The Sun. — London, England, 1834-08-08 00:00:00

whatever might be its advantage in Scotland, would be highly inexpedient in England. After a few words from the Earl of FALMOUTH and the Earl Of MALMESBURY, The Duke of RICHMOND gave notice that he should; on the third reading, move that the words " sea apprantice ship" should be inserted. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that when the bas tardy clauses were under discussion in the Committee, many Noble Lords expressed themselves anxious to soften the ope ration of some parts of them. An amendment had been intro duced in the original Bill in the Commons to enable the overseer to make the man pay a part of the expenses of a child if it should become chargeable to the parish. The ob jection to this amendment was that in operation it would be liable to many of the objections urged against the present bastardy laws. In consequence of this their Lordships in Com mittee rejected the clause, but at the same time a general opinion seemed to prevail that it was objectionable and some what harsh to make the woman's parish bear all the expenses of supporting the bastard. Under these circumstances his Noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) gave notice that he should on a future stage move certain clauses, which would provide for this object. His Noble Friend had that night stated that he should not persist in his intention of proposing those clauses, as he should not be present to-morrow. Now he (the Duke of Wellington) thought that something should be done to relieve the public mind on the subject, and also because it was the opinion of the House of Commons, as well as of very many of their Lordships, that they ought to do something to soften the extreme harshness of that part of the Bill. Under these circumstances it was his (the Dnke of Wellington's) in tention to propose to their Lordships, on the third reading, to consider whether the three clauses of which his Noble Friend had given notice, and which had been printed, should not be inserted. The Earl of RADNOR hoped their Lordships would not agree to the clauses, as they would be in their operation much worse than the clause that had been struck out. As for their softening down the situation of the woman and relieving her, he denied they would do anything of the kind, for now by these clauses, if she were able to do so, she would have to support the child ; if, however, she were thrown on the pa rish, then a portion of the expense was to be defrayed by the man. The argument of the Noble Duke was therefore falla cious. He (the Earl of Earl of Radnor) was satisfied that the plan the Noble Duke intended to pursue would tend greatly to increase all the evils of the present system. It would give the woman the opportunity of fathering the child upon whom she pleased, and thus lead to the commission of perjury. Again, it was proposed to throw upon her the great disgrace of exposing herself to shame in an open court by declaring who was the father of the child. It was most objectionable to make a woman proclaim her shame before the Magistrates in Petty Sessions; but by one of the clauses of the Noble Baron (Wharncliffe) the woman was to do this in open court, namely, before the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions. Again, these clauses enabled the Magistrates to send the reputed father of a bastard child to prison if he could not find security to indem nify the parish. In short, those clauses appeared to him to open the door to all the evils of the old system. Lord WHARNCLIFFE was perfectly satisfied that the Noble Earl had not read the clauses, or if he had he had com pletely misunderstood them. The only question was whether they would or would not give any relief to the parish where bastard children were thrown on them. It had been stated that, according to the present law the father and mother of a bastard child could be punished. This, however, was an error. He admitted, however, that a woman was liable to be sent to the House of Correction as a lewd woman, for having a bas tard which became chargeable to the parish. He thought tha t they should not depart frem the principle of throwing at least a The of the c h arge o f ma i nta i n i ng the bastard on the father. The noble Earl said that a man might be sent to prison if he could not get securities to indemnify the parish, whereas the fact was that the man was only to be called upon to enter into his own recognizances. The man also was not to be made liable to the expenses on the evidence of the woman alone, but it must be supported by corroborative evidence. Again, if a woman had a second bastard child she would not be entitled to relief. They gave relief to th e woman as regarded the first bastard child in the presumption that there had been seduction ; but when a woman had a second bastard, he thought all argu ment as to seduction was at an end. He considered that all the clauses had been sufficiently guarded to get rid of all ob jection._ The LORD CHANCELLOR suggested whether it would not be better to take the discussion on these clauses to-morrow, when the question would be brought forward on the amend ment of a Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter). In deed, he had told the Right Rev. Prelate that there was no chance of going into the discussion of these clauses to-night, and he had in consequence gone away. If the Right Rev. Prelate's amendment to strike out all the clauses relative to bastardy were adopted, which he (the Lord Chancellor) hoped was impossible, it would be unnecessary to discuss those clauses; if it were rejected, then they could afterwards be debated. After a few words from the Earl of ROSSLYN and the Ear . Of FALMOUTH, The Duke of WELLINGTON said that he was perfectly ready to take the discussion on the clauses to-morrow. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR it was ordered that in several of the clauses relating to the p eriod _ of the Act coming into op era ti on , t h e wor d s " Ist of November, 1834," should be substituted for the words, " after the passing of this Act." The Report was then agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 7. The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at twenty-five minutes past five. BOROUGH OF WARWICK. Captain GORDON presented a petition from the electors of the Borough of Warwick, complaining of the franchise having been so long withheld from them, and praying that a new writ should issue forthwith for the election of a member for that borough. The Hon. Member then presented a petition from the friends of the Church of a parish in Aberdeenshire, for the protection of the Established Church. COUNTY CORONERS. Mr. CRIPPS brought up the report of the Committee on the County Coroners' Bill, setting forth the reasons why the Committee had disagreed to the Lords' amendment, which was read at length by the clerk. The object of the amend ment was to make the Coroner's Court a closed one, which the Committee disapproved of. The report was received, and Mr. CRIPPS and others were appointed to confer with the Lords upon the subject. Mr. HARDY gave notice that next session he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to bribery. Lord EBRINGTON presented petitions frem Stoke-upon- Trent and another place in support of the Established Church. Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the merchants, traders, and others of Dublin, complaining of the injustice and inconvenience to which they had been subjected by the refusal of the Magistrates to license omnibusses, and praying for some compulsory enactment to compel them to do so. The Right Honourable Gentleman said he had had the petition some weeks, but as there was no likelihood of any measure being introduced at that late period of the Session, he had th oug h t it unnecessary to present it sooner. H e would now give notice that early next Session he would introduce a measure upon the subject. Mr. G. W. WOOD brought up the report of the Com mittee upon the Metropolitan Water Works Bill, which was ordered to be printed. Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the report of the Com mittee upon education, which was also ordered to be printed. Mr. G OULB URN presented two petitions from Swabey in the diocese of Winchester, and from Farnham in Surry, in support of the Church. MESSAGE FROM THE CROWN. Lord ALTHORP brought up the following message from his Majesty:— " WILLIAM R. " His Majesty acquaints the House of Commons, that, hav ing taken into His consideration the present state of reversions or remainders vested in the Crown in Estates in Ireland, His Majesty deems it proper that measures should be taken for enabling Proprietors of Estates in Ireland, where the reversion or remainder has become vested in the Crown by attainder, to bar such reversions or remainders. W. R." Lord ALTHORP, in moving that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, in answer to this message, re minded the House that the giving up of this power was a very considerable sacrifice on the part of the Crown.