The Sun. — London, England, 1833-04-03 00:00:00

f tht prozresA 0 1. which 14 tti he )should e r 6,lent c4hod 0 bad exPr Ire i e , i nest n ole' ;arving P°l 1 that hi' t Lbli ' Jtu 10 0 !S9 CO (fre coo, of "°° c tTlen of og he se n , tl 0 04 . : e pe.P e ° .egl ior the c erved,o th!A e ) oh s no: e rect. for ouP , to pay re je „,ltd 0 , fn ° n9t" t 01' iti us .01 1 \%Tan' sof „l.'s; of Eogi" resolotioo 'Althorp) 5 ' 4 t y uggestioo, . Mr; -m reit ~wood y ° t bieb pa rt of oi opt b fi lve e spi° ( to " died ° be BPr. to ty 'I aPP IIe t nerrirrie° cbs by th d coocl° l4 o o f that oP o t. rt i a l, a 1 l' t4 t oF a te-' bIS t i _and ' e ple o3 / ;he f10a.. 913 ,0 ,bat pua l ,0 1 ,‘ „ iat w— „id in P ra r isoner g iti t unalY nt for tile 0 0 1 '; tst)dioos with er he :ter of , d il e of t he 0 4 j, 11° , t, ifb a t "l Is:q vatio a fo , V r it n°l solidity, No !g a l ias th official con nec ti on s h ould induce him to vote he i felt the clause: of th e Hon. :\lenr , ta for Middlesex, if mat pnd jn.ge zeal and the conv i ct i on that unquestionably ani ed him and many o f th e opponents of military fliggi , n ., ic. i t ho wever, th a t b y f ar ihe majority of t h ose tver e hest ahle ,h to • ), idg e as well as o f those who had to administer the law u•er ' e in favour of the continuance of Midhe power now exercised, and thinking that their consent aim,. i . is eo*tion ought to be obtained before so great . a change was made, he could not bring himself to vote in 4'l4r °I the proposition. There was no doubt that in this. al in ether respects, thg army of Great Britain was in a gradual state of in; roement' and he did not think it I; v'') ,, ttld he safe to disturb the steady ' course of that amelio -11-ni"°:bY a measure of injudicious haste. With every f:rlinn, therefore, to adout the amendment, he did not hi,Ti'eient reliance upon his own judein , nt to w.iri.an With :i uP P'rting it by his vote. He rejected the clause h sine almost amounting to pain, but, at t e. e 'he, with a clear con•eienee. oap,Zaja BERKELEY ailmitte I that many oflicers were s ege t • ! 1) the ab o li t i on of flogging, hut he att r ibute(i , '1 ea ' t' n d i u dgln b h ent to th e sc h oo l i n w hi ch they had been t h•tlt. - ; , 81 1eli a progress in improvement had been , No e :4 t ue army, that he believed the time entirelyascotvould rawtibaolishet% He Was sure that such rse . in, Itan ce Litharaeter of the soldier, and he mentioned , l ohe i r ° ' a man who had twice received five hu 'n n t d t r h e( e l tlighte,'4 knie king down his sergeant, withou t, al . , eli, t c hange for the better in the character o Ai gleht. I f Co °'CONNEIA, said he was happy that the weight 4 o"hment was not thrown into the scale against if, t herei n ' p use ° I . the Hon. Member for Middlesex.. he e soti n , e , the practice of- military flogging "e . re `o b „. 4144 "le's--(livar, hear)—if torture were still to it r °f fil . i„ i° t he British army it would not be the fiu d r ll3 .:` ers , but of the reformed Parliament.—(C . heers o . o ) thei e '. were in eompettlit judges upon the subject, the dee ai Pilni°"°ught therefore tO h ive no influence on al ot , r 4- ' lie call' .'1 upon the Hause to remember, that l Pr et o 'NY done the r• •tice still prevail , d. which still Priv;P 5u wid, a , distance between the officer and the i lu bje c % ,The questio n was, whether not only Britis Put t ' utit t t he very natives of Britain, were to be legally t }, l4 . the d - " tu re ; and he was sorry to see that . many ca l rr„,ne.tip the whites of theirtirl . the strings nf n 'tio‘ '''''' Pertax said) were ready to crack" at the i o °or go ( 4 ‘ l 'ti t i, gg'zig negrues, were not present on th's occa i'llith , h : a vme in favour of their own countrymen.— : eta: riling)-r The House ought to interfereat once 4° ggiu t the degrading practice; and when onc . e tl° cel tg:" a belislied, a better class of men would be in l ':'ttl l ais °t el the army, especially at the present moine , nr, i t 'i,. ° , ° ' was so cheap officert I h o e Ntrt-„Tiatinetion between and private ought n „I""Preservid, and the passage-7 s, Wh i ?, a ,tiu the General's but a choleric word, %Id it , •e‘l in the soldier is flat blasphemy U Ili ' s " : °o longe r be proverbi ml.—(Hear.) He called h t 414 itigt ti ' r ri , ed House of Commons . to . back the soldier ''') \ thruPlaint against corporal infliction.—(Hear, Y !t e l t : n ! V- , t h ) b would ask, had the reformed House h old 4 2 'l it h. cause of humanity ? He well knew ho t : ti;i,that t . C. done ' in opposition to that cause ; but 0 k : 1 ' 4 44' 18 night the Members would he able to retire .y the r. C on s t. tier having given a vote which would satisfy t i 'j'lty c t b el l te ca, and make some little compensation for hi ed ALLY lad done to Ireland.—(Cheers.) hul nb et 1 0 H ORP bad been surprised to hear the Hon. met 4 te t : l Aliddlesex read his name as one of those w a .1 . 