The Sun. — London, England, 1831-07-11 00:00:00

'1" 1 The rase of the Rev. Robert Taylor having bee, adverted to by some of our contemporaries, we shalt gay a few words on the subject. It is no good de- fence against the offence of which this individual was found guilty, that he himself does not believe in the truth of the religion of which he burlesqued the ceremonies, because, in all countries, religion i• received upon trust and without examination by the great body of the people, and a certain respect is due to the feelings of the people, whieh such bur lesques are calculated to outrage. The more igno rant the people, the more are they alive to the in dignity offered to what they consider sacred. In Turkey, though the Mahometans ere, upon the whole, perhaps more tolerant than Christians, anything like desecration of a mosque or pro fanation of religious ceremonies, would bring in stant destruction upon the actor. For a Christian to enter a mosque during prayer,oreven to ascend a mi. narer, is, we believe, death. It is curious enough that Mr. Bentham, in proceeding through Turkey to Russia, nearly fell a victim to the malice of a Greek, who, on his expressing a wish to ascend a minaret for the sake of the view, told him he might do so without danger; and if it hod not been established that he was ignorant of the law, and deceived by the Greek, the sacrilege would have cost him his life. In most of the countries of Europe, the bur lesque of the Sacrament would have led to the in stant massacre of the Rev. Robert Taylor. No mat ter what the religion, something is due to the feel ings of those who have been brought up in the idea that its ceremonies are sacred, and that they eves, endanger their own salvation by looking on with in difference while they are desecrated. A Protestant, who, in a Catholic country knowingly shocks the feelings of the people, is deserving of punishment. We have no hesitation in saying that half the names in " Fox's Book of Martyrs," and in the " Scots Worthies," were as deserving of punishment as the Rev. R. Taylor. The founders of the Quakers who entered churches (steepleshouses), and dis turbed the service, were leservedly punished. Nine -tenths of the reistsionaries from this Country are elually guilty of a want of regard for the feelings of the people whom they visit, and have no right to complain of the consequences. We are not now arguing the question, whether it is possible to overturn or reform a religion without doing vio lence to the feelings of those who profess it. We believe it is not. The first Christians who entered the Temples and destroyed the statues of Jupiter and the other deities, (lid more probably to make converts than the reasoner,. The coarse abuse and open ridicule of some of the Sacraments of the Ca tholic Church, did more to shake the creed with the million than learned disquisitions. The Quakers have made no converts since they became rational, and Unitarians Item destined never to be a nume rous sect, because they do not address themselves to he senses, but to the understanding. A prudent man, in whatever country he may happen to be, and whatever his own opinions may be, will be cau tious how far he shocks the opinions or prejudices of the natives. But no religion was ever overturned or reformed by prudent men. The prudent men, in all matters, whether in religion or politics, carefully observe the signs of the times, and never declare themselves of any opinion till no man can be charged with singularity for adopting it. We take it for granted that the Rev. R. Taylor is a fool, for disre garding the feelings of the people in matters ofreligion. In all religions the Deity is supposed to require from the worshippers the avenging of outrages offered to him ; and to look on with indifference while such outrages are being committed is deemed a sin. In a Catholic country the not kne e lin g down, %then the hostie passes, is such an outrage. The bur lesquing the Sacrament of the Lord's supper is the same in a Protestant country. A Catholic who in the one case, and a Protestant who in the other, did not punish the outrages, are indifferents, and not true believers. In all such eases an offends-r may count with certainty on conviction for his offence before any popular tribunal. Free discussion has really no existence. In some countries there is a greater approximation to it than in others. In all countries there is the utmost freedom for those who entertain the prevailing opinions. Argument, in vective, abuse, raillery, are on one side legitimate weapons of controversy; on the other, offences which deserve the utmost sererily of the law.— No man disapproves of sarcasm and ridicule em ployed in a good cause; but it is detestable to em ploy them in a bad cause; and the cause of which he approves is always the good cause, and that of which he disapproves the bad cause. We should without hesitation Pet down any man who runs counter to the religious feelings of the country in which he happens to be, as in some sort deranged. Evert in France it would be hazardous to go so far as he has gore. We say de ranged, because infidels have not the same excuse for indiscretion that the believers in a particular re ligion have. A religious man would deem it a sin were he not to resent an affront offered to his reli gion ; but an infidel does not lie under the same obligation to punish believers. Zeal in a religionist, therefore, however indiscreet, may be deemed duty ; an infidel has not the excuse of duty for indiscretion. But whatever may be the case with the Rev. Robert Taylor, we only wish to remind those who might think no punishment too severe for him, that bad precedents are almost always set in cases in which the feelings of the people are on the side of the pre cedent. Now, though it might he very proper to debar the Rev. Robert Taylor from pen, ink, and paper, and to subject him to felons' discipline, yet every dog h as hi s d ay : and some of those who now rejoice at the punishment of the Rev. Robert Tay lor, may yet find the precedent inconvenient when applied to themselves. Let us never forget, that a time may come when men in power may find it de sirable to avail themselves of every precedent to crush public writers. Blasphemy is a wide word. We have no doubt that Mr. Beverley, for instance, would , - )e pronounced guilty of blasphemy, by sine teen-twentieths of the Clergy of England. It is new in this country to treat libellers as felons. The oldest of us may, however, lite to repent the precedent.