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) The effect of it, however, would be very advantageous to a large proportion of the landed pro prietors of Ireland, and it gave him very great satis faction to be the bearer of this most gracious message. It was an act of great kindness on the part of the Crown, and he would beg leave to move an humble address to his Majesty, returning him their most grateful thanks for his gracious mes- sage. Mr. O'CONNELL said he felt it his duty not only to acknowledge this as an act of kindness and generosity but also as one that would be eminently useful to the landed proprietors of Ireland. As a professional man he had known that there was the greatest difficulty in making out titles in Ire land—nearly the whole property of the country having been forfeited three times over.—( Hear, hear.) This mea sure was long desired by the landed proprietors of Ire land ; and it was but fair to grant it, for it was only putting them on the same footing with those of England. The mea sure would be of the greatest importance to Ireland, and would be received with the utmost gratitude, the immediate effect of it being to increase the rate of purchase of land in Ireland. Mr. LYNCH said that by this measure a great boon would be conferred on Ireland—a great injustice would be done away with—property would be rendered more secure, and the impe diments in the way of the sale of property would be removed. He valued it, because it evinced a disposition on the part of his Majesty's Ministers that there should not be one law for England and another for Ireland. It was a good eommenee meat on the part of the present administration, and he hoped such acts towards Ireland would now be found not to be in frequent. Mr. SHAW was extremely happy to avail himself of this opportunity also of expressing his grateful acknowledge ments for the present boon. He certainly considered it would be of great advantage to Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) The Address was then ordered. Mr. ROSS presented various petitions from parts in WI - shire, against a separation of Church and State. CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS. Upon the motion of Mr. CRIPPS, the House agreed to a conference with the Lords on the County Coroner's Bill, and the Speaker then le ft the ch a i r . Mr. eRIPP returned with the Members of the conferenee, and said—l have to declare that the managers have been with the Lords, and they have delivered their reasons for not agreeing to the amendments, and they have left their reasons and th e Bill with their Lordships.—( Laughter.) A Message from the Lords announced that their Lordships had agreed to several Bills. Mr. LYALL presented a petition from St. Botolph, Ald gate, against the separation of Church and State. Mr. MAXWELL said he had made a motion some time Igo for returns respecting the number of hand-loom weavers ; he wished to know whether such return was ready? Mr. P. THOMSON said it could not be made unless a number of persons were employed to go about the country to get up the information. Mr. MAXWELL said he had suggested that overseers and schoolmasters could very easily perform the task. Mr. F. WARR brought up the Report of the Select Com mittee on Land Revenues. Lord BRUDENELL presented a petition from Dodding ton, in Northamptonshire, in support of the Church. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. _ _ _ _ Lord ALTHORP moved the reading — of the order of the day pro forma. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL. On the motion for the reading of the Lords' amendment on this bill, Lord JOHN RUS SELL said that so many amendments had been introduced that the Bill was almost a new one.— ( Hear, hear.) At the same time it would be very inconve nient in the present period of the session, protracted as it had been, whether by the fault of the House of Commons or the fault of the House of Lords,he would not give any opinion, to enter again into any long and extensive consideration of the measure, without a chance of bei ng a bl e to arr i ve a t a conclu sion. By the amendments which had been introduCed by the House of Lords, a new tribunal had been created. To that tribunal he did not altogether object, for he remembered some years ago, when he carried up to that House the Pcnryn Dis franchisement Bill, the House of Lords differed from the House of Commons with respect to the measure, and threw out the Bill. He was, therefore, inclined in favour of the construction of any impartial tribunal, from which a fair and just decision might reasonably be expected. The way in which the House of Com mons had proposed that that tribunal should be constituted, was, by forming a Committee of the House of Commons, chosen in a particular manner, and empowered to receive evidence on oath. In this proposition the House of Lords did not concur ; and in the amendments which they had made to the Bill, they proposed, instead of the tribunal which the House of Commons suggested, a tribunal of a nature entirely new, consisting of five Members of the House of Lords, and seven Members of the House of Commons. Such a tribunal, he repeated, was perfectly new. It was true that by Act of Parliament, such a tribunal had been created for East India adjudications, but that Act had never been carried into effect. But, although the tribunal thus proposed by the House of Lords was new, he did not think that there were sufficient grounds to prevent the House of Commons from determining to make the experiment. He said this the more readily, because he observed with satisfaction, that in the Lords' amendments it was proposed that the Commis sion for constituting the tribunal should issue only in cases in which the House of Commons addressed his Majesty for that purpose. Whenever, therefore, that course might appear unsatisfactory to the House of Commons, the House would retain the right of proceeding without it, and of resorting to the established usage of passing a bill of disfranchisement through the House in the usual form, and then sending it to the House of Lords for their concurrence. He was by no means of opinion, however, that a tribunal consisting of seven Members of the House of Commons, and five Members of the House of Lords, would make a bad tribunal. But there was another change proposed in the Lords' amendments, and that change was, that over the tribunal so constituted, a judge of one of the Courts of Record at Westminster should preside. Now, admitting that it might be very desirable that some person of legal endowments should assist the Parliamentary tribunal in its investigation, he (Lord John Russell) cer tainly would have wished that the House of Lords had not 'chosen one of the judges of the land for that pur pose. It was a point, however, which, in his opi nion, the House of Commons might safely yield. But there were some further propositions connected with this chief proposition. One was, that the judge should base the sole power of determining what evidence should be admitted, and what evidence should be rejected. Now, un questionably, he could not consent to limit the powers of Par liament in this respect, as it was a limitation which might prove exceedingly injurious. He should therefore propose to disagree with that part of the Lords' amendments, and substi tute the following proposition—namely, " That the Court, composed of twelve Members of both Houses of Parliament, should determine what evidence ought to be admitted, and what evidence ought to be rejected ; and that it should only be in cases in which the Members for and against were equal, that the Judge should be called upon for his decision." There was another objectionable proposition in the Lords' amend ments, which was to the effect, that the Court of twelve Members was to make a species of finding, and that the Judge was to determine whether or not that finding was correct. Now, whenever a Member of the House of Commons, or a Member of the House of Lords, pro nounced a judgment on a political offence, he must natu rally be subject, and must be prepared to meet whatever im putations might be cast upon him by the press, or by the country at large. But he should certainly dread to see a judge, whose integrity and independence ought to be preserved free from the slightest suspicion, placed in a situation in which either the House of