The Sun. — London, England, 1834-05-23 00:00:00

. / •• ' " ../' /' f " ( - 1 Wo P c ,lC-9(lzZe./(, ~-: • • k-- ,il.-/ / .....___ .- , • ..:4 - e_., t.' - '.:ri ---,;) I MPERIAL PARLIAMENT , .. 'A) :4 4 \ , ,"; 0 j ~... . , ; 0 .40. _ - - 74, , oh , THIS DAY, FRIDAY, - MAT 23. .. • . - • ~--_-:-.=.',. 6-1 • 1 11 3/ , '-' --... .1 . ) HOUSE OF COMMONS. t. . . . eild `,: 1. it :Ak..-4 ,:e." - 8- -..--., 1 i,„=o- , 4- . 4, - -.. - A .., o , .—.? --:-. Illiv.a.lillmwaiii • - ' ..`. '' ' . 4 0 , "'-• rttrik,i, - . --V ' ,',.,\ .---\:,;.• ' ''''.i ,',A .:.,- , ° ~.---, 1 . ~.. 4, 11 • 11 ' a : • - ...?-r, - ,4 : 1,,i t • . -.4 1 ).1-h! , 0 r• 1 ; f 0 - ----fr.--,0,. 4=',:.',04/ers il l . - .b k.,.. , - . LttY 4 *\, <-+- MO!i al" -4 / '• -17)-7,nt' or tamed already. Th e ' nalcilae presented !nre-rat milar petitions from parish:2s in kl: clitt-42sys of Cl,ll - Chester, and U,.tbrd ; frcia W6,l(stoct., Guildfoid, Ess(ic, Cumbetiond, aad severa other places, the names of which cot:W . llot be 1 card. Similar petitions were presented by the Ea-1 SHAFTESBURY from parishes in Dorseisliire ; and by the Bishop of CARLISLE from a , -coat number of places in that diocese.—Laid on the table. WARWICK DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. Their Lordships then proceeded tont:iv ,ce in support of the Warwick Borough Bill. Four publicans, Thomas Kiss, Thomas Clarke, Charles Butler, grid John Parkes, were examined, vitt) a view to support the allegation of - treating. The house adjourned at nine o'clock. The SPEAKER took the chair at twenty minutes after Ave o'clock. MARRYAT presented a petition from the London "Gek CornPan ' v against the East Smithfield Improvement Bill, f Mr. ToOKE presented a petition to the same effect, 1.13 „rn an individual of the ndme of John Rose, of Wapping. air. INSTER brought up the report of the committee 9)° , 11 the Bo*cock Estate Bill. The reports - of the commit 7s, upon the St. George's Hospital Incorporation Bill ; r§elkirksire Roadsthe Gloucester Lighting and L s 'lllg Bill ; the Monmouth Market Bill; the Suffolk '''surance Company Bill ' • the Langley Enclosure B ill, kid the Ki r kb y Lonwlele Tithes Bill, were severally up, and the bills were each read a third time, and LOTND4M, EVENEV,, 31A1 23. (No. 18.011.) (PRICE ID.) Mr. PEASE had come down to the house for the pur pose of voting for the second reading, but, from what ne had heard and read upon the subject, it appeared that the proprietors had already received from the public 42,0001. They had also increased their trade considerably by the speculation, and it was scarcely fair of them to say that they had been prejudiced to the amount of capital stated by them. He was decidedly of opinion, that under the advantages which the Dock Com pany had received from these tolls, it would be most unjust to continue them any longer. Mr. MARRYAT said• a few words in favour of the second r, ailing of bill ; after which strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the house divided, when the numbers were— IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. possible for the student to have any knowledge, and if he might say so in so august a pres nce he would say that there were many of their lorthhip who even then did not know their true meaning (Hear, hear.) The tests of which he complained had nothing particular to do with Popery, and had as much to do with the Catholic as with many of the numerous classes of dissenters who pro fessed the Protestant faith. HO USE OF LORDS, Mari 22. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 22. The SPEAKVZ took the chair at twenty Minutes past live o'clock. Major BE AUCLERK presented a petition from John Hinckmnre, a private in the 17th regiment, upon the subject of flogging in the army. Mr. isit IN E 3 presented a petition from the minis ers and , deputies of various congregations of Pro ,-,stant Dissenters in London and its neighbourhood. tzainst the proposed measure respecting church rates. rhe petitioners stated that it was unjust thit any cl ass ,f his Majesty's subjects slit;pld be compelled to contri nite to the support of the relio of anoth er, and that it vas unworthy of the Church of, England, with an abundant revenue of its 0%-n, to depenn gi upon the com mlsory aid which it derived from those '!s'l3o never• oined in its worship. • Mr. C. BULL ER presented a petition from St- Germaines praying for an inquiry into the increase if drunkenness. The house met to-day at four o'clock, in conse quence of the examination of witnesses on the War wick Borough Bill having been appointed to be pro ceeded with. Dr.LUSHINGTOX presented two petitions from the household er s a n d ra t e payers of the north side of the river, tli l d from th e par i s hi oners o f St. B o tolph, Aldgate, against t East Smithfield Roads Bill. HALCOMB moved for further time for the Com tni+ -te e upon the Bermondsey Water Works to draw up feu report.—Granted. tt A similar extension of time was granted to the commit -0„ upon the Great Western Railway Bill, and the Hayle I , l w ay Bill. er. S. LEFEVRE presented two petitions against the I llgselose Inelosure Bill. The Exchange of Lands or Common Fields Bill, was read a third time and passed. The Hartlepool Railway Bill, and the Bristol Wa terworks Bill, were severally read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Lord KENYON, with regard to Oxford, denied that there was truth in the allegations of the noble earl. Of that University he was an humble member , and had been called upon to sign these articles. He would further venture to say that even then he was as ready, as now, to enter into a discussior, of the matter with the noble earl. (Laughter. When the young men were called upon to sign the articles, they were told that they were the profession of the Church of England, but that they would be explained by the tutor at a future time, when theN would again be called upon to ratify what they had once, done. For the second reading '22 Against it 96 Majority -74 On our admission to the gallery we found, Mr. AGLIONBY on his legs presenting a petitionfrom parishes in Cumberland against the Tithe Composition Bill. Dr. LUSHINGTON moved the second reading of the Hammersmith Parish Bill, which, after some discussion, was read a second time. Some petitions of no public interest were then pre sented, and at three o'clock the Speaker left the chair. EAST SMITHFIELD ROAD BILL. AGLIONBY rose to move the second reading of ' ,B bill, a nd sa id that in doi ng so h e wou ld on l y s t a t e the t: ' t qle kets as they had come to his knowledge. He could I' er for kt but regret the opposition of the hon. and lear ned ill, whose view mem the Tower Hamlets to this bill, with : s ilect to thi s bill, and whese motions in opposing it were t „ kte lY different to his (Mr. Aglionby's). He moved the e erid • readi n g of this bill under very peculiar circum iOateices• He had never heard of it till very lately, and he w.nothing whatever of the place to which this bill re or of the individuals who promoted or opposed it. di ! r egretted very much that the hon. member for Mid ; 'sex wa s no t i n his place ; he regretted it the more, as