The Sun. — London, England, 1861-06-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY,) The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at 5 o'clock. CHURCH RATES. Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition from a place in Durham against the abolition of church rates. Other petitions on this subject were presented. IRELAND. The Earl of LEITRIM presented a petition from Done gal, complaining of the disturbed state of the country, and praying for the suppression of secret societies. He accom panied the petition with some observations in support of it. In the course of his remarks he condemned some proceed ings of Lord Chief Justice Monaghan. The LORD CHANCELLOR strongly animadverted on the Earl of Leitrim's conduct in making charges against the Lord Chief Justice Monaghan in their lordships' house. INDIAN PRIZE MONEY. In answer to a question relating to the payment of Indian prize money, Earl DE GREY and RIPON stated that interest at the rate of five per cent. would be allowed on prize money, though not of course on jewels and other articles of value. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—The Lon don and Mirth-Western Railway (Eccles, Tyldesley, and Wigan), London and North-Western Railway (Chester and Holyhead Railway), London and North-Western Railway (Cheshire Lines), London and North-Western Railway (Liverpool Lines), Birkenhead Railway, Darling ton Local Board of Health, London and North-Western Railway (additional powers), Rhyl Bridge, the London and North •Western, Lancaster and Carlisle, and Caledo nian Railways. The following private bills were read a third time and passed :—The Belfast and County Down Railway ; the Mid-Wales Railway; London and North-Western, and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Man chester London-road Station) ; Banbridge Extension Rail way ; Burton-upon-Trent Water ; and Llandidloss and Newton Railway. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.' Their lordships having gone into committee on this bill, The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that when it was before the select committee certain alterations were intro duced into the measure, which, if not now modified, would materially defeat the good working of the bill. Lord CHELMSFORD said the noble and learned lord had the other evening stated that the alterations were of such a character that they could not be called amendments. He, however, believed that the measure left the select com mittee greatly improved, for it was the sincere desire of every noble lord who sat on that committee to make the measure as useful as possible. No one who had not deeply considered the question could appreciate the difficulty, for it was almost impossible to satisfy all the parties interested in the question. For instance, the Mercantile Law Amend ment Society—an association of London merchants—wished to have the office of chief judge maintained as the best part of the bill, whereas the merchants of Manchester considered the office would be at once useless and expensive. The great blot, however, of the bill was that it would, if passed, intro duce, in regard to non-traders, a retrospective law. When the bill was before the select committee, he attempted to in troduce the amendment which he now proposed for the ex clusion of the retrospective clauses, but was defeated by a very narrow majority. If the bill passed in its present shape the Court would have no power of punishing with imprison. ment non-traders for contracting debts under certain circum stances ; whereas, when he so contracted them, he was guilty of no offence whatever. It was altogether impossible to do away with the difference between trader and non-trader, but as the bill blended t he law of bankruptcy and insolvency, ne approved of its principle so far. However, if it passed in its present form the non-trader would, from that moment, become subject to certain disabilities and penalties with respect to debts contracted before its passing, and which at present attach to traders only. As the bill was originally introduced into the House of Commons it contained the exempting clause, which he now wished to see again em bodied in it. The fact of its having been originally in the bill showed that it was a provision which had at first received the sanction of her Majesty's Government ; and the mode in which it came to be excluded from the measure was some what extraordinary. There was a time each evening when the House of Commons fell into what he might call a state of syncope—(laughter)—and one evening, while in that state of general insensibility with a pressure on the brain, which seemed to be shared in by the Attorney-General, the house not having energy enough for a division, agreed to the amendment of his learned friend, Mr. Mains, who moved the omission of the clause. In asking their lordships to replace it in the bill, he had he thought not only shown t hat without some such provision the bill would operate unjustly in reference to a large number of persons who never, when they incurred debts, contemplated that what he was then doing would be made the subject of an ex post facto enactment, that all such legislation was harsh and unjust, and that the amendment which he proposed had originally received the sanction of her Majesty's Government. The LORD CHANCELLOK said he not only adhered to the opinion to which he had always given expression, that some of the alterations made in the bill while before the select committee were not amendments, but he would go further and say they were many of them deteriorations. Petitions in favour of the bill in its original form had been presented, not only from the Mercantile Law Amendment Society, but from the great mercantile body throughout the kingdom, who attached the greatest importance to its provisions. There was no proposition in it looked spots with more favour by those persons than that for the appointment of a chief judge, and it was a remarkable circumstance that that clause did not meet with the slightest opposition in the House of Commons. On the contrary, it had been hailed on all sides with the greatest pleasure, and he believed the noble earl opposite (Earl of Derby) was somewhat surprised when the motion was made without any previous notice whatever, public or private, to omit it from the bill. There was that day a very small attendance of the committee, es his col leagues were for the most part absent in the discharge of their public duties. A judge of appeal was a necessity of the measure, for the judges of the Court of Chancery would not have the time to devote to that business ; besides there were functions for the chief judge to perform, for which a fresh provision must necessarily be made. If the clause now proposed to be inserted in the bill by the noble and learned lord was agreed to, it would delay, for years to come, the working of the bill. He denied that the Rouse of Commons was in such an unconscious state, when they rejected the proposal, as the noble and learned lord had in sinuated, but it yielded to the solemn arguments of Mr. Malins—)laughter)—and when Sir H. Cairns attempted to upset the vote by a subsequent motion, they defeated that motion by a majority of twenty-five. Ho denied, however, that the bill was at all retrospective, for it in no single in stance made the non-trader liable for anything which he may have done in respect to the contraction of the debts prior to its receiving the royal assent. The Earl of DERBY denied that either he or any of his political friends were liable for the exclusion of the clause appointing a chief judge, as it was done on the motion of he noble and learned lord behind the Treasury bench (Lord Cranworth). When the committee considered the question, it was considered that there was no appeal busi ness connected with bankruptcy which could not be dis charged by the L or d J ustices of Appe e a x l,a e n d d . g there could be no doubt the appoi n t ment would be an oe lyexpensive one, and add greatly t o th e expense of bankruni p t y was this felt to be the ca se , th at when the question not est a iconfinger held came Samuch put in a committee of 17 merabersaherew a respect to the up in opposition to the amendment. With amendment of his noble and lea rne d f r i end, it wasnegatived in a committee of 18 members by a ma j or i ty of two. The noble and learned lord, however, denied th a t t h e bill would create an ex post facto law, but it was clear from the 87th clause, that parsons now residing abroad on account of debts contracted years ago, would be liable to be made bankrupts in respect to those debts if, after notice given, they did not return home. It was equally clear from the 164th clause that these same persons would be exposed to the operation of the penal clauses of the bill. Lord CRAN WORTH denied that the bill was retro spective in the sense complained of, and there were both precedent and authority in favour of it. For instance, Lord Eldon's Bill in a similar way brought builders and insurance brokers under the operation of the bankruptcy laws; and, again, before the passing of Lord Hardwicke's Aet, neither bankers nor brokers were amenable to those laws. With respect to the rejection by the select committee of the clause appointing a chief judge, he did not see how his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could fairly complain that no notice was given of the amendment, for when the bill was b e f ore th e i r l ordships