who proposed the amendment did so defe ating a r_T‘rY means of opposing the bill—or rather . of that the getter"° (Lord Durham) would suggest to him ho use at and more manly course was to divide the c't rid of d eb upon it, and strangle it at once, rather than was Nit Well • _ a''' ' ar it was in the power of the noble lords op it th ,e to throw out the bill—he was well aware that if ; P ;v: a( L e up their minds to defeat . any particular measure, I, td shi ".sy for them to do so , but . he called on their fal, Ps to prove that they were merciful as w ell as powe.r -° hy an d rather to give the mortal blow at once than punish 1 . a l ingeringleath He also entreated them not for 'kilt ' .• with the other It like as causes to embark in a contest lik;:a, , impossible for the reformed house to retract a measure th e i t aat—they would not, they ought not to do it, for b e ; honour and character (Loud laughter from several 4i v s ) Wer e involved in it. They had pledged them them" to inquire into such abuses as these and remedy ii,,, i ' and he was sure their lordships would show no str ° o ° l ill t hwarting their wishes. Still, though he had iitst.ng opinion himself upon this subject, he would not 'toagainst that of the house. He would not press the tiecide d . t a oli .i e v : ::::• e but merely say, that if their lordships l'''''maorbte,iraltln'ustli.c.:toevaildlepnarcetieast.the bar, he should do all in his real merits of the case, and do sub li In e Earl oe xi, ° Pret en • "INCHILSEA said their lordships had '4b jen` It'll t° take away any right or privilege of the a n ', without he „. extreme aring evidence at the bar to justify such r'lot et i l coUrse. The noble earl had alluded very th e Y t hat th e • b te DI Yt° a coming .collision, to which he would ho se, is ottp 3 ad a public duty to perform (Cheers) o , t an e d r :044Own"rtit;erf:rni it without reference to any h , ,7 was as ,nY other person whatsoever. (Loud cheers.) ,7,1,, 1 .,, tmuished the noble earl should come forward and as away privileges as high and honourable e rse. „Fs, without hearing evidence to justify such . a ,j - Z i l cha r ,'" implored the house to consider how their W i e. (er would fall if they committed an act of in- Pass 14 Cheers ' ) a ctin " thelr e is of CLANRICARDE said as they had and take to for Bill they ought not to be satisfied with_ tOfxe ev .e letter but ought to adopt the spirit of i , ter a 47 s Pportu ' nity of purifying the Reform Bill. te ” 'arquis t words from the alarquis of SALISBURY and '‘ i thout a °A. WtsrstEszrii, the amendment was agreed f r :ord tititision. eou RAM suggested they should appoint a day 'fl, l ' s el to ' th e thee ORI) attend. CHANCELLOR. said he was for plunging the t , se co.,. , matter forthwith. The order of the day was for t hat e ,, ' 4, readin g of the bill ; that had been met in bar, ,i)4t 7unsel should be allowed to to re t tst e the his bilL e Wel Well, tibie'las carried. He was ready W e , and hear them. But where were they? Wherer '4 o 7!h e y ? They ought to be ready ; and it wa s n o fau n tVelr lordships if they were not there. They had given k : 4 the opportunity of being heard, and unless they had tht,Zsetiable excuse he did not see how they could allow 4i, te attend at a future day without completely super _ Tag all order in their proceedings. . I Nrit e ,,,! Earl of ROSSLYN said that neither counsel nor ts" ti Th 7 could be supposed to be ready. 4:I L, ' LORD CHANCELLOR said they should save Pr e Mak e ..,_ e te) p e sorrt z advance in the business of the house, and p rh _ s , Nie. , . onsistency in its proceedings, if they at all clea r ; din gs ' li, counsel and arranged e as to their future ei:o"3 read h t he partiesoppos d . to the bill must be ~.4 the s ,•'? or why did they petition that house at all the E ar rJeet? li ' P s ed si -,'„?f DURHAM said that ten minutes had not 44' 1 , , a ri % -4.,t house had . decided that counsel should be th,/ a " iti witnesses examined, and how could t t h o e m y ov e e e_ f i ei 'i witne,. attendance ? His proper course was be ' the ' ses s hould be in attendance at some future ,I . t! att earliest possible. He begged to move that they teofhe alati, e,, Thursday next. att t hat 'I) C HANCELLOR But we must at least . ("si t i i an e e : l °,sel are to atteed, Are — there any counsel in Ws 4 ° or r t he bar te support the purposes of this bill . ? /ii r , t ; ° th e i°,,ur, gentlemen of the wig and gown made their I ‘l '. o - 11 ?ou, are a '' , aud among them was Mr. Harrison.) Mr. 1 1.1 ° Ia Yel t aytTexiidn.oattendance here as counsel, and for Ilord I m „ rri s ,„, • By whom are you employed l allglit e ; .4 . l (1 0 - 1 7 0 -- 0 , 1 am in attendance here as counsel, my Th e 1 . "now by whom lam employed. (Loud Itlr. k i\ 1 "Jerp• ''' Cti ~, ~„_eir. Serge ceaut ArcsiNCELLOR put the same question to waiest .aut r ewether. T he this I. ler ewether—l am here for the petitioners t 4 tri tf u) ,I‘ll.!,_°tiler. f ,C,IIA NCELLOR—Very well. I don't -.41 . ""ge ' 1 Mr. Heath who are you here for ? 1 , 4 (greatallt Heath .11y lord , I am with Mr. Harri toe t : Lok i , atignt er ) - ' Wh y h _ ask, 4:. 9IANCELLOR (very loudly)—Permit i%4Yuo ap pn . "arrison, for whom you appear here, or Petit Ha. Poor here• ,t 101 1 , - R0n........./ i t , \va, l i ll !is ap A i rot ~ consequence of being engaged for the , ri tbi s ito ate4 t _ the retu rn of the then sitting members, 'lereftaee to mo s s that I might be required to attend re, 1 'mu, but the witnesses against the bill. 'mu, but I do not at present know by what ow re) . a l cal , nt, the •n -inn authority. I have no authority ; but I am here and willing to undertake any---( Great laughter, in which the close of the sentence was lost.) The LORD CITA --I ask, are there any here in support of the h:11? Mr. Harrison—l al:1 ready here to undertake that duty if any one authorises me. ( Laughter. ) Earl GREY—I don't apprehend, my lords, that any counsel could be retained till we had decided on the course we would pursue. The Duke of CUMBERLAND—The best way will be to appoint another day for the second reading of the bill, and then to call counsel in when the order of the day shall be moved. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Depend upon it, if you appoint Thursday, you'll have all Westminster Hall here —all of the many learned gentlemen who have nothing to do there will be cruising this way on the look out for any thing that can be got. Amore absurd course I cannot conceive. We should take our first step at once—the sooner the better—for if we express ourselves ready to hear any learned counsel, we may have any one learned gentleman, or any one score of learned gentlemen who may happen to have nothing better to do, trooping to this house, and professing to be employed on behalf of one party or the other. The Duke of CUMBERLAND—It is hardly fair in us, who are to be the judges, to nominate those who should be of counsel. The Earl of DURHAM would put an end to the ques tion by moving that Mr. Harrison, Mr. Sergeant Heath, and Mr. Whitcomb do attend at the bar of their lordships' house on Thursday next. Counsel were then called in ; and Mr. Harrison and Mr. Sergeant Heath appeared at the bar in support of the bill, and Mr. Sergeant Merewether and others against it. In answer to questions from the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Harrison stated that he was not prepared to proceed, but that he should be ready by Monday next. On the sugges tion of the Lord Chancellor, however, the