it i r aPosed upon him (Mr. Aglionbv) the duty of rnov- L' I R the second reading. It was originally his (Mr. A.'s) gaention to oppose the second reading of this bill, and on t he exparte statements which he had read, his impression L as strong that this bill ought not to pass. Since that, rwever, he had read the statements of the other side, he c 'ki, seen the petitions in favour of the bill, and he had 'ls upon the case made by the opposite party, that he was tt liberty t o hold himself open, and to take that view o f h e case, which, upon consideration, it should be found to t i,eserv e , Since then he had seen the statement made by th e opposite party, which he believed had been put into 41 e hands of hon. members pretty generally at the door, kid n o doubt remained on his mind that the bill ought to go into committ ee — t h at h e s h ou ld b e di sc h arg i ng hi s duty to the public, and to the hon. member who was e n able to bring the bill forward by moving the second read and he hoped that the same reasons and arguments Lead that house to the conclusion. He would not go details, because he was aware that many hon mem bers, who w ere more conve rsant with them, would address the house ; b u t h e f e lt it his duty to state how the parties 4 1,4 w stood i n re f erence to each other. In 1812 the streets e 11 t East-Smithfield required repair, as it was found ex fit,,,lelY inconvenient to the public to pass in some places tb - 7the encroachment of houses. There was no doubt t hehy d parties now applying for the removal of the bill ae a strong interest in it, but he stated this because, t er d 'd not wish to suppress facts, but put the mat fairly before the house. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") The proprietors of the London Docks made an advance of 1) ,,e,Y to make the ways passable, and a bill was passed s., a "(ing the trustees to pull down ; but when it 1 s" discovered that in order to do this it would be neces itrY for the trustees to purchase the land, it was then t ( 1 ) 1 144 1 necessary to raise money. The trustees applied to 1 .4 Loudon Dock Company, and borrowed from them, sue bill to the estimate that had been made, 30,000/. bill granted a power to the trustees to borrow that I ) 4 _, , carry into effect the projected improvements. As x 'q Often been the case that sum fell short of the actual s te P r e nse, and a bill passed enabling them to borrow 10,000/. and that sum of 40,000/., so advanced by the 4 "Priet ers of the London Docks was actually expended ° ll the i mpro vements. That m o ne y was t o b e re p a id nt h interest at 5 per cent. according to the provisions of th e act; and it was secured to the London Dock Company by power to levy a toll upon horses and carriages, and lay a certain rate upon houses built, and to be built, The receipt it was supposed would be equal to pay the advance. receipt of tolls fell far short of the London Dock t 7 4l Pany's expectations ; and, up to the present time, the •estees were in arrear to that Company no less a l 4 n 41 ,, than 22,000/. interest, making in all 62,00/., os; s eine odd hundreds. The Act of Parliament t tfor 21 years and one session, and that session was the heheY were then sitting in. Therefore the only chance W London Dock proprietors had of obtaining their money t ° Come to that house and ask a renewal of the Act. eY had reduced the sum due to them to 42,000/., by a ivucessio n of 20,000/. ; and that sum of 42,000/. they had treasonable and fair claim to, and he (Mr. A.) trusted hous e would not refuse inquiry before a committee, 4 enable them to be reimbursed some part of that larg e sum. The statement of the opposite party was th at this was a monstrous, unjust, and oppressive pro eding and that the object of the company was to P l ace . (Oil bars across the streets. In support of that as 'ni on, they had circulated papers headed, " Breach of F aith," one of which had been put into his (Mr. A.'s) hand, t be had generally found that when people had recourse ill hard names there was always a lack of argument. Why a cl khl ibe called a breach of faith for men to come for d r d and ask parliament to allow them to obtain what was O ‘ t i i , to them ? Did it not look more like a breach of faith ti , th w e Part of those who would prevent them from obtain jea "eat the p they had lent? It had been alleged that the ob °` had bill was to erect toll bars across b u e I , lll °st frequented thoroughfares of the metropolis, Wh,:le (Mr. A. ) denied that such was the case, o r d "'" then became of the argument of its opponents ? The 1)Y t ell bar erected was in a private street leading to the i., r 7as, and it had nothing to do with the great thorough tons That tolls were levied umany chartered corpora throughout the kingdompon goods coming into b e 7rket was universally admitted, and why had no outcry s ha t raised against them ? He (Mr. A. ) understood , 11 4 t a t o ll was levied upon Ludgate-hill, and he heard a 1 ,0 , t time ago, for the first time, that a toll was levied at t: were 4s tue-bar. The opponents of the bill said that these to be abolished at the end of twelve or fifteen Yes 1 . ; ' B , but that was with the understanding that the and interest should have been then repaid. ""irthe lit company asked was that their case should be in iro, and that certainly would not place the opbpo tes,?: the bill in a worse position , as t hey could then hZ e . ,ir case, and all their allegations and proofs would With - i r u and inuired into. t was evident, from the dete Claus rTn eof the bill, that the f t lls should only cease and ask e d;ne when the money lent had been repaid. He ne house, in justice and fairness, not to refuse the lle l sa 7Y which was sought for, and then all parties would t aini Isfied. The hen. member, after apologising for de biii 1 1 g the house so long, concluded by moving that the Ar lie now read a seconetime. e o f• ItYNG opposed the second reading. The Dock t e ,:::Pany . did not borrow money t o make this line of k ri ", e Which was about 150 yard s in l ength ; they ex eera.d their own money, and they were allowed to levy a althoo,,%:011 for a given time, which had exp i re d ; an d tli i ,l l „'" they had received immense sums of money, in aiioCg as, much as 10,00 0 guineas , from his Maje s ty' s LIN tn ey w i s h e d s till to keep up thi s tax ‘‘ , Q i the p u bli c . It was quite unacc ounta bl e tell tn ev had done with money. He could say that this b ar had always been a g rievance, and he nev er can fa4ied th a t street, without being remined of the dissatis ,eirtZ of the i n h a bit an ts on this subject. Under all these tisf a starices, he never opposed any bill with greater sa- tor aec o • LUSHINGTON moved that this bill be read a b e ,(1 time that d a y s i x m onths. He hoped that he should th e aple to satisfy the house that the petitioners against tk easure had, at least, justice on their side. L o a , dispute there were three parties concerned, .the ilei v iZ t Dock Company, the inhabitants of the immediate ti o rourhood, and the public at large. The London 1 41 ,it Compa n y had a great interest in the result of the e , 4 In 1805 the London