The Sun. — London, England, 1833-02-14 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. Coney and Smith, who were some days ago charged with having broken into and robbed the house of Mr. Wheeler, in Bartlett's buildings, were brought up for fir.al examination. Some trifling additions were made to tl►e evidence. None of Mr. Wheeler's property was found in the house of Benjamin Solomons, who effected his escape through the back part of the premises. Mr. Holder, jun., applied to the Lnrd Mayor for the property which had been taken out of the coat of tha , de , ermined receiver. The LORD MAYOR—NO : I won't give up any of the property yet. Mr. Hobler, jun., submitted that there was not suffirient evidence to jo , tify the committal of Smith. Mr. Harmer expressed astonishment at hearing such a statement. That Smith wax an accessory berore the fact was as clear as possible. It was pro. battle that he had been set on by the more expe rienced cracksmen to obtain the assistance of young James to rob the house. The LORD MAYOR thought the evidence quite strong enough to convict upon. Mr. Hobler (the Chief Clerk) stated that James had not been sworn, and stood himself in the light dart accomplice, and had been told that his state ment might be used against himself. By that state ment alone was Smith affected. Mr. Hobler, jun., said he had originally made a protest against the admission of James as an evidence. The LORD MAYOR—We'II settle the business by sweating the boy. James was then sworn, and Coney and Smith were fully committed for trial. .EXTRAORDINARY PAUPER SWINDLER.—James Clare, alias Stephen Knott, alias Thomas Clarke, alias .Tent Clargy, a pauper, who had been living for some years upon the parishes of the metropolis, was charged by the officers of fourteen different parishes with various cases of fraud. He was remanded, in order to get as many cases as possible against him. GUILDHALL. George Lloyd, an ostler, and Hannah Skinner, the wife of an earthenware hawker, residingat New bury, were re-examined yesterday, charged with sealing a waistcoat, and other articles of apparel, of the value of 51., and also 39 sovereigns, the property. of Timothy Skinner, the husband of the female pri 21011Pr. The husband repeated his previous statement that he returned home from a journey on Wednes day, the 6th inst., and his wife eloped with the pri soner, a lodger at the next door, at an early hour on Sunday 'Lumina, taking with her his little c apit a l, and a large bundle of apparel. On the following morning he was fortunate enough to fall in with the gulfty couple at the Belle Sauvage Inn, Ludgate hid, where they had represented themselves to be husband and wife. Morgan, the driver of the Monarch Bath coach, preyed that he took up the prisoners together about four miles from Newbury. The woman made no defence ; but the other pri soner said he was coming to London in Fearch of employ, and oas overtaken on the road by the female, who joined company with him. Mr. Alderman ATKENS said men had confidence in their wives, and it was desirable that such a feeling towards them should be cherished, and that such men as the prisoner Lloyd should be taught to be cautious how they invaded the happiness of poor married men. He had been guilty of a violent breach of the laws of God and man, and he should commit him for trial for the stealing. He was committed. The female was remanded. UNION- HALL. Yesterday Win. Tyler, John 7:yler, Henry Tyler, and William Hughes, were charg,d with committing a viAerit atisai:lt on Samuel Sedger, a policeman of the MT The policeman was beaten so dreadfully that he wag onaNe to attend, but from the evidence of an other policeman of the same division it appeared that on the preceding night, as the witness %vas on duty in Blackman.street, he heard Sedger, who was on the opposite side of the road, exclaim, " Don't ill use the woman." Witness crossed over, and saw the defendants surrounding Sedger, who was endea vouring to defend himself from their blows ; but before (witness) had time to render him assist ance he was thrown to the ground with great vio lence, and kicked and beaten by his assailants until he became insensible. Witness seized two of the defendants, and they broke loose from his grasp, but were retaken on the arrival of further assistance. Inspector Wilkinson stated, that when Sedger way brought to the station-house, he seemed to be f.e.riotisly injured, that it was found necessary to ~„ for ti.l.edical assistance, and he was then in so d v , ger ous a condition, that he could not attend to g;ve evidence against his assailants. The inspector produced Eedger's.coat and cape, which were torn to pieces in the struggle with his antagonists, and added, that in the confusion that took place, the policeman either had his pocket picked of his watch, or had lost during the affray. Mr. CHAIIBERS said he should hold the defend ants in custody until the man was pronounced out of danger. A lengthened examination of three young men, named Redmond, Austin, and Raker, charged with robbing a tradesman, named Hughes, of two 201. notes, occupied a considerable portion the day. One of the stolen notes was traced to the possession of a slopseller in Tooley-street, who identified the prisoners as having changed the note at his shop in payment for slops. The prisoners were committed _ THAMES POLICE. Captain Julian and Captain ' Ferris, two masters o f . ships lying in the London Dock, were charged with hying gunpowder on board, contrary to the Dock regulations. Thew .;_trveyors of Thames police deposed to finding ,*:.% the ee.bin of the Julian, an American vessel, belonging td the first-named defendant, eleven pounds of gunpiiwder, and on board the Britannia, 7is is master, six pounds. of which Captain Fei The Magistrates said that it was necessary to put the Act of Parliament in force, or there would be no safety for the shipping in a crowded dock, where ' an accidental explosion of gunpowder would be at tended with a fearful loss of property. They con victed the defendants in the peualtiee pf 20s. and 305., which were paid. AFFILIATION.