1( . ) k, t la 4 , 3 ' Voted for the abolition of corporal punish bad li m il t l a vote ar my He had thought that he had never - "tlt 4 4aint •, t . nuance although he certainly o ° f Pi tti N,at t , P ail v re , d in its s fa c v o o n ur i favour. H . e . ' hail formerly been cf tir e alt a ,.. ae retained that opinion still, that the weight p ll !i t i t 4 .uthority was so great, that it would not be te. thih oi ~ Y to 5h511.11 flogging True, it was a o. '' , lt td '','t at which the feelings in the army. . n ' nature ti ' t ithtii ,b lut he felt that he shouldta . k o e f u h po u n m , a n d in io ise o l p f p a o n . r . , 41 t o ~ e lie of responsibility, if he vote ;itt, .\"ejudrrrnent of those who had the best expe t ') 'itl i - , fe eis ' were still men, and they possessed the 4 : 1 11?,!thPatli. tUl44,4t;etiish-o'f!'_,l,e ;o s nipete i nt to decide on the fitness or . !iiito4icil: i‘i: n o d u ,a e r rin f g or to mi t d i old practice. The clause of dlesex only applied to . Great 4,4tf,e44ll4;Veing Was still . to be allowed beyond the limits t0, 14 t0 n ," !, and that circumstance would materially istiN" lin 'e''tlativ increase the repugnance of the soldiers t r s r l ' :,,, f° ,, r eigr; service. Vll l !' i i d e . „'' - ' I ITEIS observed upon the warrant recently the i p , hieasing the pensions of soldiers—aresolution %to tray, tend still further to lower the character in ilt % " His opinion was, that to imprison soldiersi to mOO 00ttarils would be to make them worse when they 4 ta,(44,11,11,111 when they went in, but he would support "It. p the erection of prisons in barracks. 1,. Cps, raid' b„."NELL explained. to l'ath,'NKlN referred to an experiment he had faile-ri"°)ish :'%irsent of which he was Lieutenant-Colonel, ha ral a "'for th: t POral punishment, which experiment r o d . oftL'elit oh ' "heti began with knocking down the co l p he olaj . op ; t ° the sergeants, and finally threatener t tae ''' d a ' ual. ci • On the other band, when he corn -441 brig" . Spain, had made an appeal to the Of fi tl i , ~..e in he altiOire,'Neot. and for fourteen months no instance lit, 4tliotj Object, e ceurred.—(Cheers.) It would a be h a stid t° he ; t i ° t he Hon, and Learned Member for u - / a ,,;" la '4l4Med that the two regiments he had then Drj e i t' 4,4.44 %vete not only Irish, but Irish par the 4 4 t If''Y setae of tl ord —(Hear.) One was ta llt 11 \ s \I ' lea 'a Itoya 'e l w lrish, and the other the Con attl'iPta-,lng,"ei commonlycalled the Rollickers.— atil "tit'C '"ghter h fact was, that the officers th " t th Le ti th eft ; tt 4 , e ai „_ selves with the men—they had slept "ota r 'eli a ‘ ne tr et - a and endured time same hardships, so Ny tt t ,td g os of a ffection grew up, which was the best l 'ite t „'" at c' h eoce. -- 'Much cheering. ) There were of e ,c'ep p ''' of preserving l / 4 discipline in the army ; one ', ° , 1 41 t is e . '' „ l h t ? t he moral felings of the soldiers, which .. sae 4 " 5 F W° "'" be by far the best way—(Hear)—if it itt ,4l Y '4 " to a nswer; • i 1 4 other hut if it did not answer, then 1 1 :' lie Illethod is to have recourse to physical suf. kft ~,'tlB4 si. IVa4 eeltlfident that the Briti , h a, my, at least aith:', th-rvive, could not be kept together without they I tle1401 ; e tnlT,eera the power of inflicting corporal pu ll' he of t u gh Gad forbi I that such punishment atii tt r . et34. l , e n had recourse to, as indeed it was not. I , l . t til i e , t 4 ti i' ~18 could not let the House go into Corn tla "aid ~,''' 'Jill without recording on that occasion, aa ,It,l),lPUil,bev'Y other, his utter abhorrent..., of this sys. N I.- ''''hnei,"„rucht (Hear ) There might be foun , e t 'aet f,, .'"t4ii for it For instance, it was found that -;Nsho r t ,' ) ,' a nimal ' s were tamed by a course of starva ti, itaa , ,of 'Yil --''' Most laught er , and cries of " .Hear, hear . ..) A 'qina t enuously support the abolition of mi115t,,,,,, st,,,,, , It o • he ( iattl aSf. 1451tER would also strongly support the la 4 4 aot th n ? il i i _ t4 ry flogging as regarded troops at home: w itC t tiV, 14 ° there would he any iiiffi•ulty in finding th t k'espen- 'uhstitute for this mode of punishment. But, t hei t 't th - , 1 the army in service abroad, he must say talt'%„Paiti(,4,!ht s ummary punishment, from the nature of ',, t ' 4, 4 a rilt';;',,e,tild not be dispensed with. They could ~.,q tt.„ ilk eh very well have recourse to imprisonment, ili 'by vet extraordinary mode of punistimen a t a sug . - , ttittertaatlla Hon. Member who spoke last.—(Al"gh,))_ 0 1 6 ' , 15 1 tail, 4 tile h strongly advocated the abolition_ 1 10 : 1 14-4letit with respect to the army at borne, he it' ; ' l l te L t i l v ' i c t to its remission with respect to troops on 5 i111 44 , 0 It• e ". He only asked fur the power to continue ',(11',. th a , l -4 fully convinced tha . t too good a feeling '' . ll‘l ol ' ):' officers to put it into effect very often. T e'P l'e t i 7 ' - v . 