The Sun. — London, England, 1830-02-27 00:00:00

Z 7 4 e- 4 . 6 LONDON ASSURANCE HOME. Birrhin-lane, Cornhill, February 17, 1830. 11: lit Court of Directors of the Corporation of the London Assurance hereby give Notice, that e. Yrinsfer Books will be shut on TUESDAY, the 16th nr March next; that a GENERAL COURT will be held t , " :":ir. Rouse, OR WZDNESDAY, the 31st of the said t 4 Of March, at One in the Afternoon, to consider of a 'll' .`"rvidend ; and that the Transfer Books will bo opened -gai n on TuoasnAv, the Sth of April following. JOHN LAURENCE, Secretary. - - RE MONTHLY MAGAZINE for March, price Half-a-Crown:—CoNrxxTs :—I. The 7"ink of the Session of Parliament—lL The "March" Sierra Leone and the Slave Trade— ]; The Fourteenth; or, the Ugly Man—V. Existing of the J,,rs in the British Empire—Vl. The Bandit—Vll. Progress of Physical Discovery ; r ," II: —VIII. Carthagenian Comicalities--IX. George " 11 '1141' s Random Records—X. A Chapter on Old Coats XI. Notes of the Month on Affairs in General.—Re i;l',"' of New Works—Fine Arts—Lists of Works pub ;'"e4 and i n P re a ration—Scicntific Varieties—Obi '4arr, tte.'"&c. 1, Whittaker and Co. London; Waugh and Innes, Edin and J; M. Leckb., Dublin. LADY JOHN THYNNE. ' LA. BELLE 'ASSEMBLEE for March, ttintains the PORTRAIT of LADY JOHN ,rK YNNE, engraved on Steel—an Original Drawing by r e stablished Artist of the London Fashions—and Three . lures dillihying the Continental Costumes most recently imported, The Literary Portion of the Work consists 'of Tale of the Rhine—The Progress of Fashion—James ScOtland in Captivity—Martin Arthur Shee, Esq. I L, A.—Canova, David, &c.—Original Poetry—Corn- I Puium of English ard Foreign Fashions—Reviews of ew Works—Fine Arts, Theatres, Melange of the Month, 1 )t April Nuthber will be enriched by the Portrait of lion. 545. HOPE, from a Painting by Sir Thomas --"'rent, b W hittaker and Co. Lo n d on; W aug h an d lone*, Min r,,elr; and .7. M. Lecki e , D u blin. The Proofs by M. "Jinakhi, 23, Cockspur-street. PAUL PRY ! IN consequence of the extraordinary demand for the First Ntirnbr of this Paper, the Public are .ireispectfully informed that a Reprint will be issued this e y and may be obtained at the Office. It'is the PAUL r itV which contains exclusive particulars relative to Lady RAVES, and h as pl e d ge d i tse lf, N ex t Sundry , to insert a ropy of the Letter about which so mach has been said, a n d in which the character of this much calumniated Lady ao deeply concerned. °ffice, 13, Wellington-street, Strand, Feb. 22. SELLING OFF UNDER PRIME COST, IN CONSEQUENCE OF TtlX LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES. IMPORTANT SALE of STOVE GRATES, KITCHEN RANGES, PATENT WARM AIR STOVES, with ascending or descending flues,. FENDERS, FIRE-IRONS, TABLE and SUS PENDING LAMPS, CHANDELIERS, VENISON DISHES, WATER PLATES, TEA and COFFEE ,URNS, PAPER-MACHE and other TEA TRAYS, eITENT DISH COVERS, KNIVES and FORKS, and Culinary Utensils in general. The extensive Premises denominated the LONDON STOVE GRATE BAZAAR, being required for the new line of approach to London Bridge, the most exten sive and valuable Stock of Furnishing Ironmongery in the kingdom must be sold forthwith, preparatory to pulling down the Premises, in compliance with the Act of Par hament. The Goods are arranged for public inspection, and the price attached to each article. FISH-STREET-HILL. CARTER and Co., CARPET MANU FACTURERS, respectfully submit the following LIST •f PRICES to the notice of the Nobility and others requiring splendid DRAWING ROOM CARPETS Per Yard. t bat BrueselB,:very ditrable Si, 2d. and 34. 4d. gaperior ditto, the Patterns novel } 38. Sd. and 38. 10,1. and elegant Their new Designs, :(the quality they recommend), generally 41. 4d. and 41. 6d, charged 58. 9d. The Royal Patent Darnisk Carpets--Kiddermiaster and Venetian Carpeting, and Stair Carpeting, in the greate s t variety. Several thonsand yards of well-seasoned Floor Cloths of tl‘e Cut finality, 35 per cent. under the Trade Prices ; 900 Hearth Rngs ; 3,500 yards of Druggets ; 4,500 yards of Merino Daulaidcs and Morten., with Fringes and Trim- Things of every description, equally cheap. LONDON WAREHOUSE, 2, CIIEAPSIDE, near ST. PAUL'S. Charge for making up and laying down Carpets, com plete, 3d. per yard. N.B. Patterns forwarded to any part of Town or Country. . DR. JAMES'S FEVER POWDER ♦ND ANALEP- TIC PILLS. THE FEVER POWDER 18 universally approved by the Profession and the Pnblie—and is administered with equal 'tureens in Fever, Inflammatory Dioceses, Measles, Pleurisy, Sore Throats, Rheumatism, &e. When given in Colds, Catarrhs, &c. it is generally found to check their progress, or shorten their duration. la Packets, 2s. 9d. and 244. The ANALEPTIC PILLS, from their influence in ex siting the natural secretions, are an excellent Alterative Rented) in Chronic Diseases, Rheumatism, habitual Fe brile and Gouty Affections, Indigestion, Bilious and other Cernplainte of the Stomach and Bowels. In Boxes, at 4s. 6i. and 245. Ur. JAMES thinks it necessary to inform the Public his father, a n d hi mself, are now vending articles of their "'en has a Composition, u n d er th e name o f D r. J ames ; an d t h a t EU'ILR p he pointed ia their stead, as Sole Agent', Messrs' Chemists, Cheapside, corner of St. Paul's, S ackvillo-street, Dublin; Princes-street, Edin- Z e r n g a ll e 4 -4 . hey may be had retail of the principal Medicine Libel ee: %setae st Pe *smallest o • f it G. G. James es the DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY. Yesterda v r LO RD ELDON'S PROTEST. - ord Eldon entered the following Protest on the Journal s of the House of Lords, against the decision of t 1 ell' Lordships on Thursday evening, on Lord Stanhope's ni° ticint in refusing the required Committee of Inquiry. DISSENTIF.NT, Vir at) Becaus e we are convinced that the distress which prevailed in this kingdom at the time of the commence rent of the present Session of Parliament, and which his Ilaiertry most h ave b een induced to believe, and h ave b een Eta Vised to represent to Parliament as partial, was at that P e riod most severely felt in almost all parts of the kingdom, and that it has since increased, and continues to increase. Secondly, Because it has been stated to Parliament that the distress so represented to be only partial was to be at tributed to the seasons, and to other causes not under Le gislative control—and ' the representation so made, whilst it t " a self-evid en t t rut h respect i ng t h e seasons, om i ts a ll mention what such, the other causes of distress, are; and Parliament, therefore, has not the means of ascertaining, with Out further inquiry, whether such other causes are or are not under Legislative controul. Thir dlYt Because we think that it is the duty of this :l ouse not to rest s a ti s fi e d w i t h respec t t o ma tt ers of such im a scertain p or tance, without i nst i