Docks were established at an , I ,Pens e of three millions of money, and a scheme was 71 , ised to obtain 180 Lfalient entrance to the froad, for securing a more con h_Y portion of the money so .e It was absurd to contend that expended was expended for the t rek of the public, for the directors were the trustees of w e , s e stock reposed in their hands th e e not authorised to lay out a farthing pr f oprietors, and i o t b Fxcept l for a dvantage of the proprietors, and fo rgth'aatn d .I:e f t on y. come n o t unded p t Zeuld say that it was altogether a false par o t t h o at f no n ce for the London Dock Company to ,the a nd state that they were volunteers on the L imketTP l e--they were volunteers for their own individual U„"ave b; if they had adopted a contrary course they would ;i l k guilty of a violation of the trust reposed in them. act of p tl e circumstances this company had . obtain e d an «h 0 had of the provisions of which his hon. f t th e t , had sported this bill with so much ability, had tor'rilsstees the in . considerable doubt. By that act 29 of th e appointed, of whom twenty-four were direc "ad adv e Loudo n Dock Company ; they (the company) ane e d ert ak _ money to the amount of 30,000/., and had 1 7 10 w th e n` to purchase the necessary buildings. And to tate One manner in which this was performed, he would only ea se • which o wer a house belonging to one of those Parish 1 a ppointed trustees, and which was rated by the n - 07 w it , ) 40/., was purchased by th e com p an y f or 0/ w dual in run a fraction, and this sum wos paid to the in -47. , )011 "f__Miesti on . It was no wonder that the money ,ght est „` 4 'Pe t laded; under such a system there was not the - ...s ac , of . u Pela th economy ; they had not merely imposed e mos greatest and crowded part of the where he the quantity of mercantile business was transacted, and where the toll was felt heaviest, most fnconvenient, and troublesome ; but, in addition, they had imposed a rate of '2s. in the pound upon the houses in the vicinity. And what were the provisions of this bill? The moment the improvements were effected, the whole ex pense was to be thrown upon those very persons who were to pay the toll, and the rate of 25., and thus a consider able portion of the inhabitants would be taxed,—first, for the toll ; secondly, for the rate of 25., and thirdly, for a rate of 9d. for the repair of the roads. After these state ments, he was satisfied that if there was the slightest prin ciple of justice, the house would not go into committee upon the second reading of this bill. He would ask how the case stood, and what was the history of this transac tion ? The cost of the improvement was estimated regu larly at 20,000/. They stated themselves, for he had no other evidence, that this estimate was exceeded by not less than 24,000/. (Hear, hear, hear.) He would ask if the London Dock Company, or any other Com pany engaged in a speculation from which they might legitimately expect a certain benefit, if from some unforeseen circumstances, changes in trade, or the establishment of new docks, it should turn out that they were mistaken in their calculations, whether they would have a right to come to that house and ask for relief because they had made a miscalculation? They were suffering in common with the rest of the inhabitants of the district, and yet for their own benefit and indemnification they wanted to impose upon the suffering inhabitants the continuance of the rate and toll. The London Dock Company proposed to - advance 30,000/. at s_per cent. and to raise it by a house rate, but did they propose to be taxed a single shilling themselves to effect this object? They had valuable premises in the parishes of St. George and St. John, Wapping, and not one farthing had they contemplated to be contributed for these premises. They thought that they would have ample security that their capital would be re turned with five per cent. interest in the course of twelve years, and that they would have the ad vantage of a convenient access, obtained by the money of others so improperly exacted. And this was the bill to be continued for 21 years ; and they had the courage to resist an express proposition to impose a toll upon the greatest thoroughfare in London. No man could read the clause without seeing that the London Dock Com pany were seeking to effect what would be a common nuisance in that part of London—to make atoll-gate where every minute there were numbers of carts, waggons, and vehicles of all kinds passing and repassing. The house, he was sure, would be astonished to hear that 180 yards of im provement would cost 62,000/., in addition to all that had been already expended, and all this for 180 yards of road. They stated that the trade of the district was injured by the narrowness of the approaches ; he was ready to admit that wide and convenient access was desirable, but though many of the streets of London were narrow, trade had, ne vertheless, flourished there. He thought he had said enough to satisfy the house that there was no ground for the renewal of this bill, or to go into a committee upon it. The committee itself would be a fine and a penalty, espe cially upon those who had active engagements ' • secondly, from the expense of counsel and witnesses; and thirdly, as the expense would fall exclusively upon the occupiers of houses. He implored the house not to renew this impo sition upon the inhabitants of this district, and by that means to increase beyond bearing those difficulties and distress which unforeseen misfortunes had already produced. The hon. and learned member concluded by moving his amendment. Mr. CL AY seconded the amendment. He would trouble the house with a very few words, as this was a subject to which he had given the deepest and most painful attention. If there was a shadow of doubt upon his mind as to the justice of sending this Bill into a committee he would consent to do so, but he felt bound to say that he had not the slightest doubt upon the subject. He had no hesitation in stating that the improvements would tend to benefit the London Dock Company alone. (Hear.) It was of vital importance to the London Dock Company to have a free access to their establishment, and it was his opinion, that if they had not persuaded the inhabitants to lay out one shi:ling, they ought to have effected that im provement themselves. When the improvement was pro posed, a vestry of the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate lwas held, for the purpose of opposing the bill, but the surveyor of the Dock Company attended, and stated that the ex penses would not exceed 18,000/. ; and after a deputation had waited upon Mr. Beeston Long, and learned that the term would not exceed 15 years, the parish withdrew its oppo sition. They were disappointed, and the annoyance to the public was as insupportable as the expense ; as yet the Dock Company had not made out a shadow of a private right which could weigh against so great a public measure. He had investigated the subject with great patience and atten tion, and he might say with some pain, and bad deter mined to support the amendment. Mr. A. CHAPMAN