— Morning Chronicle. There is now a very singular watchword, or party apophthegm, got up on the subject of the great Bill, and with respect to its success in the House cf Lords, upon which we are inclined to make a re mark or two. It is said that the demand for Parlia mentary Reform is a mere "clamour," and that the Upper House, the hereditary legislators of the country, must not yield to clamour. We say the same : let neither }louse of Parliament yield to clamour. But we would entreat the illustrious body which we are now principally addressing, just to consider for a moment what that is which it is now attempted to designate as clamour. First, it has continued for much more than half a century, ever increasing. It has sprung from the wise, the pru dent, the patriotic of every rank and of every shade of opinion in other respects; and predictions have been uttered by no ordinary statesmen, that if it were not respected, if it were not complied with, the settled institution s of the country Would be overthrown,—" if the House of Commons did not reform itself within, it would be reformed from without with a vengeance." What would now be the case if the House of Commons, at last conscien tiously setting about the reformation of itself, were prevented by the Rouse of Lords? Next, this clamour has actually formed the present House of Commons such AS it is : into which there is not a single Member returned by independent electors that is not a reformer, so that those who make the clamour are the whole independent constituency o 1 the realm. Such is the nature of the clamour both; as to duration, extent, and the character of those: from whom it springs. Beware of the word clamour; n a bad sense: it may lead to mischievous conse-c quencee. With the just, and unanimoos, and perse-i vering requisition of a free people, there is nothing. otiniliating in either or both Houses of Legislature •omplying ; for from what source do the Houses 'ioth emanate? From the people.—Times. We on Friday laid before our readers specimens f the wealth of those boroughs, the representation which has been either abolished or curtailed from heir acknowledged Insignificance; or, in other fords, the places included in the condemned ache 'ules A and B. Nobody, we presume, will have he hardiliessd 'to argue—the bold contempt of •ommon sense and common consistently t - o declare —that after public attention was officially called to the question ) stirill an anomaly as boroughs without - iroperty and without' inhabitants should be continued n the right of sending Members to Parliament, While ethers with immense wealth and extensive popula -ion were entirely excluded trOm that privilege. As 'nag as the validity of the principle was admitted, hat the existence of the elective rights of Old Sarum was as necessary to the preservation of the Constitution as those of the largest city in the em pire, and that by touching one rotten corner of the edifice for the purpose of repairing it, we endangered th e safety of the whole, it was quite consistent and easonable to resist the arguments drawn from such comparative statements; but as soon as one borough was touched, oh account of its insignificance,—as soon, for instance, as Beeralston, which pays only 3/. 9s. in assessed taxes, having one house of 101. valued rent, was to be disfranchised in favour of Man chester or Birmingliarn,—it was not possible to stop short of the whole range embraced by the two sche dules. But the opponents of the Bill, seeing that the ground of rotten-boroughs was untenable,-- aware that they could make no fight for these dar ling nuisances against a people determined on abat ing them, and observing that the cry of " corpora tion robbery," and " Jacobin spoliation," raised in vain from behind their mouldering walls, would not deter the hand of improvement from approaching them, pretend now to be alarmed, not at what is destroyed, but what is conferred,—not at the ope rations of the bande noire, who are clearing away the rubbish for a new constituency, but at the ex tension of that constituency to the lower classes, and at the universal mobs who will henceforward invade every polling booth, or cover with their names every church door in the kingdom. If these persons would condescend to read the documents submitted to Parliament—as plain reasoners—or, if they could so far master their interested alarms as to be able to attend to a simple statement of facts, they might satisfy themselves that their objections to this part of the Bill are as groundless as to the other. There can be no question that the constituency will be increased beyond its present amount in most of the large towns which are at present represented, and that the body of electors of the whole kingdom will be enlarged by conferring the right of voting on some thirty or forty places which have now no voice whatever in the representation. If this had not been done, no person in his senses could have called the Bill a measure of Parliamentary Reform; but let its enemies take courage—the number of con stituents which it will leave in most of the smaller towns will not be very formidable. They have all heard of schedule A and schedule B, because they are considered by them the inventory of " corpora tion robberies." Suppose that these boroughs had maintained their place in the Constitution, arid that this formidable extension of the right of voting had been substituted by some daring democratic innova tors in lieu of the present conservative, select, and aristocratic constituency, how many voters would there have been found to create mobs at the next election ? Beeralston would have exactly one voter, having only one mansion in the whole borough pay ing 104 of rent; Boesiney would be in the same Predicament. St. Mawes likewise rejoices in one 10/. householder; Dunwich would be so fortunate as to have two ; Castle Rising would be equally happy; the extended suffrage of Aldeburgh would amount to three ; Bletchingley could boast of five; West Looe would send to the polling booths eight ten-pounders to return its two Members; and the coniituency of St Michael's would be equally free from democratic elemtnts, being confined likewise to eight. Why need we celebrve the peaceful voting of the extended suffrage of Corfe Castle, with its 11 ten-pounders ; of Higham-Ferrets, with its 8; of Ga.ton, with its 6; of Bedwin, with 2; of Lugder shall, with its 4, and of other places of the same wealth and population ? The extension of fianchise could not certainly therefore have created riots in schedule A, though it had not been so unmercifully condemned. One of its boroughs (Bramber) would have had no voter at all. If we go to the 50 and odd old boroughs which aro still allowed to send one Member to Parliament, we shall find that this demo cratic element, the 101. qualification, makes a terrible havoc among the electors—mole terrible than the cholera on its first appearance. Amersham, for in stance, will have a convenient constituency of 25; Arundel of 120; Ashburton, of 