The Sun. — London, England, 1833-07-12 00:00:00

might lose their estates, and the military force of 22, 000 m e n would fail to preserve am. The Irish, like all un civilized people, were vindictive, and no one knew the moment at which a crisis might arrive. The Hon. M( :ti tter below him (Mr. Sheil) had a motion relative to a tax on absentees, and he would not interfere with that subject, nor even pronounce an opinion upon it. The remedy be would propose was the having local bodies to legislate on local subjects, and (as we understood) that these local Par liaments should sit for three months in Ireland and three months in Scotland, while the Imperial Legislature should go on here. In conclusion, the Hon. Gentleman moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the various forms of absentee expenditure by which Ireland is afflicted, to ascertain its effects on the prosperity of that country, and on the happiness of the people, and to discover a remedy, ;f possible, for the evils it occasions. The motion having been put, Dr. BALDWIN said it was not his wish to press his motion at present, hut he wished to record his own senti ments on the subject.—(Cries of "Divide.") Mr. S. RICE suggested whether it would not be better for the Hon. Gentleman to give a notice for next session. Mr. O'DWYER said that Hon. Members who brought forward Irish questions were not to be laughed a'. Mr. S. RICE said that to a Committee on absenteeism lie should have have no objection, as he was not one of those political economists who did not consider it an evil, and above all, an evil in a country circumstanced like Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) This he admitted, but how was it possible to remedy it ? That could not be done without destro}ing the right of property, as well as degrading the people of Ireland, by leaving them without the power of free agency—mere adscripti glebcc—without the liberty of leaving their country. There was only one way to bring the absentees back to Ireland ; that was, to make the country happy, and to put an end to all feelings of irritation and division. The Hon. Gentleman said there could not be any thing more exaggerated than the state ments made as to the rental withdrawn from Scotland, and concluded by 'quoting the following passage of a letter from Burke to Sir C. Bingham A man may have property in more than two parts of this empire ; he may have property in Jamaica, and in North America, as well as in England and Ireland. What shall we say to this case? After the poor distracted citizen of the whole empire has, in compliance with your partial law, removed his family, bid adieu to his connections, and settled himself quietly and snug in a pretty box by the Liffey, he hears that the Parliament of Great Britain is of opinion that all English estates ought to be spent in England, and that they will tax him double if he does not return. Suppose him then (if the nature of the two laws will permit it) providing a flying camp, and dividin g his year as well as be can between England and Ireland, and at the charge of two town houses and two country houses ; in this situa tion he receives an account that a law is transmitted from Jamaica and another from Canada to tax absentees from those provinces which are impoverished by the European resid.nce of the possessors of their lands. How is he to escape from this ricochet cross-firing of so many opposite batteries of police and regulation ? If he attempts to comply, he is likely to be more a citizen of the Atlantic Ocean than of any of these countries. The matter is aheurd and ridiculous, and while ever the idea of mutual marriages, inheritances, purchases, and privileges, subsist, it can never be carried into execution with common sense or common justice. I do not know how gentlemen of Ireland reconcile such an idea to their own liberties or to the natural use and enjoyment of their estates." %Ir. G. ROBINSON said there could not be a greater calumny than that of saying English Members were indifferent to Irish questions, and he was surprised at the injeetice of the complaints on this head. Mr. O'DWYER did not wonder at the lecture given by the Hon. Member for Worcester, as he bad himself, although an English Member, given proof that be was as Able to depopulate the House as any Irish Member could possibly be. Lord ALTHORP believed that a person, whether in England, Ireland, or Scotland, not living on his property • was an evil. Both the Hon. Members for Drogheda and Cork had said that the great object was to improve pro erty in Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman suggested, that is order to prevent absenteeism, it would be expedient to impose restrictions on property in Ireland. He, however, did not think that the adoption of such a proceeding would be beneficial to that country ; its only effect, in his opinion, would be to deter individuals from purchasing or iirproving landed property in Ireland.—(Hear.) It was hie moat' anxious `desire to promote the interest of Ireland .—.(Hear, hear) —but he believed that many of the mea sures suggested by the Hon. and Learned Mover, instead o f proving beneficial, would be productive of the greatest evils to that country.--(Hear, hear.) Mr. SHEIL admitted • that absenteeism existed with regard to Scotland ; but in that country no ill effect resulted from it, because, in the first place, there were no large confiscated estates possessed by Englishmen, and in the next,hecause Scotland was a tranquil country.—(Loud ,cries of 1 $ Hear.") He was sorry to see that the grant of pecuniary aid to Ireland was diminishing in amount every year. Ireland was a witness of the splendid munificence with which that House had acted towards the West Indian proprietors. Ireland did not complain of this; but she eosdal not help contrasting it with the parsimony which t - ,ad elways been displayed when her interests were con cerned. Mr. HUME said the want of employment was, after ell, the great evil of Ireland, and that could only be cured by the introduction of capital. slft. FINN contended that one of the greatest evils with which Ireland was afflicted was absenteeism, and said a proof of the correctness of his assertion was to be found in the flourishing state of that country in the period be tween VTR and 1196, when it enjoyed an independent Legislature. Mr. LITTLETON bad never been able to comprehend thew it was possible for an absentee tax to be advantageous go Ireland. If such a tax should be imposed, no pet son, not even aut Irishman, would invest his surplus capital in Web property, but would bring it over to England, where he might enjoy it without restriction.