The Sun. — London, England, 1833-07-23 00:00:00

clause he should give Ms decided opposition to this amend- Lord ELLENBOROUGH was sorry that the Noble Lord bad come to that decision. The Earl of HADDINGTON thought that it was fit that the bench of Bishops should themselves have the se lection of persons whom they thought proper. If the House came to a decision upon that point, he should vote far the amendment. After a few words from the Earl of CARBERY, The Earl of WICKLOW said that the Church of Ire land would view such amendment with so much satisfac• tion, and it would have such a tendency to reconcile them to the measure, that he could not allow it to pass without, in one stagaoor the other, taking the sense of their Lord ships upon it. He trusted that Noble Lords would with draw the opposition whie l l they had given to the consi deration of this subject, and allow him to propose the ameadment. Earl GREY observed that no one had insinuated that Ministers had an interest in making an improper selection. In almost all appointments of this nature the selection had been made by the Crown, and, according to all principles, we ought to adhere to that mode of proceeding. There fore he should decidedly object to this alteration. If the Noble Earl wished to persevere in his amendment, he might do so, if he could do it by the orders of the House. The Earl of WICKLOW should move the words " all such four of the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland as shall be elected from time to time by the Archbishop and Bishops of Ireland." _ Lord ELLENBOROUGEI wished to leave out the word " appointed," to insert the word " elected." The Bishop of HEREFORD was in favour of all the Bishops being Commissioners. As the Commissioners were to transact business in all the dioceses, the Bishop in whose diocese it was should have the power of attending. He knew not anything about first fruits in Ireland, hut es to the Board of First Fruits in England, it was well known that all the Bishops in town constantly attended. The question now was whether these four should be elected by the Bishops, or be appointed by the Crown. Without troubling their Lordships with the reasons, he would vote for the appointment by the Crown. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that the power ought to be vested in the Government, as the Government must necessarily be responsible to Parlia ment for the exercise of it. If an improper selection were made by the Bishops, they would not be respon sible. The Bishop of LONDON said that the body of the Prelates at large, whether e'ected by the Crown or by the Bishops, would be equally responsible. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the due su perintendence of the whole proceedings under the Bill, ought to he vested in the Crown, for the Ministers would he responsible. He would put it to their Lordships to say whether or not this was the first time that any such elective power was given to the Bishops as that proposed by the amendment. It was acid, however, that a prece dent could be found in the Board of First Fruits. This he denit d ; for the case was not at all analogous. The Irish Bishops sat in this House by rotation, and not by election. He would not have agteed to the former amend• ment, had he known that the present one was to be pro posed. This only showed the inconvenience of departing from the fixed and regular mode of proceeding upon all questions of this description. He would now only ob serve that out of eleven Commissioners, seven were not amenable to the power of the Crown. The Duke of WELLINGTON said a few words which were not audible in the gallery. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed his hope that the unity of principle would still be preserved in the Bill, and the selection of the Bishops left with the Crown. Lord WYNFORD said the great ground which he had for wishing to see the selection of the Bishops vested i❑ the Bishops at large, was that the business to be done was the business of the church. Earl GREY denied that the Bishops would be equally responsible with the Ministers of the Clown. They would be responsible in a moral sense; they would be responsible to their consciences and to their God ; but they would not be responsible in a legal or political sense. There was no instance upon record, in which the Bishops were called upon to exercise the rights of election, for the Board of First Fruits could not be cited as an example. As well might it be said that Bishops sh:Add be appointed to their sees by Bishops and not by the Crown, as that the selec tion of Bishops should rest with the Prelacy in the present case. He was determined ta give his decided nagative to the amendment. The Earl of WICKLOW said, that though the power was vested in the Crown, yet the clergy could not divest their minds of the consideration as to who the Ministers were that advised the Crown. Now it so happened that the present Mini.ters were by no means popular with the clergy of Ireland. The Bishop of LONDON—The speech which the Noble Earl has just delivered, is my strongest inducement to vote fur the 8,11 as it now stands•—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The LORD CHANCELLOR—I ant not surprised that the Right Rev. Prelate should find such an inducement in the speech of the Noble Earl, for that speech may he re garded as nothing less than a vote of distrust in the pre sent Government.—(Repeated cries of " Hear, hear," from Loth sides of the House.) The Earl of WICKLOW—I totally disclaim and deny the correctness of the assertion made b) the Noble and Learned Lord. I disclaim and deny it in the strongest language I can use consistently with the forms of the House.—(Cheers.) Not one word that I have said could in fairness be so interpreted. What I said was not that th , • power would be ill used in the hands of his Majesty's Ministers, but that I wished to give confidence to the clergy nho distrusted them. If the Right Rev. Prelate had done me the favour of attending to my words, he would not have had occasion to make a speech first in favour of the amendment and afterwards against it. The Right Rev. Prelate, however, now finds at the last mo ment that Ministers are united in opposing the amend ment, and, therefore, he follows their example.—(Con tinued cheers from the Opposition benches.) The Bishop of LONDON denied that he had made any speech in favour of the amendment. What he hail said was, that certain things must be done whether the appointment was to be in the Crown or in the Bishops, at the same time that his own inclination was in favour of the latter. He would put the whole matter upon this simple footing—here their Lordships would find a mea sure which was to be considered without any regard to this or that Ministry, hut as a great constitutional question. The Earl of SUFFOLK said it might be very clearly inferred from the speech of the Noble Earl (Wicklow) that he entertained no suspicion of the Crown, but of his Majesty's Ministers. The House was then cleared for a division. The discussion continued for some time with closed doors, but no division took place. We understood that the clause was agreed to. Clause 2 was also agreed to, with some verbal amend ments. mint. Upon clause 3 being proposed, which ran thus : " And he it further enacted—That the said four Bishops, and the said three other Commissioners to be appointed by the said Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, shall