on the occas i on of its. and reading, he (Lord Cranworth) objected to the proposal in question, and stated his intention to move its rejection. Lord BROUGHAM approved of the conduct of the select committee in rejecting the t i t a e ro r p a o n s k al f f or the appointment . of a chi f judge, who, W i t h do. If at a salary of £5,000, would have nothing to a they wanted a competent person to superintend the business of the court, they should retain one of the existing Commissioners for that purpose. After the Passing of the Bankruptcye business in which he had the honour to get passed, th e a Y occ p tipapied a us l iness in bank ru pt c y cases, ousl which pAvi portion of the time of the Court of Chan cery, go dwindled down, th a t th e C ourt o f R ecor d b e i ng no longer necessary, fell into distietude ; and that was what they might have to expect in reference to the court of the chief judge. He could not understa n d th e form of argumen t b y w hi ch it was at tempted to prove the bill was not a retrospective one, for if a non-trade r at present residing at Calais or Boulogne t o avoid arrest f or d ebts contracted before the bill was thought of, contin ue d to do so for six its passing, months after would expose himself to the penalties of this measure, and his creditors m i g h t make h• t, and take posses sion of his p ro p erty, with? t a bankrupt, anything of their proceedings au l hie perhaps ever knowing interfere. There wa s not anything ttil it he would be too late to justice as export facto legislation. A knew so opposed to member of the House of Commons could be made a bankrupt and would then have to resign his seat; but when the Act of Pa r l r ament making that law was passed, care was taken that it should not apply to a member for debts contracted p rev i ously to • enactment, so jealous was Parliament of committing itself to retrospective enactments. Lord WENSLEYDALE was understood to defend the retrospective clauses. On the question being put that the amendment be in serted in the bill, their lordships divided—. Contents 9B Non-contents 6l Majority .. The exemption clause was then inserted. Lord CRANWORTH then moved to leave out a clause introduced into the bill by the select committee, on the mo tion of the Earl of Derby, to the effect that if a father and son have each a life interest in the same estate, and that it is to revert to the son upon the death of the father, the cre ditors of the son, in the event of his becoming bankrupt, shall not be allowed to sell that interest without the special leave of the Court. The introduction of the clause left their lordships open to the imputation of favouring the aristocracy. In the case of a trader, his reversionary right to any property would be sold for what it might bring, and the non-trader ought not to be put in a better position. The Earl of DERBY defended the clause. He had got an actuary to calculate the value of a property held by a father and son under the circumstances mentioned, the father being 56:years of age and the son 25, and he found it would fetch only two years' purchase. In the case of such a pro perty being sold, the present holder would have no interest in keeping up the value for those who were to possess it in succession to himself, and they, on taking possession of it, would have no other care than how to screw the most they could out of it, so that it would come to the present posses sor's grandchild greatly deteriorated. Under those circum stances, it was, he thought, a very mild favour to ask that the estate should not be sold without the section of the Court. _ _ After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE in respect to post obits, Lord CRANWORTH withdrew his amendment. The other clauses were then agreed to ; and the bill having gone through committee, was reported to the house. WILLS OF PERSONALTY BY BRITISH SUB JECTS ABROAD BILL. This bill was passed through committee. CUSTOMS (INLAND) REVENUE BILL. This bill was likewise passed through committee. The Earl of LEITRIM gave notice that, on Thursday night, ho would make a formal motion in respect to the matter which he broached in the early part of the e% ening, an that Chinf Justice Mona ghan might have an opportunity of replying to the charge he had made against The LORD CHANCELLOR said Thursday was far too early a day, as there would not be sufficient time for him to communicate with the learned judge in question. After a few words from the Earl of DONOUGHMORE, the tima was enlarged, and their lordships adjourned at a quarter to eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the Great Northern and Western (of Ireland) Railway Bills were considered and agreed to. The following bills were considered and ordered to be read a third time :—Bonelli's Electric Telegraph Com pany ; Charing-cross Railway (City Terminus) ; Dews bury and Batley Gas; Great Western Railway; Hereford, Ray, and Breeon Railway ; Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway ; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board ; and Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway. The following bills were read a second time :—Devon Valley Railway, Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee Railway, Forth and Clyde Junction Railway, Kinross-shire Rail way, and Shireoaks District Church. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the withdrawal of the Galway Subsidy, from different places in favour of the claims of the London University to one of the vacant seats, against the Irish Poor Law Act, &c. ARMY EFFECTIVES. On the motion of Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, an address was ordered for a return of army effectives of all ranks paid out of the British Exchequer on the Ist day of January, Ist day of February, and Ist day of March, 1860. EARL CRAVEN'S CHARITY. In reply to Sir J. SHELLEY, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that a piece of land had been left by the late Lord Craven, towards endow ing an hospital for the five parishes in the neighbourhood of Paddington, for the reception of patients affected with contagious diseases, and the income, amounting to £350 a-year, had been offered to St. Mary's Hospital on condition .af an additional wing being attached to that institution, to carry out the view of the noble donor (Earl Craven). That offer had been refused, and he was endeavouring to find some other institution which might feel disposed to accept of it. THE CUNARD COMPANY, &c. Mr. GREGORY gave notice that in the event of his hon. and gallant friend (Colonel French) not bringing forward the motion of which he had give notice, for a return of the failures of contract on the part of the Cunard company and other companies for a period of two years, and for in formation as to the enforcement of the penalties for the same, that he would bring forward a motion to the same effect. CIIINA—MR. PARKE'S REPORT. Col. SYKES asked the Secretary of State for Foreign, Affairs, whether the report from Mr. Parkes of his four interviews with the Taeping authorities at Nankin, to which reference was made in Commander Aplin's letter, dated the 2d of April, 1861, in the China correspondence, respecting the opening of the Yang-tze-Kiang river, would be laid upon the table of the house ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that whatever :papers had been received on the subject had been already on the table. DEPORTATION OF MR. MOSS FROM JAPAN. Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Secretary of State• for Foreign Affairs, if any decision had been come to in the case of Mr. Moss, sentenced by Mr. Alcock to fine, deportation from Japan, and imprisonment at Hong Kong ; and if he is prepared to lay any papers on that subject upon the table of the house ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that it would not be proper to lay such papers befoze the house, considering that there were law proceedings pending at Hong Kong in reference to the subject. APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SUDBURY AND ST. ALBANS) BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, Earl JERMYN moved that the house resolve itself into such committee this day six months. The noble lord, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that Sudbury was not deserving of the sweeping condemnation which had been passed on it by depriving it of Parliamen tary representation, and referred to the cases of other boroughs which from time to time had been proved to have been guilty of offences quite as bad as those committed by this borough. He complained that the Government had not dealt explicitly with him in regard to the question he had put shortly before the Easter vacation, as to whether it was intended to deal with the other delinquent boroughs with the same severity as St. Albans and Sudbury had been treated, and he was left uninformed on this subject. He said the question in regard to this borough was not one of abstract political morality or immorality, but one of rela tive or comparative merit; and applying this proposition to the present case, he thought it most unjust to visit the borough of Sudbury with the heavy penalty which had been inflicted on it. He said that it was not his intention to oppose this bill further than to elicit a discussion as to what should be the practise in future with regard to constituencies convicted of gross and systematic corruption. Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he thought the proper oc casion on which the subject of dealing with boroughs con victed of corruption would be when the Corrupt Practice at Elections Bill was brought forward. The object of the noble lord was in fact to resuscitate a defunct borough, and a borough remarkable for its corruption. In the work of Mr. May, who sat at that table, it had been shown that Sudbury had been famous in the annals of political abase ment. He referred also to the overwhelming mass of evi dence before the select committee confirmatory of the bad reputation which that borough had acquired. With regard to the boroughs of Gloucester and Wakefield, it was not necessarily the function of Government to bring in a bill to disfranchise these boroughs, but it was competent for any private member to do so, and if that d td Government would give =cum ill every due were adopted, He trusted, under these cstacesthe noble lord (Earl Jeruiyn) would not press his motion. Major PARKER, who had seconded the amendment, trusted that the house would reject the bill. Mr. SCULLY also opposed the bill, which he denounced as a miserable substitute on the part of the Government for the Reform Bill which they had promised the country, and on the faith of which they had been placed in power. Mr. STIRLING supported the bill as being a step in the right direction. He thought that on the distribution of the seats, it was a fallacy to regard them as being only English seats, and that one of them should be given to Scotland and another to Ireland. When they went into committee he would move that one of the vacant seats should be given to the Scotch University. Col. DUNNE gave notice that in committee he would move that two of the vacant seats should be given to Ire land. His hon. and learned friend the member for Dun garvan had a motion to the same effect, but he specified Cork and Dublin as being the parts of Ireland to whom the additional members should be appropriated, and to that mo tion he had no objection. He contended that Ireland was not adequately represented in that house, and that the present was a fitting opportunity for the Parlia ment to do justice, though in a very small degree. He would move that Cork should be substituted for Lancashire in the bill, or if it was more agreeable to Scotch members to make a similar motion in relation to the Scotch University, he would move that Cork be sub stituted for Chelsea. Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY deprecated the introduction of the subject of the boroughs of St. Albans and Sudbury into the introduction of the bill. He thonght that Government should who we re be allowed to m a k e th e selection of the boroughs to get the additional members. Mr. WARNER b elieved the house ;as not prepared to go the entire le ngth Which the noble lord who proposed the amendment appe ared to suggest, which was that the writs should actually be restored to those martyred boroughs of Sudbury and St. Albans. The house was p?edged to extend I considerably the representation of the peop4 e, and, in endea vouring to fulfil that pledge, the Government would act wisely if they left the exact mode of settling the question in the hands of the house itself ; and, if they did not, treat it as a party question. They could all see the rapid disin tegration of parties which was going on in the country. It was said that the Liberal constituencies had no confidence in the Liberal members, and that the Liberal members had no confidence in their chief. The Liberal party, which was once strong, was now thoroughly dis organised ; the once great leader of that party was para lysed, and the Reform Bill, which once occupied a place in the deliberations of the country, was made the plaything and the spert of irresponsible parties. _ _ The house divided — For going into committee 338 Against Majority The house then went into committee on the bill. Mr. COLLINS moved to insert in clause 1, line 4, that Yorkshire should be entitled to return four Knights of the Shire to serve in Parliament, and should be divided into two divisions, according to the form in Schedule (A) to the act annexed. He contended that it was the bounden duty of the house to declare that three of the vacant seats should be extended to counties. In 1832 the noble lord the Secre tary for Foreign Affairs gave four members each to 26 counties, and he did so upon the ground that these coun ties were entitled to that number of representatives in right of taxation, number of electors, geographical area, and population. For the same reasons the West Riding of Yorkshire was entitled to four members, and ought to have had that number assigned to it by the noble lord at the time he introduced his Reform Bill. He maintained that in population, as well as in geographical area, the West Riding of Yorkshire was well entitled to further representation. The country of the West Riding had, in 1859, 36,000 voters. He denied that the inequality of the representation was made up by borough members, and, on the contrary, he thought that the proportion of borough members to rural members was unjustly large. Ho proposed to take the same boundary as had been proposed by the Government:of Lord Aberdeen, for it was always advisable to take, as far as possible, the ancient landmarks of the country. He re gretted that there were no more seats to be disposed of, but in the interest of the West Riding, he felt bound to advo cate its just claim to further representation. He did not wish to do anything hostile to her Majesty's Government, but he felt himself bound to move the postponement of the clause, in order at once to decide upon the question whether Chelsea should have a member or not. The hon. member ooaolucloa by rnnving the pngkr..--• , n•nt nf the clause. Sir G. C. LEWIS supported the amendment. The hon. member had shown no reason for departing from the usual practice of taking the clause seriatim. The proposal of the hon. member to give an additional member to Yorkshire was one which he was entitled to make, but which he might more properly make in committee. The present bill, unlike former Reform Bills, was limited to the disfranchisement of only four seats. If the Government had not brought the question forward some member would have done so. The proposol of the Government was to give two of the seats to counties and two to boroughs. Thu hon. gentleman proposed to give three to counties, and one to a borough. That was one objection which he had to,the proposal. He could assure the house that the proposal of the Government had been made without any party motive. He hoped the corn• mittee would negative the amendment. Lord J. MANNERS did not think the right hon. gentle man had said anything on the point at issue. The question was whether they should, for the first time since the Reform Bill, adopt that anomalous kind of representation known as the unicorn system. The evil that met them in dealing with the overgrown constituencies of towns was the diffi culty of finding gentlemen of education and position to undergo the expense, and worry of brain and body, to re present large masses of electors. As regarded Yorkshire, the practical remedy would be to diminish the area so as to divide it, and place it in the power of country gentlemen, of ordinary means, to represent a division. He hoped the Government would reconsider the proposal. Mr. THOMPSON opposed the amendment. There was a strong feeling in the West Riding against accepting an additional member if that should involve the necessity of dividing the Riding. It was felt that the decision of a large constituency had a far greater weight in the country than the decision of two or more small constituencies. He did not say that it was desirable that all the constituencies should be large. On the contrary, he thought that there should be both large and small constituencies. Colonel SMYTH believed that the general feeling in the West Riding was in favour of dividing it, and that if the committee decided on dividing it, that that would be ap proved of in the Riding. He believed that the hon. member who last spoke was chairman of the Liberal Association of the West Riding, and he could understand why he objected to a division of the Riding. Mr. BAINES said it was quite true that the hon. mem- ber for Whitby was chairman of the Liberal Association in the West Riding, and it was also true that the Liberal party in the Riding were opposed to a division of it. He thought the proposition of the Government was a fair and equitable one. Now the country was intersected with railways and telegraphs, and the number of polling-places was increased so that the facilities for voting and knowing the state of the poll throughout the country were greatly increased. He thought the proposition to give to the counties the votes taken from the boroughs was unreasonable, and therefore, he should oppose the motion of his hon. friend: Mr. W. E. DUNCOMBE maintained that the West Riding was fairly entitled to two additional members, and he thought that the Riding might with advantage be divided. Notwithstanding the increase of facilities, there was still great expense in bringing voters from long dis tances. In 1806, the expense of an election for the county of York was almost fabulous, amounting, in fact, to £20,000. Mr. DENT thought that the influence of the towns was already too predominant, and without regarding it as a party question, be thought that all interests ought to be fairly re presented in this house. The West