tut i ng a so l emn i nqu i ry , i n or d er what are the causes which have produced ex ttrbeme distress throughout the kingdom, or the greatest part erenr; "(I, whether that distress can by any, and what cause it is, w e Legislative measures, be removed or alleviated ; and, be .end,e,oalyou.r to conceive, the duty of Parliament, without alleviat e it. any del aYt to the utmost of its power, by all just means to uon sattsraetory r into , canet; " e Y' "Reause we think that if it should be found, .egtslature, his inquiry, that the causes of the distress be removed, or ' the distress be alleviated by the Majesty's subjects will not fail duly to ap- V eci ate the earnest endeavours of Parliament to relieve jeln, and that they will cease to labour under an aggrava tion of the distress occasioned by their present belief, th at 'aLlittt distress cannot be wholly removed, it may be materi . - 7 alleviated n a ravation of distress, from which it ternarytahe in the p o wer of Parliament to relieve them, by as theunduistreas, and dieing what are (other than the seasons) the causes of The following Peers such other causes are, or are not, The Legislative controul. (Signed) ELDON. Peers afterwards signed the Protest : Stsasnorx, NOATIINVICII, CHURCHILL, TEYNIIAM, RICDMOND AND LiNlioX, RADNOIe. J mation ing np. :a. 96i r cent. 'hp& aux, to the let l every war, it rithout ralyeed )f Mr. in a h him ounces ops. le dif ed yes which April) which King lettele )ge on nor of e chief Revo specti- ward ; [akin ✓K •th and :ember, osas on •ovince, res was her re- in the alarm Smith 73 p per— Colonel lade his ure will ding an Eighty nn Ma .t Gird°, tramme )btained !il done ~ and at mda are (proved, Waded the dark ; there rentured hied. CM DAY.) ,st, from don, the e Salaria, n Deme- :ingficher oil Tues. le master ,n Sunday 1, was on off after ed at the , was to- Crew and as arrived flack Mid• !:tolerably 'he Wheat her quali lull, with variation• vs. Flout Flour. 5,650 a itks• - brl6. )r y part ens which asses, and analnuin al employ and soup tit Bangor istributiort nr of that of High• Idjo, Esq. lady 01E. ntimoutbr son, Esq., est dangly on of Joho - ord, Esq• , , of NaziPg , e I Y , E s q . ' abeth, the )onningtoil :ing, E°q"' the wife 01 vife of Af' ove, Eliiiv id, Dol. 111 e J. Aikido unbar, we DUNG, ef MOS. I ~u y , No. 11,688. L_, IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 27, 1830 University of Cambridge, praying for an alteration in the Church Building Act. Mr. HUME gave notice; - that he should, on the 17th of March, move for leave to bring-in a Bill for the repeal of all laws regulating the wages of workmen. • - upon the House to put on end to such a practice. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by proposing a Resolution to the effect before mentioned. HOUSE OF LORDS-(LAST NIGHT.) The House sat at Five o'clock. Several petitions were presented by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Lord Stan hope, Lord Wharncliffe, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl of Chichester, and Lord King, praying their Lordships to take into consideration the distress of the country, the Corn Laws, and the Sub-letting and Vestry Acts. . The question having. been put, An Hon. IllEmint, whose name we could not learn, said he could prove, if necessary, that Sir James Graham never connected professional with Parliamentary business. He had retired from business before he entered Pat liament, and never derived any profit from private. Bills. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said he never should have con nected himself with the gentleman whose petition was withdrawn that night, if he supposed that, in so doing, le! acted contrary to the practice and privileges of the House. He rcuretted that their time should he con,ined on a per- sonal matter like this, and trifling in its own nature. He must observe that the lion. Gentleman who brought the subject forward put an ungenerous construction upon some of his observations upon a previous night, when be alluded to Sir James Graham; it was because he thought that . , gentleman derived a profit from private Bills, but that imputition was now completely removed: When lie said that private Bills must be frequently submitted for opinion to tle Law Officers of the Crown, he did so because he thought that the time of the Honourable and Learned per- sons could not be gratuitously devoted to such business. He was not aware that those 'Honourable and Learned Gendemen to whom the Member for Stafford alluded, gave their assistance at the Queen's trial without pecuniary reward-, and the more so because a large sum was voted by Parliament to defray the expenses of the trial. It was not suftiient ground for the motion of the Hon. Oeutleman that there existed no precedent on the Journals. He Mould. admit that Committees of that House could not be too pure, but why keep up a mere hypocritical affectation of a purity which did not exist? Was a solicitor who derived small profit from the management of a private Bill, to be impure, while persons interested to the amount of thou sands in a Bill were deemed perfectly pure, and permitted to vote? He should be most willing to second the Reso- lotion if it extended equally to all Alembets of the House. He believed it ct as hardly possible to introduce a private Bill affecting Glasgow, Edinburgh , or any of the most dis tant part of the empire, which wotild not be discovered as connecting itself with the interests of other parts. He was often urged by some of his constituents to oppose such Bills as affecting Colchester, in cases where it WOR difficult to find what sort of subterraneous connection there was between them. He should be quite satisfied if every Member having a direct interest in a Bill was precluded from voting on it. For his part, he could declare that he never had a share to the amount of even a farthing in any road, canal, gas, or other work, or charged 6s. 84. on any Bill, since he entered that House. When, as he stated the other night, Members sat upon Bills in which they were interested to the amount of many thousands, why run a muck against solicitors, a class of persons to whom formerly many places were open, which were now given to others possessing more influence in that House? They would stretch their power veil' far by agreeing to this resolution, for they would dissolve a partnership. He denied their right to do so, and the existence of such a power was not proved. If his partnership was dissolved, he hoped the Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. Peel) would put his case on the footing of other vested interests, and make him some compensation. He held in his hand a paper with about 200 names of persons opposed to the Birming ham and Coventry Canal. Among these names were those of Lord Cornwallis and the Marquis of Hertford. He did not know whether the Marquis of Hertford had a Member in that House.