0 ; % ) Under the Emperor Napoleon the 'he fa ct been 'kept in tie finest discipline, yet 'l, ' 't , 4 "hrne t seldom or ever heard oi. flepiis'tli*ltl'rthe Point was of honaur had been . kept up to a 'al 4, 1 i a V" In the French army. For himself, he had c ur ttia;:; i e lonian Isles the best possible effects . result Ati nOta l . tu tion of solitary 4:a• ‘t t I %li a , , 11 NI ) ta t ki eot. confinement in lieu of born e ildt he '4l4 4 44 E4 most strongly objected to theextrhae , its,t4tlfitir distinction which was proposed to at 1 1 Z" tr e , li t v ti,04000 in foreign service and troo t p o s the , ° , L ieet,,ataht all soldiers were alike entitled 'er.' i n in a n l vta t A great deal had been said, and . he d e n! raPf'ira; pin F re e% with respect to the fine discipline pr e • • -n o th 'attiol army without the influence of co!- ellartahv4l:tttilaiia.,,' hot Hon. Gentlemen must also bear in h t , ' 4 ~..1„-Tatit were frequently carried into effect rit e r ' l ''i il 'ot: n as .hooting, and obliging deserters to tl a n ur alai ill ett s " v idell, if attempted to be introduced f y,poll, itlit,l.Ovith as much opposition and feelings of a r i'' ' ' 4 , 4 41, ; t ,aa the punishment moved against by • bad dea l `'ll!„,l°r Middlesex. mrl oppoNliz;°socated the abolition of this dreadful ?, - ' ee ts ef le d tih! Punislimetr. Some Gallant Officers c this tll e , al, men ; but he did not think that °LI 'l co t illo ter: trr were the most competent judges l 4 4, g 0 5.. .. ( i je t huro, to 40l °u gh.) No, certainly not. He 1i;%,. Of n, ; ts„ r ei gYman for his opinion as to reform ,„ te a 4,.. gr0 ~,_ , to the West India planter on the sub i''''' the 11 i:%e 4 (41 Cti l it, "Pat nni ; nor to one of his own pro i': his epi„l.--(it 1 4 , 4 nout reforming the lucrative abuses . . 'i to the , °4 bY w hat ) N 0 more then would he be leo N . ! ' " ° nes 41'tit otio a 4t " officer in the army might say. " a 5 4 P P- tell'4 ed • '''' Punishment, there had been dif "ember ) out ,orle Hon. Member, who he sup ithe v ery valuable Zoological So- ciety, Burned to recommend the practice of the Zooloziell Gardens for the army. He did not agree with that Hon. Member in taking a zoological view of the case.—(A laugh.) The present system was a most degrading and demoral'zing one ; the British soldiery might be dealt with i❑ the same spirit with the Roman soldiers :—Facinus est drew Roinatzum verberuri. Sir R. DONKIN explained. Colo❑ei G. LANGTON said, that if it were wished to preserve a disciplined and effective army, they must retain the power of inflicting corporal punishment. He was strongly averse to inflicting it when it could he avoided, hut the power of inflicting it ought to be maintained. Sir. JOHN BYNG said he had tried for two years to do without corporal punishment, but he had found it would be utterly impossible to do without it. If an effi cient substitute for this system could be found, he was ready to adopt it ; but he had heard none such suggested hitherto. He would acid, th tt every year there was a di minwion of this punishment ; still he thought the power f inflict . ng it should be retained. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said this was a paint which he consiikreil of the highest importance, and which he had frequently recommended the Government to take in hand. Corporal punishment was an intolerable system ; and lie was sure the English people would no longer sup port or endure it. He deni,d that it was only had recourse to as an ultintum remediunt.—(No, no ; Hear.) It was convantly practised. He knew nothing hut what appeared in the public papers, but from them it was evident that this punishment was not confined to cases of mutiny. If it were so strongly asserted that the possession of this power was ab,olutely necessary to the good government of the army, why he would consent to let it be retained, hut then it must be circumscribed within well defined limits. When it was much wen se than it is now, there were offi cers found to defend the system as it then existed, yet it was then almost a hundredfold worse than at present ; but such vv.,s the effect of a bad system, that all m n, even those of refined and enlightened minds, would he hardened by the frequent eshibitton of moan suffering. A wise in in li ui said that men ma ere find o' using force as their right hand, and reason as th-ir left. He feared that the existence of tnis practice, and the constant defence of it by officers of the army, ,fforded a great proof of the sound ness of that remark. But the r objections to its abolition were answered by one important tact, namely, that though the practice bad so much diminished as to be, when com pared to what it was 30 years ago, almost as it were abet. fished, still the character, conduct, and discipline of the army had been materially improved. If, then, the power of inflicting this punishment was to be retained, let it he retained within well defined limits. Let mutiny, fairly understood. be punished in this manner ; hut as the matter stood now, there was one clause in ti e Mutiny Bill which, by the introduction of the word " insubordination," would justify any t city officer io inflicting the punishrn, nt for any supposed all', ont.