Commons, or the House of Lords, or the public, might impute to him that his judgment had been influ enced by a political bias. He decidedly objected, therefore, to those parts of the Lords' amendments which rendered the judge the sole arbiter of the propriety of evidence, and gave him the power of making an award with respect to the finding of the Commission. In other respects the Lords' amendments required to be somewhat altered. They had left out all pro vision by which parties who established charges of bribery and corruption should have their costs defrayed by the Treasury. Now it was obvious that if the House of Commons determined that such parties had made good their charges, they ought not to be left to bear the costs and expenses themselves. He intended to propose, therefore, that whenever a Com mission issued, the costs and expenses of the par ties should be defrayed out of the Treasury. An other of the Lords' amendments, related to the clause respecting the inquiries now pending, into the boroughs of Carrickfergus, Liverpool, Stafford, and Hertford, proposed that those inquiries should extend only to cases of bribery at the last election. Now,undoubtedly they ought to extend to cases of bribery at former elections, especially with respect to Liver pool, in which place the most scandalous instances of bribery had occurred. It was his intention, therefore, to propose that the inquiries should be instituted into this last and previous elections. Although he still saw some difficulties in proceed ing by the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords, he still wished to try the experiment ; it being in the power of the House of Commons to avoid that proceeding by not addressing the Crown, and then to adopt either the established usage of the Bill, or any new measure. The amendment in this point made by the Lords was, he believed, introduced with a view to constitute a tribunal agreeable to all parties, and which would reconcile the manner of receiving evidence adopted by the House of Commons, which was perhaps rather too hasty, with the manner of receiving evidence adopted by the House of Lords, which was perhaps rather too slow. Regretting, there: fore, that the case had occurred at so late a period of the Session, he should move that the Lords' amendments be read a second time. Mr. WARBURTON said that the Noble Lord had justly observed that the proposition contained in the Lords' amend ments was perfectly new. When it was considered that the object of the Bill was to regulate the election of Members of the House of Commons, and to guard against the influence of bribery in those elections, they would certainly fail in their duty if they did not give themselves an opportunity of delibe rately investigating all the clauses of the measure. It had been truly observed by the Noble Lord, that justice to the public demanded that some new mode of conducting measures for the disfranchisement of boroughs in cases of bribery was necessary. But the question was, whether, if the House agreed to the amendments made by the House of Lords in the Bill sent up to them by the House of Commons, they would not abandon every prospect of being able, under any circum stances, to disfranchise a borough whose misconduct subjected it to such punishment. A great proportion of the Members of the House were absent, and there could be no opportunity of considering a measure of so much importance in detail. For these reasons he thought all the notion of proceeding with the Bill in the present Session should be abandoned, and he would move as an amendment to the motion of the Noble Lord, " That the Lords' amendments be taken into further considera tion this day three months." Mr. O'CONNEL L seconded the amendment. At so' late a period of the session it was utterly impossible duly to consi der so extensive a change in one of the most important con stitutional tribunals of the country. It appeared to him to be extremely objectionable to allow the House of . Lords to have anything to do in the first instance with the determination of what cases of alleged bribery in the election of members of the House of Commons should be proceeded with. That decision should be exclusively retained by the House of Commons, and no communication upon the subject ought to be made to the other House until that House had arrived at a judgment upon the point. They ought no more to allow the House of Lords to have anything to do with originating a measure referring to the election of a member of the House of Commons, than they would allow the House of Lords to have anything to do with originating a pecuniary measure. He did not think that the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords was a good one. The proposition went to suppose that seven members of the House of Commons, and five members of the Lords could act together cordially on such a subject. Now, recollecting the pro ceedings on the Beform Bill, and recollecting the efforts which were then made, and made ineffectually, to get rid of the inter meddling of Peers at the elections of Members of the Hous• of Commons, he was at a loss to understand the kind of logic which would admit Peers to be members of a Court in the first instance to sit upon such subjects. At any rate it was a point of great importance, and ought to stand over until it could be deliberately considered. To the appointment of the judge of one of the Courts of Record to preside over the pro posed tribunal, he had a great objection. He did not wish to see a judge mingling legislative with his judicial functions. And with respect to evidence, a judge would have his legal notions constantly outraged by having that kind of evidence brought before him to prove cases of bribery at elections, which he would not listen to in one of the Courts of West minster Hall. When it was also considered that a judge so placed, would have to enter into all the bustle and turbulence of a committee-room, and would be subjected to the influence of all the bad passions of a contested election, he put it to the House whether it would be right to drag the pure ermine of the judicial robe through so much filth. They were now in the month of August; it would be much better to wait till February ; and the Noble Lord might then come forward with some matured proposition on the subject. If such a tribunal as that proposed by the House of Lords were established, it might prove wholly inoperative By Mr. Pitt's India Bill, a similar tribunal was instituted for the trial of offenders in In dia. That tribunal had existed for above forty years, dur ing which time there had certainly been offenders, but not a single trial by that tribunal had taken place. He hoped, therefore, the Noble Lord would relinquish all further proceed ings this session. Mr. HARDY thought the Bill, as amended by the House of Lords, ought not to be passed. . Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, with reference to what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, that no disfranchisement bill ever could, or ever did pass the House of Lords without witnesses being examined at the bar of that House. If it were the opinion of the House that the Lords' amendments to this Bill were too important to be agreed to without more consideration than it was practicable to give to them at present, he would not oppose the motion made by the Hon. Member for Bridport.—( Hear, hear.) During the re cess he would endeavour to prepare a measure that should be more full and satisfactory. The amendment proposed by Mr. WARBURTON was agreed to. FINES AND RECOVERIES (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of Mr. LYNCH, the Fines and Recoveries (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES' BILL. Mr. LANGDALE moved the third reading of the Roman Catholic Marriage Bill. Lord A L THORP stated that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to take the subject of the marriages of Dissenters generally into consideration, and to submit to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, a general measure on that subject. He hoped, therefore, that the Hon. Member would relinquish this particular measure, as the object of it would be more advantageously comprehended in a general 8i11.._( Hear. ) Mr. HUME expressed his satisfaction at what had fallen from the Noble Lord, and entreated his Hon. Friend to comply with the Noble Lord's suggestion. Mr. WILK S was extremely happy to hear the eommuni cation which had been made to the House by the Noble Lord. But however great the grievances of the other classes of Dis senters on the subject of marriages, he thought those of the Roman Catholics still more severe. Upwards of twenty thousand Roman Catholic marriages would