—(Hear.) Dr. BALDWIN having replied, the motion was re- Cetl,opel EVANS obtained leave to introduce a Bill to amend eb,e Act 56 Geo. lIL cap. 69, for regulating parish vestries, in se far as the introduction of a clause, affording Westminster, acid the parishes within the bills of morta lity, the same exemption from the operation of the said Act as is enjoyed by London and Southwark. Mr. C. BULLER postponed his motion respecting the ?rope . i.ety of making extensive reductions in the public expendilnre, until the first supply day. CASE OF CAPTAIN ROBISON. pr. LUSHINGTPN rose to move for the production of the rniputes of the ,courtmartial on Captain Robison. In 18:25 Captain Robison, who had been appointed to the command of three veteran companies, which had been raised in this country for the purpose of being sent out to New South Wales, to serve there as mounted police, was brought to a c,iurtmartial at the instance of General Dar ling, the Governor of that colony. General Darling, who was at that time exercising all the powers of the Crown, acted as prosecutor of Captain Robison. General Darling had the selection of the courtmartial that was to fry Captain Robison, and he mentioned this to induce the inae to consider the odds which this officer bed to combat in contending with the tremendous powers With which the governors of our colonies were armed. Knowing those powers, the House would ace that, If it shut its ears against complaints of the mis use of those powers, it would leave to the aibitrary ,r*je of our colonial governors all who served under phero either in a civil or a military eapacity,,a4 Hear.) ire the eportmartial thus selected by General Darling an officer eves spat to act as judge-advocate, who had been previously a uremlaer of the court of inquiry which sat Ppon Captain Robison. lie had read the evidence of the witnesses who had been examined on the the courtmartial, and from that evidence it clearly appeared that the judge-advocate to the courtmartial bad also been judge-advocate to the court of inquiry. Now he under stood that it was not only contrary to military I iw, but also to military practice, that the same officer should act as jedge•advocate both before the courtmartial and the court of inquiry. Tie court of inquiry lasted three weeks ; the courtmartial lasted from the 11th of July to the 15th September. His first complaint was that an attempt bad been made on the part of the proi.ecution to tamper with the witnesses. Before, however, lie ploceeded to that part of the subject, be must state to the House that one of the charges against Captain Robison was that he had sent to England • complaints against General Darling without having communicated copies of them to General Darling. During the inquiry General Darling addressed a letter to Captain Robison, desiring him to state whether be bad sent home any such complaints, and on receiving an answer from Captain Robison, made that answer evidence against that officer. Another of the charges against Captain Rubicon was of a most extra ordinary' nature. Captain Robison was accused of having improperly made use of a letter written by the governor's military secretary, Captain Strutt, to Lieutenant Sweeney, who was summoned to give evidence against him. To support that accusation, Lieutenant Sweeney teas called as a witness. Now, what would the House think wheat he read to them the contents of two letters, which he held in his hand, and which were written by Captain Strutt to Lieutenant Sweeney pending this inquiry ? Strutt sent an repress to Lieutenant Sweeney with au official letter desiring him to attend the courtmartial with a de tachment of his company, and in that official letter be enclosed a private letter of his own, which in his (Dr. Lushington's) opinion was nothing else than an attempt to intimidate that witness from giving the evidence which he was generally expected to give. The House would allow him to read those letters, and when he had read them he thought that every gentleman who heard him would be of opinion that he had substantiated grounds for the motion with which he intended to conclude. The official letter was dated Ist of April, 1833 (..o Dr. Lushington said—but it was evidently a mistake), and stated that the Lieutenant- Governor having directed an inquiry to be made into the conduct of Captain Robison, had instructed him to sienify his desire to him (Lieutenant Sweeney) that he should afford every facility by the presence of his detachment to the fulfilment of the orders of the courtmartial. In the same envelope was the following letter, headed with the words " strictly private and confidential." In this letter Captain Strutt stated that " he could not allow the inquiry to proceed without discharging the disagree able duty which had fallen to his lot." "I am anxious for your sake," continued the writer, " to warn you of the precipice on which you are standing. Circumstances have come to the knowledge of the Lieutenant-Governor which implicate you jointly with Captain Robison. He may be right or he may be wrong, on that I give no opinion ; all that I wish to call your attention to is the consequences which may attach to you individually. Your name has been mentioned in some of the despatches ad dressed to the Lieutenant. Governor, and has not escaped his notice ; but hitherto I have parried the subject. An honourable line of conduct is now open before you, and I hope you will follow it." Now, he begged the House to consider when, and by whom, this letter was written.— (Hear, hear.) What object could the writer have, except to intimidate the individual to whom it was written ? (Loud cries of " No, no.") He said the warning to Lieutenant Sweeney, that he was standing on a precipice, and that he was implicated with Captain Robison, was nothing but an attempt to intimidate him into the sup pression of such evidence as might be unfavourable to the prosecution. The most singular part, however, of this case n-as yet to come. When this letter of Captain Strutt was communicated to Ciptain Robison, he wrote a remon strance to General Darling against the tendency of such a letter to sap the foundation of all justice. That remonstrance was afterwards made the subject of a fresh charge against Captain Robison. He submitted that if there was a shadow of truth in these allegations, tie grossest injustice had been done in these particulars, and further investigation was absolutely necessary. He knew that General Darling disavowed all knowledge of Captain Strutt's letter to Lieutenant Sweeney.