54; Bridport, of 146; Clitheroe, of 60; East Grinstead, of 42; Okehampton, of 42 ; Nlalmesbury, of 7.5; and so on with the rest of the list. As the Reform Bill has wisely determined that no representative of the people shall be sent to Parliament by a lower constituency than 300, and as this number of persona qualified to vote by the occupa tion of a house of 101. rent, or value, annually, can not be found in any of the boroughs which retain the privilege of electing one Member, it will be ne cessary in the whole of schedule B to procure the necessary complement of electors from the districts bordering on the deficient boroughs. The very cir cumstance that those places averaging from 3,000 to 4,000 inhabitants, cannot muster in any case 300 lectors, on the new qualification, and in most cases not 100, is a proof that the Bill, so far from being democratic in its tendency and provisions, is liable to objectors and objections of an entirely different class. If we follow the new representation which the Bill takes away from the rotten and nomination boroughs, and trace its distribution over the rest of the empire, observing, as we proceed, into what hands it is to fall, we shall have equal grounds to relieve the trembling alarmist of democracy from his exaggerated terrors.— Where the constituency of the counties is essentially altered, it is altered in a manner to confer greater power upon the landed aristocracy. The former freeholders are still to retain their rights unimpaired, and the new class of voters created on leasehold pial;fication, though they may be equally respectable %.ith the freeholders, are not likely to he more re fractory to the influence of their landlords. Indeed the letter of a " Reformer," which we publish in another column, chews the side on which the chief alarm lies with regard to this part of the Reform Bill. In th• case of the large cities and borough* which retain their old franchises, and those which receive the power of choo,ing representatives, for the first time, by the Bill, the constituency will, in some instances, be diminishcd, and in no inst a nc e _ . ncreesed, so as to be formidable for its magnitude or mobs. The electors of Mr. Henry Hunt's borough be reduced from several thousands to 976. The Duke of Newcastle will, unfortunately, have more power in Newark after the Reform than before, as the 10/. qualification will reduce the number of its voters to 351. The great, populous, and wealthy town of Birmingham will only have 4,561 voters; the extensive manufacturing bo rough of Manchester only 3,338; Leeds, only 2,492; and Liverpool will not much increase its present constituency. We need scarcely mention that from the high rate of house rent in the capital, the 101. qualification will include a much greater proportion of the inhabitants than in any other town or city in the empire; yet in the city of London the number of persons so qualified amounts to only 13,599. In Westmin ster, as the suffrage is nearly universal already, or least is commensurat e with householders, very little change in the constituency will take place. But in speaking of the additional numbers which the Bill will introduce into the electoral colleges of the metropolis, by the minimum qualification of a 101. rent, it ought to be recollected that no rea sonable amount ,of qualification could prevent them from being great, When the opponents of the Bill tell us of the amazing force which it will bring to the poll as a subject of alarm, they in their breath less haste to excite our tenors forget two very es sential points; in the first place, that though the metropolis elected its membeis universal suffrage, the number of representatives which it sends to the House of Commons—be they as democratic as they may—bears but a small proportion to the whole House; and in the second place, that though a house holder paying a rent of 10/. has a vote, the great majority of the electors will enjoy the privilege Oil much higher qualification. Such persons will, no doubt, be startled to learn, that out of the 13,599 householders who will have a vote for the city of London ) only 1,88 are limited to payments be tween 101. and 201., and more than 7,422 pay a rent of more than 401. The same proportion is ob servable in Westminster, and in the other di risions of the county of Nliddlescx. Take, therefore, the qualification of 40/. for the metropolis, and you will -till create a great, but certainly not a democrati c constituency—a class of constituents which ought to have a voice in any representative system,—a con stituency, whi.7.11 will not only manage by its influ ence, but overpower by its numbers, the poorer portion of the electors, for whom certain persons seem to entertain what the late Lord Castlereagh would have called such a hydrophobia. We have neither time nor space at present to pursue further this subject, or to advert to the changes introduced by the Bill into the electoral system of Ireland and Scotland. We may again recur to it.—Times. TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Stx, —As the Reform Bill, in place of influence, will confer on the aristocracy the right of dictation. lam not surprised at the list of great names appearing in the majority. I am agent on an estate on which there are 76 tenants who will be entitled to vote (although the rental is tinder 14,0001.), not one of whom dare disobey the commands of their landlord, for there is not one among them but who has experienced more or less indulgence in the pay ment of his rent; and although they cannot be dispos sessed during their leases for daring to think for themselves, the power of a distress warrant may be resorted to to get clear of them. If the Duke of Newcastle or Lord Exeter dispossessed a shoemaker, he may cross to the opposite side of the street ; and if a good workman, his trade will follow. Not so with the agukulturist, who cannot transfer his capital and industry to a different soil. As it is in vain to expect that the great landowners in Parliament will attack a measure which will give some of them some hundreds of votes in lieu of the one they now possess, I trust you will use the influence of your journal to prevent so valuable a portion of the community as the farmers being placed in such a state of political slavery. July 5. A REFORMER. We are authorised to contradict a paragraph in the John Bull of yesterday, which pretends to give as the sub:stance of a report prevalent in Bristol, a story respec!ing a communication said to have been made by some of the Somersetshire Yeomanry Cavalry to Lord Melbourne. The Nhole is a mere fabrication without the least foundation of truth, as no communication of the sort was ever made to h s Lordship, and therefore he could not, and did not, make any such observation as is attributed to 11n1 in the paragraph in question. This paper professes to be scrupulous in its publication of facts : if so, it is the most injured or the most credulous of journals, for every week some gross absurdity is imposed upon it, to which it gives utterance with all the simplicity of ignorant childhood. This Sun day paper and a certain evening paper are the repo sitories for all the trumpery gossip and idle inven tions of all the twaddlers and hoaxers about town. It is pleasant to see the cause of the Anti-Reformers in such hands. One is ashamed of contending with such vai lets.