learned gentle man fixed Friday, subject to further delay if required. Counsel having withdrawn, the further proceeding of the bill was fixed for Frida. LIVERPOOL DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. On the motion of the Earl of RADNOR, the order of the day for the second reading of the Liverpool Disfran chisement Bill was read for the purpose of postponing it. After a brief conversation, in which Lord Wharn eliffe' the Earl of Radnor, the Earl of Wicklow, and the Lord Chancellor participated, the second reading was fixed for Thursday. Several bills on the table were then forwarded in their respective stages, and at twenty minutes past nine o'clock their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 28. The SPEAKER took the Chair at a quarter past five o'clock ; but, in consequence of a conference with the House of Lords, several members left the house, during whose absence business was suspended. On the motion of Mr. W. TOOKE, the Bermondsey Enclosure Bill was read a second time ; also, the Dart Na vigation Improvement Bill, on the motion of Mr. BUL TEEL. DUNGARVAN ELECTION. Mr. GISBORNE, chairman of the Dungarvan election committee, announced to the house, that, by the decision of the committee, the election of Ebenezer Jacob, Esq., was declared null and void ; further, that the petition against the return of the said Ebenezer Jacob was not vex atious nor frivolous. DISSENTERS' MARRIAGE BILL. Mr. GOULBURN said as there was a great deal of bu siness before the house next Wednesday, which was the day appointed for the second reading of the Dissenters' Mar riage Bill, he wished to ask the noble lord (Althorp)when that bill would be read a second time ? Lord ALTHORP was inaudible in his reply. REPEAL OF THE UNION. Lord COLE presented a petition from the county Fer managh against the repeal of the union, and praying for the adoption of some constitutional means to put down agitation in Ireland. (A laugh.) Mr. EMERSON TENNANT presented three peti tions against the repeal of the Union, from Antrim, most respectably signed, and by Roman Catholics. Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR presented a petition, in favour of the repeal of the union, from the countyWicklow. KILMAINHAM GAOL. Mr. SHAW presented a petition against the abolition of Kilmainham Gaol. (Hear, hear, from some of the Irish members.) ADJOURNED DEBATE. The original motion of the hon. member for Dublin, and the amendment thereto being put from the chair, Mr. D. CALLAGHAN rose. He felt fully sensible that many in that house would consider it presumptuous in him, after the many able and eloquent speeches delivered on the motion then before the house, to address them. He also acknowledged his own in feriority, but a sense of that duty he had to dis charge to those who sent him there, prompted him to express his sentiments upon that subject, and he confidently hoped for the indulgence of the house while he proceeded to deliver his opinions briefly. (Hear.) He (Mr. C.) had imagined that the nature of the resolutions which had been submitted to the house by his hon. friend the member for Dublin,•would have precluded any per sonality from the present discussion, when a mere inquiry was sought for. (" Hear, hear," from the Irish members. ) So far as he (Mr. Callaghan) had been able to collect the sense of that house, he believed that the opposition to indi viduals was the great cause of the opposition that had been given to the question of repeal. He complained that the right hon. the Secretary for the Treasury, who had so often conducted the debates of the house with such good temper, should have indulged in invective, and sanctioned others in their abuse of the hon. member for Dublin. The hon. member for Aberdeen had thought proper on a former occasion to abuse Mr. O'Connell when he was not a member of that house, because he had given offence to Mr. Hume. (Order.) The house would recollect the observations of the right hon. the Secretary of the Treasury upon that occasion, from which he (Mr. Cal laghan) would read an extract, and he saw no reason because the right hon. Secretary had changed his situation, that he should now indulge in attacks which he had then so strongly disapproved. He (Mr. C.) thought that every attempt made in that house to vilify the leaders of the popular party in Ireland was injurious to the interests of the country. (Hear and laughter.) [The hon. mem ber then proceeded to read an extract of a speech of the right hon. Secretary, in which he condemned the indiscri minate abuse which had been thrown upon Mr. O'Connell and his friends.) With all due respect for the right hon. Secretary, he should have avoided abusing the principal agitator of the repeal of the union, for the reasons given by himself upon a former occasion. He (Mr. C.) could easily guess the motives for dwelling upon the de merits of the hon. and learned member for Dublin—it was for the purpose of mixing up the other friends of that measure with him, and attributing to all of them the same motives. He (Mr. Callaghan) disclaimed such motives ; was influenced merely by the wishes of his constituents, and no individual could influence him in the dis charge of his public duty. (Hear, hear, hear.) He was not an agitator of the question of repeal, but he defended that question to the best of his ability, and he now came forward to advocate it, because, in the opinion of Isis con stituents, that was the proper time to bring it forward. The question of repeal was of recent growth, and bad must have been the acts of the Government, and lamen table must have been the state of the country when, after the lapse of thirty years, the question should have been agitated so furiously in Ireland. (Hear, hear. ) He would confine himself to the period almost immediately preceding the union, and at that time Ireland was pros perous certainly ; but he was not one to say that it was more prosperous then it was now. (Hear, hear. ) He would not shut his eyes to certain improvements that had been effected in Ireland since the union, but those improvements he would not admit to have been the result of the union. It was impossible but that improvements must have been made, had the union of the countries not n a n c r d e , a andse (I for taken pl ace . Th e popu l at i on t h en was f our m illi ons— i t was now more , and that increase of population alone consumption aisulmtphteio great ea o t f improvements b e found to be sufficient to account for the impo rov rt e e m d en g ts oo t d h s at ihnatao takes n place in it. If, therefore, it had had the fostering care of a legislature of its own during the period that had elapsed since the uni • on, no one could say that great bene fits would not ha ve resulted t o it w hi c h i t had never yet ex perienced, He coll o d not see any b ene fi ts t h at h a d resu l ted from th e union. by it —no export of new trade h a d b een g i ven to Ireland whatever had beeanny new arti c l e i nto i t—no provision of anythi ng f rom this made f or th e i mporting into it before. Great benefits had which it had not enjoyed union —benefits of commerce been promised to it by the that by the union Ireland c , e w especially. It had been said skill, labour, and industry of ould have th e b enef i t of the England. The hon. then went on to say that, although statements member made by the right hon. secretary fr. S. Rice) had been the improved condition of Ireland, he had documentstoshow show an entirely opposite state of affairs, es el to re