—(No, no.) Let those gentlemen who cried " No," show that he was mistaken, and he should be most happy to hear the truth that convicted him of his error. It was said that in foreign armies men were shot for offence•. He should almost say, then, shoot men ra ttier than keep up triis punishment of the lash, for none could be shot but upon full investigation and solemn sen tence, and it was better that one man should be shot than that the whole army should be disgraced.—(Hear, hear.) In many regiments, the punishment had not been cro p oyed for years. One instance of this, and he mentioned it to the honour of the Duke of Gloucester, was in the Coldstream Guards, while that Illustrious Duke was its cotton inder—(lleas, hear)—and that was occasioned by the attention of the officers to the men, who were thus retained in obedience by aff.ction rather than fear. Some years ago, the infliction of 1,000 lashes was thought no extraordinary punishment ; 1,500 had sometimes been or dered is a sentence, and a man was brought out three or tour, or five times to receive his sentence. If the number was considerable, he was brought out so often that they might almost be said to live under the lash.—(Hear, hear.) These were things past—(Hear, hear)—and gone, and he had no doubt, that if the matter was fairly considered, not these enormities alone, but the whole system might be abolished without the least danger to the good conduct and discipline of the army. The practice of flogging ought not to be kept up for the purpose of continuing in the army men who ought to be turned out of it. They had better be turned out of the army. The motion of the Honourable Member for Middlesex was for the abolition of this system in England, and surely the ex periment might be tried to that extent. He had the authority of officers for saying this, for when he him self had brought forward motions on this subject to abolish the system altogether, they had said that thateould not be done, but that it might be abolished in England, though it could not be abolished with regard to troops in foreign service. Lord Hutchinson had expressed his opinion Vat discipline could be kept up without it, anti with his feelings and with that authority he could not but vote in favour of the motion. He was confident that if his Hon. Friend hail continued in the office connected with the army, the clauses of it would have been framed with a view to abolish the punishment of flogging, and at the same time to substitute something that should have secured the safety of the politic and the discipline of the army. If there was a difference of opinion on the facts, he thought that a Committee ought to be appointed to in quire into theta and to lay the report before the House. Lord PALMERSTON observed, that the Hon. Baronet had the advantage of speaking on this subject from feelings that were natural to all men, and, therefore, was sure to obtain a willing audience. If the House were disposed to consult their feelings alone, there could he no doubt as to the conclusion at which they would arrive. But this was a question not to be disposed of on feeling and senti ment alone, for it involved grave considerations of public interest, and the safety of the public, as well as the com fort of the soldier, and must be decided upon the reason of the case. There was no man who would venture to con tend that a large army could be governed without the power of inflicting upon the men composing it severe punishment. None had ever been governed without such a power. But then Flon..Gentlemen said that they had special objection to this particular punishment. He did not stand there as the advocate for capital punishments, nor to say that they were good in themselves ; for he c.iuld not but admit that their tendency was in some degree to degrade the minds of the men; and the mind it was that was principally affected by this system of punish ment. Hon. Gentlemen who objected to this punish ment did not, however, offer any substitute for it, but paid the Government the compliment of relying on their wisdom to find a substitute. He would rather they should have undertaken the duty than paid the compliment. He repe ited, that the discipline of the army was a subject that did not concern the army alone, but the public Now, what av,s proposed to be substituted for this punishment? First of all solitary confinement ; and one instance was given in which that punishment had pro duced its full effect upon a whole garrison. The Govern ment had not the means of always inflicting solitary confinement. He would give an instance of this difficulty in a regiment of Guards. In that regiment sixteen men were ordered into solitary confinement, and how was the order executed ? Why, they were confined altogether in the cabin of a hulk on the Thames, sixteen feet long by six wide.