—(A laugh.)—He did not say he had ; but suppose be had, and that Member was called upon to support a Bill :which did violence to his con science and feeling, what would be the degree of influence there? Were there no stewards or agents in that House of such a person as the Duke of Devonshire ? If it were proposed to run a canal through Chatsworth, however beneficial it might be to the country at large, would the Noble Duke's agent suffer it to pass without opposition ? lie did not think it consistent with the dignity of the House to pass a resolution affecting only an individual. It would be more worthy of their justice and of their dignity to make the resolution general. He should therefore conclude by moving as an amendment the fol lowing resolution:—" That it wai inconsistent with public and private justice that any Member should vote, either in a Committee or in the House, on a Bill in which he had a direct personal interest." Mr. HUME seconded the amendment, for he upon a former occasion submitted a similar proposition to the House. The House would do itself great honour by agreeing to the general resolution. Every Member would be as much as possible in the situation of a juror—not sub ject to any influence. Was it fair to select an individual like his Hon. Friend when Members were allowed to vote on Bills in which they had a direct interest ? In a ques tion of this kind the House should act on general, and not on partial views. Mr. BROUGHAM said the Member for Stafford rested his resolution on lower ground than he might have assumed when he based it on the Resolution of 1666. That Re solution was directed against Members of that House re ceiving money to influence their votes. He was much surprised that there could have been a moment's question on the point. That a Member of any Court or of any de liberative body like that should act as agent or solicitor, in a case where he must also act as judge, was so inconvenient in practice, and so inconsistent in principle, as not to ad mit of argument. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) said he could see no harm in a Member of that House acting as solicitor in a private Bill, if he did not sit in the Com mittee on the Bill. His Hon. Friend was a person well acquainted with business, a matter-of-fact man. Now be would put this ease to him : —Suppose there were two solicitors,' A. and 8., and his Hon. Friend wanted an agent to manage a private Bill ; he was told that A. was no Member of Parliament, but B. was. He believed his Hon. Friend, shrewd as he was, and understanding well his own interest, would not long hesitate which to select ; and if the question were put to him as to the choice, he would no doubt reply, do you think me a fool—do you suppose me such a dolt and a driveller as nct to know that 11. is the better man for my business ? But it might be said B. can do you no good, as he will not be in the Com. mittee. No, but he is in the House. Could any person for a moment doubt which solicitor, cateris paribus, would be selected in a case of this kind. Were they then, by permitting such a practice, to give their own solicitors preference over all others. No person ever heard of the Member of a Court eliowed to act as a solicitor in it. He recollected that Mr. Sheridan, who was a Privy Councillor, once took his seat at the Council when a matter was to come befese the Court in which he was personally inte rested. He was reminded of the circumstance, and retired below the Bar. The law of Parliament prevented any Member from voting where he was personally interested. He wished to correct a misapprehension with regard to the part he took on the Queen's trial, and it was princi pally for that purpose he rose. It never was mooted at Westminster Hall that a barrister could sit upon an Elec tion Committee, if he had any interest in that election. He made it a rul e n ever t o b e em pl o y e d as a b arr i s t er i n any Election Committee, whether in or out of Parliament. He had so acted upon the grounds that, being a Parlia mentary man, he might be supposed to have a degree of influence which Le was not inclined to exercise. —(Hear.) —As a proof of his acting upon this principle, be had at the time of the Queen's trial brought forward the Educa tion Inquiry, b ecause h e w i s hed to b e re li eve d f rom his i duties n this House. There was the greatest possible dif. ference between:Counsel in this House being heard in the House of Lords, and solicitors getting up private Bills. The Queen's Counsel in this House never in any one form or shape exercised their professional capacity. They had acted upon their own responsibility, and in the House merely acted as Members of Parliament. Until this night it never was heard of that the Counsel for the Queen re ceived any emolument for the discharge of their duties in the House. The Queen never paid, and her Counsel never received any remuneration whatsoever from the Queen ; the expenses of the trial were defrayed by the public, as were the expenses at the other side. In making this state ment, he meant to cast no imputation upon any quarter whatsover. The servants of the Queen had rued their greatest exertion s , an d w h en t h ey b a d succee d e d, h er Ma jesty directed him t o appor ti on th e sum o f 7,000/. be tween him and his colleagues. That was not acceded to .—because himself and his colleagues were paid in the usual way of professional men. With respect to the dif ference of the fees of solicitors and counsel he was sure there could not be much difference of opinion. Solicitors did not merely recover the 6s. Bd. so talked of by the Hon. Member for Colchester. There was 13s. 4d.— there were drafts—there were various other charges which proved that no two counsel received half the emolument of the respectable solicitors engaged in a cause. With re- •Oira.g -„ 4 "IV ' t ".• t 411?fik:(14 V.'40,77.V. • r - , *42',A.1? . ? . : • ,",. -*, ; ;\;.k ri Aler ft, ' 5 ? - * F . *• 4 ; c 'T 1 6 A 37 PRICE 7D. spect to the late Sir J. Graham, he could only say, in justice to himself and his family, that he heard him often twitted for interfering in private Bills, but such a charge he always rebutted with the greatest indignation. Sir i.1.-SCARLETT said he would not enter into any discussion as to the difference of fees between barristers and solicitors. And he would only say that, holding a situation under the Crown, he never acted in this House with a view to emolument from the passing of public or private Bills. _ _ Sir C. WETHERELL said that no Law Officers ever received any fee for acting in this House in their character of Memb&s of Parliament. Sometimes they were called upon to support the Government; but it sometimes hap pened:that they received no fees ; and that in doing their duty they rejected their situation in their office, in order to preserve their honour and their consistency.