garded the town (l/ork) which he had the honour to taso r present. ( The hon member then enumerated various of trade and manufacturewbich had fallen off maus terially in the town of Cork since the period of the Union. ) It had been said that it was only the rabble and worthless members of society who called for and agitated the repeal of the legislative union. Such was not the case. It might be very true that the majority of the proprietors of the land were against the repeal, but the intelligence of the cities and general population was decidedly in its favour. One very great inconvenience incurred by the distance of the real Government from the people of Ireland was manifest particularly in the business connected with the Boards of Excise, Customs, &c. It was difficult, nay next to impos sible, to get justice done to appellants at such a distance from the seat of complaint. he (Mr. Callaghan) had had frequent occasion to communicate with the Government officers here in cases of this kind, and, although he must acknowledge that be had always been treated with civility and attention, the grievances which it had been his busi ness to represent had not always been relieved. (Hear, hear.) If these offices were to be re-established in Dub lin again these causes of complaints and disaffection to the Government would be at once removed. Another corn plaint which he had to allege was that, contrary to a stipu lation in the act of union itself, by which it was provided that custom duties were only to be imposed upon articles imported into English ports, it was now the practice, upon articles of distillery particularly, to impose a duty, upon ex portation of the articles, not only upon the quantity im ported into England, but upon the whole supply exported. The hon. member concluded by observing that the act of union had been obtained by foul means, which would not have been binding in a contract between individuals, and therefore could not be more morally binding in the present case; and that he should continue to advocate its repeal whenever an opportunity should be offered. Mr. Sergeant PERRIIN rose. It struck him on a careful survey of the arguments on the side of the motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that it would be impolitic to repeal the Union, and that policy and jus tice to the Irish people required that the continued system of agitation should be suppressed. It was plain to any one who heard the speech of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and watched the course of the debate, that Ire land could not obtain her independence but by violence, and that her independence through repeal meant separa tion. (Hear.) He (Mr. Sergeant P.) would here con jure his countrymen who, allowed themselves to be led away by the seductive cry for repeal and national indepen dence to weigh well the consequences of that measure, which was separation ; to consider first the true condition of the country, and see whether there were not other and more presssing claims on their legislative solicitude than the abstract fantasy of repeal. Were there no poor to be sustained? Was there no violence to be arrested—no se dition to be checked ? (Cheers.) Let them, he conjured them to do it, give up useless agitation, and improve the country. What good did agitation produce? Why, it continued that fever of the public mind that infected the whole country. While agitation lasted there would rest on the great mass of the community in Ireland a plague spot and source of contamination that would spread from north to south, from rich to poor, and infect the entire country with the leprosy of disaffection. (Cheers.) If se paration took place, and repeal meant separation, who could tell what form of Government would be established, so complex were composed, so adverse were the separate interests to be engaged in the question, and so conflicting were the professed opinions of the leaders, who seemed to agree in nothing but in separation, however much they might cloak their designs under the mask of independence and a separate Legislature? (Loud cheers.) Did the act of union rest on the legislative enactment of 1800, or was it not rather based on the concurrence of the people, yielding to and sanctioning its provisions ? (Hear. ) If there were an outcry against the union since its first enactment there might be some reason for questioning its popularity ; but when the people for nearly thirty years acquiesced in the measure without a murmur, and when the present outcry amongst a certain class was factitiously and factiously excited, it was too much to say that the public will was opposed to it. (Hear.) But it was not the people alone that sanctioned the measure. The hon. and learned member for Dublin himself sanctioned it, and so late as 1828 too, when the hon. member made his first speech in that house to defend his right to sit there as the representative for Clare. What did he rest his argument on ? Why on the act of union. He contended that un der the act of union, which, be it recollected, he did not then designate as an usurpation (Hear, hear), he had a right to sit as the representative of the people under the protection of that sacred act of the union, an act that, while it bound the two countries in an indissoluble bond of amity and equal laws and equal protection (Cheers), gave to every citizen of the state freely elected by the denizens of that state an irrefragable right to take his place in the councils of the nation. (Hear, hear.) It surely could not be maintained that the constituents of the hon. member at that time did not recognise the act of union, when he himself stood on that act. He (Mr. Perrin) could not see how the boasted independence of the Parliament of 1782 could prevent the compromise of 1800. Ile would rest the whole case on this simple point—Was not the in corporation of the two Parliaments a free act of the Irish Parliament ? Did not the people acquiesce in it for nearly thirty years ? Did not the imperial legislature enact mea sures, such as Catholic emancipation and the reform bill, that the Irish Parliament would shrink from ? The hon. gentleman stated that the success of the reform bill was due to the support of the Irish members. It was true that the question of reform was much indebted to the Irish members. But what did that show ? That there was a fund of policy and justice in a great portion of the Irish people, that, recognising the justice and expediency of such a measure, sent forward their organs to support such a measure. The hon. gentleman said that the union was injurious to Ireland ; but at the same time he failed in giving proofs of it. He said that distress prevailed—that there was a fall of prices. Well, in some things they might ; but did it then follow that because prices fell in some instances the whole trade of the country must have fallen off on that account? He (Sergeant Perrin) denied that there was a reduction—a general reduction he would say ; and that was the best way of putting the case. Par tial reduction there might have been in some cases, but isolated instances did not warrant a general ac cusation or general deductions. (Hear, hear, hear.) Those reductions that the hon. and learned member for. Dublin dwelt on resulted from the increased intercourse between the Irish and the British ports. Goods used to be stored in the Irish ports before the union. It was not so now. In Belfast, Newry, he believed Cork, and other sea port towns, merchandize was not stored but lodged, and