probably take place in the course of the year, and unless some legal measure were adopted to guard against such an evil, the whole of the children born from those marriages would be bastardised, and the women thrown into the workhouse. Mr. BUCKINGHAM said a few words which we were unable to hear. Mr. O'CONNELL observed that the measure would be of the utmost importance, not only to the English Catholics, but also to a large proportion of Irish Catholics residing in Eng land. It was impossible to induce the lower classes of Irish Catholics to be married by Protestant clergymen. They would be married by their priests. The consequence was that in the course of five or six years, the woman becoming rather old, the man sought some other female. The marriage was declared illegal, the children were bastardised, and the unfor tunate wife thrown into a workhouse like a criminal. Al though, therefore, he hoped his Hon. Friend would not press the Bill now before the House, he also hoped that his Majesty's Government would see the urgency of the case, and would adopt, without delay, some measure for meeting it. Dr. LUSHINGTON admitted the existence of the evil described by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin ; but also thought that the remedy for it would be more advan tageously comprehended in the general measure, which his Noble Friend had stated it to be the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce. Mr. LANGDALE wished to be guided by the sense of the House. It was with reluctance that he had originally taken up the subject, from feeling his own inadequacy. But he had 'been stimulated by a sense of the various evils which existed at present, and of the urgent necessity of putting an end to them. It had been asserted that he had brought forward this Bill against the sense of the Catholic clergy in this country. Now, not only was that not the case, but he had not advanced a single step in it without previously consulting the highest Catholic authorities. His own opinion was, that if the House agreed to the Bill under consideration, they would facilitate the Noble Lord's intentions respecting the measure which should comprehend Dissenters' marriages generally. But upon the whole, and desiring to conform to what appeared the wish of the House, he believed he should best consult the interests of those whose cause he had advocated, by withdrawing the Bili for the present Session.—( Hear, hear. ) After a few words from Mr. TENNYSON, who considered that the Hon. Gentleman, in deferring the measure, was acting most judiciously, the Bill was withdrawn accordingly. COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL. The Bill was read a third time and passed. CINQUE PORTS PILOT BILL. On the motion that this Bill be read a third time, Mr. HUME said he was sorry to see an important interest legislated for in this partial and unsatisfactory manner. There was no subject which more deserved the serious attention of the Government, as a general measure, and he could not but consider it a reproach to a country so eminently naval, that it had not been long since legislated for in a comprehensive man ner. He trusted that during the recess, Government would appoint some individuals, of competent knowledge and impar tial minds, to look into the subject, with a view to its being properly entertained by that House during the next session. Mr. HERRIE S deprecated the Bill, which was founded on wrong principles. Sir T. TRO LIBRIDGE defended it, and said that the principle was in direct accordance with the recommendations contained in the voluminous reports which had been presented to the House. The object of the Bill was not to injure the boatmen, but to facilitate the putting on board of pilots on the whole homeward-bound trade of the country.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HAL COMB said the ruin of the Dover and Deal boatmen, was involved in the principle asserted in the Bill. He should therefore move, by way of amendment, that it be read a third time that day six months. Mr. G. F. YOUNG would not oppose the Bill. At the same time he was sorry it bad been brought forward, as he looked upon it as a small isolated portion of a great and im portant question. The Amendment was withdrawn, and the Bill read a third time. On the question being put that the Bill do pass, Mr. G. F. YOUNG proposed to add a clause by way of rider, to extend the exemption from pilotage to British con stant traders not exceeding 200 tons burthen, between the ports of Boulogne and the Scaw inclusive, inward and out ward bound, and whether entering the Thames by the North or South Channel. Mr. HUME considered that they ought not to entertain such important subjects on the question that the Bill do pass, and at such an extremely late period of the session. Mr. MANGLES supported the clause. Mr. HUGHES HUGHES would not oppose it, seeing that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, acquiesced in it. After a few %cads from Mr. P. TIIOMSON, the clause was agreed to. The Bill then passed. The Report on the Consolidated Fund Bill baying been brought up, Mr. HUME intimated that on the motion for the third reading of the Bill (this day), he should take the opportunity of making some observations with respect to the finances of the country. On the motion that the Post Roads (Ireland) Bill be read a third time, Mr. O'CONNELL moved the addition of a clause, to the effect that the trust of a certain line of road between Cork and Tralee should not be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. After a brief discussion, in which Mr. O'REILLY, Mr. CAL LAGHAN, and Mr. LITTLETON, took part, the motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time. The Creditors (Scotland) Bill was read a third time. NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS. On the motion of Lord A L THORP, the House went into Committee on the Sessional Addresses. Mr. HUME called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the bad accommodation afforded to Hon. Mem bers in the House. The pestilential air, and the inconvenient posture in which they were obliged to sit, in consequence of the want of room, must have a most prejudicial effect upon the strongest constitution. H e rea ll y cou ld see no objection to the erection of a more suitable building. He observed that new barracks and other public buildings were erecting in various parts of the town, and surely the Members of that House were entitled to similar attention. If they had a place fitted for in Hon. the purposes for w hi c h th ey assem bl e d , t h ose di stur b ances at the lower end of th e H ouse w hi c h f requent l y i nterrupted the proceedings Gentlemen , I w v would d couldnotn take o t obtain place. bt seats The fact was,that the body of the House, were unable to hear ; and the consequence was, that they became tired by a long debate, and indulged in noisy con versation or cries denoting their impatience. It should be re collected that since the passing of the Reform Bill a greater number of Members were in the habit of attending their duties than before that important change ; and therefore there was a more pressing necessity for enlarged accommodation. M any Hon. Members were no w p reven t e d f rom giving strict attention to the proceedings of the House ; and those who did persevere in their attendance were almost incapacitated from repeating their labours in a following session. There was not a single public body which was not provided with a better building ; and even the accommodation for the parish authorities in Marylebone was princely as compared to that afforded to Hon. Members. Under all these circumstances he trusted that the Noble Lord, now that he was relieved from the con sideration of other important matter, would give his attention to the subject with the determination to remove the inconve nience which had been felt and complained of by so many Hon. Members. Lord AL THOR P said that if it was the general wish of the House that some steps should be taken, the Government would be bound to consider the subject, b ut h e certa i nly did not think that they ought to discuss such a question, unless a large number of Members were present.