—A stout young Irishman, named Timothy Driscoll, appeared to show cause against a male child being affiliated upon him, of which Eliza beth Thody, a young woman, swore he was the father. The defendant made an odd excuse against being burdened with the title of father, to the effect that he had " kissed and had prattled with so many fair maids," that he had lost ali recolketion of the mother. The overseer of Shadwell, however, proved that Driscoll was formerly living with the girl. Mr. BRODERIP adjudged him to pay 49. a-week f r the child's support. all the great points which h was necessary to em brace. The appeal which is made in yesterday's resolutions breathes the best spirit, and it cannot be made in vain. Going forth to the world, as the re solutions of yesterday,do,, with nearly the whole moral force of the delegates of Virginia, they are calculated to make the deeper impression on both the contending parties. It was time, indeed, for matters to take this turn. The debates of the Legislature bad been spun out so long that they were losing all their effect. Politicians at a distance were laughing at us, and our own citizens were be coming dissatisfied and almost disgusted. Besides, the Ist of February was nearly at hand, and every movement of South Carolina or the Federal Govern ment was showing the necessity of an immediate me:liation on our side, if we ever intended to em ploy it. " The whole matter is now before the Senate. It is earnestly hoped that they will act in the premises with as much alacrity as possible--the people ex. pect it—the crisis of our beloved country de mands it." DISNEY V. WRIGHT AND OTHERS. This was an action by Major Disney against Messrs. Wright and Co., bankers, of Henrietta street, Covent-garden to recover 3,9001. The plaintiff in 1817 advised with the defendants as to an investment of money in the French funds, and on the defendants' recomm.ndation, the sum in question was invested by Messrs. Daly and Robin son in the French 5 per Cents. Daly and Robinson subsequently sold out the money, and invested it in the 3 per Cents., from whence it was afterwards sold out with a view to reinvestment in the 5 per Cents.; but before a reinvestment was made, Daly, who was then (1830) the only partner (Robinson having left the concern in 1827 stopped payment. The present action was brought to recover the money from Messrs. Wright and Co., on the ground that they were at least in this transaction partners with Daly and Robinson, having share in the profits. —Plaintiff nonsuited. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 13. ROUGHANS V. SALLOWS. This was an action of slander. The plaintiff is a fruit-salesman in the Borough market; the defendant is clerk in Messrs. Barclay and Co.'s brewery. The premises of. these gentle men having taken fire in may last, the plaintiff lent his assistance, with a great many other persons, in extinguishing the flames. On the following even ing he also went to the premises, and while observing the working of Messrs. Braithwaite's engine, when pumping the beer out of the vats, the defendant ;aid to him, " What brings you here ?—is it any more candle you want ?" The plaintiff asked him what he meant by that, and defendant replied by charging him with having stolen a candle. The plaintiff denied that he had done any such thing, and emptied out his pockets to show that he had no candle about him. The defendant, however, per sisted in his accusation, and spoke of taking him before a Magistrate; but the only plea he put ou the record wa , , that he was not guilty of having spoken the words. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff= Damages 301. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 13, STALEY V. RUNT. Mr. WHITEHURST stated the case. The plaintiff was an iron-manufacturer in Staffordshire. The defendant was a famous orator, and the late Member for Preston. The action was brought on a bill of exchange for 1411. 195., drawn the 16th of May, 1831, by Wrn. Bruton, per procuration of his son Thomas, upon, and accepted by the defendant, pay able three months after date, and indorsed to the plaintiff. The bill was accepted for blacking bottles furnished by Bruton. He supposed there would be a speech from the defendant, with whose oratorical powers the Jury were, doubtless, familiar, but it would not be in the power of a speech to persuade the Jury to find a verdict for the defendant in so plain a case. He should prove the handwriting to the bill and put it in. Thomas Bruton, son of William Bruton, drew the bill for his father. It was for goods sold; he took the bill to the defendant, and sa..v him accept it; he also saw the indorsement written. The bill was then put in and read. Mr. Hunt had paid the money for which the bill was drawn once, and in these times it was suffi ciently difficult to pay bills once, and very hard to be compelled to pay them twice over. The bill was a just bill, and was for goods sold and de livered; and before it was due, he sent for the son of the drawer, with whom he transacted business four times every year, and requested him to take part in money and a renewed bill. This was done, and the renewed bill was paid, and he had it to produce; but the crime that he had com mitted was, that he had been careless in not sending for the bill. The Jury, after heating evidence, found a verdict For the defendant. ARCHES COURT, FEB. 13. GIBBONS AND ANOTHER AGAINST THE BISHOP OF ELY. This was a suit originally instituted in the Con: sistorial Court of Norwich, by the churchwardens of the parish of Clare, against the Bishop of Ely, as impropriator of part of the great tithes of that parish, to compel him to repair the chancel of the parish church, which the Bishop resisted on the ground that it had been the custom for the repairs of the chancey to be defrayed by the parish. A prohibi tion was obtained, on the suit being moved into this Court, to try the question of custom in the temporal Corns; and on trial of that issue in the Court of (.'omn►on Pleas, the Jury found that, "from time im memorial, whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, there bath been a certain ancient and laudable custom for the parishioners of the said pa lish of Clare to repair the chancel of the church as often as occasion required ;" and the Bishop obtained his costs. Dr. PHILLIMORE and Dr. LUSIIINGTON now con. tended that the establishing of the custom did not de cide the question of right, which was properly the question before this Court ; that the burden of the repairs fell of common right upon the parson or rec tor; that a custom, though proved to exist, might not be a good and valid custom ; and that if a cus tom, which had crept in through negligence, or by accident, were suffered to overthrow the common right of the parishioners to be exempted from a burden which intrinsically belonged to the possessor of the tithes, parishes would be liable, in many cases, to such unjust impositions. The KING'S ADVOCATE and Dr. ADDAMS, for the Bishop, expressed their surprise that, after the ver dict of the Jury, the parties should have thought it necessary to carry the suit further. Sir J. Nictiou. said that the question of the cus tom having been thus decided by the finding of the Jury that it was an ancient and laudable custom, reaching beyond the memory of man, it was not open to the Court to go into the question of its le gality; but if it were to go into that question, he had heard nothing which should induce him to set it aside on that ground. The Learned Judge, there-. fore, pronounced against the prayer of the parish ioners, and dismissed the Bishop from the suit; and considered that, as they had persevered in this suit, putting the .Bishop to the inconvenience of an ex pensive litigation, they did it at their own risk and peril, and therefore.he should give the Bishop his costs in both Courts. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, FEB. 12. CONVICTION OF LADY BRISCOE. Lady Sarah, the wife of Sir Waste] BriFcoe, Barr., was indicted for publishing an infamous libel, on the 17th of December last, with intent to defame Mrs. Mary Tolson, and to hold her up to public odium and derision. The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty. The CHAIRMAN and his colleagues on the bench consulted together for some time, when the Chair man pronounced sentence as follows :—" Sarah Briscoe, the Court has taken very deliberate time to consider your case, and they feel that yours is a double libel, and it is a great aggravation of it that you not only procured the printing of the hills, but were also so anxious on the subject that you actually su p intended the distribution of pany of them. The sentene,e of the Court is, that you be imprisoned in the House of Correction two months." In conclu sion, he had to say that Mrs. Tolson quitted that Court with her character wholly untouched by any thing said there that day. WEST INDIA QUESTION.--This question is still unsettled. Several interviews between the Minis ters and the West India body have taken place, but no important disclosures have been made. The West India packet has been ordered to sail, and it is presumed the plans of the Ministers are not so matured as to meet the public eye,—,London New Price Current. HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 13. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took bis seat on the Wool_ aatk, to-day, shortly before four o'clock, and, after post poning some private business, their Lordships adjourned till to-morrow, at three o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY B. Mr. TENNYSON obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the mode of collecting the rates, &c. acc., in the perish of St. Giles, Camberwell. Captain YORKE presented a petition from the Isle of Ely, praying that the duty on Licensed Victualling might be taken off. The Honourable Member could not coincide with the prayer of the petitioners, believing that the tax on public houses was a most proper tax. Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the traders of Dublin, praying for the more due observance of the Lord's Day. Mr. O'CONNOR presented a petition from a parish in Cork, praying for the total abolition of tithes. He trusted that the measure which bad been brought forward by Ministers last night would be productive of good effects; hut he considered he should be practising a &eat upon the House, if he did not state that he thought that measure would not produce satisfaction in Ireland. The people were determined to petition the House, as long as a grievance remained, Sir GEO. CAYLEY presented a petition from Scar borough, praying that that corporation might be elective. Mr. OSWALD presented a petition from the snap makers of Glasgow, for the repeal of the duties on soap. Mr. O'CONNELL supported the prayer of the petition. Mr. EWING trusted that the prayer of the petition would be listened to, and that something would be done to remove a tax which pressed so heavily on the poor. Mr. PELHAM presented a petition from Coningsby, praying for the extinction of slavery. Sir F, BURDETT presented a petition from the parish of St. Anne, Westminster, praying for the repeal of the Louse and window tax.—( Hear.) Sir J. HOBHOUSE said be had been instructed to support the prayer of the petition, and he could .assure the House that the same feeling that pervaded the pa rish of St. Anne, relative to those taxes, pervaded all other parishes in Westminster. He hoped that his Ma. jesty's Ministers would see whether they could not, con sistently with the state of the revenue, do something to re lieve the country of these burdens.—(Hear, hear.) Sir M. W. R[DLEY stated that the same feeling re specting these taxes prevailed in all parts of the country, nd if his Majesty's Government would pay some atten tion to this subject, they would render more imine. diate and effectual relief, than by the repeal of any other tax.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see that it was his duty to give his attention first to this subject, and repeal a tax which pressed so heavily on the industrious classes. Mr. COBBETT said, that the house and window••tax did not presa so heavily on the industrious classes as some others he could name, but it was more odious on ac count of its great partiality—its great and notorious partiality. The burdens were heavy enough in them selves; laws though severe might be just, but they could not be just if partially administered.. If any propo sition should be made to put money into the bands of the King's servants on the vote fOr the supply, he should make a statement which he thought would in duce the House to consider whether a change should not e made in the manner of imposing the taxes. In some instances the poor man paid forty times, and in many instances ten times, as much as the rich, and that was the great ground of complaint the poor man paying tile taxes for the rich, who received them. He, however, would do the Noble Lord the justice to say that he did not believe the Noble Lord was aware of the very grievous manner in which the taxes were imposed. An How. lalemeen, whose name we could not learn, said the house and window taxes were more degrading than any other tax, and he was quite sure that many persons who kept large establishments found means to evade the payment of taxes, and throw the burden of them on the middling and lower classes. Mr. PATTEN presented a pstiti ,n from Rochdale, for the abolition of tithes, and for the repeal of the duties on malt and soap. Mr. WALSH brought in a Bill for holding the Sum mer Assizes for the county of Suffolk, at Ipswich.—lt was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the 27th February. Sir EARDLEY WILMOT presented a petition from Atherstone, in the county of Warwick, complaining of the system of the poor laws. On the motion of Mr. HUME, a motion which be made last session, for a return of the amount of all sinecures where the offices are performed by deputy, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, was read and agreed to. The Hon. GENTLEMAN then gave notice that to-mor row he would move for returns of all moneys belonging to bankrupts' estates in the Bank of Englind, and for the names of Council of the Governor of Jamaica, with a depo sition of the places they held, Mr. ESTCOURT presented a petition from Tetbury, praying for the better observance of the S ibbath. General PALMER presented a petition from the pa rishes of St. Peter and St. Paul in Bath, praying for the abolition of the assessed taxes; also one from the overseers and inhabitants of the parish of Walcott, in the county of Suffolk, to the same effect. Mr. LA NGTON, Mr. SANDFORD, and Mr. ROEBUCK, sup ported the prayer of the petition. This tax should be particularly repealed, because it militated against the public health, and because it pressed most grievously upon the poor. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition from certain freeholders in a place in Kent, " against nocturnal le gislation."—(A laugh.) The petitioners considered it not only injurious to the health and comfort of the Mem. bers of that House, but they considered earlier hours es sential to healthy and vigorous legislation. Mr. D. W. HARVEY moved fir certain returns rela tive to the locality and description of ecclesiastical property charged with any rent, pension, stipend, or other payment on leases ; specifying the probable num ber of acres, and the value thereof, and the customary returns of renewal held under ecclesiastical bodies, either for years or lives. He considered these returns as neces sary in connection with the subject under discussion last night. They embraced a slat cie- of Church property as to which no returns to the ecclesiastical commission had yet been made. Lord ALTHORP said that the object of the motion, as far as lie understood it, was quite unnecessary. The Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the Church revenues as applicable to the support of the Church. The Honourable Gentleman wished to know what was the estimated value of the property of the Church, as at present applicable to private individuals unconnected with, the Church. It appeared to him (Lord Althorp) that such returns were not neces sary, at all events in connection with the subject tinder discussion last night.—(Hear, hear.) If the returns were granted it would be absolutely necessary to - have a valuation of all the Church lands, which would be extremely operose and very expensive. Under theae circumstances, as the returns would not be of the slightest toe, and would interfere with the possession of Church property by those in whose hands it had re mained for many generations, he felt himself bound to re sist the motion. Lord STORMONT begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was intended by his Majesty's GovernMent that the money to be raised by making Bi shops' leases perpetual, was to be applied to other than to ecclesiastical purposes. Lord ALTHORP replied that he should have thought his own language, as well as that of his Right Hon. Gil league last night had been sufficiently clear upon this point. The money which would be thus raised not being consi dered by him the property of the Church, he thought it would be applicable to the purpose of the State, without raising a question upon which he knew great difference of opinion existed. Mr. HAMMOND begged to ask the Noble Lord whe ther be intended to diminish the number of the Irish Bishops in the House of Peers ? Lord ALTHORP said that it was not the intention of Government to diminish the number of Bishops in the House of Peers. bribery was put. Mr. HUME begged leave to ask the Hon. Member for Staffordshire opposite (Mr. Lyttleton), w h o was a member of the Ecclesiastical Commission, whether the Ministers bad direct:d their attention to the subject of the motion of the Hon. Member for Colchester? The Noble Lord's objection seemed to be, that there was at present no measure before the House which would require the assistance of these returns. It was clear however, that if the Church of England were at any time to come under the revision of the House like the Courcb of Ireland, it would be absolut iv necessary that the House should have the information now sought to be obtained. Besides, if the returns should show that .the a►sount of property in the bands of t h e Bi s hops was large, that of itself might be a rea son for bringing the sut ject under the revision of the House. It had often said that the property in the hands of Bishops and clerical corporations, was not more than suffi cient to pay the whole clergy ; and he was not prepared to say in opposition to those who had made the subject their study, that the case was not as they said ; but sup posing that, instead of being worth a million of money, that property were worth ten millions, would not the Noble Lord consider this amount so excessive, compared with the duties to be performed, as to make it his duty to revise its distribution? The Noble Lord bad stated last night, that much exaggeration had existed with respect to the value of Church property in Ireland, and that he himself had thought it much more than it proved to he. Now, might it not happen that the property of the Church in England had been equally exaggerated ? At any rate, they ought not longer to be kept in ignorance. Perhaps, in altogether opposing the motion of the Hon. M em b er for Colchester, the Noble Lord had better lay it before the Ecclesiastical Commission, and consult them as to the possibility of obtaining the information required. Cer ►ain he was, that some way or other it must soon be had. Mr. LYTTLETON, as one of the Ecclesiastical Com missioners referred to, had no hesitation in saying, that compliance with the motion of the Honourable Member would not produce the information required. The only way in which it could be obtained was by va luing all the Church property, which would materially delay the report which the Commissioners were anxious to make. He would take that opportu nity of observing, that never in the whole course of his life, had he met with any body of gentlemen more anxious to forward the public business, and give the fullest information required of them, than the Prelates of the Church of England, with whom he was brought in contact. He had not met with a single instance of conduct which did not do them credit. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that the Noble Lord's prin cipal objection, namely, the expense of procuring the in formation, hardly afforded a sufficient answer to a motion I,f this kind. He did not see there would be much delay oc casioned in furnishing this information, because it was not an inquiry that would have to be directed to all those per sons who were in any way connected with Church property, but merely to the Bishops and Corporations. He submitted that this was not only proper information to be given,hut that this was the fittest period at which it could be given. H e was, as the Hon. Member for Middlesex had said, quite sure sooner or later this information would have to he supplied. If the Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer had come to a determination not to yield to the mo tion, he would not push the question to a divi sion a t that moment, but at some future period be assuredly would. The Hon. Member then withdrew his motion, and gave notice that he would bring it in this day week. The Marquis of CHANDOS was desirous from a cor respondence he had seen yesterday, to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Ad miralty, which was, whether or not there was an order of the Admiralty which precluded officers in the Admiralty, from having command, being in Parliament. If so, bow was it that a Member who served in the House last session, had the command of a frigate, and another was in actual command in the River during the whole time he was in Parliament ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM had not the least hesita tion in saying, that there was no order of the Admiralty which disqualified a naval officer sitting in Parliament from having the command. It was the in variable practice, and it appeared to be the paramount duty of the individual holding the office he now bad the honour to fill, of exercising a discretion in the selection of the officers who were appointed to a command connected with great public duties. If the Noble Marquis should think proper to call in question before that House, the exercise of his discretion in the particular cases to which allusion hail been made, it would be desirable that he should bring the question forward in the shape of a specific charge --(Hear, hear.) The Noble Mar quis was correct in the two instances he had refired to. There could be no doubt that, generally speaking, there was a great difference between the situation of a gentle man chosen by a large body of constituents to represent them in Parliament, and being able to devote the whole of his time there, to that of a gentleman whose active duties required constant residence elsewhere. Mr. O'CONNELL moved that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to direct ri•turns of all the electors resident in each town and city in Ireland entitled to vote at the last general election, Mr. HENRY GRATTAN wished to know whether the Hon. Member had excluded from thit return the Uni versity of Dublin ? Mr. O'CONNELL observed that his motion did not include the University of Dublin. That must be the subject of a specific and separate motion. Me. SHAW saw no obj.ction to the motion, but he conres , ed he could not see the object of it. After 8 ,, 1ne observations from Lord ALTHORP, which were totally inaudible in the gallery, the motion was agreed to, Mr. O'CONNELL observed that yesterday, in conse quence of the statements of the Noble Lord opposite, the Right Honourable Member for Cambridge had moved for a return of all the benefices in Ireland, in which the Divine service of the Church of England had not been performed during the last three years. With the permission of that Right Hon. Mernfier he should wish to substitute in that return the word " parishes" for the word " benefices." If the Right Hon. Member would not adote the adoption of such an altera timn, he (Mr. 0 Connell) would feel it his duty to make a specific motion on the subject. Mr. GOULBURN thought the alteration contemplated by the Hon. Member was calculated to produce great injustice, because in many cases, where parishes had been joined, in one of those parishes the service of the Church of Ireland might not hike been performed for the last three years, and yet the petitioners had received the benefit of divine service in the other parish. Mr. O'CONNELL said that the result of his motion would be, that the House would have a return, from all the benefices, and from all the parishes within those hene fives. He knew of one benefice that was twenty-seven miles in length. In one parish, there were but twenty six Protestants, and there was not a Church within a distance of twenty-five mil, a, Lord ALTHORP objected to the notice, as framed by the Honourable and Learned Member. Mr. O'CONNELL consented to withdraw his motion, and said he would shape one in such a manner as would afford all the information which he required. The motion was then withdrawn. Mr. WARRE moved for a return of all vessels belong. ing to the Royal Navy that have been lost by shipwreck since the Ist of January 1816. SESSIONAL ORDERS. On the motion of Lord ALTHORP, the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate upon the Sessional Orders was read. The Noble Lord, after observing that the motion which he had made did not on the first discussion meet such a favourable reception, stated that he was not prepared to press it, but would move that it be referred to a select committee. The Noble Lord then moved the mud sessional order relative to the inter ference of Peers, Lord Lieutenants of Counties, &c., at elections. Mr. D. W. HARVEY, after allwiing to the late case of the Baron Le. Bode, said that the Committee of Justice, which had formerly been a mere for mal matter, would, if now appointed, be most fit to take such cases into their consideration. In such Committee they could be much better considered than be fore the whole House, attended as it was likely to be now after being reformed. Lord ALTWORP agreed with the Hon. Gentlemen, but he did not see there was any necessity to have a stand- ing committee for such a purpose, as the House could at any time appoint a Select Committee, if a case requiring it came before it. Mr. BARING said that very few of those personal claims came before the House, but were some of the greatest joirt. After a few words from Mr. LYTTLETON, Mr. GOUI, BURN, awl Mr. ROEBUCK, the sessional order relative to Mr. O'CONNELL proposed a slight alteration in it. As it at present stood it denounced the vengeance of the House only upon an individtril who had procured him self to be returned to that House by means of bribery. H e proposed that the order should be so altered as to in clude the individual who had either procured himself to be returned by bribery, or through the bribery of others. Lord J. RUSSELL thought the amendment might lead to the implication of innocent parties. After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, and Mr. OtoNNELL, The S OLICITOR-GENERAL that, with all submission to the House, it was of very little conse quence in what form their order was put, for till the law was amended, all hope of putting down bribery must lie laid aside. The Courts of Justice had determined, and t h at House had recognised their decisions, that there was no bribery unless by previous contract. The " miller" might go round, or " cheesecake " might he distributed after an election, it having been perfectly well understood from the beginning that five or ten pounds should be given to every voter, and yet legal bribery would not have taken p l ace . He, therefore, most earnestly expressed his hope that hi s Noble Friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, would give his best