— 7'imes. It will be recollected that Mr. Evart, the Member for Liverpool, gave notice that he would, we believe ott Tuesday, move for leave to bring in Bills to re peal the purishment of death for the offences of horse-stealing, sheep-stealing, and stealing in the dwelling-house, no person being put in fear. We are glad to see an independent Member of Parlia ment coming forward as a practical advocate of Re form in our Criminal Laws ; and thus taking the earliest opportunity, that his situation as a Legi slator afforded him, to endeavour to erase from the Statute-book some, at least, of those sanguinary laws which are a disgrace to a Christian land, and a reproach to a civilized people—laws which, founded on the principle not of jutice, but of vengeance, ex press riot the moral wisdom, but the vindictive in temperance of the Legislature—making crimes of various degrees of malignity and moral guilt expiable only by human blood. Had the life of Sir Samuel Romilly been spared to his country, it is pro bable that this code of vengeance would have be fore now been purified of much of its barbarism. For his were Statesman-like views of Reform in Criminal Law—founded in principle, guided by a comprehensive intelligence, and pursued with a spirit of integrity and perseverance totally discon nected from any consideration of politics or party. His masculine intellect and vigorous benevolence dis dained the petty views and mutilated improvements of a temporising expediency. His ambition was not to smooth down the rugged exterior of bar barism by some superficial amendment•, but to ex tirpate it by essential Reform. When he brought in a Bill to repeal the law which punished theft to the amount of forty shillings in the dwelling-house with death, he did not propose to raise the value of human life by three pounds sterling! and then fancy himself a Solon, because, while Draco would hang for forty shillings, he would not haag for any sum short of five pounds! No; he knew that such legisla• ' tion was not improvement, but deception ; that it left the barbarous principle untouched, and only en deavoured to make it in a small degree more tole rable, with a view to its perpetuity. He, therefore, proposed that for this offence the pun;shment of death should be abolished, without any refe rence to the amount of the sum stolen ; he, once, carried this Bill through the House of Commons, but was defeated in the House of Lords, notwith- standing the able exertions in support of his mea sures of Lords Grenville, Grey, and Holland, of whom the two latter have lived to become leading Members of an Administration, who advised the Crown to execute a miserable culprit the other day whose offence was against this statue, for stealing privately in the dwelling-house—a statute which, as far us depended on the House of commons, had been repealed in the year 1811, and which, under. sWhig Ministry—a Ministry composed of the once zealous supporters of Sir Samuel Romilly's principles, was, in defiance of public opinion, carried into sanguinary force in the year 1831. The Bill of Sir Samuel Romilly proposed that the stealing to a certain amount in a dwelling-house should be punishable as simple larceny only ; and that the stealing any mo ney, goods, chattels, wares, or merchandize, beyond hat amount, should be punished more severely than simple larceny, viz., that the offender, and his aiders and abettors, should " be liable to be transported be yond the seas for life, or for such term, not less than seven years, as the Judge before whom such persons shall be convicted shall adjudge, or, in case the said Judge shall think fit, to be imprisoned only, or to be imprisoned and kept to hard libour, in the common gaol, house of Correction, or Penitentiary for any term not exceeding seven years." We re gret to say that Sir James Mackintosh, who took up the subject of the Criminal Laws after the death of Sir Samuel Romilly, has slept over them for years; or, rather, by the most injudious praises bestowed upon Sir Robert Peel's pedantic and superficial efforts, has been in some degree a party to that mock Reform of the Criminal Law which we have, not vainly, endeavoured to make the public understand and to appreciate as it deserves. It is true Sir James Mackintosh was the proposer of the amend• merits to Sir Robert Peel's sanguinary Forgery Bill, but it was the present Lord Chancellor who was the energetic and powerful leader of the opposi tion to that crowning specimen of the then Home Secretary's temporizing legislation. The last act of Mr. Brougham, as a Member of the House of Commons, was to present a petition from the Foreman of several Grand Juries of the City of London, playing for a thorough and efficient ret t orm of the Criminal Law ; since when Sir James Mackintosh and his friends have been perfectly mute on the subject. We are, therefore, pleased that Mr. Ewart has come forward, and we hope that other Members will take up other branches of the Criminal L►w, and co-operate in this great work, that what , ver may become of political parties, and political arrangements, the more important interests of eivili z trion and humanity may not be neglected. We will just mention, for the information of Mr. Ewart, if not already acquainted with the subject, what are the provisions of Mr. Livingston's en lightened code for Louisiana, relative to the offences of stealing in the dwelling-house and house-breaking. They are these, " If any one shall in the day lime, with a fraudulent design, enter a house, without breaking or violence, and shall then and there commit a theft, he shall be imprisoned not less than three, nor more than six year', at hard labour. if any theft shall be committed by break :rig any closet, box, or other place of the like nature, in which property stolen was contained, the punish ment shall not be less than four, nor more than se ven years at hard labour. Whoever enters a house secretly, or by force of threats, or fraud, during the night, or in like mariner enters a house by day, and conceals himself therein until the night, with the intent in either case of committing a crime, is guiliy of the crime of house-breaking, and shall be impri soned at hard labour, not less than ten nor more than fifteen years." Here is something like an apportionment of the penalty to the offence; a gradation rf punishment according to the gradation of guilt, a principle of wise legislation, in which our English law is wholly defective. Justice rea sons, but vengeance does not.