at once shipped off. (Hear, hear, hear.) Now, with respect to the linen trade, he would say that there was a greater expenditure now-than before the union. The whole country had no cause of complaint. The union was not fairly tried ; it had never been completed till 1829, till the completion of Catholic emancipation. And was it not too much to expect a measure of three or four years to be hurried into legislative debate on such a short trial ? What, then, was the cause of the agitation th p a e t op P le a . rlia ff m of en th t i m s iamdeionto? theW h jus y, t the clai ta.r ms d y of eo th n e ces l s r io is n h emancipation had been carried long ago, without much recrimination, the Catholics of Ireland woul d hav e been peaceful, and the Protestants quiet. Of the union he would say " Esto perpetua." ' Mr. FINN observed that the last speech, coming from an avowed friend of the Irish people, was one of the most and extraordinary he ever heard, and yet he would maintain that the Irish Parliament was " in durance vi le in competent." (Laughter.) The maxim sic volo sic jubeo was that adopted by the opponents of repeal ; they did not look for arguments. The right hon. secretary was not an Irishman but a West Briton. [Here the bon. member recapitulated at great length the arguments advanced during the previous part of the debate on the subject of the alleged injustice of England to Ireland. ] The hon. member then quoted at some length from the report of a committee of that house on the state of Ireland, asserting that the condition of Dublin, and of Ireland, had greatly deteriorated since the union. That report was signed by the present member for Cambridge, as chairman of the committee. The right hon. gentleman was not then se cretary to the treasury, nor was he a West Briton, but plainly and simply an Irish gentleman. But th e right hon. gentleman, since he had sat on the treasury bench, had abjured his old opinions, and laboured strenuously indeed to cultivate the favour of his new countrymen. The right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth had warned them that, to repeal the union, would be to lower England into a second-rate power. That might be true enough, but for his own part the consideration weighed little with him, for he was a mere Irishman. He was no West Briton, and if a repeal of the union would mitigate the sufferings, and alleviate the condition of his unfortunate coun trymen, that would be enough for him to wish for the measure, even although England should no longer be a first-rate power. He had never encouraged anti-tithe meetings, but in the county to which he belonged there had been large meetings of that description, and they had been harangued, almost in the name of Government, to make such a demonstration as would give the Government strength in its endeavours to destroy the system. Meet ings of tens of thousands had been told, if not by the agents of Government, by those who spoke in their name, that tithes were to be extinguished ; and the people, for the most part, seriously believed, that in acting as they had done, they had consulted the Wishes of the Ministers. And how had they been treated ? They had been deluded and betrayed. Happy would it have been for many of his con stituents if the Government had honestly spoken out its meaning, and not have corresponded with those who had led to resistance. With all their faults, the Tories would not have acted so base and deceitful a part. They would at once have told the people, tithes must be maintained. The present Government, however, had all the merit of exciting and betraying. The speech of the hon. member for Cambridge had been much commended, hut he would venture to predict that it would lay the foundation of more petitions in favour of repeal than anything which had yet occurred in parliament. O'CONNOR DON felt bound to state that he was under no pledge whatever with respect to his conduct on this question. He stated that because the hon. member for Cambridge had insinuated that all those who supported the througigreatest to t cursesth the motion acted as mere p u pp e t s , an d wer e no t a t lib er ty to exercise their own j u d gmen t w ith respec t t o i t . F rom the e union. reasoning on rel Hean of d h.ad the greatest of his ea r li es t rem i n i scences h e h a d b een s t rong l y op posedrerhearegardeddate stformedm en i t ot a s fh atothnee opinionovfrtib when it was passed, and he was not now prepared to prove an apostate to the faith theyhad inculcated, although even they themselves had deserted their doctrines. (Hear.) He could not i n d ee d understand how ow hon. members in that house could stigmatize Irishmen as disloy a l an d a d verse to English conne xion , mere l y principle whi c h h a d been. most eaisethey advoc a t e d the very forcibly upheld by the pre sent Chancellor for Ireland and the present Prime Minis ter. (Cheers.) The hon. member quoted the address from the county of Roscommon against the passing of the mea sure for the union, and said that upon the same grounds he now called for its repea l . The I rish parliament had no authority to agree to the union. The rege nc y question, and the Portuguese commercial question had b ferred to in order to show th a t w i t h two been re separat e parliaments the empire could not continue • but the ablest of those who had discussed the union when it was formed had put aside those arguments as worthless; and he could not now con sent to their being revived as cogent by the very men, or on their behalf, who had, when O ff the Treasury' benc hes, discarded them. (Hear.) He was sorry that personality had been introduced into the discussion. For the exces sive bad taste displayed by the hon. member for Belfast he felt only pity. ( Hear, hear, hear.) He supported the motion, but did he not do so, he could not support the amendment for it paneg,yrised the conduct pursued towards Ireland. Sir R. BATESON denied most explicitly that Ireland, as a body, wished the motion to be successful. In Ulster, the province in which he lived, the great bulk of the re spectability, the intelligence, and the property were de cidedly adverse to a repeal of the union, which they consi dered as nothing short of a separation between the countries. An hon. member had said that he looked to see all of the 105 members voting for the repeal of the union, and that then it must be carried. If, however, its success waited till then, it was indeed far off—it would never arrive. (Hear.) After the splendid and masterly speech of the right hon. baronet the member for Tam worth, it would be presumption in him to attempt to argue the subject. It was exhausted. But there were one or two observations he was anxious to make. Instead of all Ireland being in favour of the motion, there was but one person of property in all Ulster, Mr. Sharman Craw ford, who had declared himself in favour of repeal. A year ago he (Sir Robert Bateson) had stated in that house that not one man in a hundred in Ireland was favourable to repeal ; but he must now confess that the case was altered. In the south of Ireland the shout was for repeal, and in the north the people felt themselves to be ill-used. He trusted that there would be an over whelming majority against the motion ; and that those hon. members who had mooted it would turn their atten tion from agitation to producing tranquillity, good-will, and union. Let them do so, and he had no doubt trade would flourish and Ireland be happy. The south of Ire land had a finer climate than the north, and it only re quired tranquillity to become even more prosperous. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he suggested to those hon. members who were opposed to the motion and represented constituencies in Ireland, that they could not in his ap prehension offer to English members a stronger argument in support of the motion than by pressing upon the house long speeches. (A laugh, and " Hear.") Mr. LEFROY said it had been contended that the Irish Parliament had not been authorised to make the bargain upon which the union was founded; that, in fact, in mak ing that bargain the Irish Parliament had been guilty of a gross breach of trust. Now, even if that were true, it would be a much greater breach of trust for the present Parliament to repeal the union. It had been expressly stipulated that the two countries should for ever be repre sented in one and the same Parliament ; and another of the stipulations was, that the established church should be maintained. Now, one of the grounds upon which repeal was contended for was, that it would lead to the destruc tion of the established church. It was said in support of that view, that Scotland had an established church, in ac cordance with the sentiments of the majority of her popu lation, and that therefore Ireland ought not to have the present established church. It should be remembered, however, that the reformed religion had been established by the Irish Parliament ; and that, therefore, the Impe rial Parliament was bound by its own contract to sup portit. It was true that the established religion was not the religion of the numeral majority; but if that argument was sufficient to invalidate an act of Parlia ment, what became of the right by which many of the present advocates for repeal entered that house ? It was pretty well known, he believed, that the nume ral majority, both in England and Scotland, were ad verse to the Catholic Relief Bill. He said not that, how ever, with a view of prejudicing the operation of that bill, but to show the character of the argument founded upon mere numbers. The Catholic Relief Act was the law of the land, and instead of finding fault with it he would express an earnest hope that the empire would never have to regret its passing. He could not, however, but believe that, had it been foreseen that it was to lead to a demand for the repeal of the union and the destruction of the established church, its fate would have been other than what it had been. He therefore contended, that neither in the conduct of the Irish parliament, nor in the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill, could be found any argument in favour of the repeal of the union. With the exception of the hon. member for Roscommon, all the Irish mem bers in favour of repeal were pledged before elected to sup port it. (Mr. Finn denied that he had given any pledge. None was asked from him. His sentiments were known. ) At all events those hon. members were so circumstanced, that it was known how they would vote on the question before they left the hustings, and therefore he contended they were not at liberty to use their judgment after dis cussion. There was but one other point he wished to touch upon, and that was the state of the question in Ireland. It had been said by the advocates for repeal, that they were eight millions. That was a grossly exaggerated statement. But he would not deny that he believed that a numerical majority of the Roman catholics of Ireland were in favour of the motion. On the other hand, the great bulk of the property, the whole of the clergy, and the great bulk of the protestant population, were adverse to everything of the kind. He, should give his decided opposition to the motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. ; sr. C. FERGUSSON said the hon. and learned member for Dublin might say that the union ought never to have taken place, but the fact was that it did take place, and therefore the terms ought not to be violated, and the contract ought to be held indissoluble. In his opinion the legislature had a right to do everything for the people which the people could do for themselves, if they could assemble as a whole ; and as they never could do this, their rights and powers devolved upon their representatives. .The lion. and learned member for Dublin had said that the union had been brought about by corruption, and by the means of civil war and rebellion. The latter part of the assertion had never been established ; and with respect to the bribery and corruption, this did not, in his opinion, vitiate the contract. It was notorious that the union with Scotland had been brought about by similar means ; and, indeed; so gross and palpable had been the bribery in the case of the union with Scotland, that the identical bribes given and received were recorded, from the bribe of 1,100/. paid to the Earl of Marchmont to that of 71. ss. paid to Lord Banff for their respective votes. Had he been living at the time of the Scotch union he would have opposed it to the utmost extreme ; but after such a time had elapsed, and seeing the benefits which his country had derived from it, he would not on any ac count dissolve it. There was a full disposition in that house to do ample justice to Ireland, and he thought that the accusations brought against the house by Irish mem bers upon this account were unwarranted. But now that catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform had been granted to Ireland upon the faith of the union being un disturbed, it was preposterous to talk of dissolving the union. It was not to be supposed that Ireland could govern herself. The experiment had been tried from 1782 to 1800, and had utterly failed. (The hon. and learned member went into several details in order to show the in conveniences that would arise from having two inde pendent legislatures.) He believed that Ireland would be a by far greater loser than England by a dissolution of the union. He believed that the repeal of the union would be the death-warrant of the glory and _prosperity of the country. Mr. RONAYNE said, the hon. member for Belfast had attacked his hon. and learned friend the member for tothe n o , fte t n ba u t se w d e ag re ai i n t 4 uu th t e f h ur on a . a e n er te n arn vu e w d Dublin. He (Mr. Ronayne) could only say, with respect registered in heaven he believed that such insults would not be heaped upon him.' (Cries of " Oh, oh.") He would now advert to the effect which the union had pro duced upon Ireland in a financial point of view, and leave hon. gentlemen to determine whether in honour and con science they could decide that his unfortunate country had been benefitted by that event. In 1792 the Irish revenue member ia f g o u r a gu b s amounted to 1,100,000/., and in 1799 to 3,000,000/. and u pwards, showing an increase in seven years prior to the union of nearly 2,000,000/, But what result did the thirty four years that had passed since the union exhibit ? Did the increase that had taken place since leave any propor tion to the improvement that had occurred before the period to which he alluded ? It was incontrovertible that it did not. The revenue of the last year was only 3,800,0001., and therefore he had a right to assert that, instead of the union having been an advantage, it was an injury to Ireland. (, Hear," from the repeal members.) A distinguished countryman of his had justly observed that it was impos sible to arrive at anything like the truth as to the