exertions to the subject, without which the Reform Bill would not be perfect. Mr. SHEIL siid it struck him that there were but two effectual preventives against bribery. Respecting one of them there might be raised doubt, namely, the imposition of an oath upon the candidates. The next was, that if an Act of Parliament was introduced to give the power of exhibiting interrogatories by the House to the candidate without releasing him from the necessity of answering questions that might implicate himself, that would be the most effectual mode of putting a stop to the corrupt system. Mr. O'CONNELL proposed, as one of the modes of punishment, to make the guilty candidate liable to the pay ment of all the expenses upon the bribery being proved. He could not but regard the practice of giving sumptuous breakfasts, dinners, and two or three pounds to indivi duals, as in substance bribery. His great object was to bring before the House cases of unsuccessful bribery, and which were not likely otherwise to be brought forward. Successful cases of bribery were likely to be brought for ward by the defeated candid ate, and they would be more frequently brought before the House if it were not for the outrageous expense attending them. No person could bring a ease of bribery before the House from a remote part of the kingdom, or from a borough in Ireland, without the expense of from 1,000/. to 5,000/. There ought to be some cheaper mode of getting at justice. He proposed that there should be a standing committee of pro bably twelve Hon. Members, entitled to take into consi deration all undue interference of Peers and others in the election of Members to serve in Parliament. In his own county he had known no less than five, six, or seven Peers advertising in the public newspapers for a gentleman to come forward and stand for a county, they pledging them selves to support him. He could mention several cases in Ireland in which enormous sums had been refused by per sons for their vote. In one instance, which he could name, an individual who was not worth twenty pounds in the world, had not refused less than two hundred pounds for his vote. The SPEAKER then put the question, and Mr. RUTHVEN rose—He did so, not for the purpose of opposing the proposition, but for the purpose of en treating the Hous- to preserve their character. He had read a report of a Noble Marquis's speech some time ago, how far it was true he could not say, in which that Noble Marquis had been pleased, in speaking of the House, to use language which he considered highly improper; he had said that hitherto it had been an honour to he a representative of the people in that House, but it was now no longer so,---it had been con verted into a receptacle for gamblers, and men who wished to avoid the payment of their debts, and not of persons who came there for the interest of the nation. It Iva, also full of persons who sought to advocate the tricks of Political Unions. Now he (Mr. Ruthven) was not an advocate of the " tricks of Political Unions," but he did not think they were bodies to whom such terms should be applisd.—(Hear.) He was sure he for one was not a gambler or a man of broken fortune.—(A laugh.) He did not allude to this subject from any wish that proceed ings should be taken, but when the public press had been prosecuted for remarks of a similar nature,—when even the printers, persons who gained their livelihood by manual labour, and who suffered most considerably by such proceedings, had not been spared, he thought he could point out to the House higher game for prosecution or persecution. The observation to which he had alluded was one which the author ought to have been ashamed of, or to have retracted. Mr. HUME, as there were some difficulties on the sub ject, recommended his Hon. and Learned Friend to post pone his motion until Monday. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was very much of the same opinion as the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and at one time made a proposition a good deal similar; hut there were several objections made to it, and certainly those objections had some weight. Whenever, however, a good prima facie case of bribery and corruption was brought forward, he thought that then a Committee ought to be appointed by the House to investieate it ; for in his opinion the heavy expense attending Election Committees was a great encouragement to bribery, and if the unsuc cessful candid ate had no hope of seating himself, he would seldom subject himself to such an expense merely for the public benefit, and in order to purify the representation. In the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's general object, therefore, he concurred, and was ready to co-operate with him. It should be a Select Committee, however; for if all who came were to have voices, great inconvenience would ensue. He was also don• tful if the interference of Peers at elections ought to come under the cognizance of such a Committee. For himself, he never thought that the interference of Peers could be wholly prevented ; and the culpability of that interference depended much on its nature. He remembered that during a contest for Cam bridgeshire, several Noble Lords subscribed for the popular candidate, and their names were advertised in the paper. And besides, any gross interference, either by bribery or by intimida.ion, with the freedom of election, was as cud petite in a Commoner as in a Peer. As to the observa tions of a Noble Marquis alluded to by the Hon. Member for Dublin, if either House were seriously to notice the foolish speech. s made in the other, they would have enough to do.—(A laugh.) Mr. O'CONNELL was glad to find that the Noble Lord was matronly impressed with the justice of the view which he (Mr O'Connell) took of the subject ; and that the Solicitor-General concurred in the same opinion. He trusted, tnerefore, that hie 111ajesty's Ministers would avail themselves of the abundant means in their possession to put down the enormous evil of bribety, an evil which had even been increased by the Reform Bill, in consequence of the new classes of voters introduced by that measure. Ile begged leave for the present to withdraw his motion. Mr. FERGUSON begged to ask the Hon. Member f mar Middlesex, whether he wou'd not be induced, after she satisfactory announcement by Ministers last eveimine, to defer the motion of which he had given notice, and which stood for discussion to-morrow ? He thought the Hon. Member might now place the fullest confidence in Mi nisters.