—(Hear, hear. )—He hoped that no person, who might read what passed here, would think that the Law Officers were paid for pr,eparing Bills in this House. Such was the case in the time of Lord North, when the late Lord Thurlow was the Attorney-General ; and such it continued to be. Mr. BARING said be would only trouble the House with a very few words, and those with a view of bearing his highest' testitnony to the - character, to the honour, and the purity of conduct of the late Sir J. Graham. The charge made by the Hon.-Member for Colchester was alto gether mistaken and unfounded. He agreed in substance with the Resolution proposed by the Hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton), and if any Member had a direct interest in any Bill before the House, he thought a sense of delicacy would prevent him from acting upon any •Committee in which his private advantage was concerned. Mr. HOBHOUSE said -there could not be two opinions upon that subject. The House was indebted to the . Hon. Member (Mr. D. W. Harvey) for bringing that subject before their notice, if it were only with a view to set the matter at rest. He was sorry to say that there was a practice in that House for Members having certain inte rests upon particular questions taking up such interests in their capacities as Members of Parliament. He would vote for the Resolution of the Hon. Member for Stafford shire. He would recommend the Hon. Member (Mr. D. W. Harvey) to withdraw his Amendment, and to propose it as a substantive motion. He bad attended Committees up stairs, and he knew of one in which there were only four Members present, three of whom had a direct inte rest in the matter at issue. These Gentlemen of course carried their object ; and he was sorry to say that even in the course of the last year a similar circumstance had oc curred. He mentioned these facts to show the necessity for a change in such proceedings; and that such a blot should be taken off the House of Commons.—(Hear.) — He would not enter into t'ae charges made against the Crown Lawyers by the Hon. Member (Mr. Harvey.) As a general principle he would say, that private interest never prejudiced the conduct of public men upon public business.—(Cries of " Question.") Sir M. 'W. RIDLEY said that the best preventive to guard against private bias, was to trust to their honour and their sense of duty. After all that had happened, he hoped that the Hon. Member for Colchester would with. draw his amendment. Board, which vvete totally unfounded, and decidedly con trary to the evidence before the Finance Committee, on which the statements were alleged to be founded. The Hon. Baronet: asserted, that the Navy Board appeared by that evidence to have been mainly instrurnet.tal in prevent ing the execution of those measures of economy and re trenchment proposed by the Admiralty. He denied this most positively. He denied that any portion of his evi 7 ,lenre, or of the evidence of any other person before the Finance Committee, would bear such a conclusion ; and he called on the Hon. Baronet to declare to the House that he bad been instrumental in propagating a reflection on the character of the Board which ;va;notb6rne out by the facts. The Hon. Member then read a long extract from the Hon. Baronet's book on the subject of the Navy Board, and observed that nothing would gratify him more than to bring every Member connected with that Board to the Bar of the House, in order to prove that the assertions respecting it were unfounded. He, as well as every Member of that Beard, had, at all times, exerted them. selves to keep down the expenditure; ahlitrugh the Honourable Baronet had taken leave, without the elle-. dory of authority from evidence, to condemn the conduct of a whole body of men without allowing the opportuult), to defend themselves. He called on the Hon. Baronet td rise in his place and declare in what part cf the evidence before the Finance Committee he- found the statements which supported the charge against the Bond, of opposing retrenchment. There were no grounds for that charge and a more unjust and more ungenerous proceeding that adopted by the Hon. Baronet had scarcely ever been broUght under the notice of.the House. The Hon. Baro net had made charges against him, but he ought rather to have brought accusations against the Hon. Baronet. The Hon. Baronet had been Chairman of the Committee—Why did he not call him (Sir B. Martin) before that Committee when he heard these imputations against the Navy Board The Hon. Baronet had been exceedingly remiss in his duty ; because he was bound, as Chairman, to have sought this information. It might be said that the termination of the sittings of that Committee prevented him. Why's the whole proceeding would not have occupied ten minutes. It would have satisfied the Hon. Batozu;t and the Com mittee that his conduct, and that of the Navy Board, had beenperfectly pure and unspotted ; and he was convinced the lion. Baronet, if he had thought proper to call fur thcse expl•inatious, would never have stigmatised his con- duct in the manner he had done in a . nine-and-sixpenny pamphlet.—(Hear.)—The lion. Baronet had also charged the Navy Board with extravagance in the bnildiug of ships,, and in the manufacture of canvas and chain-cables.. Now, he denied the imputation respecting the building of ships _ _ anrl as to the nsanufacture of canvas and cables, there never had been a single yard of canvas, or an inch of cable, ma nufactured by the Navy Board since the Navy was a Navy. He appealed to the Hon. Baronet to acknowlclge that he had been in error, and to remedy by that deci . lion the injury he had done to the Navy Board. Sir HENRY PARNELL thanked the Hon. Member for the discretion he had shown in bringing this subject before the House, and for his kindness in communicating to him his intention to do so. He would comnsene,e by observing that it was the right of every individual to dis-. cuss film matters which were connected with the admi, nistration of public affiirs ; and to a Member of ParHo , meat that right hec.ime a duty which was roost imperative. It was, he confessed, extremely difficult, in writing on such subjects, to avoid falling into expressions that might bt. too strong for the occasion, and, in point of fact, he had taken the utmost care to sl.un every word of that kind, Ile was not now, however, prepared to state that the im pression lie had received on the subject of the Navy Board had been altered ; and a conversation which he had held with a Noble Lord (Althorp,) since he received the Hon. Member's letter yesterday morning, tended to confirm his first impression. His impression respecting the evidence on the subject of the Nary Board certainly was, that the Board had opposed it-elf to the views of the Admiralty on the subject of retrenchment. He recollected well, indeed, the reply made by Mr. Barrow when questioned on that subject. When asked if he knew the