—(Hear, heir.) It might be true that it was written by the imprudence—no, that was too light a term—of Captain Strutt himself ; but by whomsoever written and from whatsoever motives, it made no difference to Captain Robison. General Darling had called on Lieutenant Sweeney to account for the letter written to him by his military secretary, Ciptain Strutt Now, Sweeney was a man in distressed circumstances, and on receiving that demand saw that his all was at stake. In the agony of the moment he wrote a letter to General Darling, scarcely knowing what he was writing, and that letter was subsequently produced by the prosecution to contradict the testimony which he afterwards gave upon oath. He now came to another of the charges preferred against Captain Robison, and which was not less extra ordinary than any of those which had preceded it. Whilst Captain Robison was commandiug a detachment at a dis tart outpost, be gave orders that the mail-bags, in which he expected some despatches of his own, should be opened in the absence of the post-master. For doing this a charge was brought against him before the magistracy, who, on hearing the facts, dismissed it as frivolous and vexatious. This charge was again reiterated before the courtmartial, which expressly acquitted him of every part of it which implied either dishonour or discredit. Another complaint which he had to urge on behalf of Captain Robison was, that in violation of the law, the questions put to the witnesses were not taken down in writing, in order that the Government at home might be enabled to judge of their relevancy and pertinency. Now, unless such questions were reduced into writing, how was it possible for his Right Hon. Friend, the Judge-Advocate at borne, to decide whether all had been done that was necessary to the elucidation of justice? He now came to another f xt, which appeared on the minutes of the court martial, and which to this moment remained uncontra dieted. Captain Strutt had been permitted by the Judge Advocate to read over the minutes of his own evidence, and to refresh his memory as to what he had sworn pre viously, before he underwent cross-examination. That was another violation of justice. He therefore asked the House to let the minutes of this courtmartial be laid upon the table, in order that every gentleman might judge for himself of the justice of its proceedings. The sentence which it passed upon Captain Robison was, that be should be dismissed from the army, in which he had served for twenty-five years, after having served throughout the Peninsular campaigns,—after having been thrice in India, anti after having gone out to New South Wales with as high terimonials to character as any officer could desire. Mr. GRANT admitted conclusively that the House had the power to supervise the proceedings not only of courtsmartial, but of all judicial tribunals, and that in exercising that supervision it was to be guided by no general rules, save the immutable principles of justice, But the House, which might exercise its supervision in all instances, ought in his opinion to be cautious how it exercised it in any. The question, then, with regard to this courtmartial resolved itself simply into this : " Does there appear in its proceedings a case so pregnant with injustice and oppression as ought to induce the House to take the first step in the career of censure by laying the minutes of it on the table ?" His opinion decidedly was, that there was no such case, and therefore he thought that the House would be well advised in not acceding to this motion. The charges which Captain Robison had preferred against this courtmartial were numerous; but yet they resolved themselves easily enough into three heads. There were, first, the objections to the con stitution of the court, next the objections to its proceedings in admitting and rejecting certain evi deuce, and, last of all, the objections to its decision and sentence. The first objection contained in the paper of this unfortunate man—for unfortunate he cer tainly was—respected the constitution of the court. That paper state-I that the court consisted of a president and eight officers only, the ordinary number of officers upon courtsmartial being thirteen. Now nine officers were four more than were required by the Mutiny Act and the Ar ticles of War to constitute a courtmartial. Considering, therefore, the numerous duties which the military hail to perform in New South Wales, it was favourable to Gene ral Darling, and a mark of respect to Captain Robison, that his courtmartial consisted of a greater number of officers than the law required. There was another cir cumstance connected with the constitution of the court, which he felt it necessary to state in justification of the court itself. With the exception of one officer, who was junior to Captain Robison, all the rest were his superiors in rank. His Hon. and Learned Friend had told the House that the courtmartial sat from the 11th of July to the 15th of September, two whole months ; but lie had not told them that four-fifths of that time had been taken up by the defendant in cross-examining his witnesses, and that this oppressive court had given him three weeks out of those two months for the preparation of his defence. The next objection of Ciptain Robison was that he bad been compelled strenuously to object to two members of the court, but that his challenge had been overruled and disregarded. Now, he (Mr. Grant) be lieved that this petition had been framed in London ; and therefore he must suppose that in the lapse of time Cap tain Robison had forgotten the facts, or else he never could have so misrepresented them. It was true that Captain Robison bad objected to one member of the court ; but his other objection was to the Judge-Advocate ; and if he reckoned the Judge-Advocate as a member of the court, as undoubtedly he was, then the courtmartial consisted of ten officers. Captain Robison stated, " The officer who acted as Judge-Advocate of the court was not an impartial and unprejudiced person, having been a member of the court of inquiry, and he acted in that important capacity in defiance of my solemn protest against it." H's (Mr. Grant's) answer to this objection was, that the Judge Advocate was not removed fiom the court, because, by objection Act of f io Parliament, be was not challengeable. As to the that the court n as blameable in having received as evidence the letter of the Chief Justice of the colony, he must say that could form no ground for revising the pro ceedings of the court, for the letter was of no importance whatever to the case but he would add, that