—(What motion the Hon. Member alluded to we knew not to a certainty; but surmise that it is one re specting the abolition of all military and naval sinecure appointments.) Mr. HUME would have no hesitation in postponing his motion, if lie could entertain any hope that it would be taken up by his Majesty's Ministers; but as he did not do so, be should decline to comply with the request of the Hon. Member. Mr. HUME wished to ask the Noble Lord (Althorp) if the statement of the death of the Master of the Report Office, which he had read in the papers, was correct, and if the vacant appointment haul been, or was intended to be, filled up ? The emoluments of this situation amounted to 4.5891. 1 Is. 10d. per annum, which sum was paid out of the Court of Chancery. According to a former declaration of the Noble Lord, all offices, as they fell vacant, were to be subject to revision ; and he took it for granted that this was to be the case in the present instance. He would ven ture to throw out a suggestion, that inquiry should be made how far it was necessary to fill up the office at all ; and if necessary, at what reduced salary. It was of great ,m -portance that these points should be strictly attended to in all cans when appointments fell vacant. At present, when any situation fell vacant in the colonies, or in the army or navy, the first intimation the public generally had of it was the appointment of a successor. He should give no.. tice of a motion for a future day, to the effect, that all offices in the colonies, or in the military or civil service, that might fall vacant after that date, should be subject to such revision as that House, or the heads of the depart ments to which they belonged, should deem expedient. Lord ALTHORP was not aware of the vacancy men tioned by the Hon. Member, or the amount of the emolu ments attached to the situation. Inquiry se.ould be made as to the necessity of filling it up. EIIII3ARGO ON DUTCH VESSELS. On the motion that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Sir ROBERt . FEEL said he had intended to avai himself of the opportunity of the House going into a Corn. mittee of Supply, to make some remarks on that Order in Council, which imposed restrictions on British subjects trading with an ally, and authorized the detention of her vessels in our porS. As, however, he did not see the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department in his place, nor the Attorney-General, nor the Le.trned Civilian (Dr. Lusbington), he supposed this would not be a convenient opportunity for him to proceed in what be bad to say. He trusted, however, that by forbearing non•, he would not lose the right on another evening to state his opinions. Perhaps Friday would present a suitable occa• 'ion ; but in ay.iiling himself of it, he wished it to be understood that he intended to confine himself to the clues- tion of the embargo, and not to introduce a discussion on the foreign policy of the Government. It was understood that the Right Hon. Baronet would be at liberty to go into the Nubject on Friday. In answer to a question from Lord GRANVILLE SO. MERSET, Lord ALTHORP said it was the intention of Minishrs shortly to introduce two Bi1!s for regulating the Exche- when n ie R it igh w t as Ho li n k . elyth; 's Chart er wou ld b e quer Court. EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER. question Presi dentllr 0 . f A o . t fh ß et A h Be ß o l: rad G s t olft begged dciaonc brought before the House ? He trus ed That a subject o f t t o r o m o l a6 pa w k n y such magnitude and ilupor!ance would not be deferred till a late period of the Session. Mr. CHARLES GRANT felt that the importance of the subject ha t not been over•estimated by the Hon. Mem ber for Essex. It was now under discussion by Govern ment i and as they were aware of the high interest it matter. r‘ocasioned, they had strong hopes that the be introduced at no distant period. He wou Wedge the Government to time, but be Ester the subject would be brought by them House. .. Mr. WARBURTON wished to know► WI &nee of the Committee would be in the 121 Members. Mr. GRANT could only assure the Hon. no time had been, and no time should be, II The House then went into Committee Mr. Bernal in the Chair. The House resume Mr. SHELL moved for a return o f F e es cers in Ireland on Tithe prosecutions--of th money levied under the Act 2 William IV.. c. number of persons against whom proceeding' had, and of the number specifies in the p) under the said Act.—Agreed to. Mr. BISH withdrew his motion for altFrii of choosing Committees on election petitions. USURY LAWS. Mr. KENNEDY (Tiverton), asked the (Althorp), whether it was his intentiol forward a Bill which he introduced befor in the Session of 1830, to amend the la to Contracts for the Loan of Money, com the Usury Laws ; or whether he considered which did not come within the measures whic introduced by Members of the Government ? Lord A LTHORP said it was not the inter vernment to bring forward any specific measn the Usury Laws. Adjourned at five minutes after seven. iou i ti °,f i th at toit be- Every al, 0 ri es i t ke Every friend to the peace and vvell-being 1 , 41 r 0d i Ireland must rejoice that the plan of Ch 0 1 1 pi' se Reform proposed by Lord Althorp has or Itlii sonde such as to command the cordial assent and 5 i ii 4° ham port of every liberal Member worth nanai e g l ith 0 1 1 1 4 with the reformed House of Commons. The: to ei ii 4 t they y to is tui , eti t i h sna a et t ,is t fha h ac e stiob m ne e e a no su ff r r e tah , me i e f (clo w wuenittimrly:ryit:;nt i ldtu d fe g e e lin v g Y r, v e e it et t and foresight for the stability of the wi g t ; r s l P S e h l a . ve The violent opposition of the Tories, vi i ,'' „ to , e t ' 4 ` l , ott i R. Inglis, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Gnir,l o otr,tB of i would itself go a good way towards con y , te- ble, tal k t tele the nation that there was something 'vet t e, 0t ~ , ."'it,-. something real, something the reverse of : 1 7 ers , retlx.""certair sion, in this proposal of his Majesty's Min' s ' s pi,itnir, of ti On looking over Sir R. Peel's speech, v ve n i t) cN ' 4 .,, ; 111 0a5 n actually amazed at its vagueness And i na- .01 ,0 0(1 4 11 tetapl Notwithstanding all the tact, experienee ,- ;Ay o u t i,letr 1 fertility of objection towards popular me asn diii for 1 )4 . , ,fle S e possessed by that Right Hon. Baronet, he tegisl a Zity 61 not on Tuesday evening bring forward a s i li ttr e :'• T, argument, literally not one, affecting the l e ,i s , adC t t alten of the intended Bill, or illustrative of the re d' o' t' e rag e tions in which the Protestant Church of Ir e) e el l 'lthl . b stand, or ought to stand, towards the Ina, et i,' Xisti ti a tieell o the Irish community. Mr. Goulburn, irw e s ,, e r ° lteh,g ri insti, predicated somewhat concerning the r i d 0140, and and influence of the Church of Ireland , r i _w tta hav e 1 ., reprobated " the deep damnation of, thy ' 1 7 tl k g'inst « taking off" by this measure of rot ° O r then 1. 