reason why the re ductions proposed had not taken place? Mr. Barrow answered in a tone and manner which struck him at the moment, awl which he well remembered, " that the Navy Board could answer that question much better than he could." His impression then, as now, front that evidence, was that which he had stated in the pamphlet. With respect to the Hon. and Gallant Officer, he dis claimed any personal motive in what lie bad said respect ing him. He was convinced that there was not an in dividual in the public service who did his duty more aea- The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, the real question to be decided now was, whether Members of this House, being solicitors. should or should not largely canvass for business in this House? He had read the circular of the Hon. Member, and he must say that nothing more objec tionable ever came before his notice. There should be no solicitation for business in that Hous,. The rules of the House precluded the necessity of the proposed amendment, and therefore he should oppose it. Sir C. BURRELL wished to usk the Hon. Member (Mr. C. Hobhouse) for some further explanation as to the conduct of the Committee to which be had made allusion. It wax quite necessary for the character of the House that such an explanation should be given. Mr. C. W. WYNN said, that the custom of this House was, that every charge against any Hon. Member should be made upon its own specific grounds. And if the Hon. Member for Westminster, could only substantiate his charge, lie for one would at once agree with him in the necessity of immediate inquiry. In the case of the Queen's trial the Counsel for her Majesty declared that in ;heir situation as Members of Parliament they would take no active part in the proceedings in this House. He hoped the amendment would not be passed. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he would vote for the ori ginal resolution, for the simplest of all reasons—First, that such was already the regulation of the House; secondly, that Solicitors having seats in this House had unfair ad vantages over others; and thirdly, that taking the matter:of franking and other things into consideration, he thought it unfair to the profession of which the Hon. Member formed one. He had no wish to mix up the motion and the amendment on this occasion ; but let a substantive motion be made, and it should receive his best attention. He feared it would be difficult to prevent Members having an indirect interest in matters coming before this House to vote upon Committees.—(Question, question;)" Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that he would cheerfully vote for the Resolution of the Hon. Member; and in order to show that he did not act contrary to public prin ciple, the next Gazette should see his name separated from his partner's. When the first Resolution was dis posed of, he would then propose that to which he had before adverted. Mr. C. HOBHOUSE explained, The original resolution was then agreed to. Mr. D. W. HARVEY then proposed his resolution, that it is contrary to the ends of justice that any Member having a direct interest in any question coming before a Committee of which he is a member, should give his rote in that Committee. Mr. HUME seconded the motion. Mr. LITTLETON considered the proposed Resolution unnecessary, inasmuch as the House, acting upon the ad vice, of the Committee, had adopted the very principle to which the proposed resolution had reference. He should therefore move the Order of the Day. The resolution and the amendment for passing to the Order of the Day having been put from the Chair, Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN made a few observations, which were inaudible. Mr. O'CONNELL hoped the resolution would be al lowed to pass. Mr. SADLER thought that the resolution would tend to injure the public interests in the transaction of local business, and he should therefore vote to pass to the Order of the Day. Itlr. TRANT supported the resolution. Mr. 'Wyrs sr, Mr. W. Sstrrn, and Mr. CROKER, said a ew words in favour of the amendment. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment 174 For the resolution 2G Majority against the resolution —142 EAST RETFORD BILL. lously and faithfully ; and he had no doubt; that even when the Hon. and Gallant Officer resisted economy, it was from the best motives.—(Elear, hear.)—But his im pression still remained as to the conduct of the Navy Board ; and lie had the satisfaction to be authorised to state, that if his Noble Friend, the Member for Northamp tonshire, who had that morning gone over the evidence with him, had been in his place, he would have declared that he thought the paragraph in his (Sir H. Parnell's) work, which tuteribed to the Navy Board a disposition to resist the Admiralty's efforts at retrenchment, completely borne out by that evidence.—(Hear, hear.)—With respect to the two points which regarded the building of ships, and the manufacture of canvas and chain cables, he can didly admitted, that on reflection and consider a ti on , h e did not think that he had sufficient grounds f or t h e conclu sion to which lie had arrived—(H ear , bear)—b u t w ith respect to the resistance made by the Navy Board to the Admiralty, ha repeated that his opinion was entirely un changed.—(llear.) Sir G. COCKBURN thought it but just to his Hon. and Gallant Friend to say, in the first place, that it was the duty of the Navy Board to state to the Board of Ad miralty any observations which appeared to them to be advantageous for the public service ; and, in the second place, that whatever was actually ordered by the Admi ralty, was always executed by the Navy Board with zeal and despatch.—(Hear, hear.) It was certainly true, that if the Navy Board had entirely concurred with the Ad miralty, things would have gone on faster.—(Hear, hear.) But when objections to any proposition were made by practical men, it was the duty of the Admiralty to con. aider those objections maturely be`ore they overbore them- He repeated, however, that whatever the Board of Admi ralty finally decided should be done was done immediately. Mr. Secretary PEEL was rejoiced to find that the dis cussion had terminated in a manner so creditable to all parties. The Hon. Baronet, asserting his just right to comment on the conduct of any public department, had yet, with great candour, allowed that, on mature reflec tion, there were points on which he had come to a hasty conclusion ; and he had also given Lis Hon. and Gallant Friend full credit for zeal in the discharge of his duty. It appeared to him, therefore, that the discussion had been highly creditable to both parties. The Hon. Baronet, however, persevered in his opinion that the Navy Board might have conformed with more alacrity to the wishes of the Admiralty. If, however, the Nary Board had been entirely passive and acquiescent, they would bare been called tools in the bands of the Admiralty, and persons who never dared to have an opinion of their own. As to the conclusion which the Hon. Baronet had drawn front the statement by Mr. Barrow—that for information on the subject respecting which he had been questioned, the Committee had better apply to the Navy Board—it ap peared to him to be erroneous, and that Mr. Barrow's meaning was simply that the Navy Board could give the best information on the subject. — Sir BYAM MARTIN felt himself benne to acknow ledge the very handsome and honourable manner in which the Hon. Baronet had expressed himself. Ile hoped, however, that if the Hon. Baronet published a second edition of his pamphlet he would correct the errors into which he had fallen.