if the re ceiving of evidence which would not be received as evidence in a court of law was to he an objection to the proceedings of a courtmartial, it would stand the test, for it was an object with those courts to let in any evidence that was tendered. Indeed, in the 1,050 pages which these pro ceedings occupied, four-fifths might be said to consist of inadmissible evidence, but this nas owing to the indul gence of the court, in allowing the defendant to go into matters which were irrelevant. There was, he would admit, evidence admitted for the prosecution which, strictly speak ing, was inadmissible, but it was not of that material natur e which would justify a revision of the proceedings. The next objection of the defendant was, that the prose cutor was permitted to object to the testimony of his own witness, and to bring a previous letter of that witness to shake his own evidence. Now, on this point, it was dis tinctly stated by Captain Strutt, and also by the. Gover. nor, that he (the Governor) knew nothing whatever of t the private letter written by Captain Strutt to Lieutenant Sweeney . The letter was marked " private and confi dential," and in opening the other letter in which it • was enclosed, it fell out, and was picked up by Captain Robison, and though so marked was read by him. When Lieutenant Sweeney found that it had been so read, he in great agitation begged that he would not say a word about it, which Captain Robison pledged his honour not to do; but the first step he took was to write to the Governor making a complaint that such a letter had been written. It was not unnatural that Captain Strutt should have written this confidential letter to a man with whom he was on intimate terms, whom be knew to have been in some degree ex posed to risk from some of the proceedings against Captain Robison, and whom he also knew to be in a great measure under the influence of that officer. When the complaint of Captain Robison was received respect ing the private letter, a letter was written by order of the Governor to Lieutenant Sweeney, calling on him to explain. In answer to this Lieutenant Sweeney wrote the letter which had been afterwards produced in Court, and in which, after giving an account of what occurred, which it was unnecessary for him (Mr. Grant) to repeat, he added—" I farther beg to pledge myself on my honour as an officer and a gentleman, that what I have here stated is consistent with the truth." This was written in May, but in the July following, when be was called upon as a witness to some of the same facts, he gave evasive and reluctant answers, which brought upon him the public censure of the court. Now, in point of law, he (Mr. Grant) must contend that a prosecutor was perfectly au thorized to bring evidence to contradict the testimony of his own witness, not to discredit his general evidence, but to contradict him in the particular parts of it where he may have given evasive and reluctant answers, as in this case, and to show that at another period he had given a different account of the same transaction. This he stated on the authority of Mr. Phillips, in his work on evidence, who quoted the opinion of Lord Ellenborough as authority for the rule thus hid down. This, then, was the whole of the case as to the letter, with the exception that it was not pulled from his pocket by the president of the courtmarial (who was a most honourable man and an excellent officer, and who knew his duty better)' but was produced by the prosecutor. There was, therefore, he contended, no ground for ceiling the proceedings of the court in question on this objection. There was in the papet which the defendant had circulated amongst the Members of the House another and most important ob jection, on which he would say a few words : it was, that one of the witnesses, a private soldier, named Budd, had been tampered with by General Darling, and promised rewards and promotion if he gave evidence against the ac cused ; but supposing that this fact was as the defendant had stated, it would still form no ground for calling the proceedings of the Court in question, for though the Court had discredited Budd, yet the facts to which he spoke against the accused were proved by other witnesses, against whose testimony no imputation had been made. He (Mr. Grant) had referred to this fact, not as any willing impeachment against General Darling,—he ad mitted that, if true, it was a blackening and a serious charge against him, but he had mentioned it solely in reference to the case before the House. It should, how ever, be added, that the story told by Budd was improba•• ble, to an extent bordering on romance. The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to several other points contained in the paper circulated by Captain Robison—but not mentioned in the statement of the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman (Dr. Lushington)—and contended that they were not borne out by the evidence on the minutes of the Court. When first Captain Robison felt himself aggrieved by having what be considered an unjust charge made against him, he should have sought an inquiry at the hands of the governor. If the governor refused, he should have transmitted copies of his application, with his complaint as to the refusal, to the authorities at home; if that were refused or delayed, he then might send his com munications and complaints home by any way he could, taking care not only to apprise the governor that be had so done, but also to send him copies. Without adopting this course, he sent not only charges of his own, but also written charges of some of the veterans against the governor. When written to by order of the governor to know whether he bad sent any such charges, be gave evasive answers to the first and second letters, and it was not until a threat was used in case of farther refusal that he gave an answer that he was not bound to criminate him self. If the court had sentenced Captain Robison to be dismissed for sending home charges clandestinely, there could be little doubt that the authorities at home would have restored him to his rank; but his dismissal was not for that; it was for refusing to obey the orders of his superior officer, in not making a return when he was legally called upon so to do. The objection of Captain Robison as to the court having refused to erase questions and answers objected to by him from the minutes was not better founded than the others; the court had undoubtedly the power to allow such questions and answers to remain, though they might not be strictly evidence, for they were aware that the whole case