—Morning Herald. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. 1M PE RIA L PA RLIAM ENT OF THIS EVENING. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Half--past Three o'clock. On the motion of Lord STANLEY the Bill for set tling disputed rights as to tithes, and for making a com position in lieu thereof, in the parish of Ashton-under- Lyn,., was read a third time and passed. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. A messenger from the House of Lords appeared at the bar and summoned the House to attend and hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to several Bills. The SPEAKER, attended by several Members, left the House. On their return, the SPEAKER. informed the House that the Royal Assent had been given to certain Bills, which he enumerated. On the motion of Mr. Alderman THOMPSON (we be lieve) that a Tithe Commutation Bill for some parish in Carmarthenshire be read a second time, Sir J. MACDONALD complained that while Bills were now before Parliament for a general regulation of the tithes, these small Bills applicable only to individual parishes were brought in ; he believed in many instances these small Bills were brought in without the concurrence of the body of parishioners, and lie had a petition from a great many of the parishioners of the parish in question against the passing of this Bill. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON defended the Bill as the only means of putting an end to the disputes and tion which prevailed in the parish respecting tithes. The lay impropriator had no objection to wait until the opera tion of the General Tithe Bill, but as this Bill had been ap proved of by the parishioners, and having been read a second time, and referred to a Committee last Session, it ought to he allowed to go into a Committee in the present Session, in accordance with the Resolutions of the House on the first day of the Session. An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, said that a petition, signed by at least 400 persons, would be presented against this Bill. He thought it unjust that the Bill should pass, compelling a parish to pay a lay im proprietor 2,0001. a year, and that it was establishing a very bad principle. Mr. DAWSON said the proprietors of two-thirds of the land in the parish had assented to the Bill. Strangers were ordered to withdraw for a division, but none took place, as the amendment was withdrawn. NOTTINGHAM EI.ECTION. The Marquis of CHANDOS said he had a petition to present, which was of considerable importance, and s hich would involve a question respecting the interference of same persons connected with his Majesty's Go. vernment in elections—the petition was from the borough of Northampton. The Noble Lord did not know the petitioners, but he could vouch for the accuracy of the statement, he was about to make. During the last election his Majesty's barracks at Nottingham had been allowed to be used in accommodating and entertaining the partizans of the Ministerial candidate—(Hear)—some of the electors were kept there five or six days, and in many instances their families were with them, only being allowed to pass in with tickets. Now, supposing there Lad been any occasion (or the military, in what a situation would the barracks be found ?—(Hear.) The Noble Lord thought that he had made out a strong case fur inqutry ; the petitioners did not state by whose orders the barracks were so occupied, nor by whom the refreshments were paid, but they prayed for an inquiry. Mr. S. RICE had heard the statement with some sur prise, but if it were true the best and only place where it could be discussed was the Committee to whom a petition against the return had been referred. Not only were the Committee proceeding with the inquiry upon the return, but proceedings had been taken under the Grenville Act. —(Hear.) He thought that to discuss the subject now and in the House was to prejudge the case, for the Com mittee was the proper tribunal to enter into the inquiry. Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE thought this petition had nothing to do with the election petition; the one was against the return, and the other, he observed, was against the interference of the Government at the election, and against the conduct of an officer. He thought a very strong case had been made oat for an enquiry, for the barracks were actually given up during the whole of the election to the partizans of a Ministerial candidate, and even the soldiers' beds were taken down to accommodate them. This was done no doubt with the view of having it confirmed that the King was in their favour.—(Hear, hear)—that they were to go to his Majesty's barracks and have a dinner, and then go and vote for the Ministerial candidate. lie understood that the electors were locked in the barracks, and not allowed to go out until they promised to vote for tke right person.--(Hear.) Mr. TENNYSON said, that considering the surcharge upon Government, he would only state that a complaint lowing been made to the Board of Ordnance that the barracks at Northampton had been occupied as alluded to, a letter was sent there to ascertain the fact. And it appearing on the answer that the barrack-master had taken the liberty to throw open the barracks, the Board of Ordnance im mediately addressed to him another letter, severely repri manding and commanding him in future to abstain from such misapplication of his Majesty's barracks, Sir H. HARDI NGE said the Bar rack -roaster had not been the only person to blame, and he did think, on the admis sion of the Hon. Member the Clerk of the Ordnance, a case had been wade out for inquiry at the bar of the House.