—(Hear, hear.) He denied that the punishment of flogging was resorted to in the first instance. It was only %Ohre other expedients had tailed that it was resorted to. (Joe mode of punishment had been suggested, which, he had no doubt, met with the appro atom of the Hon. Member for Middlesex—A laugh)—it was one which had the merit of uniting economy with humanity—it was the punishment by starvation.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Those men who wished to see the British army in a state of efficiency, would hardly recommend long abstinence and last. Then they were told, aid "fits eat cab hoste doceri," that they were to look to the punishments in foreign armies. Why in the French army, not flogging, indeed, but corporal punishments were common, and that too without a courtuoartial, and numerous were the cases in which a man might be shot. But, even to say nothing of the suit of punishments there inflicted, he must say that the comparison of the French with the English army did not redound to the honour of the former in point oh discipline.—(Hear, hear.) The contrast, for such indeed it was, observed by tilt• French people themselves to the advantage of the English troops, whom, though invaders, they found to treat them better than tie natural defenders of their soil.—(Hear, hear.) Tue Prussian army, again, was governed with great severity. One of the punish ments was to put a soldier in a room not high enough to stand in, and with sharp spars in the floor, so that he could not lie down without pain; and this punishment was so dreadfully severe, that the ma❑ who was compelled to endure it many hours, seldom survived. The amend ment proposed by the Hon. Member was most impolitic in another respect, for it would have the effect of making that which was at present the most irksome part of the soldier's service still more irksome. He would rather consent to abolish flogging altogether than abolish it at home, arid still inflict it on those who were on ftreign service. The cases which had been quoted to show that this punishment might sometimes be dispensed with, did not justify them in assuming that regi ments could have been so easily governed if the power to inflict the punishment had not existed. But what was the result even in some of them? Why that the men, at last, began to knock down th e non-commissioned officers like nine pins, and the punishment was obliged to be re sorted to to stop the disorder. He called on the House to pause before they agreed to the amendment ; to recollect, that if they took away this punishment, and substituted no other certain mode of maintaining the discipline of the army, they might rep,nt too late the error they had com mitted—they might find that error when they had no longer the power to retract it—and would regret in vain the precipitancy of which reason had at length convinced them that they had been guilty.—(Hear, hear.) - , Sir R. FERGUSON said, that he was an enemy to corporal punishment in the army, hut thought that the power to inflict it ought not to be abolished. If it were, the army would he disorganized. In certain cases — suc h as mutiny, and striking an officer, or actual disobedience, which he called mutiny—it ou!ht to be inflicted ; and in the case of stealing from his comrades, a man should he sub ject to he sent out of the country by a courtmartal. To adopt the amendment of the Hon. Member for Middlesex would be most unjust. If a man was twenty years in service in the line, he did not spend mote than four of those twenty years in this country. He could not vote with the Hon. Member, who, by the motion, placed hitri in an awkward situation ; and be would not vote agiinst him.—(Question.) Mr. ROTCH spoke a few sentences amidst so much noise, that it was impossible to ascertain correctly what he said. He could not understand why the Ministers should have asked for money to build sllitrry cells in all the barracks in the country, if they did not mean to use them. He knew from long experience, that solitary con finement was more efficacious to prevent crimes than flogging.—The House was so impatient, that the lion. Gentleman sat down without stating whether he would or would not support the amendment. We believe he was in favour of it.