would be revised before a final decision. One of the great errors of Captain Robison i■ conducting his defence, which he did with much ability, was, that be thought he bad a right to repel charges made against him by recriminating on General Darling. A great part of his statements were made up of such charges, in which be also introduced charges made by some of the veterans. The court had properly refused to record matter of a recriminatory nature, and tending to inculpate absent parties. Such being the case, there was no pre tence for saying that the dismissal of Captain Robison was an act of cruelty or injustice. In conclusion the Right Hon. Member expressed his intention to resist the motion. Sir F. ♦INCENT, without going the length of accusing the members of the courtm 11114 with gross mis conduct, expressed his opinion that their proceedings had been highly irregular. Sir H. HARDINGE, under all the circumstances of the case, gave his voice with the Right Hon. Judge Advocate General for the rejection of the petition. Major BEAUCLERK thought, that if the House re fused to have the minutes of the courtmartial laid before them, it would be an act of gross injustice, Major HANDLEY, after detailing the services of General palling, pronounced an eulogium on the cha racter of that officer, which he declared to be wholly above suspicion. Mr. AGLIONBY observed, that Capt. Robison had been convicted of misconduct with respect to the letter, solely on the evidence of Lieut. Sweeney, which testimony was of an equivocal nature. Sir J. SCARLETT considered that the course pursued by the courtmartial, in respect to the evidence of Lieut. Sweeney and the letter, had been correct. In his opinion there was no just ground for calling for the minutes of the courtmartial. Mr. O'CONNELL said that the House would do an act of injustice it it did not call for the minutes. An HON. MEMBER defended General Darling and the conduct of the courtmartial. Sir E. KERRISON challenged any instance in which a courtu►artial had been intimidated from giving a just sentence. He bore testimony to the conduct of General Darling, as a man of honour and an excellent officer. He should vote against the petition. . Mr. HUMS protested against the character of General Darling being brought forward to stifle an act of justice to an individual. The character of Captain Robison stood as fair as that of Gener4l Darling, and perhaps purer in the present matter.—(No, no.) No courtmartial in any colony had been regarded as more oppressive than the one in question. An Hozr. AIEMBEIL, whose name we could not learn, defended Captain Strutt from the severe reflections of Dr. Lushington. Colonel EVANS observed, there was great difference of opinion in the House on this subject. It was quite as essential to the honour and character of General Darling and the Court, in his opinion, as to Captain Robison's, tint the minutes should be produced. If ever the produc tion of such documents was necessary, it was necessary in this case. Dr. LUSHINGTON replied. The House then divided— For the motion Against it Majority —3l CALTHORPE STREET AFFRAY. Lord ALTHORP rose to move fur the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the police on the occasion of the meeting in Coldhath-fields. He eb'erved, the verdict of the jury on the coroner's in quest, and the decision of the jury on the subsequent trial at the Old Bailey, rendered this course desirable. The meeting in question was clearly assembled for an illegal object, and did not become illegal in consequence of tu tnult. The police consequently were instructed to prevent the assem bling of the meeting, but were ordered to use no violence in the discharge of that duty, except it were necessary for the arrest of any persons who might take a lead in the proceedings. But they were assailed on their appearance ; they were pelted with stones before they ex ercised any violence whatever towards the asse mbly. It was possible that, under these circumstances, some of the body might have behaved with more violence than the occasion required ; he believed, however, that upon in quiry it would turn out that they did, as a body, conduct themselves conformably to the instructions they received, and did not use any violence until attacked, He believed the jury, by their verdict on the late trial, did not wish to cast any blame upon the police, but came to the decision they did, solely because the identity of the person charged was not clearly proved. This he would also add, that, as far as the Government bad made inquiries into the subject, they bad come to the conclusion that the police were not materially to blame in the proceedings in question. But, for the reason he had stated, he should move that " a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the metropolitan police, on the 13th of May last, in dispersing a public meeting in Coldbath-fields." Sir E. KNATCHBULL said, though he was generally disinclined to submit inquiries of this nature to Select Committees, vet, as the Government in this instance recommended it, he should not oppose the motion. Mr. HUME complimented Ministers on the course they had adopted. They had, in his opinion, acted very wisely in instituting the inquiry. Mr. ROBINSON asked whether the proclamation, which stated the meeting to be illegal, had been drawn up in the regular way ? He knew some doubt prevailed on this point, and was anxious to have it cleared up. Lord ALTHORP said the proclamation was drawn up in the usual form, and was perfectly right. Sir H. HARDINGE asked whether the instructions given to the police would come under the investigation of the Select Committee. Lord ALTHORP said the instructions under which the police acted, must certainly be brought before the Com mittee. The following Committee was then appointed : Althorp, Viscount Wrottesley, Sir J. B Hume, Joseph Campbell, Sir J. Whitmore, W. W. Davies, Colonel Verney, Sir H. Byng, George Ward, H. G. Hay, A. L. Fleming, Admiral Grey, Sir G. Hardy, J. Clive, E. B. Abercromby, Right Fremantle, Sir T. Oswald, J. Hon. J. Peel, Sir R. Lamb, Hon. G. Whalley, Sir S. Roebuck, J. A. Hardlnge, Sir H. Hawes, W. Clay, W. Somerset, Lord G. Lennox, Lord W. Hyett, W. H. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the Huuse adjourned at three o'clock. LIST of IRISH MEMBERS I'ONEMENT of the IRIS Chapman, .M. L.—Westmeath Christmas, W.—Waterford Conolly, E. M.—Donegal Corry, Hon. H. L.—Tyrone Co Coote, Sir C.—Queen's Co. Ferguson, Sir R—Londonderry Finn, W. F.