— A worse c tee of interference lie never recollected. Mr. SMITH said lie was very well aware that the object of the petition was in order to disturb his election, and he was not surprised at the malice of the petitioners, w ho, if they could not fight the battle fairly, had deter mined to try their strength in this underhand way. He would state the circumstancrs as briefly as possible. Ile was told the barracks had been used at previous elections for the candidates in the interest of Government. The voters were kept there aloof from the opposite party, brought thence to the poll, and taken back again. On the second day of election Captain Reid stated to him that he bad received a complaint from the Board of Ordnance, relative to that, and he (Mr. Smith) immediately desired him to put an end to the proceeding, and he believed the barracks had been cleared that evening. He would ask the Honourable Member if the barracks had not teen so employed by those who were in the interest of Major Winter in 1518, and in 1826 whether there was not (lancing, music, &c., by the supporters of Sir R. Gunning. The Hon. Member for St. Germains might have ap prized him of thus much, as be was seen th ere , more ,ban once himself, tripping ." on the light fantastic toe" within the barracks. It had been stated t h a t Government influence had been touch used in the tow/J . He could assert with confidence, that never had there been a general election carried on w i t h l ess G overn. ment influence. Mr. ROSS.denied altogether the truth of the observa tions made by the Hon. Gentleman yr ho had jest sat down. There way a public-house within the walls—(Hear, hear, and laugh) into which conic voters had found their way, 'n 1826, I u in the banack, zi(A a sinkle indiv:dua! ti as ..ntertained. Mr. HUNT shnuld move, and hoped the Noble Marquis who had ht ought forward this petition would second him, hat the Barrack -master he called and examined at the bar of the House. At this much dissatisfaction was evinced, and the Hon. Gentleman sat down amid great disturbance. COURT OF CHANCERY. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said it would be in the re collection of the House that in the course of last Parlia ment be brought forward to the utmost of his ability a .'etail of the state of the law and pratitice of the Court of Chancery, for the purpose of calling the attention of the Government to its condition. He did not wish to hurry Government into a proceeding for the improvement of this law, but he bad hoped before this time that the subject would have been brought forward by them. Having heard nothing of it, however, except what:had pissed in the other House by a Noble Lord, who in his st.te went had never said a word about what had tak place in the Commons House of Parliament, but taller' up the subject as if it had been entirely new, lie wished to know what his Majesty's Government ha i done respecting this great and important work. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, in the absence of the Noble Baronet (Lord Altborp) had beli,oved that a Bill was about to be iminedtately brought into tl e House upon the snbject, and he had full confidence that it would be found to give general satisfaction. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN asked what had been done respecting the salaries of the Masters in Chancery, who had just retired ; and also, whether the Masters who-had conic into office in the place of those who had so retired had agrced to consent to a division of their labour with. out corn pensation. The SOLICITOR GENERAL said that the inwome of the Alaster who had just retired would be subject to the old regulations—those who had just entered office had con sentee to conform to any regulations that should be here after thought proper to be made.—(Cheers.) ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. Lord MORPETH presented eight petitions from va rious parts of Yorkshire, praying for a complete abolition of slavery. Lord MORPETH presented a petition from the inha bitants of Bradford, in the county of York, praying that Parliament would interfere to regulate the time in which children ought to he kept at work in Worsted Mills. the petitioners, from seeing the evil effects of the present system, both bodily and men tally, were the best calculated to give evidence of the facts to which they spoke, and they stated that the inconvenience which had been said in some quarter would arise from a Parliamentary interference in the man ner by This petition prayed fur, would be an inconvenience altogether imaginary. The state of the poor children em ployed in those mills—the benefit of their employers-- the state of society—all cried aloud for such a Par liamentary interference; and the Noble Lord hail no doubt that the Hon. Member for Westminster would have such a clause in the Bill he was about to bring forward. Lord MORPETH presented a petition from the inha bitants of Bradford, praying for universal suffrage, vote by balot, and annual Parliaments. He felt it his duty to present the petition, but at the same time he considered it an impolitic p.lJyer, and could, he said, not support it. Mr. HUNT said it was what he had always contended for, and a clause which he should move to be inserted in the Reform Bill when it came into a Committee. On the Order of the Day being read for going into a Committee on the Waterloo Bridge-street Bill, Mr. D. W. HARVEY rose, and entered into a state ment of the expence of such a measure, and its compara tive inutility. (LEFT urrme.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The Royal Assent was given to-day by Commission to the Buckinglirm House Palace Exemption Bill, the De puty Lieutenant of Scotland Bill, and the Expired Com missions (Ireland) Bill The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the ALrquis of Londonderry, and the Earl of Shaftesbury, Mr. BURRELL, Lord STANIAY, and others brought up the Dean Forest Boundary Bill, and eleven private Bills. The Marquis of CLEVELAND presented a petition from the Protestant freemen and inhabitants of the town of Galway, praying for an extension of rights to Catholics. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Galway to the same effect. A NOBLZ 1.011.13 whose name we could not ascertain, pre sented a p:Aition from the Committee for the Distress in Ireland in favour of the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Chester against the Beer Bill. The 51arquis of LONDONDERRY presected a pet tion from Newcas•le against Reform. TITHE COMPOSITION BILL. Tire Archbishop of CANTERBURY begged ti post pone the second reading of this Bill, which was appointed for to-day, to Thursday next, in consequence of the request of the Noble Lord on the Woolsack. Lord KENYON suggested the propriety of postponing it only till to-morrow ; it was a Bill of great importance, and had been postpone.' several times already.. The LORD CHANCELLOR atlinmitted that the Bill had been postponed both in the present and the late Sessions. It was not on account of his not be. ing master of the contents of this 13t11 that he wished the second reading to be postponed, hut in consequence of another Bill on the same su:tject, but very different in its re medy, standing for discussion on the same night. The Noble Lord who introduced that Bill wished the two to come under discussion together. He (the Lord Chancellor) had never seen that Bill, and he should therefore come to the discus sion of the subject without being properly apprized of the nature and provisions of the