—(A laugh.) Mr. MABERLY was sure that his Hon. Friend never intended anything personal against the Hon. Baronet. The Right Hon. Gentleman had observed that his Hon. Friend had conceded two points. That Wes true, but they were minor points. On the principal question— namely, whether the Navy Board had done its duty or not—his Hon. Friend's opinion remained unaltered ; and he (Mr. Maberly) entirely concurred with him. The Hon. Member here referred to the further evidence of Mr. Barrow, to show that from 1815 to 1821, the Navy Board had neglected to make any reductions, and that they then did so with great reluctance. He referred also to other parts of the evidence taken before the Committee, to prove that the Admiralty were anxious to have their hands strengthened by a vote of the Committee. Between the reluctance of the one Board, and the hesitation of the other to enforce its a uthority, it was clear that the public had for many years suffered great loss. Mr. HUME observed, that if ever evidence was satis factory, it WAS that which established the fact that the Admiralty were anxious for a reduction of expenditure, and would have reduced it, but for the indisposition of the Navy Board to concur in the measure. In support of this opinion the Hon. Gentleman referred particnlarly to the evidence before the Committee ; and especially to that of one of the Lords of the Admiralty, who expressed his wish that the Committee would strengthen the hands of the Admiralty, by some vote declaratory of their opinion that the Admiralty ought to carry their own views into effect. On the Mot:on for the Speaktr's leaving the Chair being again put, Mr. E. DAVENPORT observed, that he understood that in his absence the Hon. Member for Hertfordshire had postponed the further proceeding on the East Retford Upon the re-admission of strangers to the Gallery, the House were discussing the Order of the DA) , for the se cond reading of the East Retford Bill. Mr. TENNYSON was addressing the House, and de claring his intentio❑ to move in the Committee on the Bill a clause for transferring the franchise to the town of Birmingham. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAIN gave notice that he should move a clause disfranchising the Borough of East Retford for ever. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he should move that the mode of election be by ballot.—(Laughter.) Mr. STUART said that he should make a proposition to the House, which he hoped would save Hon. Gentle men the trouble of their motions, for he should move to throw out this obnoxious Bill altogether. it thc witnesses in the case were entitled to credit, then the lion. Member for Bletchingley, in his zeal for reform, must have forgot ten that they proved the interference of a Peer of Parlia ment, by his influence and money, to obtain the return of a Member for the Borough of East Retford to that House. He meant Earl Fitzwilliarn. Mr. Secretary PEEL said that the Hon. Member for Bletchingley was quite satisfied, in taking the sense of the House again upon his own proposition. lie should give his vote as he had given it before. After /some conversation the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday next. SUPPLY. _ _ . The Committee Order read for the House going into Sir BYAM MARTIN, on the motion for th e Sp ea k er leaving the Chair , co m p lained (a s we understood, for the noise in the House ren d e re d the Hon. Gentleman for a co nsiderable time inaudible), that au Hon. Baro ne t oppo site (Sir H. Parnell) had, in a book on Financial Reform, thrown out imputations againat him and against the Navy TIMBER TRADE. The Marquis of SALISBURY moved for a Return of the number of loads of Oak Timber purchased for the use of the Navy, with the prices in each years since 1809: and likewise a Return of all Contracts fur Wood for the use of his Majesty's Duck Yards, during the same period, specifying the price and the duration of each contract. Earl STANHOPE said that the fall in the price of timber was a matter of general notoriety. EAST INDIA COMPANY. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from the bankers, merchants, manufactures, traders, and other in. habitants of Huddersfield, in the county of York, praying for a tree trade to the East Indies and China. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from the merelvints, manufacturers, and other inhabitants of Manchester, for a free trade to the East Indies. The Noble Martial's presented a similar petition from Hull. These petitioners expressed great anxiety that proper notice should be given to the East India Com pany that their .Charter would" not be renewed: This the Noble Marquis had no doubt would-be attended to. Such notice would not conclude the question. It would merely have the effect of unfettering the hands of Government and the Legislature. The above petitions were severally referred to the Com mittee on Indian Affairs. SINECURES. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that about twelve years ago an alteration had been made in the manner of rewarding public service. Various offices to which little or no duty was attached, among which he might mention that which was now held by the Noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government, had been abolished, or regu lated. Ile was desirous of ascertaining to what degree the new system had been beneficial He should therefore move for an account of the pensions and salaries granted under the provisions of the 57th George the Third, cap. 55 —Ordered. The Duke of RICHMOND gave notice that on Tues day week lie should move for a Select Committee to take into consideration the state of the Working Classes of the Country. --Lords ordered to be summoned. Their Lordships adjourned at a Quarter before Six to Monday next. The Committee on the Esst India Company's Affairs sat to-day, and adjourned to Tuesday next at One o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS-(LAST NIGHT.) The Gallery was not opened this afternoon until Twenty 31inutes pint Four o'Clock, on account of a Ballot for a Committee on the Cork Election. Several Private Bills were brought up and read a first ;me. CORK ELECTION COMMITTEE. The following are the names of the Committee :—Sir Wm. Scott, Mr. Wm. Russell, Mr. John Marshall, Mr. John Lott, Sir Win. Pringle, the Right lion. Sir George Murray, Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. John Henry North, Mr. Thomas Alleock, Sir Thomas Baring, and Mr. lIPLeorL _ _ \lr. Alderman WOOD moved for the returns of the amount of the drawback allowed on soap exported from this country during the years 1827, 1828, and 1829; also for similar returns respecting spirits, coffee, beer, and malt. Mr. EGERTON presented a petition from Gmgleton, against the practice of paying labourers' wages i❑ goods. DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY. Mr. JOHN WOOD presented a petition from Preston, signed by seven thousand weavers, praying that the duty on Cotton Wool might be taken off.