—( H ear , h ear.) It was indeed desirable that the business of the Hou se s h ou l d be conducted in a manner most convenient to Hon. Membe rs , and he would admit that considerable inconvenience was expe: rienced when there was a very full attendance. But, in his opinion, what they ought to look to, was the accommod a ti on given to the ordinary number of members who were present ; and they ought also to consider whether, if the House were too large, it would not be more inconvenient than it now was. But, as he said before, the great objection was, that they ought not to consider the subject in the last two or three weeks of the session, when so few Hon. Members were present. Colonel DAVIES supported the suggestion of the [Tom Member for Middlesex. Mr. WARi3URTON said, that besides the want of sitting THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1834 room, the seats themselves were so uncomfortable and irk some, that it was impossible to sit on them night after night, without injury to health. He thought that the Noble Lord should take the building of a new house seriously into his consideration. Mr. BENE TT was surprised that gentlemen, so fond of economy, should advocate the propriety of laying out so much money to build a new house. He thought the seats were found sufficiently comfortable and convenient, for he had seen Hon. Members sleep very soundly upon them, and he thought if they were made more convenient, they would only further promote sleep, aided as they certainly would be by the dull speeches - of some Hon. Members. Mr. GRANT said that if they built a new house, they should have the consent of their constituents. Mr. WARD thought if this motion were brought forward next session, it would meet with a very different fate from what it met last session. After a few words from Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Mr. BUCKING HAM, and Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, _ _ Mr. AGL lONB Y suggested the propriety of constituting some Board of Commissioners for the manufacturing and con structing of Bills. It would tend to save much of the time of the House, and bring the Bills before them in a much more perfect shape. Mr. GOU LB URN merely rose to express his dissent, that the Noble Lord might not think that the House was unani mous in calling for a new House. If the motion were brought forward next Session, he would be _prepared to give strong reaso ns w h y t h e N o bl e L or d s h ou l d not embark in such an expense. Mr. LENNARD supported the suggestion of the Hon Member for Middlesex. A motion was then made, and agreed to, that a sum should be granted to the Speaker's Secretary, which, together with the fees of his office, should not exceed 4001. Mr. HUME then said that he hoped the Noble Lord would say what he meant to do in regard to a new House. Lord A LTHORP said that it was a subject which ought to be discussed when more Members were present, and not in the present thin state of the House. Mr. G. F. YOUNG hoped the Noble Lord would allow a motion on the subject to be brought forward without making it a Government measure, or requiring the votes of the ordi nary supporters of the Government. Lord ALTHORP said on such a question as that, the Hon. Member had never known him to ask any Member for his vote. MERCHANT SEAMEN BILL. The Lords' Amendment to this Bill were agreed to, and the Bill was passed. CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS BILL. Mr. EW A RT, after stating the progress of this Bill through the House, said that the Lords had thought fit to re ject that part of it which did away with the punishment of death in cases of stealing letters, and returning from trans portation. In regard to returning from transportation, al though death was the punishment for the offence, yet no cases had occurred in which execution had followed ; the only real change, therefore, made in the Bill by the other House was in regard to the stealing of letters, for which persons had oc casionally been punished with death. He thought the better course for the House to adopt would be not to allow the Bill with these amendments to pass. That was his own opinion ; but he was anxious to ascertain what was the feeling of the House on the subject, before proposing any amendment. Mr. L ENNA RD concurred with his Hon. Friend, that it would be advisable, altered and mutilated as the Bill now was, that the House should altogether reject it. The measure was completed spoiled by the other House ; and those who had thus spoiled it ought to bear all the responsibility. He trusted that as that House had so strongly expressed itself against the pun ishment of death, in one of the cases in which the Lords had retained the capital penalty, that capital penalty would not in those cases be enforced. It was only four years ago that the present Lord Chancellor, then Mr. Brougham, had, in the case of Sir James Mackintosh's Bill for doing away with the punishment of death for forgery, expressed the same opinion. Mr. Brougham's words on that occasion were thes?:—" If the law, as it still stood, had little weight in public estimation be fore, then in what light was it likely to be looked on hence forward ? If men's feelings rebelled against it before, would not their opinions and prepossessions be for ever rooted and confirmed by such a division of the House of Commons ? Would it not operate practically on prosecutors, on witnesses, on jurors—aye, and on judges themselves ? Not six months ago had a judge declared to him, in reference to the probable change of the law as it regarded this offence (forgery), that, sitting as a judge, he could not think of leaving a man for execution at a time when Parliament was engaged in a delibe ration, the result of which might be that his blood would be the last which should ever be shed for the crime of forgery." Hear, hear.) Before sitting down he could not help ad verting to certain observations which had been lately made by a Learned Judge, when on the judicial bench in Devon shire, with respect to this Bill. That Learned Judge, to whom he referred, had on that occasion spoken in terms of strong condemnation of this Bill. Members of Parlia ment had an undoubted right to say what they pleased of this or any other measure ; but he must say that the judgment seat was not the proper place to make such observations as those to which he alluded, and he must take that opportunity of enter ing his decided protest against them. Lord ALTHORP said that the other House had agreed to do away with the punishment of death in one of the cases, though they had retained it in another. The question, there fore, for the House to consider was, whether or not th e y oug ht to reject a partial good because they did not get all the .good they desired? He thought they should not. He thought it would be the wiser and better course to accept a mea sure that was good, thought not to the extent they could have wished. For this reason he hoped the House would not reject this Bill, which contained some principles which all admitted to be good. With regard to the suggestion of the Honourable Member (Mr. Lennard), that as that House was strongly in favour of doing away with the punishment of death in a particular case, the law ought not to be carried into effect, though retained by the other House, he (Lord Althorp) must say that he could not sub scribe to such doctrine. He maintained that the law, so long as it was the law of the land, must be respected and obeyed ; and it should be left to the Crown to exercise its discretion as to the cases in which mercy should be extended to the cri minal. But to make the law of no effect because it was the opinion of one House that it ought to be altered, was a senti ment in which he was sure Hon. Members would not concur. Mr. O'DWYER did not think the measure was of suffi cient importance to justify Hon. Members causing the two Houses to join issue on the subject. Lord JOHN RUSSELL differed from the Hon. Member that any measure, involving the question of the life and death of human beings, was not of sufficient importance to warrant Hon. Members allowing the two Houses to join issue on the subject ; but as the Lords had sanctioned the doing away with the punishment of death in one case, though they had retained it in another, he thought that the Bill ought to pass. He had no hesitation in saying that letter-stealing was a crime, which ought not to be punished with death, and if any Honour able Member should next session bring forward a pro position to take away the punishment of death for that offence, he would give it his most cordial support. He thought that the time was now come when there ought to be some general measure on the subject, and when the whole of the subject of our criminal jurisprudence ought to be looked at together. There certainly was no subject which was more deserving the attention of the House. The SOLICITOR-GEN KRAL said that the reason why our criminal laws were so confused, was, that there were so many isolated acts on the subject, brought forward by different individuals. With regard to the present Bill, it had the ad vantage of removing the punishment of death for one offence, and, therefore, he thought it ought to be passed. Mr. O'REILLY thought the Bill ought to be rejected. Mr. THE VO R was of opinion that they should agree to the Bill. Mr. HOWARD thought that the House should pass the Bill. After a few words from Mr. EWART, the Bill, with the amendments, was agreed to. BOROUGH OF WARWICK. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. It was formerly the custom of the House, when boroughs were convicted of bribery or corruption, to propose the disfranchisement of those boroughs altogether, by withholding a new writ, but that was not the case which he now proposed. He merely wished the House to agree to a resolution that no new writ should be issued for the borough in question until next session. With respect to the Warwick Bill, there had been no inquiry in the other House into the circumstances connected with the last election of a Member of Parliament for that borough ; but within the last two days that inquiry had been terminated by the throwing out of the Bill, at least for this session. He would not go into the reasons on which he grounded his motion ; but he must say, that as 125 witnesses had been examined by the Lords, and the printed evidence extended to 998 pages, it was impossible that Hon. Members could, during the short period that remained of the session, examine the evidence with sufficient attention to enable them to understand the grounds on which the Bill had been rejected by the other House. It was therefore necessary that the House should take some steps in the matter, as the decision of the other branch of the Legislature was so different from theirs ; and the step which he proposed appeared to him the best, especially as he had been informed that the Hon. Mem ber for Nottingham intended to bring in a Bill, early next session, on the subject. The motion, then, which he proposed to the House was, that no new writs for the boroughs of Hert ford, Carrickfergus, and Warwick be issued before the 20th of February next. The Noble Lord then sat down, but im mediately rose and said, that as there may be separate reasons for opposing or supporting the motion with regard to Warwick and the other two boroughs, he thought it would be better if the motion, as it affected Hertford and Carrickfergus, should be put afresh. The SPEAKER then put the quest ion that no new writs be issued for the boroughs of Hertford and Carrickfergus before the 20th of February next. No Hon. Member having opposed the motion, The SPE AKER then put the question, that no new writ be issued for the borough of Warwick before the 20th of Feb ruary next. Mr. G 0 UL BURN, in rising to trespass for a short time on the attention of the House, would not enter at large into the subject, but would confine himself to the question whether or not the House had the right to suspend the issuing a writ for the borough of Warwick. He maintained, then, that there wa s nothing proved against th at b orough that would justify the House in sanctioning the motion of the Noble Lord; and that if the House did concur in that motion, it would be destroying the privileges of Parliament. There had been no indisposition on the part of the Upper House to do full justice to the case ; the fullest means had been afforded by Government to the par ties prosecuting the inquiry ; full indemnity to the witnesses had been given ; the case had come before the Upper House with every facility given for attaining the ends of justice, and their Lordships had, after a full hearing of the case against the borough (for the evidence in its favour had not been entered upon even), had come to a decision in favour of the Warwick electors. The borough having been thus acquitted, it was not just to withhold from them the writ returning their representatives. The Noble Lord had said that the ;tate ment of an Hon. Member, not then in the House, that he in tended next session to bring in a Bill for disfranchising the borough, was his ground for making this motion. Surely such an outrageous preeedent as this would not betitdmitted.— ( Hear, hear.) There had been cases where the Crown had attempted, by sinister means, to get rid of some representa tive whom it conceived to be opposed to some contemplated measure ; revolutions which hurled that Crown into the dust, had been the expression of indignation felt by the people at such unconstitutional attempts. There might possibly be parties in that House who had a similar interest in preventing certain parties from having seats; but he would warn them against such dangerous and unconstitutional attempts. He trusted the House would not permit the admission of a prece dent which might hereafter be acted upon to an extent de structive of the Constitution. He for one should strenuously oppose the motion. Mr. POULETT THOMSON was not much surprised at the opposition offered by the Hon. Gentleman, remembering •how opposed he had been to bringing forward the question at all. He ( Mr. P. T.) was not at all disposed to think that the rejection of this measure by the House of Lords should lead to the conclusion that the borough of Warwick stood acquitted. —( Hear, hear.) That borough had been condemned in the House of Commons on the clearest evidence, and its exculpa tion by the Upper House did not at all invalidate the justice of the decision which had been come to by this House, nor render the suspension of the writ unnecessary. If this House were to be called upon to declare they were wrong in sending up that Bill to the Lords at least let them not do it without the fullest deliberation and consideration of the evidence given before the Upper House ; let them not reverse their judgment at a moment's warning, on the spur of the moment, without being fully convinced of the necessity for it. Such a step would not be consistent with the dignity of the House. The House of Commons, by a large ma j or ity h a d co m e to a conclusion ; the House of Lords, on evidence of which this House knew nothing, had come to a different conclusion ' • it was at least necessa r y th a t th e Com mons, before they reversed their opinion, should have full time for considering this fresh evidence. The Hon. Mem ber talked very pathetically about this being a breach of the Constitution, and depriving a constituency of their representa tives--all that was asked was a suspension of the writ till a few days after the commencement of next session. There would be no great hardship in this to the particular constituency or to the public, for it would be no great advantage to the electors of Warwick to have a couple of representatives while the House was shut up. When the House, after full inquiry, had decided that a particular constituency were not in a fit state to be intrusted with the responsible task of electing representatives for Parliament, it was mere mockery to ask the House to issue a writ to enable those electors, so declared unfit, to send representatives to Parliament. Such a course of proceeding would in no way conduce to that good and consti tutional system of representation of which the Hon. Member had spoken, and he therefore trusted the House would consent to suspend the issue of this writ. Mr. HUME entirely concurred with the Right Hon. Gen tleman. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr, Goulburn) had talked largely about the downfall of Crowns happening as the conse quence of such unconstitutional attempts as iii?se, and had seemed to insinuate the possible presence of suspicious rnotives in this case. This was hardly fair of the Hon. Gentlemaii. What would the Hon. Member think of his (Mr. Hume's) insinuating the possibility that perhaps the Hon. Gentleman himself had more interest in the party to be returned for the borough than for the constituency, and to suggest the possibility of a hand-bill being circulated among the electors of War wick, in which one Edward Goulburn should be held up to them as a fit and proper person to represent them in Parlia ment.