said the arguments put forth by the opposers of the second reading were, in his opinion, of little weight. It had been said that it was an advantage to the Dock Company to obtain a free access to their esta blishment; why, the hon. gentleman forgot that they had a free access by water. (A laugh.) A sum of money had been lent on public faith, and surely the parliament, and above all the reformed parliament, would never con sent to give in to such a monstrous principle as that money lent on public faith should not be as faithfully repaid. If, however, the question was one merely of accounts, let the bill go into committee, and then the accounts of the com pany and the trustees could be fairly investigated. An hon. member had stated that one of the trustees had re ceived 6,000/., but he, as one of the trustees, must say that he knew of no such transaction. (Hear. ) Some thing was said about an old woman receiving an annuity but he could assure the house there were no old women trustees. (Laughter.) He hoped that if the house con sidered the question to be one involving the public good, they would deal with it fairly. (Hear.) Let any man travel through the line of improvement, and he would at once acquiesce in the opinion that it was well worth the money. Mr. HARDY said that he did not wonder at the line of conduct pursued in support of the bill, when he found the 24 trustees so mixed up with the London Dock Company. It appeared that the hon. gentleman who had just addressed the house was a director and a trustee of the road. Mr. CHAPMAN—I am not a director ; I am a pro prietor. Mr. HARDY—WeII, a proprietor. He could not help thinking there had been a little jobbing with the London Dock Company. (Hear, hear.) They had not laid out their money for the public good but for their own advan tage, and that they had abundantly secured. If the bill went into committee he should attend and oppose it. Sir W. HORNE contended that there was no clause in the act limiting its powers to 21 years only, or to prevent a renewal of the same, if that limitation existed. He trusted the house would not decide without due inquiry. Mr. HODSON supported the second reading. Mr. P. THOMPSON thought if this bill was carried into effect, it would be a grievous injury to the public. At present the trade paid a tax of 500/. for using this line of road, and such a tax, it must be evident, must be a great drawback upon the commerce of this great city, ind, pendent of the particular expense, and the personal inconvenience. ( Cries of " Hear, hear.") As the question of a breach of faith had been introduced, he (Mr. T.) must say, that after having listened very attentivelr to all that had been urged by hon. members on both sides, he must say that no case had been made out by which a breach of faith could be urged against the trus tees, in consequence of the bill not being read a second time. He had not heard anything even from the hon. member for Marylebone in its favour, except a case ad miserecordium, to send the bill into committee. The hon. member said, " allow the bill to go into committee. Ido not pledge myself to the facts. Ido not pledge myself as to the construction di the Act of Parliament but as there is a doubt, allow the bill to go into cod mittee." He (Mr. P. T.) entertained no doubt upon the construction of the act ; and from all that had been urged he thought that the parties to the bill were not entitled to its renewal. ( Hear, hear.) Even if they had made out a case, he thought that the house, balancing the great ex pense and inconvenience of continuing such a system of taxation upon the public, would act well in refusing to grant them that indulgence. It was said that the committee was a mere matter of course, and would be attended with no expense or inconvenience. (Hear. ) Was it nothing to compel parties to appear by •counsel in that committee, in order to plead their case ? (Hear, hear.) The government must appear by counsel in the committee, the parties interested in the bill must appear ef by counsel, but who, he would ask, would appear on b of the public who passed through these toll 13ars ?( Hear, hear.) Th ere was n o counsel to appear on their behalf , and their interests must consequently be in a great degree neglected. The hon. member for Newcastle had said, that going into committee was merely asking what would be done in the case of a turnpike bill. The case was in his (Mr. P. T.'s) opininion quite different. In a turnpike road the trustees were obliged to make and repair the road , , and do e very thing necessary for the public aecommo - dation ; but in the pre s e n t case th ere was a rate levied upon houses, as well as a toll ; and the rate payers were compelled to keep the road in repair, and watch and light it, and undergo all the necessary charges which were in the other case defrayed by the turnpike trustees. (Hear.) He trusted the house would not put the parties to the expense of a committee, which might appear a light matter to them, but was a se i ius one to the public. As the most merciful feeling to tFe promoters of the bill, he trusted the house would reject it. RURAL FETE AT PETWORTH. This grand spectacle took place yesterday. The munificent Earl of Egremont had been long accus tomed to give a dinner to some thousands of the poor women and children of Petworth and surrounding pa rishes on New Year's Day ; but as his Lordship's ill state of health at the beginning of the present year had prevented the usual treat, he gave directions, about a fortnight since, that it should be holden on . . Whit Tuesday, and every heart beat high with expec tation from the moment of the announcement. Orders were given that 1,000 stones of prime beef, and mate rials for 1,000 plum puddings, should be provided. Tables and seats formed of deal planks were laid out, under the able directions of Mr. Upton, surveyor, on the charming lawn in front of the splendid mansion, stretching in three tiers from each extremity, of the house, in a horseshoe form, 54 in number, each table being on an average 50 feet long ; thus the ex tent of tabling, if in one line, would have exceeded half a mile. The weather, which had for some days previous been wet and stormy, was propitious ; the eight bells in the tower of the church, recently erected by his lordship, began soon after the break of day to pour out their cheerful sounds, and to usher in one of the most delightful mornings ever known in this country. Persons of all ages and all grades soon crowded the entrances of the town in all directions ; the tables were very early covered with white cloths and plates, with half-pint mugs, set for each guest. The dinner, a great part of which was served hot, from the earl's extensive kitchens, in a manner which called forth the astonishment of all present, and re flects the greatest credit on his lordship's establishment, was collected in a large marquee in the centre, and as soon as the clock struck one, the anxious guests, in number rather exceeding 4,200, were quickly supplied from the " Central Board" with huge masses of roast and boiled beef, &c., and with as much as they wished of good beer or delicious cider. The