—Kilkenny WHO VOTED for the POST 1H GRAND JURY BILL. O'Brien, Cornelius—Clare O'Connell, Daniel—Dublin O'Connell, Morgan—Meath O'Connell, John—Youghall O'Connor, Feargus—Cork Co. Oxmantown, Lord—King's Co. Perceval, Colonel—Co. Sligo !Roe, James—Cashel Shei), R. L.—Tipperary Sullivan, R.—Kilkenny Verner, Colonel—Armagh Co. Vigors, N. C.—Carlow Wallace, T.—Carlow Fitzsimon, C.—Dublin Co. Forbes, Viscount—Longford I Hayes, Sir E.—Donegal Lefroy, Dr.—Dublin University Lefroy, A.—Longford Maxwell, J. W.—Downpatrick Nagle, Si. R.— W estm eat h PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS Austrian Bonds 96U Belgian Bonds 93 Ditto Account 93 235, Brazilian Bonds 68V,14 Ditto Account 63,1 3 A% Buenos Ayres Bonds 22 Ditto Account 23 Chilian Bonds .. 25% 5 Ditto Account Columbian Bonds 0 1 1 A Ditto Account Ditto Bonds, 18'24 Ditto Account 23;( Danish Bon s 74 Ditto Acct' nt — Greek Bonds IN Ditto Bonds, 1825. Ditto Account 39 Mexican Bonds, 5 per cent 30;4 Ditto Account Ditto, 6 per cent '37% Ditto Account 374, Neapolitan.... .......... 92% PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAT AT ONE o'cLocr. Paid. Per Share. Anglo Mex. Min. Co. (ss. at 51. pm.) XlOO Bolanos Mining Company £l5O Brazilian Imp. Min. Co. (ss. at 51. pm.) £2O Ditto National 17% Ditto St. John Del Rey lO Ditto Cocaes 5 137 2:314 7N, 15% British Iron Mining Company £5O Columbian Mining Co. (iss. at 51. pm.) 50% English Mining Company 1234 General Mining Association l2 ...._ Mexican Mining Co £46 -- 7 / - Real del Monte Mining C 0...., United Mex. Min. Co. (iss. at 21. pm.) 40 11% Ditto New Scrip 5 14141, Alliance Fire Insurance Comp lO 10% Protector Insurance Comp. Australian Co. Canada Company General Steam Navigation Co. l3 12 National Provincial Bank of England 5 6IA Provincial Bank of Ireland 25 355(e PRICES OF IRISH STOCKS, DUBLIN, JULY 9. Bank Stock 210% St. Patrick Insur.(per Share) Consols, 3 oer cent Gov. Stock, 3% per cent. 95% I National Ditto — Ditto, New 95% ;Patriotic Ditto — I per Cent. — Hibernian Bank 22 Gov. Deb. 3% percent... 88% Provincial Ditto ...... Royal Canal Stock —tßoyal Irish Mine — Grand Canal Stock — Imperial Mine — City Deb. 4 per cent....... 78% : Mining Co. of Ireland Ballast Office Deb. 40. c. —!Commercial Buildings Arrived. HAILS. Due. lArrived. O America 1 0 Hamburg 0 O Brazil O Buenos Ayres 0 0 Jamaica 0 O Carthagena 0 0 Leeward Islands ... 0 I Dublin 0 0 Lisbon 0 1 Flanders 0 0 Malta 0 O France 0 0 Sweden 0 O Guetnsev&Jersev.. 0 1 Waterford 0 HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW. Morning ...18 minutes after 10. I Evening...s2 minutes after 10. ~ , .., - - rid t 4) ~„ ,enst LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 12, 1833. The French papers of Wednesday inform us that several additional arrests of persons sup posed to be implicated in political conspiracies, have taken place in Paris, notwithstanding which the capital continued tranquil. We find the news which we communicated yesterday, respecting the recognition of Donna MARIA, confirmed by these papers. A French army of observation is about to be formed on the Pyrenees, under the command of Marshal CLAUSEL, to watch the conduct of Spain with respect to the contest now going on in Portu gal. It is known that FERDINAND is very nervous since the debarkation of the Constitu tional force at Villa Real—and its victorious progress through the A LGARVES is not likely to diminish his " absolute" apprehe►isions. Should a Spanish army venture to cross the frontiers to assist MIGUEL, it will only seal his destiny the more surely by precipitating his downfall ; for in that case the French army would at once invade Spain, while the English squadron in the Tagus would not only seize IVItGuEL's navy, but take Lisbon also. In ,his dilemma we think FERDINAND will be as much puzzled how to act as MIGUEL. A few days —perhaps Monday next—may bririg us very satisfactory news on this point from the theatre of war. _ _ FRENCH FUNDS.—PARts, JULY 10. Five per Cents., 1041. 25c. Three per Cents., 77f. 45e. 50c. National Loan, 1011. Bank Actions, 1,737 f. 50c. Rente de Naples, 92f. 15c. 92f. Roman Five per Cents., 91%. Rente d'Espagne, Three per Cents., 45%. Royal Spanish Loan, 87%. Rente Perpet. d'Espagne, Five per Cents , 73 737 8 Belgic Loan, 1831, 94%. Haytian Loan, 265 f. EXCHANGE ON LONDON. One month, paper, 26E 65e. • money, 25f. 62c. 'three months, paper, 25f. 55C. ; money, :25f. 50c. —fours Authentique. Seeing that the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER has proposed as a regulation that all Banking Companies shall compound for their issues, by paying to the Stamp-office at the rate of seven shillings for every one hundred pounds of the average amount of their notes in circula tion, we should have conceived that he could hardly fail to have felt that the good sense of the matter was to delay to renew the exclusive Due. DAY AT ON O'CLO,K. PRICES OF STOCKS THIS wank Stock 3 per Cent. Red. B9 8% 3 per Cent Cons. 83% % 4 3y4 per Cent. 96 Ditto Red 961 ,4%14 New 3y6 per Cent- 95%% 3 per Cent. Ann. 1720 .... - 1 per Cent. 1826 ... ...... 1027 8 % Rank Long Ann. to expre Jan. 5,:186f , "17% 1-16 Oct. 10, 1859 l7 Jan. 5, 1860.... ........ Jan. 5, 1880 April 5, 1880 Jan. 5, 1870 - New 5 per Cent. India Stock Ditto Bonds ' 3 3 35 pm. South Sea Stock 9B I Old Annuities New Ditto 86% 3 per Cent. Ann. 1751 - Ex. Bills, £l,OOO ''.7 59 pm. Ditto .... ........500 57 59 pm. Ditto Small 57 59 pm. ( Ditto Commercial pm. Ditto Advertised — nm. Bank for Account ':2oBsi India for Account Cons. for Opening 90 89%14 THIS DAY AT ONE 0 CLOCK. Peruvian Bonds IPortuguese Bonds 60% Ditto Account 60% Regency Scrip ' Ditto Account lit dis. Prussian Bonds Ditto Bonds, 1822 103% Russian Bonds, 1822 104% Ditto Account lo4k ( New Loan 981 4 5 , i Spanish Bonds, 1821 lB% ki Ditto Account 18% Ditto Bonds, 1823 16% Ditto Account. French Rentes, sp. 0.1041. 