— The Hon. Member said, never was a petition prevented to that House more worthy of attention. The petitioners laboured under the greatest distress, but, under the most severe difficulties, they had always behaved themselves in a peaceable and orderly manner. He was convinced some thing must be done, and if he was allowed to propose a remedy, it should he by an abolition of the Corn Laws.— (Hear, hear.) He had no doubt this would materially re lieve the sufferings of the manufacturing classes. After a few words from Mr. Husix and Mr. W. Satiric, the petition was ordered to lie on the table. The Marquis of BLANDFORD presented a petition from Woodstock, praying for a reduction of the expendi ture and taxation. The Noble Marquis presented another petition from Manchester, praying that an alteration might take place in the Cuirency. Mr. CHAPLIN presented a petition from Lincoln, praying for a reduction of taxes, and an inquiry into the state of the nation. Colonel SIBTHORPE supported the prayer of the petition. Sir W. HEATHCOTE presented 'nine petitions from the county of Southampton, complaining of distress. Mr. It. HILL presented a petition from Shropshire, complaidng of distress, and praying for a repeal of the Malt Tax. Mr. SLANEY called the particular attention of the House to the petition. It was signed by 1,200 persons, and complained of the duties upon malt liquor. Last Ses sion he had proved that the duties upon beer amounted to 200 per cent. before it reached the poor man. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer in tended to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the licensing system. Th. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he would at once give notice, that on Tuesday next he would move for a Committee to inquire into the laws and regu lations relating to the sale of beer, with a view to giving a greater freedom to the trade in that article.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. DUNCOMBE (Yorkshire) presented a petition from Doncaster, praying for a repeal of the Malt Tax. Mr. RUSSELL presented a petition from the island of Shires, in the county of Durham, complaining of distress, and praying for a repeal of the Malt Tax. Mr. P. THOMPSON presented a petition from Buck ' ler, near Dover, in favour of a Reform in Parliament, and complaining of distress. NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND: Lord F. L. GOWER presented a petitiou from certain Roman Crtholics in Ireland, respecting the National Education in that country. Mr. RICE said he should bring the whole subject before the House. He wished to know when the Irish Estimates would be brought forward. Lord F. L. GOWER wished to be allowed till Monday to give en answer. EAST INDIA QUESTION. Mr. MARSHALL presented a petition from Trimley in the \Vest Riding of Yorkshire, against the East India Company's Charter. Referred to the Select Committee on the same. COURT OF SESSION. Mr. FERCUSSON moved for a ♦ariety of Returns re specting the Court of Srssion in Scotland.—Ordered. RECORDS. Mr. PROTHEROE moved for a Return relatire to the Works in course of publication by order of the Commis sioners of Records.—Ordered. WELCH JUDICATURE. Lord J. RUSSELL presented petitions from the County of Carmarthen and the Town of Carmarthen, on the sub ject of the Welch Judicature.—Ordered to be printed. DUTIES ON LEATHER. Mr. O'CONNELL moved fur returns of the duties levied upon leather in Ireland, (luring the years ending Jan. 5, 1829, and Jan. 5, 1830, together with a return of the penalties enforced, and an account of the number and nature of the oaths required by law from the manufacturers of leather in Ireland. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER doubted the propriety of calling for a return of oaths imposed by Acts of Parliament. Mr. O'CONNELL did not wish for the return for his own satisfaction, but for the satisfaction of the House, as he rant to bring the subject regularly before the House. —Returns ordered. DUTIES ON PAPER. Mr. O'CONNELL moved for similar returns rep) eting paper made in Ireland.—Ordered. CHURCH BUILDING ACT. Lord PALMERSTON,;;;;;;Jeda petitiou from the POST OFFICE. • On the motion of Mr. HUME, returns were ordered of the gross amount of all extra charges for the delivery of letters since 1828, up to the present time, the names of the towns where such charges were made, &c. ; as also re turns of the gross receipt of the Excise and Customs' Duties, and of the Land Tax for the last year, the amount paid in by each, Commissioner and Receiver-General, the sum paid for collection, &c. &c. If no other Hon. Member brought the subject forward, it was his intention on a future day to submit a motion, the object ~f which should be to reduce the expences of collecting the Revenue. CALL OF THE HOUSE. Sir It. VIVIAN gave notice that on Friday next, when a motion was to be brought forward on the State of the Country, he should move that the House be called over. WATER. Mr. C. PALLMER presented a petition from the inha bitants of the Surrey side of the metropolis, complaining of the quality of the water, and praying that the House would take some steps on a matter so important to health.—Or dered to be printed. RUM AND SUGAR. Sir A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from the ►ner chants of Glasgow, praying for a reduction of the duty on rum and sugar.—Ordered to be printed. MALT DUTY. Sir C. BURRELL presented a petition from the farmers and agriculturists of Sussex, complaining of distress, and praying for a repeal of the malt duty. He wished the Right Hon. Gent., the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had proposed a committee to inquire into the malt duty in place of that to inquire into the price of beer. It would be a great benefit to the farmer and the agricultural labourer if the duty on malt was taken off, for then he could brew a small quantity of wholesome beverage for his own use, and would besides be supplied with yeast for his bread.—Ordered to be printed. WASTE LANDS. Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from Froom letwood, praying that the House would encourage the cul tivation of waste lands.—Ordered to be printed. CROWN LANDS. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said he was desirous to know, with a view to some ulterior proceeding, the revenue aris ing from the Duchy of Lancaster. He was not aware of any source front which he could obtain this information unless it was from the Chancellor of the Duchy. Mr. ARBUTHNOT said the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had nothing to do with the Crown Lands. Mr. D. W. HARVEY gave notice of a motion on the subject. SOLICITORS AND AGENTS. Sir E. KNATCHBULL said he held in his hand a petition from Mr. Robert Sidney, praying that he might be heard by Counsel against a motion of which notice had been given by an Hon. Member (Mr. Littleton) in which his interests as a Solicitor were involved. Mr. W. WYNN submitted that by the rules of the House a petition of this kind, referring to an intended motion connected with these privileges, could not be re ceived. The SPEAKER said there was no precedent for re ceiving such a petition founded upon a notice of motion regarding the privileges of the House. After a few words from Mr. HUME, who was in favour of hearing the petition by Counsel, the petition was with drawn. PRIVILEGE. Mr. LITTLETON said, that in rising to 'fling forward the motion of which he had given notice, it was to him a matter of real regret that it should prejudice in any way the views of any Member of that House. He was influenced by no personal feeling towards the Member for Colchester (Mr. D. W. Harvey). fills motion originated in a petition be presented last . Friday from Mr. Ayre Lee. This gentleman, as he stated upon that occasion, received a letter signed W. R. Sidney, announcing that the writer had entered into a professional connection with Mr. D. W. Harvey, a Member of that House, for the purpose of carrying on the business of a Parliamentary agency, and of forwarding private Bills through the House. This letter was franked by the Hon. Member (Mr. Harvey). It immediately struck him as extraordinary that any Member of that House should undertake to manage private Bills for pecu niary fee or reward. He felt assured that the petitioner, Mr. Ayre Lee, was not influenced in what he hail done by any party, or by any opposition he had met with from the Member .for Colchester in any Committee. Having thus shortly stated the case, he would proceed to show what he conceived to be the practice of the House in matters of this kind, and the grounds of his motion. In the year 1666 a Resolution was agreed to, declaring the offer of any money to a Member of that House for the transaction of any business in Parliament, was a breach of the privi leges of the House. The Resolution which he should pro pose declared it to be a gross breach of privilege for any Member to engage for fee or reward in the management of any private Bill, through himself or his partner, in that or the other House of Parliament. The Member for Colchester defended the practice, and he was at liberty if he pleased to take the sense of the House upon it. He said that other Members did the very same, and that no notice was taken of it. After all the inquiry he (Mr. L.) could make, he was unable to discover that any solicitor, being a Member of the House, had embarked for fee or reward in the management of private Bills, with the knowledge of the House. It would be useless to prove that such a thing had been done unless it was done with the cognizance of the House. He would now repeat again, that Sir James Graham and Mr. Smith, who was Solicitor to the East India Company, never participated in the fees arising from the management of private Bills. He could not admit the force of the argument drawn by the lion. Gentleman from the case of the Attorney and Solicitor- General. There was an instance of these officers having re ceived a fee for business done in the House, and they were now present to answer for themselves. The Hon. Member on Fri day night alluded to the case of private Bills involving the in terests of individual Members, who still sat in Comtuittee on these Bills, or voted on them in the House. It must cer tainly often happen to every county Member, to find him self personally interested in private Bills, and this could not possibly be avoided altogether. But that was quite a different case. 'When a Member had a direct pecuniary interest, his vote was disallowed, as frequently happened in 1825 and 1826, when Members of that House were connected with the various companies that were then set on foot. A Select Committee was appointed to inquire into these transactions, and the consequence was the ap pointment of an Appeal Committee, to which they were to be referred. This operated as an effectual remedy. The Member for Aberdeen brought forward a motion, the object of which was to prevent any Member of that House, having an interest in a Bill, from taking any part in it.— His Resolution was rejected, and the House reserved to it self the right of dealing with every case as it occurred.— The usage of Parliament was against the Hon. Member (Mr. Harvey) for there was no instance of the kind upon the Journals, and he believed for this reason, that the pre sent was the very first time the question arose. Barristers, who were Members of that House, were not allowed to plead in Committees or at the bar of the House. No dif ference, in this respect, should be made between them and Solicitors. By a Resolution agreed to in 1666, Members of the House, being Barristers, were not allowed to plead at the bar of the other, either on questions of Common Law or on Bills. This Resolution was modified in 1669, when the House declared they saw no reason why Mem bers of that House should be prevented from pleading at - the bar of the other, on Common Law cases, the House of Lords being a Court of Judicature, as well as a branch of the Legislature. Pleading on Bills, however, was de clared to be a different thing, as Bills might come before them, as Members of the House, in their legislative capa city. In a recent case, that of the Queen's trial, the Lords applied for permission to have the Member for Win- chelsea and the Member for Knaresborough at their bar to plead against a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Time was taken for consideration. This permission was refused for some days, but at length granted with great caution and with a proviso that it should not be drawn into a prece dent. This he thought was quite sufficient in support of the Resolution he should propose. His first thought was to refer the matter to a select number of the Committee 01 Privileges : but this, upon subsequent consideration, he deemed unnecessary, as all the facts were admitted. It was merely a question of moral propriety, and even if a pre cedent could be produced against him, be wo u ld still call 2 1 1 X 1