repast being over, the health of his Lordship was given with three times three, but, from the extent of the line, and the want of practice in the juveniles, this was not well performed ; otherwise, nothing could exceed the un restrained order with which the dinner passed off. Joyous delight was expressed in every countenance, whether of the humble guest or more elevated spec tator. The carving was performed by 200 gentlemen and respectable persons, who had volunteered their services for the occasion. That it might be a day of amusement to all classes, his lordship engaged Mr. Jones, of Brighton, to give a grand display of fire-works immediately in front of the house, and which kept an immense concourse of people together till a late hour. It is well-known to every person who has visited Petworth, that free ad mission is given to the inhabitants and the public, at all seasonable hours, into the beautiful and extensive park, but on the present occasion the pleasure grounds, usually reserved for the family, were also thrown open, and large groups were to be seen rambling through the enchanting walks during the interval between the dinner and the rising of a fire-balloon, which began Mr. Jones's exhibition. The Petworth band had been in attendance, and adding to the enlivening scene during the day, and at the conclusion of the fire-works played our national anthem. This was the signal for departure, but not before a spontaneous burst of three times three cheers had been given for the noble earl in true British style. The Rev. Mr. Klanert, Curate of Petworth, deserves great praise for the whole of the arrangements. As by unanimous consent the shops were closed from about eleven in the forenoon, and business of every sort (innkeepers excepted) was suspended, the appearance of the town, but for the merry tone of the bells, must have presented to the imagination of a stranger, ignorant of the cause, the picture of some dire calamity. Petworth, May 21. LISBON, MAY 10. Extracts from the Chronica of Oporto. (Supplement to No. 88, 7th May, 1834.) EXTRACT OF OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS. TONDELLA, MAY 5, 1834. We arrived here this day without opposition, as the enemy had retired the day before yesterday upon Mor tagua, in the direction of Coimbra, where they will natu rally unite themselves with those of the south of the Douro. We shall see where they will await us. ( Second edition. ) The entrance into Tondella took place at two o'clock in the afternoon, and we met the same b r illi an t recept i on as ' at Vizeu. Rodil operates on the side of the Ponte da Mu 4.- cella. It is natural to suppose that within two days we shall be in Coimbra, and our labours speedily terminated. ( Supplement to No. 89, May 8.) M MEALHADA AY 7. We have arrived here, and to-morrow strike a blow at Coimbra. The troops burn with desire to cover them selves with glory. (Supplement to No. 90, May 10. ) COIAIBRA, MAY 8. I have the satisfaction to date this in Coimbra, where we entered this morning without opposition, the enemy having retired during the night. lam this moment informed that Colonel Vasconcellos has arrived at Figueiras. We shall speedily open the communication with Lisbon by land. ( Second edition. ) Another express, which left Coimbra yesterday, the 9th, at 9 o'clock in the evening, has just arrived with despatches, of which the following are extracts : " Vasconcellos has entered Figueiras, from whence the Admiral writes us to-day. Deserters continue to pour in in a prodigious way." ( Supplement to No. 91.—Private Letter:) Miy 9. We entered this city yesterday under a cloud of flowers, discharges of fireworks, and ringing of bells. The ladies all dressed in blue and white, the people appearing beside themselves with joy, rushing into the files, and embracing the troops, and calling them their liberators. From the moment we entered, ten o'clock in the morning, until now, eleven o'clock a.m., more than 60 officers and 600 to 700 soldiers of cavalry and infantry, have presented themselves. Whilst I have been writing this 37 cavalry and 52 in fantry soldiers have come in together. Our beloved Duke has a brilliant guard of honour of Spanish troops, cuirassiers, lancers, and light cavalry. The epoch of Aliguelites and Carlists is ended; the Spanish troops in combination with ours will soon make an end of this Camara Optica. • (From another Letter. ) The authorities retired at eleven at night, and the troops at two in the morning. We found much ammunition, but less stores of rations. The chiefs had held a council, at which the Camara assisted, and treating of the object " Supply," as no one would give them credit for a grain of corn, they issued an intimation to some merchants to present a great quantity of goods by four o'clock in the afternoon. The precip►tation of their retreat prevented this last violence from taking place. OUTRAGE AND HORRIBLE IMPRISON MENT OF MR. GEE, THE SOLICITOR, OF BISHOPS STORTFORD, FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXTORTION.— Belts Life in i London and Sporting Chronicle of To morrow, Sunday, May 25th, will contain a correct sketch of the den or cage in which Mr. Gee was chained, in the house in York-street, Commercial road, and from which he miraculously escaped ; with full particulars of this extraordinary case. Price Seven-pence. The Earl of MALMESBURY presented a peti tion from upwards of 191 owners and occupiers of land in the county of Glouceiter, possessing upwards of 30,000 acres, praying for the adoption of a better mode of collecting county votes. The noble earl concurred heartily in the prayer of the petition. Earl C A WDO R presented three petitions from Nairn, against church patronage in Scotland. Lord GR ANT H AM presented petitions from Ripon, Barton, Leonard, Great and Little Osborne, Welton, Knardborou, , ,, , b, Green; Hammerton, and several other places in Yorkshire, against any alteration in the corn laws. Also a petition from all the clergymen, with the exception of one, and from all the householders of Bedford, including the ministers of the Wesleyan and Moravian chapels, praying the house not to consent to the prayer of those petitions which sought to throw the universities open to the dissenters. Lord ELL ENB °ROUGH presented a petition from the parishes of All Saints, St. Stephen, and St. Peter, Bristol, for the protection of the esta blished Church. The Earl of HAREWQOD presented a peti tion from Leeds for an alteration in the mode of re gistering votes. Lord BEDE SD ALE presented petitions from St. Leonard's, St. Philip's, and another parish in the city of Bristol, for the protection of the established church. The Earl of WINC HIL SE A presented a petition from Eastwood for the better observance of the Sab bath. Lord SONDES presented a petition from the own ers and occupiers of land in the county of Kent, on the subject of tithes. He would take that opportunity of asking whether there was or was not intended to be any measure to check the amount of litigation now existing on the subject of tithes and moduses ? The LORD CHANCELLOR was not aware that any such measure was in contemplation. ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS TO THE UNIVERSITIES. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented petitions from the protestant dissenters of Newmarket, and several other places, complaining of the grievances under which they laboured, and praying for relief. The petitioners principally complained of not being enabled to perform the ceremony of marriage in their own places of worship, and of being obliged to undergo ceremonies in the performance of that right to which they had great re pugnance, particularly that of publishing bans. The Lord Chancellor admitted that it was a great grievance to be obliged to undergo a ceremony to which there was great repugnance, but with respect to the pub lishing of bans he begged the petitioners to under stand that that had nothing to do with religion, but had been adopted by law for the purpose of giving publicity, and to prevent persons under age being married without the consent of parents and guardians. It would be therefore too much to say that because the dissenters did not choose to publish bans the whole of the King's subjects should lose that security which the Marriage Act had given them. Lord KENYON presented a petition against the admission of the Dissenters to the Universities. Earl FITZWILLIAM said the noble baron had pre sented tire petition without stating whether he assented or dissented from its prayer; but he begged to enter his caveat against the propositions of those petitioners, that the Universities were founded for the sole purpose of propagating the doctrines of the Churcl, England. Lord KENYON said he did not rise fir the pur pose of stating that the universities of this country were established for the purpose of promoting the doctrines of the church of England, because it was well known that many of them were established before the refor mation ; but that they were established for the pur pose of promoting religious instruction in connec tion with the state at the time they were founded, there could be no difficulty in maintaining. He had not made any speech in presenting the petition, because he did not wish to detain their lordships with any discussion, and therefore he had done nothing more than shortly state to their lordships what the nature of the petition was. He had another petition to present to the same effect from the friends of the established church at Denbigh, which would give the noble earl opposite the opportunity, if he wished it, of making any further observations he liked. He begged to have the petition read ; it was signed by the clergy, and all the principal persons, as well as all the poorer persons residing in that place. Earl FITZWILLIAM hoped it was quite unne cessary for him to assure • the noble lord that the uni versities were not founded with that sort of connexion with the church which was alleged in the peti tion ; he had meant merely to state that they were founded in Roman Catholic times. What he meant was to call their lordships' attention to the alle gation of the petitioners which had been repeated again in the next petition, and in perhaps still stronger terms ; viz., that persons who entered the universities being bound to subscribe to any particular sect of religion, was not consistent with the original foundation of those universities. He was satisfied that the petitioners could not make out that proposition, inasmuch as it was perfectly well known with respect to at least one of them, that the tests which are now required in that _university were, if he might so speak, of modern introduction, and therefore it was quite impossible to substantiate-the allegation which the petitioners made, that the object of the universities was to maintain one particular sect of christianity. The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was per fectly true that the greater part of the Universities was founded before the reformation ; but he defied the noble earl opposite to say that any one of them was founded for the purpose of teaching anything but truth—anything besides the real truths of the Christian religion. The Catholic religion was reformed, and upon that reformation the tests complained of by the noble earl were intro duced. ( Hear, hear.) They were the tests of Christianity as maintained by the Church of England, and, he would venture to say, the tests believed in by the noble earl himself, as well as every noble lord in that house ( Hear, hear), and those were the only tests required to be taken by the students of which s o much complaint was now made. Would the noble earl say that those tests were now to be done away because now the Catholics and Dissenters had more power than they had three or four years ago— that because of that, they were to set aside those tests which had been productive of so much good? If the no ble lord wished to do so, he was happy, to say that he was of opinion that a majority of their lordships would be of a very different opinion. He main tained that the truth alone ought to be taught at the universities—that the truth was only found out at the Reformation, and he begged to ask whether the noble earl would wish that anything else should be there taught ? Earl FITZWILLIAM said there were some pro positions laid down in the speech of the noble duke, that in his opinion required some notice, and he trusted the house would bear with him for a short time. The noble duke was quite mistaken in the assertion he had made regarding the time that the tests were im posed,—he spoke of Cambridge, and of that univer sity he would undertake to say that it was long after the Reformation that they were imposed. There were a great many sects in existence in England who would tell the noble duke that the Church of England was only half reformed—that that church yet savoured of Popery. ( Hear, hear, hear.) He did not mean to say so, but others would ; and in his opinion it was perfectly absurd to suppose that the Protestant religion was imposed upon the student by the mere act of his signing the 39 articles. If it was P renunciation of Popery, lie would not have said o much certainly against it ; but it was wel. Known that not one of them related to the sub ject that they treated of, viz., free-will, transubstan tiation, &c., mere metaphysics of which it was im- The Bishop of LONDON said he had a petition to present on the same subject, but from the same cause as . that referred to by the noble lord ( Kenyon), he would not at present present it. He could not, however, avoid saying a few words upon the subject. The noble earl ( Fitz william) had remarked that he should not be suprised if a great number of their lordships were perfectly unacquainted with the meaningof the thirty-nine articles. In the noble earl's remars, however, he (the Bishop of London) discovered some traces of that with which the noble earl said their lordships were unacquainted. A long time had probably elapsed since the noble earl had subscribed to those thirty-nine articles. The noble earl had said that a person by subscribing to the thirty-nine articles did not therefore renounce Popery. The thirty-nine articles did distinctly re nounce the error of Popery—he said that not in