--( Hear, and a laugh.) As to the present motion, it would be most absurd and inconsistent in the House to reverse their judgment without the fullest deliberation and strictest examination of the evidence given before the Lords. It would be wanting in respect not only to themselves, but to the Upper House ; and he therefore trusted the House would consent to the motion. Mr. ROLFE did not, of course, see that the decision of that House should be put at all upon comparison with that of the Upper House ; the latter House did not sit as a House of Appeal from the House of Commons. Both Houses had sat to form their independent decision ; but if they did not concur in their decisions, it was hardly right to deprive the borough of the right to elect their representatives. Mr. WARBURTON said the House was bound to support its own verdict by suspending the writ. It was absurd to sup pose that on the mere authority of the Lords, the Commons would consent to act so absurd, so inconsistent a part as that required from them by the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. SHAW opposed the motion, and observed that the Lords had thrown out this bill solely on the evidence of those witnesses who supported it ; this must surely be considered a strong argument against it. Mr. T. DUN C OMBE supported the motion. The House was placed in a peculiar position. In the other House one of his Majesty's Ministers had rejected the bill ; in this H ouse another Noble Member of the Ministry came forward to move the suspension of the writ. Under these circumstances the House was peculiarly called upon to act for themselves, and to support the report of their committee, which had, after the fullest inquiry, stated that the grossest bribery and corruption had been carried on in this borough. No fresh evidence had been adduced to show that this report was unfounded. He did not suppose that the Hon. Member had any personal mo tives for opposing the motion; his opposition probably arose from his being an Anti-Reformer; it remained for the Re formers to support their view of the question, and to carry their principles of reform to their fullest practical extent. Captain GORDON said, that it was not constitutional, nor had it been the practice of that House, to examine into the reasons the Lords might have for rejecting a measure, and he did not see that there was anything that required their doing so in the present instance. He hoped the Noble Lord would not press his motion to a division. Mr. HAL COMB contended, that the motion of the Noble Lord was a gross violation of the dearest liberties of English men and he should be surprised if, when it came b e f ore t h e public, the Noble Paymaster of the Forces did not fall off in their opinion as a sound defender of their rights. All the ground lie had advanced for the motion was, that a Gallant Friend of his intended to bring forward another Bill affecting Warwick early next session ; but even if the writ issued, any measure they thought proper could be brought forward next session. He had read through the evidence on which they had passed the bill, and he defied any man to say that there were more than four clear cases of bribery established besides the cases of the ten men who voted against the candidate who bribed them ; and even the four actually guilty were not 101. householders. But this question was to be de cided, not upon the merits of the case, but constitutional principles ; unless indeed the House was prepared to act upon the republican principles—( Oh, oh I)—yes, the de mocratic and republican principles into which the arguments of the Hon. Members for Middlesex and Bridport resolved them selves. He was anxious to hear the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this question, for he had some reliance upon the constitutional principles on which he guided his party in the House ; but he had no confidence in the constitutional principles of the Noble Lord the Paymaster of the Forces, or in the Right Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. P. Thom son). He hoped the Noble Lord would oppose the motion. The Hon. Member then referred to a report of the speech of the Lord Chancellor against the Bill, which he said he had in his hand, but could not read, though he might repeat it as his own sentiments. Sir F. VINCENT did not understand the Hon. Member for Bridport to contend that they were bound, under all cir cumstances, to refuse issuing the writ to Warwick—( Mr. Warburton, " Hear, hear")—but simply that they should re hear the case.—( Cries of " No, no.") It came to the same thing ; for the Bill, having been rejected, they had to recon sider it.—(Cries of " No.") At any rate they would recon sider it.—( Cheers from the Conservatives.) If upon exami nation of further evidence their opinion remained unchanged, it would be their duty to abide by their former verdict ; but if upon an examination of the evidence they found reason to alter their opinion, of course they would not be bound to abide by a measure proved to be bad.—( Hear.) He had great respect for their hereditary legislators ; but he could not allow them to dictate to him what his opinions should be, and oblige him to change them without even seeing the grounds on which he was to do so.--( Cheers.) Mr. MARK PHILIPS said that, having conscientiously voted for the Warwick disfranchisement, on what he thought good evidence, he could not at once stultify his former vote, merely because other parties had taken a different view of the case. The House was entitled to have an opportunity of con sidering the evidence which had induced the Lords to differ with them. Mr. FOWLER expressed a similar opinion. Sir GEORGE M MURRAY entreated the House to consider whether they were not about to establish an exceedingly dan gerous precedent. The motion of the Noble Lord might take the popular side of the question, but that was a circumstance which ought to put them more upon their guard against it. The question was, whether they were to adopt what was the result of the argument of the Hon. Member for Bridport, viz. that the House of Lords should have nothing to say to these questions at all.—( Hear, hear.) If it were wise to make such an alteration in the mode of disposing of election cases, let a proposition be legally brought forward with that view, but let them not change their practice in the manner now pro posed.—( Hear. ) Mr. LYNCH thought the House hail the power of suspen ding a writ for a time with a view to examine further evidence. Mr. HE RR IE S thought the examination of the case was concluded, unless indeed they meant to establish the doctrine that no such case should be concluded except as they chose.— ( Hear.) Although not directly advanced by the Noble Lord who made the motion, that doctrine lurked in the argument he advanced. It might have a majority, but it would not stand the test of common sense.—( Hear.) Those who sup ported that motion should at least have stated what course it was intended to pursue ; but all they had heard upon that head was, that the Noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, had had an intimation from a Gallant Friend that he intended to bring in a Bill upon the subject next Session. Could this mean more than that there was a resolution by all possible means to prevent the issuing of the writ ? He could not help calling the attention of the House to a short passage in the judgment, for so he might call it, of the Lord Chancellor upon this case, as it appeared by the short-hand writer's notes to have been delivered. After stating very fully all the reasons which should make him wish, as an individual, to see the Bill pass, his Lordship expressed himself to this e'ect :--" The 0 03. writ is suspended for th e p resen t, a lthough I hope it wi long b e sus p en d e d ; f or th e H ouse o f C omm ons ought to u) the writ, in order to make its number complete."—(C heer He agreed with the Learned Chancellor, that they °ugh,* make their number com pl e t e , an d s h ou ld therefore vote fin' issuing of the writ. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that, afwr what had N ie l from the two Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite. he felt on!!! in a few words, to restate the grounds on which be motion. He did not rest it upon general but upon P e . e ea grounds. The House of Lords had been occupied tieT,,, e eighty and ninety days in taking evidence, which filled a .""P re folio volume, and had decided on the 4th of August that 1; 1 were not sufficient grounds for them to proceed this The question, under these circumstances, was, whether t.11'7, were, three days afterwards, so near the close of the Sessi; to preclude themselves from all opportunity of examining evidence with any view to a useful result. They s hould ,tc t serve their decision till they had an opportunity of s eeing " l y i , that evidence was.—( Hear.) He had stated, merely in a d of Lion, and not, as had been represented, as the main reao n his motion, that an Hon. and Gallant Friend, who illnetso reste:tanion prevented from being in. his place, had it in conteinfl ati°ll ge propose some measure on the subject early next Session. t o had stated this with a view to show the House that it H. come before them early next Session ; but whetherOs . ° OO , and Gallant Friend did or did not bring forward his W e ' ; ' - es . he thought they ought at the commencement of nex t 'Lel sion to have an opportunity of deciding whether t e , should pursue their inquiries into the Warwick case iulp, ther. The opinion of the Lord Chancellor had bee nr ,jt ferred to, but his Lordship had no more right to poi nt /1 ";„ what course they should pursue with respect to the writ the they had to direct the Lords what they should do with di. Bill.