25c. Exchange 25f 80c. —3 per cent. —f —c. Exchange .... . —f. —c. Dutch, 21 p. 8% 9% 8% j Ditto Account 49% 8% 98% Ditto, 5 p. c.... 93% 2% 3 2% Ditto Account 93 2% 3% 2% irnmch Scrip 4 pm. privilege of the Bank of England, until the result of this composition should have been ascertained. If in the course of twelve mouths it shall thence appear that the country circula tion is not one third of that of the Bank of England; and if it shall also appear that country bankers do not over-issue, but that the Bank of England always does over-issue until it is con strained to contract the circulation in order to save itself from being drained of gold, could it then be contended that such exclusive power of over issue should be continued to the Bank ; or if it shall thence appear that with an unlimited and free pcm er of issue allowed to country bankers, there is no over-issue by them, could it then be said that a currency proceeding from freedom of issue, which is found to be a sound currency for every part of England beyond the pale of the Bank monopoly, cannot be a sound currency for the metropolis and its neighbourhood ? Would it not thence be found how a sound currency could be secured and maintained ? and upon what ground of reason or common sense is the country to be put in a situation where it is to be deprived of the benefit of this experience, and be compelled to submit to the mischiefs of the power of over-issue to be renewed to the Bank for a period of ten years, although the result of one year's experience under such composi tion, may be to enlighten the most obtuse, and to open the eyes of the whole country to the evils arising from the exercise of it by the Bank. The House of Commons has, by its vote of the 4th inst., adopted the resolution proposed by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Of renewing the exclusive privilege of the Bank for a limited period. But it does not thence fol low, that that limited period shall be ten years, as is proposed in the Bill that has been brought in. Power should at all events be reserved to put an end to the term upon reasonable notice, and upon repayment of the debt due to the Bank by the Government. The Bank will find it necessary to invest a considerable portion of its capital in Government securities. But it should have the whole of it at its disposal, and a large portion of it will be required to enable it to carry on its business, for it will then find, that it cannot create nominal capital as it does now by purchasing Government securities with its notes, which it will then also find can be used only as accessories to deposits and its own capital, and that in wholesome banking issues bear a small proportion to the amount of the deposits and capital of a Banking Company, and a still smaller proportion to the industry and capital which are put and kept in motion by such issues. In truth, the Bank as well as the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, has yet to go to school in the business of sound banking. We trust there are Members in the House of Parliament able and willing to teach them wholesome lessons in this respect. The country requires it at their hands, and will not submit to have its industry paralysed by this monopoly for ten years longer. When it shall be freed from this incubus, and other restric- tions which repress it, we shall find that in place of having masses of unemployed capital, all the capital we have will be too little ; and in place of having a number of unemployed labourers in England, we shall require additional labourers from Ireland, as in better times we have hereto fore done, and in place of driving these unfor tunate strangers from our land, we shall welcome them to our shores. Any Bank Proprietor is liable only to the amount of the stock he holds. This immunity was granted by the first charter of the Bank which conferred upon it no exclusive privilege. It should remain the only chartered banking company in England. Char ters are only the means of enabling meddling Ministers to interfere improperly, or intriguing ones, or those who are under the influence of intriguing friends, to do acts of favouritism. All charters are more or less restrictions, and every restriction operates more or less as a monopoly. But skill and industry should be as free as air, which ever becomes pestiferous when prevented from circulating freely. Nor are charters at all necessary. Notwith- standing the restrictions imposed by the 7th Geo. IV. c. 46, which ought to be removed, upwards of thirty joint stock-banking companies have established themselves in England—some of them composed of nearly 1,000 partners, every one of whom is answerable to the whole extent of his fortune for the engagements of the concern. What better security can the public have for the good management or the stability of these establishments ? But when men prate about security for issues, do they know what they talk about ? Issues, as already said, bear a small proportion to deposits, and a still smaller proportion to the aggregate industry and capital which they put and keep in motion. And will any one make deposits with a Banking Company who should give security for its issues To give security for issues, therefore, would be to deprive a Banking Company of the maul means of carrying on its business. We have now before us a printed copy of the Bill for the abolition of slavery throughout the British colonies, of which we on Monday gave an abstract on the authority of a Contemporary. That abstract we can now affirm to be substan tially correct ; but one provision of some im portance was not mentioned. By the ninth clause it is provided that the apprenticed la bourer may purchase his discharge against the will of his employer on an appraisement. The mode in which the appraisement is to be made is to be prescribed either by Orders in Council or by Acts of the Colonial Legislatures. We should much wish the latter to be e x. eluded from all share in such an arrange ment. Men are bad judges in their own cause, and when it comes to be a question with planters at what rate they shall part with all power over those whom they have been ac customed to look upon as cattle, we fear they would be apt to take something more than the bare value of the labour they will lose into calculation. An Order in Council, regulating the mode of appraisement, would be much pre ferable and much less liable to suspicion and misconstruction than any thing that could be done by the West Indians. If it be true that nemo fuit repente turptsszmus, it is no less true that no man suddenly rises from an exceedingly debased moral condition to the height of virtue. The West Indians from the very nature of their position have had their ideas of moral right, as regards the negroes, perverted, and, therefore, we say that they should be trusted as little as possible with the arrangements which are to restore the black population of the West Indies to the privileges of which they have been plundered. This again reminds us of the argu ment we urged yesterday in favour of giving nave durr the slave the same remedies against the pla n, t the Sco i as the planter has against him. We do not me that the slave should be deprived of his action C remetn law in case of any very aggravated ofre ; l i t in L t ed to ( being committed against him by his master, indeconoi he it is not fair to say to him that, if struck' b i a iti n k t e l Y , this we th