profit and l os s of a nation from statements a this kind ; and, therefore, he (hlr. Ronayne) could not receive the evi dence n pul Oi s ee u nuc p o p mtb o ha r re t da or contrary, soe h onen i tus product r rh g yihh e e n e as a seaA only d r n u. l c aiy o tw n oef of the figures which the right hon. gentl eman (M r . ) d nadtsca.sy,ti,unitnbeiceelgtprhoouadotgfu thought thratdehtul Ireland h ef sci e i l m. b etw eea the revenue o f 1799 an d th at i n 1 8 3 4 s h ou l d lead to the very opposite conclusion. (" Hear, hea r ," f rom th e repeal members.) But with respect to the fallacy o f state ments such as the right hon. gentleman had used, what did the distinguished individual to whom he had just referred say ? Why, he said that, " ip his mi n d the man who trusted to such shallow pretexts ought to wander through the world like a J ew di ves t e d o f e i t h er a h ome or a coun try." (" Hear, hear," from the repeal members.) It s h o uld not be forgotten, that when the separation from the mother country was first proposed by Benjamin Franklin the proposition was treated with contempt. The right hon. gentleman had not dealt fairly with the house. He had spoken of the corruption of the Irish Pgliarnent and the jobbing carried on by but he hid altogether forgot ten to notice the fact dig a. system of jobbing had been carried on in the Imperial Parliament since the union as gross as any that could be adduced from the annals of either the Irish or any other Parliament. (Hear.) What ! had the right honourable gentleman forgot ten the job for building storehouses, the Rideas . Canal job, the marten() tower building job, the, job for erecting batteries at the Cove of cork; on Which millions had been spent, and the hundred's of thousands that had been lavished on the chtirch building job? (" Hear, hear_," from the 'rep ea l mem b ers. ) They might coerce tb,7.. people as much as they pleased, but still they would be unable to stifle their demand for justice. The payment of tithes might, it was true, be enforced 'by the bayonets of an English army, but in no other 'Way could this burden, some tax be collected ;- for of this he was certain, that the Irish rope would not p ay i t if they couldrenibly helf ; it. (A laugh.) They would pay tithes only on the prin ciple that a man delivered up his purse to banditti, namely, *beause he was constrained to surrender up his rights by superior force. (" Hear," from the repeal mem bers.) The hon. member fn. Belfast was one of those who went out to light under the La2itter3 of Lord Byron for the liberties of Greece ; but v, ;set a revolution must his political opinions have undergone s nce the period his letters from the lEgean were written! The Noble Poet had, however, in his Jima furnished them with the ho nourable member's description. Of him it might with truth be said— " He was a man who had seen many changes, And always changed as true as any needle, His polar star being one that rather ranges, And not the fixed. He knew the way to wheedle : Thus usually, when he was asked to sing, He gave the different nations something national ; 'Twas all the same to him, ' God save the King,' Or Caira,' according to the fashion all." He (Mr. Ronayne) must warn the house against yielding to the insidious attempt made by the government to ob tain their sanction to every act, good or bad, which had , passed the Imperial Parliament from the time of the union down to the present hour. They were told by the right hon. Secretary,for the Treasury that they ought not to be satisfied with merely negativing the motion, but that they should go farther ; that was, that they should express their approval of the policy which had been pursued towards Ireland during the last 34 years. But what was the opi nion which the Marquis of Anglesea had exp resse d w ith respect to that policy ? In a communication which that distinguished individual addressed to the government on this side of the water, what did he say ? His words were, " That unless timely concessions were made to the people of Ireland, the evil that would ensue from it would be that the government would soon possess no party in that coun try but the King's troops.' (" Hear, hear," from the repeal members.) This was the declaration which Lord Anglesey made in 1832, in a letter, dated the 19th of Oc tober, and bearing his own signature ; and yet the right hon. gentleman (the Secretary of the Treasury), on the part of the government, called upon that house to sanction the resolutions which he had proposed, knowing, that in doing so they would be expressing their approval of mea sures which Lord Anglesea considered, if not actually bad, at least, insufficient, for the purpose of preserving tranquil lity in Ireland. It was not in their power to extinguish the love of liberty which distinguished the Irish people. They might for a time suffer oppression; but the indepen dence which belonged to them would finally restore them to the condition of freemen:— " Is Erin's pride, then, gone for ever, Quenched with the fires in Methra's caves ? No, she has hearts that never, never, Will stoop to be the Moslem's slaves, Whilst Heaven has light Or earth has graves." Colonel TORRENS was willing to admit that absentee ism was an evil of great magnitude, but then lie denied that repealing the union was the proper remedy to be ap plied for its removal. It was said that one of the results of repealing the union would be the imposition of a tax on absentees. This he denied ; but, even admitting that such would be the case, what would be the result ? Why, that England would prohibit the influx, of Irish poor into this country. Even repealing the union would not prevent "the exportation of Irish provisions. Landlords would, notwithstanding, spend their rents in the purchase of Eng lish and Foreign manufactures, and, unless a prohibitory duty were imposed, what advantage would be obtained by acceding to the desire of the hon. and learned member for Dublin ? None; on the contrary, the result of a prohibi tory duty such as he had described could have no other effect than that of increasing the poverty and theanisery which he regretted to say existed at present, and he there fore hoped the people of Ireland would reflect upon the consequences before they urged the repeal question further. Sir H. VIVIAN rose to address the house amidst crie s of " Question, question," and " Bar, bar." When w e heard the hon. and gallant member, he said, that the inte rests of England and Ireland were completely interwoven with each other, and as such he could not consent to the motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He (Sir H. Vivian) believed, that the right hon. member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) had put this question upon its right principles. (Hear, hear.) And he further believed that those principles were unanswered and unanswerable. Some allusion had been made to the Coercion Bill in the course of this debate, but as far as his knowledge of Ire land went, it was absolutely necessary for the preserve ion of the peace of that country. He had himself visited the hovels in Ireland ; he regretted that his duty compelled him to do so, for he never met so fine a country in a greater state of wretchedness'and misery, although neither the one nor the other could be fairly attributed to the legislative union. He knew Ireland well, he respected its people, he admired the country, and he had no doubt it would be highly prosperous that capital would flow into