011 1 ,, - , but as the Right Hon. Gentleman did nO", o f i , 61 n at ?har e I could not, enlighten the House as to the st ts , i,`41.1 14 8 o w " influence and power" which a Church 1; 0 41 1 w er °4 lte, !d i blishment ought to possess, and for wh ic so i , i t.°ticLkady ought to be endowed by the country, bi a 40' a tn o ;'.whi madversion on the subject may go for what " go rl i o4 l 4' 6 o 1 31 worth--an escapade, or burst of burocratie 'O p t al- 3, - and •! row,lhat the future succession to official efsii k pbe e :, ll eus s i age was by an act of state to be lopped : tc 0 Wiesi s many of its most flourishing branches. It f a 1 1Nth at not Improbable that some pottion of the J' l hitol9fr with which this healing policy is receive" b ot ~ Pie t n .a tAl l', the public may spring from no other source ' t eetit t ; sho e the hatred already manifested against it hi or t'goad Y.tvh• ' . 4 lel old enemies of everything like indulgenc e 00 0 1 1 . his liberality towards the bulk of the Irish P°P t u t hip 1 14 tit t eSel sl) tion. Mr. O'Connell must have seen th a- ,,, i 1k°014...°01d general taste of the House of Commons viv' s di. ,P, 4 41 ;44 f oi ave been revolted had he expressed hileso(l hate how f -aodthmeirrwatisioentbaonf the in spirit t s w o h f ic h h ig d h ict a a p te p t l i a t u b skit (; v r ieg e lni i t ! of it through u t g b h e same tune, h ca is m u lo n t qu fa a i l l ifi o e f d vi an o l n i o l eg : , 4 : 1 1: 1 1411t i n h h::::: : upon the minds of his Irish adherents b e- t 4' 4t 9..,, k itity daily for the public peace. Two just and sah j os i, ' I q "b ha d principles are asserted by this m ea sure-' B o,tN,Z i ,rn tne that the resources of the Church are to be t il l ‘itti le It a as far as they will go, available to ecclesiaa it ri; l he t i,!Pon• purposes, instanced in the abolition of vestrir of* ', tl 4 i,' co., sessments, and in the application to the ree ive o ii:ittli?lillg al churches, &c., of a per centage on the in ce s pr op d tilil k i , n 4 e a , of the higher clergy. The second is, th et o nef ii w ir r fesi surplus or saving from Church property , ii ri t o lo ° l l liotili tni providing for the service of religion s e f ag 1 4 ; 1 4 41 ;4e r) ministers, becomes convertible to the uses ° e t, k, . 1 1 .1 1 e WI state. The provision which enables a ten r - peli o N,.l" . be under a Bishop's lease, to purchase a P e o he 11 9,ftvie e; tuity, on paying into a public fund a price t oej n iN l e 'llber regulated by Parliament, will be useful. ch o i i ; v N i to Bishop, it is plain, will be no loser by su o d 1,? , N ta,:of . 4 clause. His income, composed of rent s , w ith L, kle the biennial fines (the renewals being optional s o rit e the Bishop), will be fairly valued, and a. .) t e e tti ' l ?°tshi, , Ir e NI -1 equal to a given number of (six, we belies or e h ow ar pc years' revenue, thus estimated, will be th at 1 4 40 4 far h which each tenant may command his own.rdity !Ott o e ou g i manent independence of the caprice or OP / r odk et l,liti o ,,Y ti t of the Bishop, insuring to himself and his r e s i ) 0 0, h a t h e 1) ;' , th a sentatives the perpetual possession of th e s o kl ) 4 3 ll l: (l ticti subject to the very low rent which the di°Festit bee q ' 'hall is in the habit of receiving. One imPf d r l s te s te e e :c l ll o 4 : . g ( consequence of this charge will be, the itn m , - ,00 I in '' \il l %ll gh and continued outlay of increased capita' alt , k e k is, the improvement of the land, now, for the 5e o f o t 'tl 4 : da res part, in an impoverished condition beean othe t e o ( l et `Tn eees, the precariousness of the tenure. A e f . dif , ,tll- ' 4 44, i and valuable effect must he the cessation ° or ai ` 4 l)li a lls j ilt ferences between the Bishop and his 1 101 e o t1 : 9- ttle tn 0 respecting the terms of renewal, out of vv iis lo ' lll oo o ts , t , have arisen many bitter feelings against the wit h t, iti t i ; ,; ;...wh of the Church, and, taken in connexion s i n st I tisi tt ►eth er the tithe system, much general odium at t he i h ti l t hq th at ' 1 the whole body of the clergy. Athong ear ly i lit 'es, r e 1 461 number of the Bishops be curtailed 11 0 ,0 ~h th t 4 'all '' d one half, we do not think the scale of in e ott at Orel, Jeli gi allotted to them so commendable as the a ej thor f t :2414 1 b ee t" of their numerical reduction. One with o ,t l a e of ' ' 4 414. Whi 1 their net incomes will reach within a t llue ee 1 4 4 e c r eo k it . n al 6,0001. per annum, which, with alldd eerf e r an f the „ptett be it said, is more, by at least a sixth' We k e ' l le C h l tlel eti w t F their station or professional duties call for. c ,i g eti l r Ntlrch , I trust that hereafter, when the case can be i c ' mu st• i f 4 iiti t :4 4. ' at dispassionately, a further prospective a"J ill th ll tht K I %j et ment of the revenues of these dignitaries lag 1 4 'A Nat A blandishmentstakew 1 ich p i t a h c e e y , h a a n v d ean tl db )a e t e , enx f c o pi r t the sake of , en s fo r ilet t i 44 ll 44l l their attention to those religious Pi: i y Fic e n i e i d y : ; ; a: ° o ' b ogi e ‘: 4)( t4 il e je t el 4 l l:•l i ll :c: iit 4 Intertibßi Bishops-1, o h n o p i s n_ay l, be ( f re r a i o t s mn m ea a :liti t s g y h e e o n a m f e P r , al ro vim a elbow hO, translation;-2, incapable (notwit hstau &l ing. 35 i the s , 41 04 IN Althorp's declaration last night) of si r dbhiP 9 ? th e t ha ' e ti " Lords of Parliament." If their L° ot ( lir at t i th itthi tl yth be fairly wedded to their sees, and for ad' If tl, p) ''' 4 1 'Y traced from them by the eagerness or bi lavi,,,Td . 4 , vancement, the cares of l eg islation , _ trop oliot i d e , ; ; ., e tit i th i frequent and costly visits to the In e _ in i s tre he L A O l ttt t l t they will be far more efficient attnt as far - he re w t' lliti tt tors of their several dioceses, as w ell _ rt :bet s tosai e 4 :-A4,7 better able on moderate incomes to still:u ro ot: 3 e 0 ilipth o fatnilieS and to assist the poor, than at t ici ate lilran"kea3lltl Another great advantage which we . i _ o f t . e . t beat 111, a from the liberal and honest construction able' N I t 41 4 Church Reform Bill, and from its 1 min 01 , . , . influence, already apparent, upon t he ini SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNAL GO t etp 1 roatlet°,,gpt ,eetabie lid n ot e%',,'r °Que e d hoped b el "' e ?Pie of eat before I RY' that r hea tbe li„rsisecl, undo of P §litit de 1 . Itenin 'ion inio:te:Daobboegrea:l xigulpggrae:tinua°:t.hae.-1 pro for , A.... a, is i tO Le g . to titjabl le atoolin:A.Alet 6 'e c. 41---01;fow 1 or is ge baq .. to b e °^ R a proclato L effee. Lie eat quest; i ng the en _ c . ue st i o :ugl ~, een l u , h Noble V h at ieft i n 'a to b O l - in , flo , Venj 01 re t h e 41 . ti E ;, taws relays if ' " i ! wally' 'Pllmat We } it a queqdhe C an Ir e . ich ghoul" : of th ath o r c ' b e i nioo of A be b row :tom o r D i , i," Ith n e ef it,:l