be at all times removeable at his or their plea sure; and that whenever by death, resignation, removal, or otherwise, any such Bishop or person shall cease to be a Com missioner under this Act, then and in every such case it shall and may be lawful for the said Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors, by warrant as aforesaid, to appoint one other Bishop or person in the place and stead of any such Bishop or person so ceasing to be such Commissioner respec tively, and any such Bishop or person so to be appointed, shall accordingly be and become, to all intents and purposes, one of the Commissioners for the purposes of this Act." The Duke of WELLINGTON suggested, that in all cases of death, removal, or resignation of a Commissioner, a proper successor should be appointed by the Lord Pri mate of Ireland, and by the other Commissioners. He also wished to have the words " at his or their pleasure" struck out, and the words " by warrant under the sign manual," inserted in their room. Earl GREY had no objection to meet the wishes of the Noble Duke, as the objection appeared so strong relative to the number of lay Commissioners appointed by the Crown. The amendments were then agreed to. The Duke of WELLINGTON then moved that the words " or person,•+ after the word Bishop, be left out.— Agreed to. Clause 3 was then agreed to, as amended. Clauses 4,5, and 6, Were then agreed to, with some verbal amendments. Clause 7, which ran as follows, was then proposed : " Provided always, and be it hereby enacted, that no pro ceeding which requires to be r a tifi ed and confirmed by the Common Seal of the Corporation shall be finally concluded, nor the said Seal affixed to any deed or instrument, s ave a t a eet ing, whereof notice shal l have been i n like manner given, and whereat one at least of the said Episcopal Commissioners shall be personally present." Lord ELLENBOROUGH objected that such a power ought not to be conferred upon one Commissioner, for at times he would have to suspend even a see. The Bishop of LONDON :novo' an amendment to the effect that, in all cases where only one Episcopal Commis sioner was present, the affixing of the Seal should not take place until the next meeting of the Commissioners, of hich due notice should be given. The amendmeo was agreed tt and ti l e clause as thus amended passed. Clauses 8 and 9 were altw il, a , gree(l to. Clause 10 was then prop ose d. It ran t s:— " And be it further enacted, that the said Commissioners shall once in every year within fourteen days after the Ist day of August make a report to the Lord Lieutenant, or other chief Governor or Governors of Ireland for the time being, under the hands and seal of the said Commissioners, of their proceedings under this Act for the year preceding, ending on such Ist day of August, and shall also return with said report an account of all their receipts and disbursements during the like period, and such account and report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament; and the said Commissioners shall also at all other times when and as thereunto required by the Lord-Lieutenant, or other chief Governor or Governors for the time being, deliver to him or them a report of their proceed ings, and return an account of their receipts and disburse ments under this Act for and during such period as they may be so required." . Lord WHARNCLIFFE, though he did not object to taxing the clergy, yet did object to taxing them en nomine to get rid of church cess. He did not object to taxing the clgrgy for the purpose of increasing small livings, and if it was to be so appled, he would not op pose it. Any man who looked at the state of feeling throughout the country must see that the church rates in this kingdom could not be much longer levied.--(Hear, hear.) In many large towns they had already refused to pay them. He would ask if they introduced the principle of taxing the clergy for the purpose of doing away with church cess in Ireland, how could they meet the argu ment that the same should he done for England 1-- (Cheers.) He did not know why separate accounts should not be kept of the proceeds from the tax on the clergy, and of tho se f rom t h e sa l e o f per p e t u ities, in which case they might apply the proceeds of the tax on the clergy to increasing small livings, and apply a portion of the other fund to the purposes to which the Church cess was at present applicable. He did not mean to move any amendment to this effect, but when the proper time came he should seek to p'ace it on its proper footing, that of being paid out of the other portion of the funds derivable under the Bill. The Earl of WICKLOW said that as this clause was, in his opinion, most important, he would throw out a suggestion to the Noble Earl. He thought the clergy ought to have the control over, and payment of, any funds for the repair of churches, and he thought them little able to bear being taxed for that purpose. The Noble Lord concluded by suggesting that, if the clergy were still allowed to commute their tithes with the land owners tor a fixed sum, these landowners should only be allowed to deduct ten per cent., and not 15 per cent., as before. The E irl of HADDINGTON feared this would be in urious to the landed interest without benefiting the clergy. Clauses 10 and 11 were agreed to. On the 12th clause being put, Viscount GAGE rose to move an amendment to the eff et that the tithes of the whole country, whether lay or ecclesiastical, should be made subject to the tax pro posed by this clause upon Church property alone. The LORD CHANCELLOR regretted the necessity of being obliged to oppose the amendment moved by the Noble Lord. He was sure that nothing could be more fair than the feeling that prompted the Noble Lord's ob servations, but he (the Lord Chancellor) must object to the terms be had made use of. It was but just to suppose that many lay impropriators had given a full and valuable consideration for the tithes which they held.—(Hear, hear.) Unless, therefore, they wished to commit the grossest injustice towards those who had fairly come by this property, it would be necessary to appoint a Commis sion to inquire into the manner in which the ancestors of all lay tithe impropriatora bad become possessed of the property of this description which they held. He need not explain to their Lordships that such a proceeding would be productive of the greatest hardship and inconvenience, and he might, perhaps, add injustice.—(Hear, hear.) And on this account, he felt bound to oppose the amendment. Ile must also object to the terms applied by the Noble Lord to persons holding property of this description— namely, that they were fattening on the property which of rijht belonged to the Church. Unless it was shown that those lay impropriators had become unfairly possessed of this property, they had as much right to it as any Noble Lord there had to that freehold property which he or his ancestors had obtained by fair purchase. The Bishop of EXETER rejoiced that his Noble Friend had brought forward this amendment, and he thought it would be plain injustice if their Lordships did not agree to it. It was most unfair to make such a par tial distinction as this clause did between lay and eerie siastical impropri itors, especially when their Lordships considered the very great distress under which a great portion of the Irish clergy were at present labouring. lie knew several instances, especially in Ireland, where a lay impropriator possessed the tithes of a whole parish, out of which he did not contribute a penny to the support of that religion, to support which those tithes bad been ori ginally appropriated. It was most unjust to secure the payment of the whole of those tithes to the lay impro priator, while so great a deduction was made from the property of those which were really appropriated to the service of the Church. He felt grateful to the Noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment ; he hoped their Lordships would not lose sight of the principle it contained, as if they did they would be losing sight of justice.