—( Loud calls of " Question.") Sir F. BURDETT signified his intention to move an amendment on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Middlesex. He would move, " That flogging should not be applied under the Mutiny Act, except in eases of open mutiny, thi,ving, and drunkenness o❑ guard." Mr. HUME was understood to say, that he would not object to the suggestion of the Hon. Baronet, as the co rn _ mencement of a good change. No person justified flog ging except as a matter of necessity ; and if there was no necessity for it in any one point, it ought to be altered on that point. He would accede to the proposition of the Hon. Baronet - , --(Loud calls of " Question.") The House then divided on Mr. Hume's amendment, altered as suggested by Sir Francis Burdett : Ayes Noes l5l Majority for Ministers -11 The report was then agreed to. Mr. HUME, it was understood, then gave notice that he should ag lin take the s.•owe of the House on the subject on the third reading of the Bill. Mr. HU.IE begged to observe that he did not intend to follow up the question which had that n ght b:•en under consiheration. He hoped thit the indication would he duly appreciated ; and having confidence in that hope. he should not press the Government further upon the subject. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned at a quarter before one. HOUSE 'IF LORDS, APRIL 2. O❑ the Earl of SHAFTESBURY taking his seat, The Bishop of HEREFORD presented two petitions, one from the clergy and inhabitants of Hereford, and the other from Buttington, in Montgomeryshire, praying for the better observance of the Sabbath. The Bishop of DURHAM presented petitions for the better observance of the Sabbath, from Lldnidloes, and a place in Northumberland. Tne Earl of ROSEBERY presented petitions from Fife, against church p ttronage in Scotland. Lord CAWDOR presented a petition from Nairnshire to the same effect. The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from Rye and other places for the immediate abolition of slavery. The Earl of RODEN presented petitions, for the better observance of the Sabbath, from Dorsetshi:.e, from Conor, and several other places in Ireland. Also petitions against the system of education in Ireland ; and petitions praying the House to take into consideration the state of the clergy i❑ Ireland. The Earl of WICKLOW said that no measure for the relief of the clergy had been brought forward, or any allusion made to it, by any Member of his Majesty's Government, though Parliament had now been assem bled for a considerable period. A Bill had been brought forward for taxing the property of the clergy in I. eland, whilst the means of obtaining their incomes had been taken away, for the Bill passed for the enforcement of the payment of tithes had already expired. He trusted that it was the intention of Government to bring forward a measure for their relief as soon es possible after the recess. Lord MELBOURNE said that the state of the clergy of Ireland had not escaped the attention of Ministers, and the introduction of measures upon the subject would not be long delayed. Lord AUCKLAND presented petitions praying for the abolition of slavery. Lord KING presented petitions for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of taxes on knowledge, and for the introduction of poor laws into Ireland, from parishes in Sotnersetshire ; for the abolition of tithes, from Killaloe and Killee, in Kerry. He would now take the opportu nity of saying a few words upon the subject of the Welch church. He thought that the Riiv. Prelate, (the Bishop of St. Asaph) who the last time he was present in the House had made a statement totally un founded in truth, would, as soon as he had found out his error, have taken an early opportunity of retracting that statement. He stated that Christchurch College derived 4,0001. a year from a parish in Wales, and said that he stated it upon the authority of a book published by Mr. Johnnes.—(Hear, hear.) Now, in that book there was no such statement, and the revenues of Christ Church College derived from that parish were only 2,500/. When the Rev. Prelate came down to destroy the charac ter of soy author, he ought to state the case truly, and not state what was totally false. The Bishop of St. ASAPH said that he regretted ex tremely that it was not in his power to have been in his place I.st night, as he was very unwell. He regretted also that their Lordships should be troubled upon so in significant a subject as himself, but thanked the Noble Baron for the opportunity he had given him of answering it, and of proving to their Lordships that the statement he had made was not false The Noble Lord had endea voured to prove that he (the Rev. Prelate) must have been well aware that there was a second edition of that book, but in that be had totally failed, for the fact was, he had not referred to the book at all, hut made his statement from a letter he h 1d received from a clergyman in his diocese. Then, with regard to the petition which had been presented last night, it very clearly came from the same hand as the for mer ; and he believed that he could state to