measures. Individually he had no objection to the second reading standing for to-morrow, but it was extremely desirable that a Noble and Learned Lord who had once filled the high station he (the Lord Chancellor) now held, should then be present. That Noble Lord had met with a se •ere domestic calamity which rendered his attendance im possible till after Wednesday. But on Thursday next he would be able to attend, and he trusted under such cir cumstances the Noble Lord would allow the subject to stand over to that day. The Duke of CUMBERLAND had seen the Noble Earl alluded to, who had stated that he should attend on /1114 day. Lord KENYON, after such an explination, could have no objection to the postponement that had been recom mended. THE AFFAIR AT NEWTONBARRY. Lord FARNHAM gave notice of his intention to move to-morrow for certain information that had been received by Government relative to the affray at Newtonbarry. air' GREY observed that it would be a matter of con venience to him if the Noble Lord would mime some other day, Lord FARNHAM said he did not wish to raise discussions in that House ; but the mis-statements had been so gross and scandalous on that subject, and so utterly devoid of every thing like truth, that be thought he should not perform his duty if he did not call for the information which Government had received in order to remove from the public mind the statements that had gone forth. He must do this on or before Wednesday, and if that day was convenient to the Noble Earl, he should give notice to that effect. Lord GREY said, that if the Noble Lord could not postpone his motion to a longer period, he would endea vour to meet it on that day. THE DEPUTY IRISH LIEUTENANT BILL. Lord MILTON wished to postpone the bringing up of the Report of the Committee on this Bill to Wednesdgy next. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought it incum bent on him to take this opportunity of giving some answer to the confounded persondl attacks that had been made upon him by three Noble Lords on the com mittal of this Bill. Lord :MELBOURNE rose to order—it was not usual for Noble Louts to allude to what had passed in former debates. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY considered the attack referred to was one of the most uneourteous he had ever witnessed, and he gave notice that on the third read ing of this Bill he should enter at large into this subject. Lord GREY thought the course intended to be pursued by the Noble Marquis was very irregular. He thought that the Noble Marquis, on re-consideration, would abon his intention. The Marquis of LONDONDERY would apk the Noble Earl what course he would pursue other than that he had chalked out for himself, if he had been attacked in so un founded a manner by three Noble Lords. Lord PLUNKETT did not see why the Noble Lord !night not now be permitted to state his gievance, and set hiinselr right with the House, he (Lord Plunkett) if wrong would be happy to be set right. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would show most dearly that the attack made upon him by the Noble and Learned Lord, had arisen entirely from his (Lord Plun kett's) misconception. ‘‘ l n . g o , e r du d np i: : e L yr. B e_p O :A U r td ß jo( N :u l tri , .. ni ee then o g m a m v t t n e e o t roc- non w , he POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Q UEEN- S QUARE. James Hope wai charged with committing burglary and robbery in the dwelling-hous e of Sir ' Thomas Hay, Bart., Pratt -street, Bishop's-walk, Lambeth. Between two and three o'clock in the morning, James Gordon, a police constable, being on duty at the back of Sir Thomas Hay's house, heard a slight noise, and, looking over the rails, saw the prisoner, who, peiceiviog that he was dis covered, jumped over the rails and walls of several gardens, pursued as closely us possible by the con stable. The prisoner, seeing no chance of escape by the road, availed himself of an unfastened win dow at the back of a house kept by an Irishman, ,vhicli he entered, and ran up stairs. The Irishman hearing the noise, jumped out of bed, ctyitlg out, " Wt•at'e the matter ?" The prisoner exclaimed, For God's sake let me into your bed or I'il be hanged !" The Irishman, who mistook him for a Mr. Burley, w.ho lodged in the parlour, expressed his te•tonisliment at the request, and at his having left his own bed. The prisoner reiterated, "If you don't let me into your bed, I'll be hanged I" " But my wife's there fast asleep," said the. Irishman. " Never mind that," said the prisoner, at the instant, to the utter astonishment of the Irish. :men, stripping cii his clothes and jumping into bed to the Irishman's wife; who, awoke by the intru sion, and seeing the strange man, screamed and el le(' out " murder !" most lustily. The husband was utterly unable to comprehend what all this could mean, but by this time a number of police men had assembled in the front of the house, and the wife had kicked the prisoner out of the bed. The husband looked out at the window, when the policemen called out that a thief had got into that or one of the adjoining houses. The prisoner ran down stairs in his shit t, and addressing the constables, said, with perfect self-possession, "It is all right here, gentlemen, there's no one in the house but ourselves;" at the same time calling the Irishman his father,and appealing to him if all was not right. "Father !" said the Irishman, with still increasing astoei-hment, " He's no son of mine—l never saw the fellow before." The policeman judged the rest, and took the prisoner into custody; on searching his clothes, there were found in his pockets house-break ing instruments, and several articles which were identified by Sir Thomas Hay as his property. It appeared that the prisoner had just effected an en trance at the back kitchen window, when he was disturbed by the policeman. He made no defence, and was fully committed. It was felt by all present at the examinatitn, that the prisoner had displayed it presence of mind worthy of a better cause. Peler Melville, a servant in the employment of Mr. Si ipem in, of No. 1, Dean's-yard, Westminster, was charged with robbing his master, and some of the Westminster scholars who board and lodge it the house of the prosecutor. He begged for mercy as it was his first offence, and was fully committed. THAMES P ()LICE. Samuel Miller, John Bagley, and James Brook, vatermen, were charged with a brutal ast,ault on six young men, during the rowing match at Limehouse on Thursday. Mr. BALLANTINE, after commenting on the d'sgraceful conduct of the prisoners, convicted them in the highest penalty the Act allows, 51. each. W OR S HIP- STREET. John Hinckley, a man dressed like a carpenter, was charged with entering the house, and sealing ninety-one sovereigns, belonging to Eliza Wcs , , in Bennett's-court, City-road.