—( Hear, hear.) Alter a few words from Earl GREY, which were not !Talc' in the gallery, the amendment was put and nega tived without a division, and the clause, as it originally stood, was agreed to. The 13th and 14th clauses were also agreed to without any alteration. Clauses from 15 to 19 were agreed to, when Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested that their Lord ships should not proceed further. This was assented to by Earl GREY, and the House resumed. The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again tomorrow. Their Lordships thee adjourned at a On the Second Reaft Bill, and of till . DUKES. H R. H. the Duke of Sussex Cleveland Grafton Norfolk Richmond St. A lban's Somerset MARQUISES. Ailsa Lansdowne Westminster EARLS. A lbernar le Cadogan Caledon Camperdown Cawdor Charlemont Clarendon Craven Denbigh Gosford Granville Grey Hai rowbv Huntingdon llchester Lichfield Manvcrs Morley Oxford Ripen Suffolk Thanct Wicklow Bolingbroke Hood DUKES. Bedford Brandon Devonshire Portland Sutherland MARQUISES, A nglesea Winchester EARLS. Amherst Buckinghamshire Burlington Carlisle Chichester Cowper Durham Essex Ferrers Fitzwilliam Hillsborough (Mar quis of Downshirc) Radnor BISH PRESENT. Canterbury Carlisle 13angor Gloucester DUKE. Wellington Buccleuch WENT MAJORITY ing of the Church of Bishops who voted L PRESENT. EARLS. Hutchinson St. Vincent BARONS. Alvanley Auckland Audley Barham Belhaven 'Boyle (Earl of Cork) Brougham yron Chaworth (Earl of ivarter past twelve. Ireland Temporalities the Minority. BA RON S. [Alford Lynedoch Melbourne (Viscount Minster (Conyng ham) Montfort Monteagle (Sligo) Paget (Uxbridge) Panmure iPlunket Poltimore Rosebery Rossie (Kinnaird) Say and Sele Sefton Segrave Solway (Marquis of Queensberry) ISomerhill (Marquis of Clanricardc) Staffbrd Stourton Suffield Sundridge (Duke of Argyll) Templemore IVellesley Wenlock I Western Willoughby d'Eresby Wharncliffe Yarborough . Meath) Clements (Earl of Leitrim) Dacre Dinorben Dorchester Ducic I)unally Dundas Elphinstone Fife Foley Gardner Glenlyon Godohpin Gower Granard Hawke Hill Holland Howard ofEtfinghart SBCHBISHOP. Dublin 1 1 11 1a e n n d (•lavistock) BISHOP. iiimsden London Kenlis Bath and Wells Kilmarnock (Earl of Hereford Erroll) Winchester PROXIES, EARLS. Shrewsbury Spencer Stradbroke Tankery Hie MARQUIS. Salisbury BARONS. Lyttleton Mendip (Viscount Clifden) Mostyn Petro Ponsonby (Earl of Besborough) Ranfurly (Earl of) Sherborne Sondes Stanley Stewart (Earl of Mo- 1 ISCOUNT. ray) Vernon AocHorstior. York BISHOPS. Lichfield Chester Llandaff ,Norwich Chichester St. David Bristol Clonfert St. Abaph 'ialisbury EARLS. Roslyn BARONS. DutTerin (Stuart de Rothsay Select Committee on the state of the Borough of War wick, which was ordered to be printed. The Hon. Baro net postponed the issue of the new writ till the 19th of Auguet. Mr. J. OSWALD brought up the 3tith Report of the Committee on Public Petitions, which was ordered to he printed. Mr. GODSON gave notice that he would, on Wed nesday next, present a petition from the merchants End planters of Jamaica, praying to be heard by counsel at the bar of that House against certain parts of the Slavery Abolition Bill. Mr. EWART presented a petition from the Anti slavery Society of Liverpool against the compensation clause in the Bill for the emancipation of the slaves. Colonel EVANS moved for a return of the number of houses in the different parishes of the city of Westminster untenanted during the last rating. Major BEAUCLERK wished to ask if the Noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could not ob tain from the Noble Duke at the head of the Post office department, some modification of the existing regulations as regarded the delivery of the twopenny post. At present, whilst persons within the limits of ten miles received their letters through that medium, those who live only two or three yards beyond that limit, although in the same street, had to pay a postage o f sixpence. Lord ALTHORP said there must be some limit fixed to the twopenny post delivery, and whenever it was fixed those who resided on the verge of the limit would be in the same situation as others were at that moment. He would not, therefore, give any pledge on the matter. Mr. FOWELL BUXTON begged to inquire of the Right Hon. the Secretary for the Colonies, whether it was his intention to lay before the House a copy of the Order in Council, by which the details of the Bill now about to be read a second time were to be carried into effect by the Colonial Legislatures? He cou!d with the greatest sincerity say that he could not un derstand what was meant by the system of apprenticeship. He knew it was not absolute slavery—but he knew also it was not freedom, and he should therefore like to have some definition a, to the amount of slavery and freedom it would afford. This Act s lid, that its system of labour should extend to ten hours, which was placing the slaves in a worse situation than they were by the present law, which confined their labour to nine hours in the day; and this Act also took from the slaves the forty days of free dom in the course of the year to which they were at present entitled ; so that in fact they would be worse off by forty days in the year, and one hour in all the remain• ing days, than they were at present. Mr. STANLEY could not see . how it could be expected that he should produce the copy of an Order in Council, which must be founded on an Act of Parliament not yet passed. He had no idea of framing such an order before the Act was passed. With respect to the definition applied by the Hon. Gentleman to apprenticeships, it was equally applicable to all other ap prenticeships, under whatever circumstances, for in no case could they be said to comprehend actual freedom, or actual slavery. The details of the Act would have to be filled up by the Colonial Legislatures. After a few words from Lord HOWICK, pressing the production of the draft of the Order in Council, Mr. STANLEY declined producing it. Mr.F.BUXTON, on the motion for going into the second reading, intimated his intention, on going into Cimmittee, to move two instructions—the first to limit the peri o d of apprenticeship to the shortest period, consistent with the introduction of the necessary regulations ; and the other, that no money should be paid to the planters till slavery has entirely ceased. Dr. LUSHINGTON also intimated his intention, on going into Committee, of moving that all persons having been slaves in any of the West Indian Islands, and who had been in any part of Great Britain and Ireland, and had returned, should, ipso facto, be declared free. Lord HOWICK said they were pledged to introduce some preparatory interval between slavery and emancipa tion; but they were not pledged as to the time that the