it, if it were not for the continual agitation which was there excited. Again, the emigration from Ireland was alluded to, as being produced by the Union, but how stood the fact? Why, from 1725, per haps, the amount of emigration from Ireland was 90,000, from England 40,000, and from Scotland 20,000, but what he should like to know was, why should the legisla tive union be blamed for the emigration? (Hear, hear.) Why was emigration necessary, why did not capital flow into Ireland ? (Hear, hear.) The ready answer was, the unnecessary agitation which prevailed there. ( Hear, hear. ) The hon. member for Cork was treading upon tender ground, when he said the evils which afflicted Ireland were attributable to the Union. The agitation which was en couraged in Ireland prevented the employment of capital, and also a fair remunerating price for labour. The injuries in flicted upon Ireland were mainly attributable to party spirit, that party spirit begetting agitation—and it would be quite evident that while party spirit and agitation prevailed, nei ther peace nor prosperity could prevail in that country. (Hear, hear.) He was an advocate for free discussion upon this and every other question. He was of opinion that every one should be permitted the free expression of his opinions;so long as they were not inimical to the general interests of the State ; but he never could be induced to Support the question of repeal, inasmuch as he thought it would lead to a dismemberment of the empire. He thought that the Imperial • Parliament was fully competent to decree upon this question, and to their decision he was sa tisfied to leave it, satisfied as he was that they would act with justice and humanity. (Hear, hear.) Allusion had been made to tithes in Ireland, and he, for one, would say that he was in favour of their abolition ; but he would not thence be an advocate for the spoliation of property which would follow upon the repeal of the union. (Hear, hear.) Then again it was said " Have an absentee tax ;" now, even if that were possible, it would be no means of investing capital in Ireland. He had a consi derable acquaintance with that country, both in a political and a military sense, and he was firmly convinced that the repeal of the union would be a serious injury to the inte rests of both countries. Much had been said about the separation of Belgium and Holland—much had been said about Sweden and Denmark, and Norway, and many ether places ; but all these things had no reference whatsoever to the relative positions of England and Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The interests of both countries were interwoven with each other—their prosperity was bound up together ; and as he was ...so persuaded after much experience and much consideration, he would feel it his duty to vote against the motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. (Hear, hear. ) Dr. BALDWIN denied that the restoration of the Irish local legislature would involve any alienation cif the rights of the Crown, and said that if he believed the rep ea l of th e union would lead to a separation of the two countries, lie would not support it. The reason why he supported repeal was, that the United Parliament had failed to legislate for the interests of Ireland, and to provide for her wants. The hon. member went into an argument in support of these positions, but was generally inaudible in the gallery. Ile denied thA the general agitation and discontent of Ireland, and all the crimes and outrages which were committed by her population, could be attributed tq the agitation of one man. He admitted that his hop, and learned friend the member for Dublin made wild speeches sometimes (Hear, and a laugh), but it was absurd to attribute the state of Ireland to such causes. He asserted this upon his know ledge of the people of Ireland, with whom he was better acquainted than the gallant officer who p. °ceded him iu the debate. The hon. member proceeded to give illustra tions of the misgovernment and unfair treatment to which Ireland had been subject since the union. This state of things could not continue. Eight millions of Irishmen would not submit to such treatment. (Hear, hear.) They would watch for an opportunity to free themselves from it. (Hear, hear.) Let not the Government imagine__( Re iterated cheers here drowned the hon.. member's voice. ) The spirit of Grattan still lived in the son ; though not equal in talents, equal in ;cal, (Hear, hear.) There was the hon. member for Cork too, if they would measure him by any of their anti-repealers, they would find him as mus cedar and vigorous as the best of them. (Hear, and laugh ter.) But it was in vain to appeal by logical deduction. (Hear, hear.) The people of Ireland were resolute and united upon this subject; they would have a Govern ment either with the consent of that house or against it, Mr. PRYAIE rose amidst loud 'and, continued cries of " Adjourn," - AtiLlsio.n had particularly been made to the: means by which the union had been ob tained. NOW,:fox his own part, he did not see, even if the M - o`i.ei . by which that Act had been passed had been much more flagrant than had been represented, that it at all be .1.7 a upon the question now before the house. The qaestion was not, whether Ireland had been well qr.4l:governed, but whether she was still to be preserved as part of the United Kingdom. - The evils which absenteeism had caused had been ine,cii commented upon, but those evils themselves resulted from, or at least were increased lv the dry agitation which was kept up by certain males in Ire- • land upon this question of repeal. was not the absen teeism of individuals, but the ab.sende of manufactures a th m i l s capital, that affected the prosperity 'of Ireland, and in that respect eho could never. improve until tranquillity an d security oil'ered ari inducement for the investment o f capital. 11k.- MULLINS moved the adiournment of th e d e b ate till s t ir o-7 . ci orro ß w 4 ( t4 it i lis: y 4 ) lo , vfa thewhichwsaseeoagrude.erdeing of ta: SUPERANNUATIONS BILL. 1411' fel a which,'lA i`opeervationi from Mr, IiUME ; was agreed to. MARRIAGEII h ß e l r L e L ad . this cay I Lord ADLITSHSEO N RP TER mo S ved ' • s'x months.—Agreed to. Mr. HUME hoped ministers would declare what further steps they intended pursuing respecting this bill. It had been postponed for six months, and the people, it was pre sumed, would not be content with such an arrangement. Lord ALTHORP said the government must be par . Boned for not expressing an opinion until it was known what were the precise terms of the motion about to be in t oduced by the hon. member for Southwark. LEITH HARBOUR. Colt tonel L. HAY having applied to have the standing orders dispensed with, in order to bring in the bill, the usual course not having been complied with, Mr. ABERCROMBIE protested against suet a pro position as that contended for by the hon. member who had just spoken. The bill in question would be most in jurious to the interests of the council of Edinburgh, and therefore he would directly an4at once oppose it. Colonel HAY replied. The house then divided, when the numbers appeared to be— Ayes Noes 26 Majority The bill was consequently postponed till next sessions. Mr. WALTER presented a petition from the inhabi tants of Old Windsor, against the assessed taxes ; also a petition from Mr. W. lvery, praying for an alteration of the law of patents, stating that he is the inventor of an apparatus showing the comparative value of fluids, but is prevented from taking out a patent by the expense. Also a petition from the Wesleyan methodists of Boxford, She& ford, Thetcham, and Peasemore, in favour of the bill for the better observance of the Sabbath. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and Cie house adjourned at two o'clock. TAILORS' UNION. The following is the circular from the Secretary to the master tailors : " 25, Little Queen-street, April 25. " Sir,—By direction of the Friendly Society of Operative Tailors, I have to acquaint you that, in order to stay the ruinous effects which a destructive commercial competition has so long been inflicting upon them, they have resolved to introduce certain new regulations of labour into the trade, which regu lations they intend should commence from Monday next; and I beg herewith to enclose you a copy of them. As the demands there specified are of so rea sonable a nature, and as moreover they are unques tionably calculated for the ultimate benefit of employ ers as well as the employed, the society confidently hope that you will accede to them, and that hence forward a mutual confidence may be sustained between masters and men, and that their interests may be no longer separated and opposed to each other. It only remains for me to add that your workmen, members cf this society, will cease to be employed by you shou d you decline to act upon the new regulations ; and fur ther, I think it right to apprise you, that in that case they will no longer consider it necessary to support your interest, but will immediately enter the arrange ments prepared by the society for the employment of such members for the benefit of the society. "' I am, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant, • "JOHN BROWNE, " Secretary to the Grand Lodge of Operative Tailors." " REGULATION. " No brother shall be allowed to work more than ten hours per day, from the third Monday in the month of April to the last Saturday in the month of July ; nor more than eight hours per day the remain ing eight months of the year; and for such labour the remuneration shall be 6s. per day fer the ten hours' labour, which is to be performed between the hours of seven in the morning and six in the evening; and ss. per day for the eight hours' labour, to be performed between the hours of eight in the morning and five in the evening, out of which time, in either case, he shall leave his employ er ' s prem i ses one hour for re freshment. Nor shall any brother work for an em ployer anywhere but on his (the employer's) premises, which shall be healthy and convenient, or on any other terms than by the day or hour ; and no brother shall be allowed to solicit employment, or to work for less than the regular wages, within four miles of Covent arden." COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 28., (Sittings at Nisi Prim in the Exel?Niter Chamber before Mr. Baron GATRN E y.) RAPHAEL V. MORISON. This was an action for damages by reason of an alleged nuisance. The plaintiff is a cowkeeper, in an extensive way of business, residing in the New road. The defendant is the celebrated " Morison's Pills" manufacturer, of which of late years so much has been seen and heard; and the nuisance com plained of was the noise made and the effects of the jarring/upon the plaintiff's house of the enormous pestle/and mortar of the defendant. Plaintiff's house is next door to that of the defendant, and it was given in evidence that the fire irons were thrown down, anti plates and dishes in the kitchen of defendant broken, by the shaking caused by the pestle. Among the witnesses for the defendant was a sur- . voyor, who proved that the party wall to the plaintiff's house was not of the proper thickness, and that if it were, the nuisance complained of 'would not be per— ceptible. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff:-, Damages One Shilling. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT,ArRIL 28. The Count de Wuits, styled in his sc h e d u l e as Ccesar Ad am M arcus de Welts, Count de Wuits, came up to be discharged. The Count was before the Court the latter end of March, when his case was adjourned to amend his sche dule and to re-advertise. It appeared in the course of an investigation, which lasted several hours, that the Count, married a lady of fortune, named Gwynne, of Gwynne Abbey, in Wales, in 1828, at the Brithl t Embassy at Paris. The Count travelled with his lady for two years on the Continent, and in May last came to this country. The total amount of the debts and liabilities of the count was about 10,0001. He had re ceived consideration for only 1,5001., which debts were due to foreign and English creditors. The ,debts due to the latter creditors were 500/. He had given up four horses and other property for the benefit rof his credit ors . The complaint of Mr. Hoadly was founded on his own evidence, and that of his clerks- The Count had represented to him that he bad certain property in Wales, but that he should not '„ in the receipt of his rents for some months. He kought a phaeton of Mr. Hoadly, for which he gavc, a bill o f exchange for 170 guineas at six months, ',aid gave him two references, with which he was satisfied. The which increased his debt by 20/ .., Count subsequently hired a cabrie'.et of Mr. Hoadly, besides the 170 gui twhaast admitted he hadp , by Hoadly, in cross-exa ileel; the Count in prison, and h e a ia d a proposed tin to hi '1 to omit his name from th e sche dule, and pay 1 :: im hi s d eman d a f ter h i s discharge from inns.lt' Prison. lie . (Mr. Hoadly) said he was not aware that it was imperative on the insolvent to set forth every debt in his schedule. He had erred from. ignorance. The learned CHIEF-COMMISSIONER wished it to be widely circulated that insolvents were bound to put in all their debts, and not to leave out ally creditor under could not in an any circumstances • and that Mr. Hoadly's individualopposition poiut of v i ew b e sus t a i ne d. The Count had been Lobbed by a servant named Jones, whom he prc.ocuted, and who was convicted. The Count purchased a britschka of Messrs. Houlditch for 240/., which he returned the following day anti was charged 100/. It further appeared that the Nun toss had an income of about 800/. a year, over which the Count had no control. A long inquiry was in stitutcd as to the disposal of some plate and what pro perty had been given up. The Count had given up four horses and other property which had been sold by the brokers of the Court, and the money paid into Court for the benefit Othe creditors. The Coutt'r 1 3 / 4 W/1 - lately adjourned the case for the pro:Jucti% c an inventory, the production of certain ~,,, i kne4s, and the payment of 10/. into Court, in con sideration of a diamond ring which the Count gave away to a lady a fevlt; Alva before he went to prison. ts.LES OF A VOYA,OER.---The second Re ties of these admirable talei consist of eight original stories, which are narrated an beard a vessel ice-bound in the dreary Arctic Ocean, and during her subsequent return home. The marvellous scenery of Greenland, the perils and pursuits of mariners who approach its 'coasts, and the phenomena which frer4aently occur in those fearf u l reg i ons, are su bj ects of the highest inte rest. The author, who is said tca be a friend of Captain Scoresby, has often been a - voyager in the scenes which he so forcibly delineatc,s.. These new tales form the May number of Naval and Military Library of Entertainmer;., publis4ing monthly, at only 45. per volumc bound,