Riding had grown ex cessively—in fact, was overgrown, and ought to be divided. Mr. BEECROFT also advocated the division of the West Riding. Sir G. C. LEWIS said that, when Government last year introduced a Reform Bill, in which it was proposed to give two extra seats to the West Riding, without divid ing it, they received a large number of memorials, from which it appeared that there was a great division of opinion in the Riding upon that point, and that this division was not conterminous with the political parties. Some persons of both the Liberal and the Conservative party were found upon each side. Any gentleman who gave his vote in favour of the division of the West Riding, under the im pression that it will be acceptable to the majority of the people of the West Riding, would be labouring under a great mistakes Mr. NEWDEGATE observed that the house was not bound by the views of the electors, for though they ought to have due weight, yet the great and principal point was to secure the return of fit and proper persons to the house. He represented a large constituency, and had some means of judging of the probable inconveniences of a still larger con stituency. He was not in favour of very small constituen cies either, for the excess in that direction was as bad as the other; but the effect of a very large constituency was to place the power in the hands of a small number of persons. It was impossible in an overgrown constituency to do with out organisation, and the effect of that organisation was that a small number, no doubt of intelligent persons, formed an extempore organisation, and got all the power into their own hands. There were but 159 county members in the house, though they represented a majority of the people, and by far the largest number of householders. He should cor dially support the amendment. Mr. COLLINS hoped Government would not press to a divisions, for he could not conceive the embarrassing posi tion in which they would be placed if the 3d clause were rejected after this were passed. If his amendment were agreed to, then it was easy to give the two seats to York shire; but if Chelsea were rejected after a third member had been given to Yorkshire they could not give a fourth. He was not proposing to give to the counties what bad been taken from the boroughs, but to restore a seat to a similar source to that from which it had been taken. Mr. HADFIELD thought that Lancashire was more entitled to two Extra members than Yorkshire. The committee divided, when the numbers were— Ayes (for postponing the clause) .. 81 Noes Majority against postponing the clause —37 Mr. COLLINS moved to substitute in the first line of this clause the words after the "passing of this Act," for the words "on and after the Ist November." The new re gister could not be made out till the Ist December, so that, in point of fact, there would be no register in existence on the Ist December. It would be a great advantage to have the voters entered on the existing register, and it would then be competent to any member to move the issue of a new writ in the present session. Sir G. C. LEWIS said the Bth section of the clause pro vided that the new writs should not be issued till the new register was in force. That provided for the boroughs. As to the counties he would explain why the Ist November had been fixed. The date fixed in the bill had been selected as a more convenient period for the election than during the time of harvest. The amendment was withdrawn. Colonel DUNNE moved as an amendment that one seat should be apportioned to Ireland. There was nothing un reasonable in this request, and both the present and late Government were of opinion that Ireland was not suffi ciently represented. If increase of population were to be considered as a test for guidance in the distribution of seats then upon that ground Ireland had a very strong claim. There were four members for a county of 31,000 electors, or one member to less than 3,000, and it could not be disputed for a moment that the thirteen towns as well as the county were adequately represented. He contended that there was no force in the argument that one of the vacant seats ought net to be given to Ireland, because it was an Eng lish seat. If that principle were to be accepted by the house, it would afford a strong argument in favour of the repeal of the Union ; and it was absurd to treat Ireland as a separate country, so long as it was really an integral part of the United h ingdom. No Government had yet done justice to Ireland,' and he contended that the Irish mem bers were justified in uniting together for the purpose of opposing any Government until their claims were recog nised. At present Ireland contributed to the revenue of the country far more than she reosiyed. The represents. THE SUN: i LONDON; TUESDAY EVENING, - JUNE 1.1, ISM tion of Ireland was most deficient, and he hoped that the committee would consent to take one seat from Lancashire and give it to Ireland. He had no doubt the case as against Chelsea and Kensington was still stronger than it was against South Lancashire. He hoped the house, taking a survey of the entire of Ireland, would agree with him in thinking that that country had not its fair share in the representation, and that they would consent to strike the clause out of the bill which proposed to give an additional member to South Lancashire, and that they would ',give that member to Ireland. Sir G. C. LEWIS said, if he understood the hon. and gallant member's motion aright, he proposed to expunge the southern division of Lancashire, and to substitute an additional member for the county of Cork. Now, compari sons were odious, and he (Sir G. C. Lewis) would not insti -1 tute any. But thus much he must say, that the four seats now vacant were caused by the disfranchisement of English boroughs, and that the view taken by the Government was that those four seats ought to be distributed amongst Eng lish counties and boroughs. There was no narrow or sec tarian feeling in that. The Government simply thought that in the distribution they ought not to disturb the exist ing proportions into which the representation of the United Kingdom had been divided. (Hear.) The representation of Ireland had been fixed by the Act of Union, and it had been further modified by the Reform Bill. If the Govern ment had 40 seats at their disposal at present, and were re allotting them, then, indeed, they might take into their consideration whether additional members might not be given to both Ireland and Scotland. But, under the circumstances, they felt themselves bound to assign the four seats exclusively to English counties and boroughs. That was an equitable and reasonable view of the case. (Hear, hear.) Therefore without disputing the argu ment that Cork, under other circumstances, might be entitled to an additional member; yet seeing that four English seats were vacant, the existing proportions of the representations could not be disturbed by the Government. He hoped that, in saying this, no member from Ireland or Scotland would think the ground the Government had taken untenable, or that it implied and national prejudice or ill-feeling towards their country. In dissenting from the motion, he begged to remind the house that the popu lation of South Lancashire was 2,428,000, and that it had increased during the last ten years by 397,000. Mr. P. URQUHART said that he had been somewhat surprised at the reasons assigned by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, for wishing to confine the vacant seats to England. Heretofore it had been often de clared that Ireland was an integral part of the British eanpire, and that ;+ was regarded as a portion of the United Kingdom, and yet now cue whole of the rout .. o f. t,, be distributed exclusively amongst English counties and boroughs. Lancashire had plenty of opportunities of making her grievances known, but Ireland had not. It had been said by an eminent authority that Ireland was entitled to 150 representatives. At all events, there were anomalies in her representation which ought to be remedied. Several Englishmen had owed their seats in the house to Irish constituencies, who were ready to do justice to the claims of those who did not belong to their creed or country. Mr. W. PATTEN expressed a hope that the Govern ment would not assent to the motion, the arguments in favour of which were about the most extraordinary he had ever heard. It was said, for instance, that whereas Ireland at the time of the Union was allowed 100 repre -1 sentatives, to which five more were since added, she was entitled to a far larger number, because her popu lation had increased. But the population of England had increased three-fold more than that of Ireland, and yet, not only was the representation not increased, but the five members given to Ireland were absolutely taken from England. (Hear.) The honourable and gallant mover's suggestion was to take away a member from South Lanca shire and transfer him to Cork. But what was the fact? The county of Cork bad 16,000 voters and two representa tives. South Lancashire had nearly 20,000 voters, and if the vast extent of her population were taken into account, it would be found that, instead of :having too many repre sentatives, she had not her proper number. The important town of Burnley, for instance, was altogether lost sight of on the present occasion, though its claims upon the house and the Government had heretofore been admitted. The town of Salford, too, had very strong claims indeed, as compared with any other borough, and its claims would doubtless have been well and ably advocated by the chair man (Mr. Massey), but for the position he occupied in that house. The right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary had dealt with the whole subject in such a manner as placed the merits of South Lancashire beyond question or doubt. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SCULLY contended that the county of Cork was not sufficiently represented. He quite admitted that com parisons were odious, and, upon that 'account, he would not enter into a contrast between Cork and Lancashire, but it was impolitic on the part of the Home Secretary to raise such a broad and manifest line of distinction as he had between England and Ireland. They had always been told that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, but now, when it suited the purpose of the Government, the sister country was treated as a separate nation. Irish members had been bribed to carry the Act of Union, and some of them were glad that they had a country to sell. The calculations of Lord Castlereagh was that Ireland was entitled to 108 seats. He woulrl not like another member for the county of Cork, for he would rather not have a colleague at all—to say nothing of the chance of a contest. (A laugh.) It was difficult enough to'keep one's own seat at times, but it was much more difficult to keep a colleague in order. (Renewed laughter.) He objected to the mongrel of na tionality which called members from Ireland Irish members, for they were members of a British Legislature and were British legislators. Notwithstanding his personal feeling, however, he considered the present a fair opportunity for giving an additional member to Ireland, and if that were done, the claims of Cork were undoubtedly good. The liberality of Irish Roman Catholic constituencies in returning Protestants deserved the favourable notice of the House. Sir E. COLEBROOK E protested against any course of proceeding which shculd act as a bar against the claims of Sootland to further representation. He considered that Lancashire had better claims than Ireland for an additional member ; but he considered that Lanarkshire stood, in point of population, on a perfect par with the county which was the subject of the present clause. He was aware, however, of the difficulty of pressing the claim for Scotland; and if he refrained from doing so, it was because he thought that on the present occasion more substantial justice would be done by meeting the question on the 3d clause, and he re served to himself, when that clause came under discussion, the right of advocating the claims of the county with which he was connected. • Lord J. MANNERS had always looked upon this mea sure as being of great importance, and he should vote simply on the ground which he hid previously advanced during the course of the evening, The committee then divided, whea there appeared— For the amendment Against it Majority The amendment was therefore lost: Mr. BAZLEY (for Mr. Massey, vho occupied the dhair) moved to add at the end of the clause, " And the borough of Salford, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, shall be entitled to return two members instead of one member to serve in Parliament." Ho hoped this motion would be agreed to on account of the great increase that had taken place in the population and wealth of Salford. Sir G. C. LEWIS preferred the clause as it stood. It was true that the population of Salford was greater than that of any other borough returning only one member, but in fact Salford was virtually a part of Manchester. (Hear, hear.) If the proposal was adopted, Manchester would vir tually have four members, while Liverpool would only have two. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BAZLEY withdrew the amendment. Tho clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 2. On clause 3, Mr. KNIGHTLEY proposed to leave out the words " parishes of Chelsea and Kensington," in order that the appropriation of the vacant seats might be the subject of future discussion. Sir G. C. LEWIS thought that the hon. member had adopted rather an unusual mode of moving an amendment, inasmuch as he had not made any counter proposal, so as to enable the committee to decide between it and that of the Government. The Government had assigned a seat to Chelsea and Kensington, because it seemed fair to give one of the four seats to the metropolis. The same proposal had been made in the last two Reform Bills. (No, from Mr. Disraeli.) He did not appeal to that as a conclusive pre cedent in support of the present bill, because the previous bills were of a more extensive character. Owing to the magnitude of the metropolis and the great increase of its population, it was fairly entitled to an additional member. In 1851, the population of the metropolis, within the limits of the local government, was 2,352,000, and this year it was 2,803,000, being au increase in 10 years of 440,000. The population of Manchester was only 243,000 ; of Liver pool, 260,000; and of Birmingham, 212,000. So that the increase in the population of the metropolis was equal to the population of Manchester and Liverpool put together. The population of Vienna was 476,000; of Berlin, 438,000; and of Madrid, 4 75,000—50 that the increase in the popula tion of London, in the last ten years, was greater in some instances than the population of the capitals of Powers of the first magnitude. The population of the two parishes of questions massesgt hod difficultyns Chelsea and Knightsbridge had increased, in the last ten I years, from 100,000 to 134,000. (Hear.) Property had also increased in a degree equal, if not superior, to the increase of population. He did not think that any other borough could be pointed out which had increased in these respects ' in an equal degree with Chelsea and Kensington. Mr. BENTINCK said that in answer to his hon. friend the right. hon. baronet had assumed that there was no conn ter.proposal. But, in point of fact, the hon: gentleman had made a counter -proposal. The objection to the proposal of a a l wd o hb n ie e ttah should egrrei ga b ht e takenhon increase. b in a t ri o onn a pe c to c p o h u ua n l da t t . itoankY. taken , the only this clause was that there was no reason why congregated w of h r ic e h for e ra ver w y as G t o h v e er g n r m ea en t t p h re a d d om to in d a e n al ce w T o i wh t f h ea in the urban districts. Until that gross inequality moved there could be no substantial justice in any reform, iknd they would And that they could never get way aatidac. vsirtg great st powerhreal a l 1 tory measure till they met that difficulty directly and frankly. The matter ought to be carefully watched, be cause the preponderating power of the urban constituencies enabled their representatives to impose upon the country measures to benefit the towns at the expense of the purses of the rural constituencies. As the right hon. gentleman has based his argument solely on the ground of numbers he must point out that, if he adhered to this ground, the rural districts were entitled to every increase in the number of seats. He therefore hoped the house would reject this proposal by a large majority. Lord ENFIELD said there were only 15toroughs which equalled Chelsea in rental. He thought no other borough was so well entitled as Chelsea to an increast d share in the representation. Mr. DISRAELI said before they came to a division on this important clause it was really necessary that they should be satisfied with the data on which the Government based their conclusions. He certainly must say that he was astonished at some of the figures which had been given by the right hon. baronet. If he had quoted them even from memory the house would not have attributed it to defective memory, but when he came down to the house armed with official documents, the discrepancies were all the more sur prising. It was true the right hon. baronet had cheerfully accepted some corrective suggestions that were offered, but the fact remained that the data of the Government were not to be depended upon, and it was upon the correctness of these figures that the right hon. gentleman rested the whole of his defence of this clause. The right hon. baronet said the population of Birmingham was 112,000, and afterwards correcting himself, said it was 212,000, whereas it was nearly 300,000. (Hear.) Then, again, he stated that the popula tion of Liverpool was 290,000. He must say he was asto nished at that figure. Whatever mightbe the ultimate effect of the American war upon that city, he thought the dimi nution within the last ten years must have been very extra ordinary, and on refet ence to the last census, he found that the population of the Parliamentary borough of Liverpool was 443,000. (Hear.) • Sir G. LEWIS said two series of returns had been made, and he had only received the latest return that day. He was not aware that there were two series of returns, and that from which he copied was the superintendent-general's. He however thought that the right hon. gentleman would find that the figures which he quoted were correct. Mr. DISRAELI—No doubt the right h on . baronet quoted correctly ; but then, although they were the same names, they were not the same numbers. They had, how ever, certain statements founded on numerical facts, and it was really no excuse for the right hon. baronet to say that his figures were correct. For instance, it was stated that the i z,p441 a ti.,74 of Manchester was 220,000, but he found it to be 320,000. Now, taking the Parliamentary population, it seemed to him that the hon. baronet was altogether mis taken. The right hon. baronet, however, instead of taking population, had laid other grounds before the committee. Now he (Mr. Disraeli) must say it was no ground to say that, according to population as the right hon. baronet stated it, so ought to be the distribution of members. The conclu sion, then, that the right hon. baronet arrived at with re spect to Chelsea, as compared with Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, he (Mr. Disraeli) had shown to be utterly erroneous. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, upon what grounds did the right hon. baronet propose to proceed ? The right hon. baronet had chosen his own ground ; but they had a proposition by the hon. member forNorthamptonshire before them which was deserving the most serious consideration of the committee, while, on the other hand, that proposed by the Government they had not brought forward a single argument to support. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LOCKE thought the right hon. gentleman had not made out in any way a case against the proposition of the right hon. baronet (Sir G. C. Lewis). The right hon. baronet had stated that the population of London had increased within the last few years to an extent 44400,000, which was not only a large amount of population but a greater increase than that of any other country. The inference, therefore, was that in the appropriation of seats a member should be given to Chelsea and to Kensington. (Hear, hear.) Now what was the ground upon which it was proposed to dis tribute the members ? Why, simply on the ground of population. (Cries of " Divide, divide.") Hon. members interrupted, but he, as a metropolitan member, had a right to be heard. (Hear, hear, and Divide, divide.) He assured hon. members who were interrupting him that it was not his intention to sit down until he sue. ceeded in obtaining a hearing. (Hear, hear, laughter, and cries of "Divide.') He repeated that population was that upon which they should go—(hear, hear)—and he contended that the metropolis was entitled to an additional member. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM said with reference to the remark which had been made by the hon, and learned member for Southwark, he begged to assure him that he (Sir J. Gra ham) by no means intended to run the London University against the claims of Kensington and Chelsea. (Hear, hear.) When he gave notice to bring forward a claim on behalf of the London University, he said that he meant to support the principle of the Government in giving a mem ber to Kensington and Chelsea. He was told that he was not blindly partial to taking mere numbers as the standard; but it appeared that Kensington and Chelsea had not only a population of 130,000 but they had contributed to local and general taxation so much as one million annually. Now that was a combination of population and wealth, and on the whole he was of opinion that Government had acted rightly in proposing to give one member to Kensington and Chelsea. (Hear.) His hon. friend the member for Norfolk had referred to the difference in the proportions of the ur ban and the rural population. It appeared by the return just made that there was a vast ,increase in the urban as compared with the rural population, and he (Sir J. Gra.. ham) was sorry to find such was the case, and the fact was one not to be lost sight of. Ho thought the present oppor tunity should not be lost of making the additions contem plated, and he hoped he would never see the day when ad ditions would be pressed simply on the ground of popula tion without regard to wealth and intelligence. (Hear.) He would not hesitate to give his vote in favour of Ken sington and Chelsea even in preference to the London University. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Mr. WALPOLE said the right hon. baronet who had just sat down would give his vote in favour of Kensington and Chelsea, and if that proposal failed, he would then propose that the seat should be given to the University of London. Now the Government had recommended the claims of Kensington and Chelsea solely on the ground of the increase of population—but the inaccuracy of the calcu lation had been pointed out by his right hon. friend Mr. Disraeli, and he could not help observing that there was a fallacy in the argument of the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. C. Lewis) for ho should have shown not that there was an increase in the population of the metropolis, but that there was such an increase in the population of Kensington and Chelsea as would warrant them in giving one member to these places. The right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) had told them that Kensington and Chelsea had not Only a population of 130,000, but that these places paid so much taxation that they were entitled to have a member. His (Mr. Walpole's) opinion always had been, that if they gave a member to Kensington and Chelsea, they should do so by the division of Middlesex into two parts. The propositions before them required great consideration, and for his part he should vote for the amendment of his hon. friend. Sir G. C. LEWIS said a few words in explanation, and observed that Kensington and Chelsea had in 10 years in creased 30,000, that the increase in the metropolis in the same period had been 440,000, which was nearly equal to the population in the Parliamentriry borough of Liverpool, which was 443,000, and more than the population in the Parliamentary borough of Manchester, which was 338,000. Mr. BARROW, referring to the statement of the right hon. gentleman, that the urban population had greatly in creased since the last census, while 'that of rural districts had not so greatly increased, suggested whether that might not arise from the preponderance of urban members in that house. (Cheers and laughter.) He did not think a case had been made out for the proposed enfranchisement, which he thought most objectionable, and he should cer tainly vote against it. For the amendment .. 275 Against it Majority against Government -103 The proposition to enfranchise Kensington and Chelsea was therefore negatived, and the announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers from the Conserva tive side of the house. Sir G. C. LEWIS then moved that the committee do now report progress amidst loud cries of " Go on, go on," Mr. AYRTON hoped that if hon. gentlemen were de termined to go on, they would allow the subject to be dis cussed fully and fairly. If they were not to be heard patiently they had better report progress. Lord J. RUSSELL said it would be inconvenient at that late hour (twelve o'clock) to discuss all the questions as to the third member for Middlesex, the member for the Uni versity of London, the member for the Scotch Universities, and other propositions which were on the paper. He hoped they would agree to report progress. (Cries of "Go on.") Mr. DISRA.EL I said ho thought that the proposition of the Government was a very reasonable one. They had brought in a bill of great importance, one of the main pro positions of which had just been rejected by the house— (hear, hear) —and he thought it was but right that they should require a little time to consider what course they should now pursue. (Hear, and ironical cheers from the Opposition.) He would like to know on what day they intended to proceed. Sir G. C. LEWlS—Monday next. Mr. DISRAELI—That is only a very reasonable delay. Mr. V. SCULLY objected to Monday next, as he had a motion for that day. The Chairmßn then reported progress. INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. This bill passed through committee. SUPPLY REPORT. The report was brought up and agreed to. On the motion of Mr. VILLIERS ; the Irremovable Poor Bill was read a second time. The Removal of Scotch and Irish Poor Bill was read a second time. The Excise and Stamps Bill, as amended, was considered. The Edinburgh Assessments Bill was read a third time and passed. VACCINATION. Mr. LOWE obtained leave to bring in a bill to facilitate proceedings before justices under the acts relating to vacci nation, The other business was disposed of, and the lawn ad- Jourued at nYO minutes to two o'clock. - - TIIE LATE ATTEMPTED MURDER AND BURGLARY AT ISLINGTOIV. Yesterday, it having become known that the un fortunate female, Mary Ana Redkison, had so far recovered as to be enabled to undergo a public exa mination, the Clerkenwell Police-court was crowded to excess, and the roadway and pavement were rendered nearly impassable. After the disposal of the ordinary night charges the prisoners Frederick Strugnell, aged 18, George Quilter, aged 24, and William Liney, aged 21, all butchers, were brought up for re-examination. Mr. Sleigh, barrister, attended for the prosecu tion, instructed by Mr. Leyton, vestry-clerk of Islington ; Mr. Beard, of Basinghall-street, de fended Quilter and Liney ; and Mr. Lewis, sen., appeared for Strugnell. The unfortunate girl having been brought into the court and seated immediately before the magis trate's table, Mr. Sleigh requested that Strugnell only should be placed at the bar. The prisoner was then brought into court, and on seeing the poor girl's disfigured countenance and bandaged head, became