—( Hear, hear.) Allusion had been made to the ca n no t dates for the representation of Warwick, but they vie llu el be injured by the delay of the writ till the next session. . v 0 would during the vacation have full opportunity of and the electors, and of making them so well acquainted w! their sentiments on the concessions to be made to the 1 ? 1 0 5 „ senters, and other subjects likely to come under discus s ' , 41 as to prevent, perhaps, any discrepancy appearing bets'ear% their professions on the hustings, and their votes i n P liament.—(Loud cheers.) Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY denied that further i ol l, es. tigation would be precluded by issuing a new writ for the ber rough of Warwick, or by the presence of a second igel l ' t e for that borough in the H o us e . He should certainly - agaipst the Noble Lord's motion. - The House then divided— For the motion Against it —49 Majority Velr On our return to the gallery, we f oun d seve .ral Hen. ' ice bers presenting, or about to present, petiti o ns ; but n - 0 1 0 being taken that 40 Members were not present, the 1 1 °L ise sv ai counted, and 40 Members not being present, the 1 - ku s ' , adjourned at half-past 12 this morning. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. (1 , VESSELS ENTERED INWARDS AT T HE CUSTOM-HOUSE, r• The Earl of Liverpool, f rom O s t en d ; I n d us trie, from :;eef bourg ; Halifax Packet, from Miramichi ; Canada, from York ; Juliana and Hibernia, from Guernsey ; Margery, i r th ; Quebec ; Henry, from Swansea ; Ad e l a id e , f ro m PortslO u viv, Antelope and Eliza, from Quebec ; Duke of Wellington , and Jacobs, from Guernsey ; Sophia, from Jamaica;• from Creek and Magazen ; Co rnwa ll, from Quebec; ""i ri e , side, from New Orleans ; Belfast, f ro m C a l a i s • Eliza J, 3 • 0 from the Cape of Good Hop e ; Si r W. C ur ti s , Ca lal Anne, from Oporto. ENTERED OUTWARDS FOR LOADING, AUG. 7. Thy Batavier and P r i nce o f S axe C o b urg , f or Roder& b , Aurora, to: Aalborg; Ondervending, for Ostend ; 13 0116ii p e r t• for Elsinore; Gfeat Britain, for Montreal; Samuel 11 ° — for son, for New York; William, for Elsinore; Salvatoriu m, Stettin. V. CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGOES, AuG• 7 . The Pauline Brandt and Having, for Archangel and ft° ll burg ; Anne, for Barfleur ; Rosalind, for Quebec and ) . 1 .. treal; Sandwich, for Bourbon ; Drey Johannes, for Ste CLEARED OUTWARDS IN BALLAST, AUG. 7. rl ii 0 o; The Gute Gedachtnis, for Norden ; Swift, fol . ' "‘ for Brothock, for Archangel ' • Swift, for Alicant ; Johanl' o y; Brake; Vrow Dorothea, for Emden ; Agenta, for NO ) A i r Porsground, for Gottenburg ; Highlander, for Malaga; phitrite, for Konigsberg. VESSELS SPOKEN WITH. The Congress, from New Orleans to Liverpool, on tb e24til ult., in lat. 45, long. 33. 50 01 The Teviotdale, from Miramichi to Liverpool, on th e - ult., in lat. 47, long. 20. 0 01 The Lady Amherst, from Tobago to London, on th e ult., in lat. 45, long. 38. I n lat' The Sampson (American ship), on the 11th ult., '- 40, long. 45. The Kingscove, from Lisbon to , Newfeundlang o n the 16t11 l ult., in lat. 43, long. 34. THE MARKETS. GENERAL AVERAGE. PRICES OF BRITISH CORV , o f t he For the Week ended Aug 1, 1834, made up from the Returns e 1!, 10 Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England and W" ' Imi.erial Quarter. 371. id. Wheat 4Bs. 4d. I Oats „,. lid. Barley Od. I Rye itslcS IMPERIAL AGGREGATE AVERAGES OF THE SIX , w PRECEDING. Wheat 4Ss. 7d. Oats Barley ° • 4 s lCd. I I Rye DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN. Wheat Barley l9s. 10d Rye big j II 444 St ed. 14E. e ,j, 2E. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING THE WY% Wheat. Barley. I Oats. Beano. to 6. Per Quarter. s. to s. s. s. s. to s. s. to s. Blandford 53 28 24 90 Grigg 4O 58 36 40 15 2'2 30 35 Cambridge— 45 29 20 3 5 43 Chard 94 52 26 28 20 22 56 40 Huntingdon— 58 63 25 27 20 2.3 33 3 8 Long Sutton...—. 56 64 17 4 22 32 35 Louth 42 51 26 80 21 26 38 42 Lynn 5O 60 22 25 16 20 32 31 Newark 46 48 31 32 23 25 39 42 Nottingham 42 48 27 32 21 27 32 34 Peterborough . 39 49 25 29 17 24 36 40 ` Plymouth 50 64 30 34 20 23 Pontefract.- . 67 43 27 43 ` " ileafonl --.... 65 70 36 38 22 24 41 .43 Uppingham Wisbech 45 20 37 LEEDS CORN MARKET.—Aug.;S. Q 6,1 WEl_ ( .> LEEDS CORN MARKET.—Aug.;S. vi s l 4 Wheat, Norfolk and Suffolk, 00Ih. .. ~. York. and Lincoln. 601 b. ,••.• 355. to V . 0 Barley, Norfolk and Sufiblk • .. 28s. to 4" g Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Grinding Beans Oats, Potatee iSa. to ,-- w oe , Healing, For. 12d. to 13d. Eng. 9d. to 10 4( 1 . Pc . „ r flos , • Shellin g Ftnoeseed, English, 25/. to 27. LIVERPOOL CORN EXCHA NGE.—Aug. 5 WirEAT, English, White, per 701 b. -- Red 7 0' Scotch, Welch, and Manx Irish, White 6 6 --- Red 5 6 Foreign OATS, English, Welsh, and Scotch, per 451 b 3 4 I rish Foreign BARLEY, English, Malting, per Imp. quarter 3O 0 Scotch and Irish, per 60Ibs -- Feeding 4 0 BEANS, English, per Imperial quarter '3B 0 Irish, &c. Foreign '36 0 PEASE, English, per Imperial quarter 44 0 Foreign FLOUR, English, per 2801 b. 4O 0 - Irish '34 6 OATMEAL, English and Irish, per 2401bs 2O 0 INDIAN CORN, per 4401 b. RYE, per Imperial quarter MALT, per Imperial quarter IMPORT OF GRAIN for the Week ending Aug. 5. Wheat. I Oats. I Barley Flour. 0 Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. l Foreign, 13 r Is. I Irish, &c. Scks.l 4,921 3,58.5 265 I 2,227 souTHALL CATTLE MARKET.—Aug. 6. ._ The supply of Beasts and Porkers to this day's market was ? w , mited, that of Sheep, L am b s, and Calves, good. There was Al fell o goad attendance of buyers, but the trade was rather dull, at the MA' prices per stone of 81b. t o s i n k t h e offhls : Beef Os. 41. t o 45.4,1. Veal 8 I Mutton 3 4 4 4 Pork 2lO '' , Lamb 4s. 4d. to 5s 6d. C.F. A Beasts, 150; Sheep and Lambs, 3,104; Calves, 50; Pigs, 40, s'derable portion of the supply left the market unsold ~...."..:/ --- ii , ittl!r.bl/ RUMFORD Al ARKET.—Aug. 6. to t s. tl.tos. e. c d t° 1 Beef 3 2 414 I Veal Mutton 3 2 41 2 Pork ..... .............. ... 3 0 Lamb .... 4s. 4d. to ss. 6d. 96.1 Suckling Calves, 14s. to 305. ; Q uar t e r o ld St ore Pigs, 12a. to Mitch Cows, with their small Calf; lot. O s . to . Os. Supply limited, and trade rather dull. HAILSHAM MARKET—Aug. ti.__ 45. Id Beef 3s. Bd. to 4s. 4d. Veal 44 ' (Id ' " 0 ° I Mutton 3 6 4 6 Pork 0 0 I amb Supply limited, and trade rather brisk. _____..../.../ CHICHESTER MARKET—Aug. 6. Beef 1 Veal 4. .2d. to Mutton 3 4 4 2 Pork 0 0 Lamb 4s. 6d. to ss. 4d. a 1 3 01 , Supply of fat and l ean st , ek good. Store Sheep, Lambs, l ' tra dn e were in steady d eman d , at somewhat advanced prices, but the other things was dull MARRIAGES. E . 51 On the sth inst., at St. Mary's, Bathwick, John Brrierjhier Late Captain sth Dragoon Guards, to Eliza Mary, only daub G. H. Tugwell, Esq., of Crowe Hall, near Bath. Bil dnl of -7 On the 7th inst., by special license, in the Chapel at vis boL, Palace, Caroline Sophia, second daughter of the LorLord;012 0 "; Rochester, to Sir John Mordaunt, Bart., of Walton, War . .,: - , 5 On the 7th inst., at Edmonton Church, the Rev. 'il' ll° ,7chsrii i , Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and Minister of Vi r e.7 te Jo' Southgate,to Lydia Rawlinson, youngest daughter of the ig Walker, sq., of Arno's Grove, Southgate. 11 01 0 1 1 On the 6th inst., at Christ Church, St. 'Marylebort e ' bter Philip Davies, of Lambeth, to Eliza M ar y, s econd claug.,, r )c• s George Payne, Esq., of St. J o hn's Wo o d- r oad„ Regent' DEATHS. 10, At Windsor, near Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the 2d of 'T ro — erlf John Butler Butler, Esq., Commissary General, and Member of his Majesty's Council, Halifax. /435 ps On the 6th inst., at Lancing Vicarage, the Rev. Th °l2l4s aril( A.M., for many years the highly-respected Minister of that fife On the 6th inst., at Langton, near Blandford, Alone, the e S James John Farquharson, Esq. the jufit On the sth inst., at 'T 'Tunbridge Wells, Robert 1t05 9 7 son of Colonel Hull, of Wimbledon-common. London : Printed and Published by MUR,DO YOv at The Sun Office, No. 4,12, Strands I BIRTHS. Id& On the.-7th inst. in Gloucester-place, Portman-swor e ' George Willi am Wainwright, of a son. r 111''' On the 3d i ns t., a t W es t on - su p er -M are , th e l a d y o f A' / a J ° , God On the of a daughte n r. 5,!2y v 6th inst., i Doughty-street, Mrs. Robert Few, 1 th ei eat s the V kb