the distinctly accurate sense, but every person taking them, and being a sincere member of the Church of England, emphatically denied the errors of Popery. The truth was, and that was established by that body to which the subject was referred, viz., the clergy in convocation, that the errors of popery should be renounced, and that renunciation was confirmed by the clergy. ( Hear, hear.) The state would not change the religion of the church ; the church reformed its own religion, and then the state adopted that reforma tion. The universities were founded solely on the Christian religion, and were upheld by various acts of the legislature, and if they taught Chris tianity at all it must be taught according to the principles of the Established Church. If the dis senters were therefore to be forced on the universities, from that moment the reformed church would be so diluted that they would cease to be the fit place of instruction for members of the Esta blished Church. The right reverend prelate then presented a petition from the hundred of Rochford, in the county of Essex, against the admission of dis senters to the universities. Earl FIT ZW ILLI AM said he had never con tended that the subscription to the thirty nine articles was a renunciation of Popery. It might be by implication a renunciation of Popery, but it was not necessarily so. They possessed so much of metaphysics and abstruseness, and so much of ab surdity that no noble lord could get up and declare that he perfectly understood them. ( Hear, hear. ) He would even go further, and say that they would admit of various interpretations ( Hear), so that even Calvinists and Armenians might subscribe to them. The Bishop of EXETER said some of the noble earl's averments were scarcely credible, particularly when he asserted that the 39 articles would admit of various interpretations. ( Hear, from Earl Fitz william. ) The intention of those who drew them up was to make them as precise as possible. As to a young man of sixteen being required to subscribe to them, without understanding them, the student always placed implicit confidence in his tutor to teach him the meaning of them, and that had been the answer upon all occasions to the objections that had been urged against them. That answer had always been considered as a triumphant one. • Earl FIT ZWIL L IA Al . was surprised that the right rev. prelate should have advocated and sanctioned such a practice as that which he had stated, which called upon under graduates to subscribe to one thing, while they professed another. (Cries of " No, no.") He (Earl Fitzwilliam) would say " Yes, yes ;" for if the statements of the right rev. prelate meant anything they meant that. (No, no.) The Earl of WINCHIL SEA thought the noble earl had formed extremely erroneous notions of what the right reverend prelate had stated. (Hear.) What he had said was that the under gra duates were called npon to subscribe to the 39 articles, reliance being placed on their tutors to impress upon them their effect. If the house were to take from the established church those liberties which she now possessed, they would place her in a worse situation than anybody of dissenters in the king dom. ( Hear.) The Archbishop of CANTERBURY would not have said one word on the presentation of the petition, had not the noble earl reflected on the statements of the right rev. prelate who spoke last. Any person who had heard him would suppose he had fallen into the casuistry of former times. He did not know that it was necessary for him to say that he concurred entirely in all that had fallen from the right reverend prelate who had just spoken, and he need not tell their lordships that the right reverend prelate's construction of the rules of the University of Oxford was the true one. The right reverend prelate then read certain parts of the statutes of the university of Oxford, which required students to subscribe to the articles of faith, and to acknowledge the King's supremacy ( Hear), from which it appeared they were compelled to sub scribe to the articles of faith and religion at the age of twelve years, but were not to take the oath of supre macy and fidelity until they arrived at the age of sixteen. ROYAL ASSENT. The royal assent was given to the Exchequer Re ceipt Bill, Smuggling Act Amendment Bill, Hemp and Flax Bill, Clerk of the Pipe ( Scotland) Bill, Warwick Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, Liverpool Wit nesses' Indemnity Bill, Calder and Hebble Navigation Bill, London Bridge Approaches Bill, New Brunswick Land Company Bill, British American Land Company Bill, Dorchester Paving Bill, Limerick Waterworks Bill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Waterworks Bill, Bute Ship Canal Bill, Montgomeryshire Canal Debt Bill, Birmingham and Liverpool Junction Canal Bill, Al liance Marine Assurance Company Bill, Folly or Friars ( Oxford) Bridge Bill, Bridgwater Gas Bill, Cambridge Gas Bill, Preston and Wigan ( North Union) Railway Bill, Blaydon and Hebburn Railway Bill, Dublin and Kingston Railway Bill, Rugeley and Stone Road Bill, Southtown ( Yarmouth) Road Bill, Glasgow and Shotts Road Bill, Montgomeryshire Roads Bill, Wortley Road Bill, Glastonbury Parishes Bill, Arle (Gloucester) Inclosure Bill, Tisbury ( Wilts) Inclosure Bill, Great Shelford ( Cambridge) Inclosure Bill, Duntsborne (Gloucester) Inclosure Bill, and Raskelf ( York) Inclosure Bill. The commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Earl of Shaftesbury. A message from the House of Commons requested permission for the attendance of the Earl of Eldon to give evidence before the committee of inquiry into the ' salaries of the judges of the Court of Sessions in Scot land.—Permission was given in the usual form. Members from the House of Commons brought up several private bills. The Archbishop of YORK presented several peti tions from places in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying for protection to the established church. Earl FIT Z WIL L lAM presented petitions from two places, the names of which we could not hear, praying for relief to the hand-loom weavers. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions frourSt. Mary, R a d c liffe; and St. Thomas, and other pa rishes in Bristol, praying the house for protection against dangers which they apprehended to the established church from the dissenters, particularly from their ad mission to the universities. He certainly agreed with the petitioners in their alarm, and especially from the violence with which the dissenters were now urging their demands, and when he considered the power they Sir H. WILLOUGHBY gave notice that upon motion for the.house to go into committee upon :be Poor Laws Amendment Bill, he would move the a 1 -mtion of a clause to restrain the power of the com missioners. major BE AUCLERK presented a petition from the governors and guardians of the poor of St. Mary, Newington, against the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill. Also a petition from Wandsworth, signed by three thousand persons, in favour of the Dorsetshire labourers, and a petition from the national consolidated trades' union of Bradford, to the same effect. Mr. EWART moved for certain returns connected with the Royal Academy, Somerset-hogz , e, which were ordered. Mr. WATSON presented a petition from an indi vidual of the name of Robert Francis, near Canter bury, against the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill. Mr. WALTE R presented a petition from Newbury, praying for the appointment of a Committee to in quire into the causes aniteffects of drunkenness. Mr. WILES presented four petitions from the Protestant Dissenters of Oswestry, Ashby-de-la- Zouch, Appleby, and Christ Church in Hampshire, against the measure for the commutation of church ► ates. The hon. member desired to take the opportunity of presenting those petitions, to ask the noble lord if it was his intention to persevere in that measure ? and if so, when- it might he expected that he would introduce a bill on the subject ? Lord ALTHORP WCs understood to say that it was his intention to persevere with it, but that at pre= sent he could not pledge himself to any precise time of introducing the bill. Some observations were made in a very inaudible and indistinct manner by one or two members, as was believed, relative to the periods at which the British Museum was open, when Mr. EWART expressed his opinion that although it might be necessary for the trustees to shut it on cer tain days, yet that it might be opened to the public in the evenings, which would be a great accommoda tion. NEWSPAPER STAMPS. Mr. E. L. BUL WE R rose to move, in pursuance of the notice he had before given, the repeat of the stamp duty on newspapers, and that all printed works, under a certain weight, should have the privilege of transmission through post at a low rate. He was induced, on bringing forward this motion on a former occasion, by the favour able reception b y which it seemed to be met by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, and partly from the general feeling of the house that it would be better to delay it until that reform had taken place which had been now obtained, to postpone it accordingly. On that occasion, he had been requested by every hon. member who spoke, to take the earliest opportunity afterwards of pressing the subject. He had, however, both during last session, and. also during that part of the present session that had elapsed, been prevented from doing so, and this was the first time he had had the opportunity of dis charging a pledge he had given to the country, and a duty he owed to himself. The question now was not what it then was, shivering on the threshold of that house, and only agitated by a few out of doors. Since that time it had been taken up warmly throughout the country, and if hon. members were mindful of the wishes of their constituents, and the pledges which many of them had given, he could have no misgivings as to the result. At the same time, he was not like many who had proposed the repeal of certain acts without finding a substitute, because, on the present occasion he had a substitute to propose for that which he desired to have repealed. Numerous petitions had been presented against this tax, and they had not proceeded from the proprietors of existing papers, they for the most part wishing the tax to remain, in order that their monopoly might be con tinued. Those petitions had not emanated from any par ticular meeting, but from the community at large, who desired a free circulation of political information ; such as the debates of that house, the measures of the legislature, the state offoreign affairs, and all that kind of knowledge which was calculated to promote the political and moral wel Lbeing of society. No question deserved more atten tion from the government; or greater support from the legislature. He recollected the noble lord on a former occasion saying that the existing newspapers would be the first to complain, if any could complain with justice, and that remark was very generally cheered. But whoever heard of monopolists coming for ward to do away with their own monopolies ? That had not been the case with reference to the East India Company. The sevenpenny copy of every news paper cost 50. in stamps and paper before any workmanship was applied to it. The capital required to establish a newspaper amounted to 20,0001. 30,0001., and even 40,0001. Of course, then, those who had embarked such capitals, and established their monopolies, wished to have the tax continued, in order to keep out all competitors. They did not suffer from the existence of the tax, but the community at large suffered. ( Hear, hear, hear.) It was a maxim in state policy, that if an article was taxed 15 per cent., smuggling would be introduced ; yet newspapers were taxed 200 per cent., and there were plenty of contra band goods. Numerous unstamped publications were constantly issuing from the press, but the writers for such papers could not have much respect for the law, seeing that they acted in defiance of the laws, and therefore they could not be safe teachers of those by whom their writings were gene rally perused. He recollected one of those papers, in some remarks on trades' unions, seemed to have a great fancy for the property of the Duke of Bedford— another paper had been remarkably anxious for the assassination of the Duke of Wellington. ( A laugh.) Indeed these papers for the most part contained propo sitions which would be most absurd if addressed to that house, but they were dangerous to the person!, to whom they were addressed, and the worst part of the evil was that they were not, and could not be, answered, for the stamped and expensive papers were not read by the working and lower classes. Therefore, by this tax, the poor were deprived of po litical information, while , instead of it, they obtained incendiary and unprincipled doctrines, disseminated in a way the most dangerous to the peace and well being of society. They laid the poison upon the table while the medicine was kept under lock and key. By this tax two monopolies were kept up, and two publics were con t stituted--one ho t ; i oe t twss u hesh t e, e—ofdsmrta press,—the theyee nnaoe. arose, o t ho h sgeme e ar ,v b aet a e hni t edl t a e better shoo i nfo rmed, aeofwre aoirsnmaotdridot enharaenslyd, uneducatedbetter asahnnoddu lcdo p e b d v uce u l a s c i s a m sitoo_nds enlightenedts, anxious to give prope r i nstruct i on ; to t h at pu bli c t h ey gave by this tax only a m i sc hi evous an d d angerous spe cies of information. They either totally deprived the poor of political i n f ormat i on , or gave th em that of a most pernicious description. He might stop here and say that he had made out his case. What more need be said to prove that this was a tax that ought to be re pealed? What greater curse could a government bring upon itself than it must experience, if it permitted the most dangerous opinions and suppressed the reply? Of what greater crime could a government be guilty, than that of allowing the minds of the poor to be poisoned ? than that of pandering to their demoraliza tion ? And, if demoralization led to guilt, and guilt to punishment, of encouraging the wanton sacrifice cf human life itself ? ( Hear, hear.) When it was said,