the House the reason of that Gentleman's hostility to Mtn. The fact was he believed that the essay was very heavy of sale, and was not likely to repay the money it had cost. lie therefore took that course in order to give the work notoriety, and so increase its sale. He would mention only one other instance of the incorrectness of the assertions put forth in the work. the revenues of the bishoprics were estimated at 9,2761. He would only say he would be very glad if that statement were true. It was a gross misrepresentation, which could be easily seen from the return he had made to the ecclesiastical commissions. The Bishop of St. ASAPH explained that, in the re marks he h made on a former occasion, he had nut al luded to a relative of the Noble Marquis in the other House of Parliament. IRISH DISTURBANCES BILL. The Lord CHANCELLOR, the Alarquis ot LANSDOWNE, and the Duke of RictimoND, sa• as Ctimmissioners to give the Bop! Assent to the Irish Disturbances Bill and two others. Lord REDESDALE presented petitions against negro slavtry, and fur the better obtervitnce of the Sabbath. Lord LYNDHURST postponed the further comide ration of a Bill on the subject of the administration of Justice. Lord WYNFORD hoped it would be brought forward the first day after the Easter recess. Lord PLUNKET might then be obliged to be ab sent in Ireland—he had many objections to the Bill, but as it did not affect that part of the kingdom, he should not press for its immediate consideration, but should content himself with.having done his duty in stating his objections to it. IRISH JURY BILL. Lord PLUNKET moved the .Leond reading of this Bill. Lord CARBERY said, in his opinion the whole in tended effect of the 13,11 was to be found in the first clause, by which men who had a certain amount of rent in the country—for instance, 151., were to be put upon the jury list. Why, many of these persons could not read the issue they would have to try, and many of them were even ignorant of the English language, yet their names were to be put into the book, and the judges would have no power of objecting to them. If this Bill were to pass into a law, he was convincea that there would be an end of justice, and of the security of the subject. The law would he liable to be abused by a bad or a corrupt sheriff. The Ea! of WICKLOW thought it would be better to continue the present system than to adopt that how proposed. It was said, as a reason fur introducing this Bill, that the present system did nut work well. That wee a most manifest error. Let them consult the twelve judges on that point. They desired no change, but merely said, that if this Bill was to pass ; certain altera tions which they mentioned ought to be made, but they thought it not desirable to alter the law. This proposed chance did not come from the Commissioners appo , nted to inquire into the state of the country ; for, let their Lordships look at the fifteen reports of those Commis ' sioners, and they would find that, although the state of the jury law in England vas there alluded to, they did not recommend that the same law should be introduced into Ireland. It came in fact from a certain individual who had obtained an undue ascendancy, and it could be looked upon in no other light than is a new ingredient in the sop to Cerherus. Their Lordships had not a choice whether they could reject this Bill—such an alternative was not l e f t them: because the Government was pledged— most unadvisedly, as he thought—to this measure. It was therefore impossible that they should reject it. S•tll he acknowledged, that when compared with the last Bill on that subject which hail been before their Lordships, it was decidedly of an improved character, though those improvements were not so great as their Lordships were led to believe they would have been. He willingly ad mitted that it was devoid of many of the objections which were observable in the other Bill—that in regard to special juries, it adopted the suggestions of the judges—but its main faults still remained. The jury book must he had from a class he cool i not approve. Such a host of persons were admitted—such a crowd of individuals as would disgrace any court of justice, and he sincerely hoped that this would he corrected in the Committee. Their Lordships must all know that it Was a total deviation from the constitution to make a money qualification the sole qualification for these important duties. The sheriff's oath, too, bare stronely upon this point; aril without its repeal he did not see how they could pass this Bill. Lord WYNFORD said their Lordships were now asked to pass this Bill, which gave to popular feeling a greater sway, and a stronger power than it had ever berme been allowed to assume. He should endeavour to prevent his Noble Friend, who spoke I ist, from proposing any amend ments in the Committee, for he looked upon the principle of the