overworked, he shall go without compensati l , o m ur e k st et unless he bring an action in a Court of La } le o a f s sudde We know that the second clause subjects ,But to the master to the same penalties for all olden against his apprenticed labourer as if he free man, and that penalties for assaults mai' • , .he dew) a certain extent, be imposed summarily. the imposition of a penalty on the offendi: ' tl Y ma aye a pit party is merely a satisfaction received by the Is But if i it affords no compensation to the person in Now, what we contend is, that such a cony e be an p m , sation should be put within easy reach 01 loes D r. negro—for, putting on one side the diffics l e ntil : 4 o i which will be in the way of his bringing an enough ? tion for damages (even if he had confidence il m °ugh jury of planters), and, on the other side, , en unwillingness and dread he will reasonably 4 tulle tertain of p un i s hi ng a man w hos e ser vice : budenefi) t Pa benefit cannot leave, and who, keeping within the vet for of the law, will still have so many means': as - t h the r , making him m i sera bl e , we h a v e n o h es it a tion we , e ti saying that, in ninety-nine cases out of a ho r not e e nc dred, the most outrageous acts of oppression' It "Me i the part o f th e masters w ill go unpunished s is a t this part of th e Bill b e no t a lt ere d. The e bunc:!-- a I pense and del a y attending legal proceed° thi often amount to a denial of justice for giri achieved opinion exerts so powerful an infine. j . 5 . -8 you over the conduct of all' . classes of „, u r rel y tht community, but the same evils would be !.. t.„ Lah ing with a tenfold aggravated force in the West i ij rn a Si flies, where what public opinion there is o' o 1,. 1 ',.. 1 .° be be all on the side of the oppressors. SS eh e 'ily, t amendments have suggested themselves to I ) p an ge 11 0A HI- minds as fit to be made in different of the eight clauses of which the Bill consists ; hot we doubt not they will be moved in the C° l mittee, we shall postpone our remarks 01 3 them till they are brought under discussion. W e 13 °14.t i , sch edule of them It is the opinion of a Morning Contempo r 4 (the Post) —an opinion gravely set forth, diligently insisted on, that the Duke of V' LINGTON " is the highest living authority Europe, upon any question of practical pac , ' This startling assumption is founded—not,' his Grace's conduct with respect to Refol not on his late speech on the West 1 1 Question—but on his declaration last 1 11 r, that to strengthen the moral influence or, church, by purging it of its abuses, is to violate'. spirit and letter of the Coronation Oath. WS:* der the " highest living authority in Europe I did not make this discovery when busy witl' Catholic emancipation scheme. But the re", of his strange blindness at that momer l period, we take to be this. His Grace pinned his faith on Dr. PHILLPOTTS, finding that that immaculate Bishop having written divers dull pamphlets to p! that Catholic emancipation was a flagrant /I 1 tion of the oath in question—had at (just as the see of Exeter became vacant) l covered that the Catholics might be erto pated, without so much as a rent or BOP fracture, or even a puncture, being made in CoronationOath;—his Grace, finding that so , an authority had made this seasonable disco* of course concluded that it must be orthol and endorsed it with his wonted heartiness. But now, says his Grace's Mentor Mentor is worthy of the Telemachus ) , the tion is altered. Now it touches our own.l s sonal interests ; now our episcopal pere are in danger ; now innovation knocks at ..6 1 very door ; intrudes itself into our very th e hold ; stares us in the face, and rudely tells( it will be listened to. Now, therefore, the ig ronation Oath is in danger. Bless me, acluj " highest living authority in Europe," ant it is. How odd that this discovery P e i struck me before : however, better late than Hence the secret of his Grace's tardy . def 4 tion last night. In this as in the former log" the Duke has been earwigged by the Bishf pretty conclusive proof that the claims o' i highest living authority i n Eu ro p e " to suf ? statesmanship are so " high" as to be posy out of sight. The Coronation Oath, like the Constitd. is one of those accommodating bugbears suit all occasions, and are therefore brought forward on emergency to spli t sides of the sceptical, and throw the cred' i v . into fits. How often has the Constitutio o ii , dead, and coffined, and buried ! Yet here o c e ven by the Tories' ow n s h ow i ng , just as ' l O l active, and frolics ome as if t h ose disco? s, e 4 mourners had never sung " Miserere its remains. How often has the Coron. Oath been pitch-plaistered—hocussed—bur l4 l dissected, and th rown to the dogs I Ye '` Grace and Dr. PHILLPOTTS still swear .1' alive, and are ready to die in the last ditch defence. Talk of the nine lives of a cat ! are they compared to the lives of a Coll o tion or a Coronation Oath—about which, 0 'll, theless, the Tories are as solicitous as if with the broadsword could kill the one , dose of Sir H. HALFORD'S physic the But this canting, factious humbug 03 ceive no one. Not a man in the kingdO, can count ten on his fingers, but knosl; that the Coronation Oath is a mere c r i o . up for party purposes,--a spring-gun set i ff Episcopal domains to frighten poachers premises. We quote the following paragraph J r( ' Morning Contemporary : " Yesterdef ti CHALMERS preached a charity sermon / of the Indian missions set on foot by the o f Established Church, at the Chapel (1 0° Mr. E. IRVING'S) in Regent-square . leading inference which he aimed at tiating would hare pleased the English hi ei l and was curious as comingfrorn such viz., the superior advantages of a united et , and state establishment, especially of powerfully (but not corruptly) aided funds in its propagating power, when 0 , with abortive efforts of voluntary z etw oo l sermon, which might rather be called 3 " ° ei g was extempore. Regent-square was t !googol( the carriages of the titled and fashionable co And no wonder ! Doctrines like the e d, but prove acceptable to the " titl ed I' 01 shionable world," whose only noti°, ° „, Church establishment is, that it si j i vs" " powerfully aided by State funds." ro d, ingly, we find that the Doctor's discutlo already in high favour with the Tory Pa r 0 ) , 1 : Duke of WELLINGTOti—who, of couresiolr '; be imbued with a fine critical apprel'ellpr,il the beauties of a sermon—Sir R. l'Oe indeed, the majority of the Conserv/di/ St ones, ?t . th o ' I . l ' the ~h ere ad I , m 110 t pa a ngel 1101. LLP(