probationary period should last. He perfectly agreed with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who bad just spoken, that the confidence which his Noble Friend now said he was disposed to place in the Colonial Legislatures, was a feeling opposite to that which his Noble Friend had for merly expressed. For himself, he (Lord Howick) was quite of opinion with Mr. Canning, in the passage which his Noble Friend had, on a former occasion, quoted : " We cannot trust the toasters of slaves to legislate on colonial slavery." Yet that was what they were now about to do. In agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, he protested against being hound by the principle of sacrificing the interests of the slave to the interests of the planter. Mr. DENISON contended that the House was pledged by their resolutions to the principle of the Bill. Mr. EVANS denied that he was pledged by the reso lutions. He did hope that the Right lion. Gentleman would have been induced greatly to shorten the terms of the apprenticeships. . . . . - - Mr. BARING wished to know whether the Right Hon. Gentleman had formally communicated the resolu tions of the House to the Governors of the colonies, and to the Colonial Legislatures ? Much depended upon that. To have passed resolutions in a Committee, by no means precluded a subsequent discussion of those resolutions. Mr. Secretary STANLEY stated, in answer to the Hon. Gentleman, that as the Colonial Assemblies did not meet until November, there was at present no opportunity of laying the resolutions before them ; but be had thought it right formally to communicate them to the Governors of the colonies, with instructions to submit them to the Legislatures, at the earliest possible period. It had been notified, also, not only that the resolutions had passed both Houses of I'arlisment, but that the House of Commons was employed in considering the details of a Bill, the object of which was to carry those resolutions into effect. Mr. BARING collected, from the answer of the Right lion. Gentleman, that the resolutions were not absolutely binding on Parliament, es no correspondent measure had hitherto been formally required from the colonial legisla tures. On the while, he was certainly disposed to vote against a Bill which did not seem to give satisfaction to any of the parties interested in it. Not being satislactory, he really could not consent to so enormous a sacrifice of public money as the Bill involved. Mr. O'CONNELL especially objected to the large corn pensation. It had been asserted that the West India proprietors had been harshly treated. Harshly treated ! in. stead of a loan of 15 millions, to of tain a gift of twenty ! It was the people of England who ought to complain of being harshly treated. He denied that the House was bound by the resolutions. No bargain had been made. lie objected strongly to the apprenticeships. If any Hon. Member called for a division on this second reading, he should I ave his support. Mr. BERNAL declared, that in his opinion, the ne groes were at the present moment morally emancipated. The moment that the resolutions went forth to the West Indies, the work of emancipation was done. All that remained was for Parliament and the colonial legis latures to adopt such measures fur carrying the resolutions into effect, as were best calculated to insure a safe and salutary rrsult. Sir R. PEEL observed, that the question, at the pre sent day, was totally different from what it WAS when they entered on the Committee. When it was in the Com mittee they had given no pledge, and every man was at liberty to express his opinion ; but in the interval between that period and the present, they had affirmed resolutions in favour of immediate emancipation. He had thought the proposition unwise. He bad done all he could to modify it. He had moved to omit the words " immediate eman cipation," and substitute the words " ultimate emancipa tion." He had allowed that they were right to terminate slavery; but that having agreed to that, and also to a re solution for compensating the West India proprietors, he had contended that they ought to pause, and to consider, in conjunction with the inferior legislatures, the best means of proceeding. That opinion of his was overruled by the Committee ; and the Houses of Lords and Com mons had solemnly determined in favour of immediate emancipation. What construction must be put upon those resolutions by the slaves themselves ? He was con vinced that in order to maintai n t h e tranquillity of the colonies, the magistrates must punish with greater severity than was at present necessary. He c er t a i n l y had thought ' it possible, by the adoption of a large and comprehensive principle, analogous to the principle of th e S pan i sh law, by enabling the slaves to purchase their emancipation gradually by their labour, to frame a measure which would have been more beneficial to the slaves —more beneficial to the planters—,and, above all, more beneficial to the millions of slaves who were held in bondage by other countries. He confessed that he still thought such a measure woul d have been better than the present; for, if the present great experiment should be unsuccessful, its failure might be attended with consequences to humanity w hi c h he would not ventur e to describe. Parliament, however, had determined on m akin g the experiment; and he there fore felt it the duty of a good and loyal subject to do every thing in his power to insure the success of that experi ment.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. GODSON stated his strong ohjecti ons to several of the provisions of the measure , especially that whi c h li m i te d the numb e r of hours of labour—that.whiHcela r e e t l r a e t n ed oy to t r h e e . distribution of the compensation—and that whi c h esta blished the s y s t e m of appreoticestope commended the appointment of a Commission, the attention of which might advantagcously be occupied for ten years in carrying the desired object into effect ; and that, in addition to the twenty millions, there should he a loan of en millions. He trusted that in the Committee some of the obnoxious clauses of the Bill would be withdrawn. Mr. BUCKINGHAM had seriously considered all the grounds on which the measure ought to be placed, and was at a loss to discover how the provisions of the Bill could be sati.fictory to the slave, the master, the colonial proprietor, or the people of this country. Mr. A. JOHNSTONE was entirely opposed to the long period of the apprenticeships, and had hoped, when the Right Hon. Gentleman changed the loan of fifteen millions to the proprietors into a gift of twenty millions, that he would hive taken the opportunity of curtailing the terms of the apprenticeships. He hoped that this part of the Bill would be re considered. The Bill was then read a second time. On the motion of Mr. Secretary STANLEY, it was ordered that the Bill should be committed on Wednesday ; it being understood, that if the East India Charter Bill had not gone through the House by that time, the Com mittee should be postponed. BARONS. Carleton (Earl of Shannon) Cliflbrd Clifton (Earl of Darnley) Cloncurry De Saumarez Dormer Erskine Fingal' (Earl of) Grey of Groby Howard de Walden Lovel and Holland Ludlow )PS IN THE NINO. Exeter Rochester PROXIES. Ox ford I Lincoln AWAY WITHOUT EARLS. Aberdeen Jersey Kerr (Marq.Lothian) Biel rocs (Earl of Had dington) HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 22. The SPEAKER, took the chair at a few minutes after five o'clock. Sir R. FERGUSON brought up the report of the Lake tr V. EAST INDIA CHARTER BILL. Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the Committee on the East I❑dia Charter Bill. The report was read a first time. On the motion that it be read a second time. Mr. WILBRAHAM, after a few observations, which were too indistinctly heard in the gallery to be reported, moved a clause, prohibiting the exclusive manufacture of salt by the Government of India. Mr. EWART seconded it. Mr. BUCKINGHAM said, the great misfortune of the present system was, that the wretched inhabitants of India must either go without even very bad salt, or be subjected to all the crimes and horrors of smuggling. Mr. HUME thought that the monopoly in salt and opium ought to be completely done away with. Mr. CHARLES GRANT said, the who'e subject re solved itself into a question of time. Tne revenue raised by tlivs, means was very considerable, but a better system should and would be constantly aimed at. There had for years been a growing opinion both in the Home and the Native Government, that the tax on salt and opium ought to be removed ; and no one more heartily agreed in it than lie did. At the same time, to effect the change safely and advantageously, they must be most circumspect and pru dent in all their proceedings. He trusted the House would be satisfied with this assurance, and that the Hon. Member for Cheshire would withdraw his motion. Lord SANDON had long been convinced of the many advantages which would accrue from an alteration in the present system, which only tended to encourage smuggling and sub•monopolies. Mr. C. FERGUSSON said the people of India would have such insuperable objections to a change of the tax, that it would probably hinder it from ever being effected. The local Government was disposed to do every thing in its power ; but the people of this country must see how many difficulties it had to contend with. . . It was understood that Mr. NVxLiman Am consented not to press his mo!ion. The Clerk then proceeded to read to the House the amendments proposed and agreed to in Committee. On arriving at the clause authorizing the establishment of two new sees, Mr. HUME rose and expressed his intention of opposing it, on the third reading, and dividing the House upon it. When the clause respecting Haylebury College was read, Mr. CHARLES BULLER said it was the general opinion out of doors that the Government would have seized the first opportunity of doing away with this esta blishment. lie should move that the time of the student's residence should be reduced from two years to one. Mr. WYNN thought the students ought not to be restricted to any particular terms of years; but ought to leave the College for India, according to their proficiency. Mr. C. GRANT upon the whole, thought it would be better if the Act did not specify any particular time, but that it should be left to the Board of Control. Mr. C. FERGUSSON said, if the question of the total abolition of the College should be raised he should certainly vote for it. No part of the education of a young man intended for India could be better conducted at Haylebuty than in other parts of England ; and there were establishments in London as efficient for preparing young men for the E ist as this ► which was kept up at so great an expense. . _ Mr. HUNIE thought it preposterous that the inhabi tants of India should not only be compelled to pay for the government of their country by foreigners, but for the education of young Englishmen to he sent over to govern them. If the establishment were kept up at all, it ought to be made to pay its own expenses. The amended clause was then agreed to.-A ne w clause was agreed to, giving the courts of justice in India, the power of appointing advocates, attorneys, &c., without any license. A new clause was also agreed to, obliging the Com pany, within 14 days after the Ist day of May in each year, to lay before Parliament an account of the annual produce of the rev nue arisin; from the territory of India; distinguishing the respective particulars. Also an account of their annual disbursements, distinguishing particularly; also the amount of debt, and the different rates of interest upon it in England or elsewhere, according to the latest advices ; also an account of the several establishments sup ported by the Company, with the salaries of those em ployed, and particularising any new offices which may have been instituted, or any increased salaries which may have been granted; so as to give a distinct view of the affairs of the said Company. After a few observations from Mr. WARBURTON, the clause was agreed to. Mr. HUME moved a proviso—that two years' notice should be required to make any alteration in the Charter. —Agreed to. Sir R. PEEL contended that there ought to be an ex press clause enabling the Governor-General to perform his legislative and executive functions without the presence of a Member of the Supreme Council. Mr. 11. GRANT contended that the Governer-General and Supreme Council had the power of delegating military or diplomatic power to a subject, a fortiori they might do so to the Governor-General. After a protracted conversation between Sir R. Peel, Mr. C. Grant, Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Wilks, and Col. Evans, Mr. R. GRANT agreed that the suggestion should be taken into consideration on the third reading of the Bill. The report was then agreed to. Mr. SHEIL deferred until after the third reading, when lie would move by way of rider, his clause, "declar ing all forms of Christian worship to be equally entitled to the protection of the State, and to provide for the main tenance of churches dissenting from the Protestant Epis copal Church." It was then ordered that the Bill be read a third time on Friday. JEWISH CIVIL DISABILITIES BILL. After some conversation as to the expediency of bringing on the question at that hour of the night (eleven o'clock), when several Hon. Members bad gone away on the suppo sition that it would be postponed, _ _ _ Mr. R. GRANT moved that the Jewish Civil Disabi lities Bill be read a third time. Mr. FINCH opposed the measure. The Jews, like all other strangers, were entitled to be domiciled in the country, but not to form a part of the State. Those who wished for the maintenance of the Christian establish. meat, ought to set their faces against this Bill. It would tend to sap the foundations of our social system. Mr. C. BRUCE also opposed the Bill; but his propo sition rested on higher than practical grounds. The ques tion in his opinion was not whether half a dozen Jews were to be allowed to sit in that House, but whether that House was to remain a Christian Legislature. He consi dered the stability of the Christian establishment in this country involved in the fate of the Bill under conside ration. Was there any fitness, propriety, or decency in c alling upon those who were bound to oppose our religion to legislate for our Church ? Were the Jews his Majes ty's subjects? He had never heard it asserted that a Russian, a Spaniard, or a Frenchman, who had resided many years in this country, was entitled to more than protection, and why was a Jew to he entitled to more ? He could not consent to be accessary to drawing down upon the country that certain chastisement which the adoption of this measure would occasion. He disclaimed a ll dislike and hostility to the Jews. God forbid that he should wish to increase the sufferings of those whom God had blasted with his displeasure. There was no feeling in favour of the measure out of the House. The only pledge which he was asked to give on his canvass was, that be would oppose this Bill. Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON remarked that he had presented a petition from Devonport, s i gne d most numerou sly by Christians of every denomination, in favour of the Jewish claims. He mentioned this fact simply as a practical contradiction to observations which had been made. Mr. SHEIL said the arguments employed against the Catholics were much . stronger th an t h ose t h at cou ld b e possibly brought against the Jews. There was no danger in this case. The Catholics had millions to sustain them —th e Jews could only rest on the magnanimity and gene rosity of that House. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON said the principles avowed in the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and the removal of the Catholic Disabilities, would be wholly incomplete if the present relief were not granted. Sir C. BURRELL would vote against the third reading. Mr. BUCKINGHAM said it had been asserted that the Jew was an exclusive creature, devoid of patriotism, attached to no country but that of the promised land. He would state from experience, that no English Jew ever visited Palestine, and those that were there escaped as soon as ever they could. Lord SANDON did not consider the opposition to this measure a candid one. The only real grounds could be from principle or danger ; and he must say he saw no de parture from the one, and no chance of the other. Sir R. INGLIS moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. A. JOHNSTONE and Mr. J. MAXWELL opposed the Bill. Mr. R. GRANT repliid, and contended, that every burden, every restraint, and every disability on account of religion, was not only oppression, but persecution. His religion did not require, when it was necessary to relieve a fellow-creature, that he should examine what was his race, his creed, or his family. Like the good Samaritan, he felt himself bound to extend his charity to all. The measure which he had brought forward was founded on the great principle of " glory to God and good.will to man." The House then divided, when the numbers were -189 Ayes Noes Majority —l37 The Bill was then read a third time and pa•eed. SCOTCH AND IRISH VAGRANT BILL. On the motion for going into Committee on this Bill, Mr. JOHN MAXWELL regretted that a measure of this kind should have been brought forward at to late an hour. He trusted that the Hon. Member for Berkshire would withdraw the Bill. Mr. PALMER did not feel that he should be justified in withdrawing the Bill, as he did not consider that he wai likely to hive any more favourable opportunity for bringing it forward. The SOLICITOR GENERAL had examined the Bill, and he thought it a safe measure, as it did not mike any change in the law, hut only altered the method of carrying the power alresdy existing into effect. Mr. O'DWYER thought the Bill ought not to be passed at so advanced a period of the session, and in the absence of the greater part of the Irish Members. An HoN. MEMBER said, that the Irish labourers were such economists, that they not only transported their wages to Ireland, but contrived to get their persons also transported at the expense of the English people. After a few observations from Colonel I'ERCEVAL and Mr. AGLIONBT, the House resolved itself into a Com mittee. The various clauses of the Bill underwent considerable discussion. On the 4th clause, Mr. O'DWYER moved as an amendment the following provision :—" Provided always, that for all persons re moved by sea there shall be provided a commodious space below decks for their nee, and that there shall be found a sufficient allowance of wholesome diet, to be regulated by the Justices at Quarter Sessions, for the support of each person so removable." Oa this amendment the Committee divided : For the Amendment Against it Majority .•46 The other clauses were then agreed to, and the House having been resumed, the report was ordered to be re ceived this day. Adjourned at a quarter to three o'clock this morning. , RITY tent to the Scottish and Irish is Bill. MIN O. On Mr. O'Dwyer'e Amendmi Vagran ENGLAND. IRELAND. Brotherton, Joseph—Salford Blake, M. J.—Galway Co. Sandon, Lord—Liverpool O'Dwyer, A. C.—Drogheda Young, G. F.—Tynemouth Ruthven, E. S.—Dublin ltuthven, Edgard—Kildare SCOTLAND. Sullivan, R.—Kilkenny Maxwell, J.—Lanarkshire MIND Of 51 (Viers included) w Reading of the Bill for the , RITY •ho voted against the Third Emancipation of the Jews. Parker, Sir H.—West Suffolk Penruddocke, J. H.—Wilton Peel, Sir R.—Tamworth Ridley, Sir M. W.— Newcastle ENGLAND. Bainbridge E. T.—Taunton Bruce, Lord E.—Marlborough Buller, E.—North Staffbnishire Burrell, Sir C.—Shoreham Calley, T.—Cricklade Chaplin, Colonel—Stamford Eastnor, Viscount—Reigate Estcourt, T. G. B.—Oxford Un. Finch, G.—Stamford Forster, C. S.—Walsall Grey, C.—Chipping-Wycombe Gladstone, W. E.—Newark Greene, T.—Lancashire upon-Tyne Stormont, Viscount Norwich Trevor, Hon. G. R.—Cacrmar. thenshire C.—West Suffolk - , Vyryan, Sir R. R.—Bristol Villiers, Viscount—Honiton Walsh, Sir J. B.—Sudbury Watkins, J. L. V.—Brecon Whitmore, T. C.—Bridgenorth SCOTLAND. Gronow7, Capt.—Staffbrd Macomb, J.—Dover Hardy, John—Bradford Hattlir . tt, Henry—South Leices: tershire Henniker, Lord—East Sufiblk Hughes, Hughes—Oxford Hurst, It H.—Horsham Agnew, WrA.2-iN7igtOnshire Bruce, C. L. C —lnverness, &c. Callender, J. 11.—Argyleshire Johnston, A.—St. Andrew Ross, H.—Montrose, &c. Sinclair, G.—Caithness-shire Stuart, Captain Inglis, Sir It. H.—Oxford Uni versity Knatchbull, Sir K—East Kent Lennox, Lord A.—Chichester Lowther, Col.—Westmoreland Manners, Lord IL—North Lei cestershire Mosley, Sir o.—North Stafford shire Palmer, R—Berkshire IRELAND. Corry, Hon. H. L—Tyrone Co. Daly, James—Galway Co. Lefroy, A.—Longford LefroY, Dr.—Dublin University Maxwell, J. W.—Downpatrick Martin, T.—Galway Co. Pereeval, Colonel—Sligo Co. Verner, Colonel—Armagh Co. IRISH MEMBERS WHO READING OF THE EMAN' Baldwin, Dr. H.—Cork City Barron, P.—Waterford City Blake, Martin—Galway Browne, D.—Mayo Chapman, M.—Wcstmentli Finn, W. F.—Kilkenny Fitzgerald, Thos.—Louth Co. Jephson, 1). o.—Mallow Lynch, A. H.—Galway VOTED FOR THE THIRD rCIPATION OF THE JEWS. Mulling, F. W.—Kerry Co. O'Connell, D.—Dublin O'Connell, Morgan—Meath O'Dwyer, A. C.—Drogheda' Shell, R. L.—Tipperary Sullivan, Richard—Kilkenny Wallace, T.—Carlow Walker, C. A.—Wexford Vigors, 'N. A.