—Remanded. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS. Per Quarter. Catlisle Hcxhatn orpeth Penrith Sheffield. Winchester Per Bushel. Carmarthen—. Coventry Newcastle (Staff.) Northallerton Swansea Warwick Per 8011. Barnardca.stle —... Durham. Richmond Stockton DURING LAST WEEK. Wheat. Barley. s to 8. a. to s. I 6 40 - I 5'2 72 33 31 164 79 40 ft 2 39 70 32 48 71 34 41 Is. d. s. d. s. d. 8. rt. 7 3 8 3 4 4 5 9 '96 100 66 (()) E l i 7 0 9 3 3 6 4 6 I 9 6 100 sf) 62; 86 90. 4 6 49' I 9 0 10 0; 4 6 50 'l6O 19 0 10 0 11 0 156 196 90 10 0 166 20 0 10 U 106 176 18 3j 9 0 10 01 Oats. N. to N. 34 22 29 28 32 34 23 30 c. d. A. d. 20 2 9 36 40 49 b 0 33 40 46 50 30 3 A 22 26 00 84 50 76 76 90 64 74 Beans. 1. to e. 35 60 62 38 4Q 44 42 48 s. d. s. d. 00 00 56 60 58 60 59 66 78 80 00 00 73 7 6 SCOTCH MARKETS. 00 110 10 0 11 0 11 0 12 0 00 00 Wheat. Barley Oat.. Beans. Oatmeal. Aberdeen —. 50 (11 00 35 '24 27 33 40 8erwick........ 44 40 23 30 21 23 i2B sn 40 44 Coldstream -. 44 48 25 28 20 2 . 3 30 31 Caper-. 52 '75 :10 32 2R a) 40 41 Dundee 50 66 32 34 27 29 as 40 -- E! gi n 58 161 32 35 20 20 19 21 Inverness...-.I 40 52 32 31 :2'2 26 :34 115 48 Kelso .----. 40 47 25 59 23 25 29 32 14rha1dy-- 42 70 27 3) 25 32 45 4S 43 44 Perth 50 62 21 27 21) tn 29. 24 The size of the measure varies throughout the country. EDINBURGH MEA We had a large supply of a hich met with a good sale at a t:dl price the .ame as formerly. LI. MARKET.—JuIy 5. Oatmeal at this day's market, reduction of Is. on the sack, re. Barley and l'easemeal at last Per Sack 0128011). Imp. First Oatmeal £2 4 0 Second ditto. 2 2 0 Barleymeal 1 14 0 Nils ens eal 1 14 0 j Pot Barley—No. 1, per cwt. 14i Per stone of 14th. Imp. First Oatmeal £0 2 4 Second ditto Ilarleymeal 0 1 10 Peasemeal .-2tl, 165.-311.208.—Pea 1124 a. EDINBURGH CORN MARKET.—JuIy 6. We had a small supply of all kinds of Grain to-day except Wheat ; and sales were uncommonly dull. Wheat 2s. down on the top, and k. lOd. on the average. Barley 6d. down on the top, and up ltd. on the average. Oats are down 3s. on the top, and Is. 6d. on the average. Pease and Beans same top as last week, and 7d. up on the average. - Wheat. Barley. First 683 Od 1 3-ts 6d Second 56s Od 33s Od Third Oats. 29s EU 27s Oct 25s 441 Pease. 44; Od 434 Od 40i Od Beans. 446 03 43e Od 40s Od PRICES OF PROVISIONS, &e. Reef, per lb. Os. to 08. 6,1. Fresh Butter,lb.s.lo,l. toe. 11d. Mutton 0 4 0 6 Salt 0 8 011 Veal _ _0 4 0 8 Ditto, per CR t. 76 ft 0 0 l'ork----- 0 4 0 6 Eggs, per dos. 0 8 0 0 Lamb, per qr. 1 6 3 6 OatStraw(kpl.) 7 0 8 0 Tallow, cwt.... 33 0 35 0 Wheat Ditto., 6 6 7 6 Quartern Loaf 011 0 0 Barley Ditto 6 0 6 Potatoes, 1711 b. 0 6 0 0 Hay, per 1 4 1 6 GLASGOW CORN MARKET.—JuIy (I. 'Wheat and Barley are dull of sale, at about previous rates. Oat , have been in lair demand, at a reduction of is. per boll. Liqle alteration in Beans and Pease. Wheat, per 2401 b. s. d. s. d. Oats, per 2641 b. s. d. s. d. British, old 32 0t034 0 Irish lBoto2oo - new 26 0 30 0 British 2O 0 21 0 Canada, free 29 9 31 0 Beans, per 2601 b. Irish Barley, per 3201 b. Scottish English — 0 C Pease, Scottish ... 19 0 0 Scottish Oi 0 28 0 Oatmeal, per 1401 b. 18 0 20 0 Irish CORNWALL. MARKETS. 'rarao--Wheat (average) 2.ss.od.—Barley, 12.s.—Oata, 10e. Od. ST. Au:max—Wheat, 261. to 27s.—Barley, 12s. to 13s.—Oats, 0, to Od. FlonvlN—Wheat (average)2sB.o(l.—Barley, Hs.—Oats 6s. Od. I.AL sc INTON—W h eat (average) 255. Od.—Barley,lls. 3d.—Oats, 7, o.l.—Beef, tki.—Mutton, 6d. HELSTON—Wheat, 255. Od.—Barley, Od. PRNZANCE—Wheat, 245. to —s. to 143.—Oats, Os. to 9s. 041.—Beef and Mutton, sd. to G.—pork, 30. to 4d.— Butter, Bd. per lb. I.tsKBano—Wheat, —S. Od. to 25s.—Barley, Its. 6d.--Outs, Ct. to os. Od. ,„ ST. Cocume—Wheat, 25€. to s.—Barley, I. to --a.—Beet; and Mutton, 43.0. to 6 d.—Veal, 4(l.—Lamb, sd. MINING INTELLIGENCE. Tons. Cwt. Quantity of Copper Ore sold at Itedruth last Thursday 3,443 0 Avg rage Produce 856 0 Quantity of fine Copper Amount of Sale, 19,4721. ISs. o,l.—Average Standard, 1011. 183.:0,4, BIRTHS. On the 9th inst. the lady of E. Malian, Esq., 32, Great Russell. street, Bloomsbury, of a daughter. On Estheq.of a son. Bth 'list, at Shorne-hous .1 e, Kent, the lady of J. Crau. turd, da O ug n h t t h er e . 3d inst. at Hertford o , f t j he ß uruiwfelionfEl.Dl, Scotsa.rby,E Fusiliers qo f , a On the Bth inst. the lady J. g, Guards, of a sou. On the Bth inst. at Belgrave.square, the lady of J. A. Warre, of a On the 7th inst. the lady of F. Wellford, Esq., of the Park, Nottingham, of a son. MkRltlEl). inst. at St._ _ M a r y' s, ,iiryanstone-scuare, Edward i s ' t son of J. L. Lovell, Lso., of Wells, Somerset, to - .110 daughter of John Hotion, Esq, of Bryanstone- Ann Mitt. t ,quare. . . a . 0 i the 7th inst. t Stoke Newington, Mr. W. F. Mills, of Kin Lg-street, High Kolb rn, Only son of W. Mills, Esq. *f Cam ,,,,.„.en, to Marian, only daughter of J. Crouch, Esq. of Stoke 1,( ( .241, h t e, 1Z N e wington-park. On the 6th inst. at St. George's, Hanover-square, C J. W. Elli s , Esq. of the Middle Temple, to Emily, youngest daughter of the late Isaac Itailton, Esq. of Hertford-street, May-fair. DIED. On the flth inst. Elizabeth, the wife of J. Fitzgerald, Esq., of Latirenve Pountney-h ill. On the fith ins . at Wdlworth, Susannah, relict of the late Mr. J Littlewood, aged 71 • Aivo Pususiivn by MURDO YOUNG, AT TH E SiN OFFIC V, 112, 57 NAND, LONDON. T ifl I M WEDNESI ready to treat for Place) of lowing de the use of the under Descripth I,ambton's Stewart's ' Hetton's or Russ Walls E Rusgell's Stobart's Springv;ell Main .. Usworth's Rusaell's Stobart's ' The cc Office, al tualling r Each 1 and be Al and the } hia behalf T HE Notice, t the Towe in the Foi consisting StandinE de: s, Old Leather Wood, at stay be lognes, di cation at Lots, am those per ROB N° l nally Clot Seven o'c Admissioi Exhibi Tuesday, IMP] Grant A Charles iEneas Andrew Charles John H, Ceorge C. Porol Person periodical ring the I surance. On thi Cent, pet all Potic ii ion or bef The n 1 year 1841 Rates rpany's 0 tpwns th A T rural and men are I at Five a lime of e The sive Gari , contiguot Partic liatters, Pett :and of ll] treet, H Pupils 'Vacation ]Boarder, A l ' i ball, ne carefully Languag , branches use of tl C.'s systi of qualify ruercial mire exten jo,tevery C‘rds tort' i2fol Cook, okop, No, RV* Id Cofrate-bc w' best selec GOODQ the Scab the cotta, Par Wine articles ad Society p buriai, as return 6111 tag Hoye the Kiiag bestowed by their de sante 4 416Qn by Establish marked Rio abatel fault au urge. Ward b 71 L ea d, ktHEUI l ebtons c; 'amity of um in o.4Ver. -vitt 001 G , aff‘, 10. t the fit, Sold ii HOAI PROVE Bruimo, Throat, No famik without i 1111 Aledic "BAI 609tFDIP ~~