apparently much con cerned. Mr. Sleigh said----I appear before you to-day for the purpose of completing the case against the pri soner Strugnell, who is charged with wounding this unfortunate girl, whom, I am happy to say, is suffi ciently recovered to appear here to day, with intent to murder her. The facts of this lamentable case have been so fully laid before you on the previous occasions, that I feel it is not necessary for me to detain you by going over them again. This unfor tunate young woman is frightfully disfigured, but I am happy to say that she will recover. I will just shortly examine her as to the deposition which she has already made when at the hospital. Mr. Lewis asked that the whole of the prisoners should be placed at the bar, as it was ono transac tion. Mr. Beard objected to such a course. Mr. Sleigh, as counsel for the prosecution, had carefully considered the whole case, and had come to the conclusion that the course he proposed was the most expedient. Mr. Mould (the chief clerk) then read over the deposition made by Mary Ann Redkison while in the hospital, and which was reported in our columns at the time. The poor girl having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Sleigh. She said—When I made that state ment I could not see very well. The person I referred to as Fred. is the prisoner at the bar. [The witness here cried for some time.] After a short lapse she c on ti nue d—H e li ved with Mr. Higgins at the same time that I did. The state ment which Mr. Mould has just read to me is correct. Cross•examined by Mr. Lewis—l have a perfect recollection of all that took place up to the time I became insensible. I did not give Strugnell the knife before I went upstairs for him to protect me if any one was there. I never touched the knife. I did not ask him to go upstairs with me after he had been in the parlour. lam quite sure of that. I said to him, "The street door is open, some one has broken in and robbed the place; I will go and. see." I will undertake to swear that. My recol lection is quite clear on that point. He never went upstairs with me. I never saw him, nor did I hear his footsteps behind me. When I came down stairs I did not take up the chopperifrona behind the door to chop at him with. I only touched the chopper to put it behind the door, as I always did. The knife usually laid underneath the counter with the other things. It was not with the chop per, which I placed against the door after he came back with the gin. It was on the opposite side of the shop. I had no quarrel with Strugnell, not in the slightest, but up to the moment when he struck me we were on the best terms of friendship. In fact, we had been on the best of terms during the whole evening until he struck me with the knife. Mr. J. D. Hill was the next witness. He said— I am the house-surgeon of the Royal Free Hospital. At a little after 9 o'clock on the evening of Sunday, the 21st of April, the young woman, Mary Ann Redkison, was admitted to the hospital, most severely injured. I saw her almost immediately after her admission, and she has been under the care of Mr. Wakley and myself ever since. On examin ing her, I found that she had a very extensive lace rated wound in the upper part of the face, extending through all the structures and bones of the nose. There was a scalp wound on the upper part of the head, exposing the skull, and cutting through its upper table. The length of that wound was about 21 inches. There was one more wound on the same side, just above the temple, cutting the skull com pletely through in an obl'que direction, and pene- trating through to the membranes of the brain. She had a wound in her fore finger on the right hand, and one upon the wrist of the left arm. These were the principal wounds. By Mr. Barker—These wounds were such as might have been produced by an instrument like a but cher's knife and clever. Those on the head I should say were inflicted with a clever, and those on the hand and wrists with a knife. By Mr. Sleigh—The wounds on the head were of a very serious character, and my.;.th imperilled the life of the young woman. I l oelieve that for a long time her life was in danger, The fore finger on her right hand is impaired, am afraid, permanently-- at all events some gr,-at length of time must elapse before she can remover the use of it. I did not my self observe teat the girl's dress was cut in different places. - The nurse, who had accompanied the poor girl from the hospital, explained that the dress was cut in several places. Mr. Sleigh said he had no further evidence to offer, and he would therefore ask the magistrate to com mit the prisoner Strugnell on the charge of cutting and wounding with intent to murder. Mr. Mould then read over the depositions of the numerous witnesses who have been examined at the different sittings. Mr. Lewis then addressed the worthy magistr& e on behalf of Strugnell. He had no doubt that the magistrate would commit his client to take his trial, but he (Mr. Lewis) wished to say a few words as to the particular charge on which he should be committed. No doubt they all had the greatest sympathy with the injured young woman, but they must not forget that justice must be done to the young man at the bar. The young woman had stated in her evidence that up to the last moment she and the prisoner were on the best terms of friendship, and be would ask whether there was any supposition that his client intended to murder the young girl. That person had made her state ment on oath, and all they had on the other side was the bare word of the accused. Perhaps if he (the prisoner) could by the law be allowed to give his version he might explain the whole matter. He (Mr. Lewis) was instructed to say that his client had not the slightest intention of murdering the young woman. She had stated to the Court that after the first blow she received she became insensible, and therefore, he would ask how could they expect otherwise than that her memory had become a perfect blank as to what did really take place? Under these circumstances he would ask the worthy mag i strate whether the case would not be fully met by sending the prisoner for trial on the charge of doing some grievous bodily injury, without saying that there was any felonious intention whatever on his part. The number of wounds in a case of this sort should never be taken into consideration ; for when a man had a knife in his hand, and using it under circumstances of which no explanation could be given, he might wield it ad captanduin, without any idea of injuring any person seriously. Again he (Mr. Lewis) would ask, what motive the prisoner could have in mur dering the young girl, with whom he had been on the best terms. They had been drinking some gin together and the whole scene in the house was be tween themselves only ; and how could it be said that the chopper was not lifted by the young woman, or that the young man used the knife in self-defence ? In fact he thought his client's state ment the most feasible of the two, and he would therefore ask the magistrate to commit the prisoner only for doing some grievous bodily harm, and not with any felonious intent. The magistrate said he could not grant the appli cation, and the prisoner must be committed for stabbing, cutting, and wounding Mary Ann Red kison, with intent to murder her. The prisoner having been uly cautioned, in re ply to the magistrate as to whether he had anything to say George in n Quilterdefence, m a e n r d ely shook. Liney w ere th en his head. laced in the dock with Strugnell, and the whole three were examined on the charge of the robbery. The witnesses having been ordered out of court, Mr. Higgins was called and sworn. He said that he went out on the Sunday in question at about three in the afternoon, and returned about ten o'clock in the evening, when he found a crowd round his house. He was told o f w h a t h a d t a k e n place. When he went out he left an iron box in his bed room in which was about £lOO in money, a savings bank book, and some other articles. On his return he went upstairs and found the box gone, with some r ings, studs, and oth er va l ua bles from other part s o f the room. Str ugne ll an d Liney had both beer, i n his service, and th e y left at different times. Th e prisoner was l as t i n hi s employ at Christmas w h en he was there for a few weeks on a job. At that time Quilter, the other prisoner, used to call fre quently and see Strugnell and Liney, a n d they all app ared on the best terms of friendship. C livingross-e with xamin witnessMr.edby tie L wis---Wh en Strugnell was did his wo r k well. Had no fault to find with him, and gave him a charac ter when he left. Cross-examined by Mr, Beard—He gage Liner g good character when he left witness's employ, to enable him to get another situation. Had found him to be a good servant when in his employ. Mary Ann Redkison was the next witness, and she went over the evidence as formerly given with respect to Strugnell going to the house of her mas ter on the night of Sunday, the 21st of April, and also spoke as to his going for some gin ; her letting him in again, and then his going into the parlour, as he said, to seethe time. She said he had brought some copies of " Cassell's Bible," and while she was looking at the pictures she heard the noise of some boys in the street, which led her to believe the street door had been opened. She told the prisoner so, and said she would go up and see if anybody had broken in. She took the candle, and as she went by she saw the shop-door was open. Prisoner remained in the shop, and when she was halfway up the stairs she heard him say, "I have got a knife ; I will do for you." She went to her mas ter's room, and found the iron box was gone, and on her going down stairs again prisoner asked her what she was going to do. She said she was going to call a policeman, as the house had been robbed. He then struck her with a knife, and she remem bered no more. She called out, "Fred, oh do not hurt me. lam Mary." Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—l repeated the expression I have just said I heard Strugnell make, "I have got a knife, I will do for you," when I was at the hospital. I should have repeated it here to day if I had been asked. The door df the shop was closed when he went for the gin. When Strug nell went into the parlour, as he said to see the time, he had plenty of time to open the door. Re-examined by Mr. Sleigh—The parlour is on a level with the kitchen and the shop, and the bed room in which the safe was taken from was imme diately over the parlour. I made use of the ex pression about " Strugnell threatening to do for me," to Mr. Layton, the solicitor for the prosecu tion. The magistrate asked the injured woman whether she would like to retire, and she replied that she should like to remain in court and hear the whole of the case. Henry Biggs said he remembered the night in question, and about 20 minutes past nine he was at . the Offord-road cab stand. The prisoner Struguell got on the box of the cab and asked him to drive to Lyon-street, Stephenson-terrace (the place where Quilter resides). The prisoners Liney and Quilter brought a box and placed it in his cab. The box appeared to be made of iron and seemed to be very heavy. When the box was put into the cab the prisoner Strugnell was still on the box. After that he got down and the three prisoners rudo in the cab one of them telling him to drive to South-street, Pentonville. He did as he was told, and when he got there Liney got out, knocked at the door, and was told that the person he wanted was not within. They then went to a public-house, and after they had had something to drink, the prisoner Strugnell said he would not wait any longer, and bidding them good night, went away. He then drove the other persons to several places, and ultimately left the box at South-street, the prisoners Liney and Quilter removing it. Mr. Barker fully committed the prisoners to New.. gate for trial. COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCHESTER —JUNE S. A large supply of wheat. Trade very <Lull, and 2s per qr cheaper to make sales. Beans is latr,er than the prices of last week, and no peas on offer. Wheat, white... ,60s to 66a .13P,ans Mazagan..36, to 42 s red 44s to 60s Middle & small 42s to 484 Barley —s to I White peas 44 to 48e Oats ..s`"'" t;) —s I Grey,. 38s to 44s CHELMSFOItD—J . ONR 7. A very fair supply of wheat, but indifferent in quality. Best wher,ts receded is per qr on last week's prices • inferior qualities f rom i s to 2s per qr. cheaper, and even at' the t re duction very little business doing. Spring corn about the same, if any change, the turn lower. Wheat, white 328 to 64s Feu, Partridge ..44s to 45s red 41s to 61s White 438 to 46,. Barley 29s to 42s Boiling 43s to 475 Chevalier ....32s to 45s Dun 40s to 43s Grinding 26s to 37s Beans, Tick ....39s to 48s Malt ....61s to 67s ' Harrow Ticks 39s to 50s Chevalier ....648 to 698 Ma:zagan 33s to 45s Oats .. .. 26s to 31s STAMFORD—JuNE 8. There was a fair show of wheat at market, and the trade ruled firm at former prices. Barley slow, and late rates were n• , t exceeded. O ats and other articles in small de mand. Wheat . ......... .54s to 60s I Oats.. 24s to 32s White do .. 60s to 66s I Beans 44s to 50s Barley ...... .....28s to 42s Ditto, old 5Cs to 54s KIRKALDY—JUNE 8. A very moderate supply of wheat, small of oats, and only a parcel or two of barley; wheat in favour of buyers, and oats 6d dearer. Wheat Barley 1 Oats First.... 38s Od I 34s Od I 26s "Od Second.. 64e Od I 38s Od I 30s Od Third .. 60s Od j —s 32s CA COAL MARK' (Prices of Coal per Ton at .E7C—JuNE 10. the close of the market Walls End. s. d. Bower's West Hartley.ls 6 Tanfield Moor l3 0 Wylam ... l5 6 Holywell 15 9 Carr's Original Hartleyls 6 Carway and Duffryn Malting Do. Anthracite 21 6 North Percy Hartley 11 6 Howard's West Hart ley 15 6 Byass's Bebside West Hartley l5 6 West Hartley 15 6 Haswell Gas. l3 3 Hastings Hartley l5 6 Ships at market, E R. d. Hartlepool.. ... .. 18 6 Harton l7 0 Hetton .. l9 0 Heugh Hall 17 0 Tees . 16 9 Kelloe . .... ..18 0 Thornley ....16 0 Stewart's ... lB 6 South Hetton ...19 0 Thorpe l7 6 Haswell Riddell ..... . Tunstall Trimdon Thornley.... 16 3 North Hart1ep001......15 6 ir.; sold, 53. well known [ A DVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills and Ointment...-. theseh r even Hope f o a r n I d nval highly-prizedi d s l n a all isholl-health b th e after the failure of all other medicines. Holl oway ' s P ills and Ointment will be found safe and efficient curatives in remedies cases of all diseases affecting the throat, chest, liver, stomach, bowels, and kidneys. For the cure of gout, rheumatism, and dropsy, they have attained a fame unequalled in the history of medicine. The Pills strengthen the system by thoroughly purifying the blood; the Ointment extinguishes inflammation and allays pain. The virtues of these noble exemplifiedras in a disorders ex r b e r s a t i o n r a t and ds nervousr stri k n s g y l s y t e p of al t s h y e , tremors, and all kinds of fevers, fits, and epilepsy: D[AhvEuTisEmENT.l--We have read with much pleasure u Barry's Report on the cure of diseases NI ithout medi cine by Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food The follow ing are a few extracts which appear to merit the attention of many :—Cure N o. 47 , 121 — " M i ss Elizabeth Jacobs, of Nazi/1g Vicarage, Waltham-cross, Herts : a cure of ex treme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings, low spirits, and nervous fancies." Cure No. 52,612—The Dowager Countess of Castlestuart, of many years nervous irritability, bile, and indigestion. Cure 54,812—Miss Virginia Zeguers, cured of consumption, after her medical adviser had abandoned all hopes of recovery. Cure 180—Of W. B. Reeves, 181, Fleet street, London, of " Twenty-five years nervousness, constipation, indigestion, and debility." Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment, and expense may be avoided by u s i ng Du Barry's Foi?d which, at a few pence per day, saves 5C tunes its cost is other remedies, removing effectually, without purging, constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bil ious and liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure s MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. .Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that Du Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly false- No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry t and Co., 77, R egen t- s t ree t, i n f u ll , ontheseal andwrapili Shopkeepers who attempt impositi on i n onearticle expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins lib. 2s. 9d.;' 21b. 413. 63. ; 51b. Us.; 121 b. 22 5 . ; 241 b. 40s. The 121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sen t carriage free on receipt Co. 77, Re., of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and A Co. , ' Abbit, gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason,. an d Co.; B 100 Ox 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside; 6 3 60 Bisho Lgate bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and .1 and P Co street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; tea dealers; Petty, W oo d , an d C o ., King 'tuamstreet City ; at 127 Hi g h H ol b orn; an d all grocers„`"l BIRTHS. INGRA32.—On the 9th inst., at New - cross, the wif e o f Fred. Ing ra m, Esq., of a daughter. S3IITII.—On the 9th inst. , at 4, Bern ard . street, Russell square, the wife of W. P. Smith, C.E,, of a son. at St. Giles, Cam .. ritARRIAG.:S. TR —On the Bth ins tl ß in al g i . Ir s - tr b e u e i t l , d a i n n g d . s E , a a s n t d .. GREEN—CROCK ER.—On • Dulwich-common, to Charlotte Sarah, eldest daughter of Cam berwell, Thos. Green, EEssaq.n,ooffa, m‘NnELL—TALBOT.—On the 6th inst., at Queenstown, Captain Duncan MiNeill, Scots Greys, third son of the l at e Captain A. M'Neill, lAanlbdesr,tpJalohwin eChr.ocker, Hof Colonsay, to l-late Emma, second daughter of Rear-Admiral Charles and the Hon. Charlotte Georgiana Talbot. Co p u . n e rr o n ur N t e v n .— ay o ,E n s t q he , n 7 a t:h ed A in s s T l t.., H at S l en t on , Devon, Thos. CAREW.-- On the Bth inst., at Haccombe, Franees, wife of Sir Walter Falk Carew, Bart., aged 44, CLARK. —On the Bth inst., at Holt, Norfolk, John Clark, Esq., aged 74. Devon, Anne DORCHESTER.—On the 7th inst., at Greywell, Hants, the Right Hon. Lady Dorchester. LEGGE.—On the Bth inst., at Brighton, the Hon. Arthur Kaye Howard Legge, Lieut. R.N., aged 26. PARRY.—On the 10th inst., at Camberwell, David Parry, Esq., aged 73. ROGERS —On the 10th inst., at 9 , Sussex-gardens, Hyde park, Mary Anne, the wife of Lieut.-Colonel Ch ar l es Rogers. LONDON : Piinted and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 11Z, Strand, Printer, at TIM Surf Office, No. 112,Strand, the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlemen Tuesday, June 11, 1101.