-- Carlow TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. Sia,—Observing in your widely circulated Paper of Wed. nesday, the 17th inst., a list stating to be a " Return of all Private Banks that have suspended payment, or have become Bankrupts, from MN to the present time,"—l beg, in justice to myself (being still in another line of business) and to my then partner, that you will state, we (after being only a few days closed) opened our banking-house, and paid every one twenty shillings in the pound, prompt payment, and that we then gave up the banking business. I am, Sir, for myself and then partner, Your most obedient, JOHN KELLOW, High street, Southampton, July 20, 1833. Yesterday their MAJESTIES, accompanied by their Royal Highnesses the Duke of GLOUCESTER and Prince GEORGE of Cambridge, and attended by Lord AL➢EMARLE, Lord FARNBOROUGH, Lord and Lady DEN ➢IGIt, Lord and Lady BROWNLOW, Sir A. BARNARD, Sir H. WHEATLEY, Sir J. BENNETT, &c., visited the Exhi bition of the Royal Academy. They were received and conducted through the rooms by the President, Council, and Officers of the Establishment and Mr. WILKIE. We understand that the usual circulars were despatched yesterday from the Treasury to the Peers on whom the Ministers rely for support, requesting their Lordships' personal attendance in the Committee last evening on the Irish Church Bill, as proxies were not available. The expression " particularly requested" was introduced in the circular, underlined with dashes. Several stanch supporters of the Ministry, including the Duke of NORFOLK, the Earls of ILCHESTER and ERROLL, and Lord YAR➢OROUGH, who were cruising at the Yacht Squadron rendezvous at Cowes, have arrived in town from the Isle of Wight, for the purpose of voting with the Government on the measure in question.—The Earl of DURHAM, who arrived at Cowes on Friday in his yacht, the Louisa, from Ostend, was expected in town last night to attend in his place in the House of Lords.—The Earl of EGREMONT and Lord HAWKE (Whig Peers) took the oaths and their seats on Thursday, in order to vote on the Irish Church Temporalities Bill. o n o these e o t i p m e r e a s : compared r w t it u h s , t h e A s w Np ante T a li n E d it b s. u — rde l IMPORTANT TO OPERA TIVE S HOE ll' qu i A a t x e , E o s when employment is so sc a r ce , an d remunerat i on so inade . nye classes, it is a fraud of the vilest character to impose upon poor mtn spurious tools for those of good quality. The tools of the operative are not purchased without great effort, and much self denial on his part, he need not, therefore, to be defrauded by baring his bard-earned savings taken from him fur implements that are utterly worthless. We have been led to make these remarks on receipt of an advertisment which our readers will find in another column, under the title of "Fraudulent Imitation of Marks," from which, and from other sources, we learn that a Mr. JOHN Wttsort, of Sheffield, who, as a manu facturer of shoe-makers' knives, butchers' knives, &c., enjoys greet and deserved reputation. The best proof of this is that others, whose principles cannot be too much despised, are anxious to go into the market on the strength of that reputation. To such of our readers as purchase the articles alluded to, the advertisement will be of great importance, an d they cannot be too careful in ob serving the manner in which Mr. WILSON stamps goodie of his manufacture. V . .. SALE OF A WIFE.—At the Globe Inn, Mill Bridge, on Tuesday last, a weaver named Mills sold his wife for As. to her own mother !--Halifax Journal. WARWICK ELECTION. REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO TIGATE CORRUPT PRACTICES IN TO 1 ; TIONS OF WARWICK BOROUGH.—Dated / 19 , 33. into The th eSeplicoccteediproceedings Committeeat thearp o lasti nt etl election tom for Warwick—to consider and report on the best tiln cle _f venting bribery, treating, and Other corrupt practiee'o' future elections of Members to serve in Parliamen t , d said Borough of Warwick ;" and to whom the peti t ' ° ," b d Ist, William Collins sod John . Enoch (presented February) ; 2d, George Cattell Greenway and Ile nri e fl' bins (presented 20th of February) ; 3d, Inhabitant' ei mington I'riors, against the union of that town V' A li tii:ertnbeorro? rough of Warwick - (p resen t e d 25 t h J une ) ; 4t h , peter r oi , Luard, 31. D., and other s ( presen t e d 26th o f June);y habitants of Leamington Sp a , f or ex t en di ng th e WO" the borough of Warwick to the town of Le a rning gelded 16th July) ; and the min u t es o f ev id ence take'', the Warwick Borough Election Committ ee o f th e prey sion, were severally referred—have, pursuant to the ( l w the House, heard Counsel on behalf of the petition . _ AM' Francis Luard, M.D., and others, and have also consid el e : l l other mentioned petitions and matters to th em jeroa . agree to the following report : it That the gross bribery which, by the report of mittee of the 13th day of May, prevailed at the last Cle t d the borough of Warwick, on the part of the agen t : 4 , Hon. Sir Charles John Greville, remains uncontrAdic t . agents and parties implicated in such bribery not bas° ; duccd any witnesses or evidence before this Select Co° o to disprove the same. That gross bribery, at the last election for the said hnr, has been proved to have been committed by WilHata p William Trepess, jun., Joseph Trcpess, William Henry{ William Ayres, George Buckley, Samuel DingleY, y Thomas Cook, and the town clerk, James Tibbits—all e of the said borough. That the money distributed DI persons in such gross bribery appears to have been paid to by the said James Tibbit s , an d th a t suc h mone y was O r to the said James Tibbits by Alexander Brown, tile steward of the Right Hon. Henry Richard Greville, Warwick, from the private funds of the said Earl of Wa r , standing in the name of the s a id Al exan d er B r own/ • Warwick Bank of Messrs. Greenway and Greaves. . . That witnesses and evidence were tendered to and tC by your Committee in support of the further allegatiort i petition of William Collins and John Enoch. That the allegation of treating against the agents of t h ; Sir Charles John Greville ha s been fully substantiated, this Committee, and that such t rea ti ng was genera l 3 tensive. That it appears to your Committee that there were n' tv and serious riots previous to and at the said last electiol!, that there was great injury to the persons of the Bu r ,i, and destruction of their property; that the aid of the tot was called in to support the civil power; that such rid i re disturbances originated in the introduction into the lffl d by the agents of the said Sir Charles J o h n Greville 0 , bodies of strangers and non-resident agricultural lal' many of them in the employ of tenants of the Earl d "v wick, and of hired fighting men from neighbouring ti, and that such persons were m a i n t a i ne d and paid b y Thomas Cook and others, and the money provided by 011 James Tibbits, the town clerk. That several members of the corporation of the bo th viz., Kelynge Greenway, an Alderman and senior Magi fs f Alderman Smyth; Jo se ph W ard, Alderman; an d Tibbits, town-clerk, were active partisans and members 1, committee of Sir Ch ar l es G rev i lle, and that the said ge:i Greenway, Ald erman H enry Smyth, Alderman Joseph I,d and James Tibbits, were cognizant of the introduction strangers and fighting men, and of the violation of the P C e ? the borough and insecurity of the property of the bur` and that they appear to your Committee culpably to bar n , glected their duty a s municipal officers of this borough b preventing the same. That it appears that the Right Hon. Henry Richasc i e , ville, Earl of Warwick, a Peer of the realm, Lord Lieu t ,r, of the county of Warwick, and Recorder of the Boro violation of the resolutions and standing orders of the 11 . , did unconstitutionally apply, by his agent and steward, ander Brown, 3,0001. and upwards towards the clecti penditure and promotion of the political interest of the date, Sir Charles John Greville, in the transfer of eueh of money to John Tibbit s , t own-clerk of the said b rio i o who appropriated the sam e t o var i ous corrupt and tires at the last election—the office of Town-clerk being iA appointment of the Recorder. That Alexander Brown, steward of the Earl of Wa t t subsequent to the election of IS3I, caused numerous P r . (many of them nonresident in the borough and deperld 3 the Earl of Warwick) to be fictitiously rated to the poor " 0 two parishes of the said borough, and chi e fly in r es pect i perty of the said Earl, for the sole purpose of creating ftti lent votes; and that fictitious receipts for rent appeared t o ll been prepared by Alexander Brown in support of theru• . a considerable number of such colourably rated person°,i erased from the Register of Electors by the revising bard but that many were retained, and voted at the last .e 1 for the said Sir Charles John Greville; and that Alt i L f a i Henry Smyth and James Tibbits, the town Clerk, aid ve t abetted Alexander Brown in supporting such fictitiou s but that the Hon. Sir Charles John Greville does not 31 i i : to your Committee to have personally participated in the' corrupt and illegal practices. That your Committee have been impeded in their in by the absence of Alexander Brown, the steward of th e of Warwick, and that it was proved to their satisfactini due diligence had been used to procur e th e a tt en d a nce ° s e said Alex. Brown, and it is their opinion th a t such abs was wilful, and for the purpose of impeding their inquitlp That witnesses and evidence of recrimination against $ t Bolton King, Esquire, sitting Member for the borough of wick, and John Tomes, Esq., Candidate at the late kl e‘ ol were produced by the petitioners, George Cattell Ore and Henry Robbins, but that it does not appear to yea tnittee that the said Edward Bolton King, or John Tun! o p their agents, were guilty of bribery; and the prevai l fri and character of the witnesses prevented your Committe e attaching any credit to their testimony. That though the Committee, with reference to theS. , mentioned parties, obtained no evidence of treating t ° o extent after the teste of the writ, yet it appears to have vailed prior to that period. That the Counsel appearing on the p e titi on s i gne d o Francis Luarel, M.D.," and others, referred to your mittee, has not produced evidence to dispute any facts P I before the Committee, and your Committee consider it d i the privileges of the House to report, that the terms ° I petition are highly disrespectful to the House and to Committee. That to prevent the recurrence of the above corrup t i illegal practices, and to secure the purity and freedom ° C tion in the borough of W arw i c k , your C omm i ttee reco rou ., ; an enlargement of- the b oun d ary an d an i ncrease o f the tuency by the addition of the adjoining parish of Lean* Priors. That a petition numerously and respectably signed , habitants of Leamington Priors, has been referred t° Committee, against the union of that town with the boghe of Warwick, in which the petitioners state, that u ; t r in the exercise of the county franchise, such union ° l ie be of no advantage to them ; and that another Pe t ' 0 also respectably and numerously signed, has beery ti ferred to your Committee in favour of such union i, r o that it appears to your Committee, on inspecting the register of voters for the Southern Division of the coun t ,) Warwick, that not more than seventy-six electors wot 1 16 1 1; change their county franchise by the annexation of the 1 ,0 1 0 of Leamington Priors to the borough of Warwick ; C ° t o derable number of persons entitled to cou n ty votes in 04,i`oi of Leamington property appearing on th e reg i ster to be resident; other county voters, not occupying the propelt?,4 which they are registered, and others professing county qualifications. That the parish of L eam i ng t on P r i ors i mme di a t e ly st ai t ii the eastern boundary of th e b oroug h o f Warwick, andigt the rapid increase of the popul a tion is s h ow n by a ccuriP s ' r of the population returns of 1801, 1811, 1&21, and 1831."' 1801, 315; 1811, 543; 1821, 2,183; 1831, (3,2 W. _,Ol That there are about SOO householders rated to the 0" ; of 10/. per annum in the parish of Leamington Priors, and the town of Leamington Priors will probably in a RV; I join the Borough of Warwick. . , Your Committee cannot conclude their Report withou t ing the attention of the House to the p ro fli gate and Ws', expenditure in treating at the public.houses, by all P r eili concerned in tllbe election, before the teste of the writ' d e demoralizing the voters an d o th er i nhabitants of the B an" and they beg to recommend to the House, that the 10 9 tire to treating before the testing of the writs be revised- Resolutions respecting Warwick Borough, passed by "'- Committee, previous to Report.—Dated July 22, 1803 Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee— 11 1. That the evidence of bribery having existed at died election for the borough of Warwick, proved to the f l , Committee, remains uncontradicted. 0 . That gross treating existed in the borough of N. ar uriCY the last election. 3. That intimidation also existed to a great extent i n borough of Warwick, at the last election. or 4. That several members of the corpor a ti on o f the _ 1 . 1 '1 4 of Warwick were cognizant of the introduction of strtder before the election, and are implicated in the corrupt pry existing at the election. C 5, That it has been proved to the satisfaction of thin mittee, that many of the other parties implicated were of the Earl of 'Warwick. 0 1 ' 6 G. That fictitious qualifications were obtained by par, both interests, by colourably r a ti ng and registering voter' PUTNEY POLITESSE.--A ferryman E 3 ney on Sunday last, on seeing a lady's shawl bangi l tll/ the side of a pleasurs boat, o u t of politeness bale d o e extswain to inform him of it. " Boat a boy, ' l , l mister, there's a lady's shawl dragging i n the te e t over the starboard side of the boat !" The $ l l . I° , coxswain looked fi rst at the ferryman, and the ffi) every pl ice but the right, for the starboard side' e o 4 : Waterman repeated hi s i n f ormat i on with more eehe—oler,; and no better succe ss . H e then ' gave it up al I) t , ", and expressed his regret to isiti fare. " It's a P it l n t o re e that a boat is obligated to Vat sieh a big" hindividual." th e is ;°ht n eei n In , g ri%ga : l u b r i man e i o jt e l tea i aes lt nitealtYsi inhabitants sequence of th ' i cause in the sou boat to the ships w ith their boats desire to leave i obtain possessior the length of t The Miguelites enter the Dourc T ested b y the Er their Property ortugal have. ? C.onstitutional tr.] gtvin g Miguel's screw their courr °t' • the e llY. Adr o f l AT un t of Cal , - * l gners fleet befer e OPorto. s Y, evid ently pi 141 t, it is thou ea n u se, but they I cannot lean from : l t a,hw ° ee r :, ii,t t , elor',l mark ° o o S a r te P tr t k ua t the g h r o ar : I° t e l u; : 4 rt:ttia:t. a :_ e4:l: l 4canao i ro n t:tpl p i 4.ti ; to() o i , tt n to : oh, .na 7 t * er rge the Fou 0 ed Upon the Port o • 4 3 ,,nut:al th e . '" the city. bo t e attack wa th e u. Wets froi I,, a , ,, guelite tie Ne known to la. , It i , W ait anott 4 4 ,,"ted itself th e g i, Three t , lit t ,,, a etts, then ine; ° flat troops B4r, ' "lnees tie ,_ t ee4 that hi Or then', approac Port ti , Ta gus, th the C i tY for the flci , Yr annous ) Th e Sell declara her : t h °lera con t t ahh„, °i ctims d 1 the h e obtain i tbelf‘ i ' r e, I am c Will ,„: I' 'Portan t Put y ou in 1 »IN EN (FR( Ttiis