Bill as so bad, that he should move the House to reject it altogether. He greatly blamed the Government in this matter. There was no consistency in their pro ceedings in thus bringing forward a coercive Bill to cor rect and Centro] popular feeling, and a Jury Bill to give energy and force to it. Surely they might have stated some good that was to be wrom.ht by this Bill—some mischief which required a departure from the principle of the esta blish d jury laws in Ireland. Why was the duty which had hitherto devolved upon the sheriff taken from him by this enactment? Could any man state that? What had been their faults—where were their errors ? They were called upon to pass an imputation on every man in Ireland, because there was a movement of some kind or other in Dublin. Their Lordships ought to maintain some proportion he. tween the proposed enactment and its object. Now, as to special juries, he took the Bill itself as sufficient evidence that there was not a sufficient class in Ireland from which to form them as there provided; and that they would have to betake themselves to the common jury list. It might, therefore, happen, that though a person ought to be tried by a special jury, he might, nevertheless, he in fact tried by a commen jury. The object of the Bill was to assimilate the Irish to the English system of trial by jury. Objecting as he (lid to the principle of the measure, be would move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE defended the prin ple of the Bill. Lord ELLENBOROUGH was quite sure that the Noble and Learned Lord was anxious for the fair admi nistration of justice, and that he would acquiesce in any amendment that would improve the operation of the Bill, and more especially that would show the animus with which it was passed ; for it appeared tell him that there was not so much danger from the actual provisions of the Bill as from a misinterpretation of the motives of those provisions. What he dreaded was, the inference that would be drawn from the enactments, rather than the enactments themselves ; if the Bill were passed in quiet times, it might lie attended with no inconvenience ; but, being passed in very unquiet times, he feared its effects might be injurious. What was the ground-work of the Bill? Had any complaint been made of the recent prac tice with respect to the empaunelling of juries in Ire land? So far from that, the juries there had conducted themselves in a manner to excite astonishment, and had given more courageous and better verdicts than could have been expected. And why ? In consequence of the man ner in which the sheriffs had exercised their functions. The Noble Lord here referred to the evidence which was given before a Committee of the Lords on that sub ject, in order to prove the good composition of juries in Ireland. It was very rarely that be differed from his Noble and Learned Friend behind him ; but he doubted whether his Noble end Learned Friend was right in supposing that the Bill origin .ted with Mr. O'Connell ; because he held in his hand evidence given on oath by that Hon. and Learned Gentleman, of a contrary tendency. The Noble Lord here read the evidence in question, from which he deduced the inference, that even now the sheriffs in Ireland were met enabled to select a sufficient number of proper persons for special juries. And yet, the object of the Bill was to bring inferior persons into special juries instead of superior persons, which were required. lie was quite aware, however, that his Alejesty's Ministers were committed to the Bill; and he regretted it, because lie could see no reason for the measure. The Earl of RODEN wished to state the ground upon which, in addition to the grounds stated by the Noble Friends near him, he opposed the Bill, which he considered a most dangerous tmasure. That ground was, that the present judges of Ireland were unanimously opposed to the soul of the measure—namely, the jorixs' book. He deeply regretted that the Noble and Learned Lord had brought it forward. There was no good reason why any change should be made in the present mode of striking juries in Ireland. But as his Noble and Learn. d Friend near him had observed, it was a sop given to Cerherus. It was for the purpose of redeeming an unfortunate pledgeb although at a risk of the lives and property of his Majesty's loyal subjects in Ireland. Lord PLUNKET, in reference to the expression which the Noble Lord who had just sat down had re peated, after the Noble and Learned Lord opposite— namely,m- m,if at a t h i o a , t s t t h o e k ß n i o l w l w t a h s e a m s e o a p n i t n o g C o e f r Cerberus, s e , x d p e r c e l s a s r i e o d n i he were compelled to guess who was meant by Cerberus, he should say that he supposed Mr. O'Connell. Whether Alt. 0 Connell would be a proper guardian for the place of which Cerberus was the keeper, it was for the Noble Lords to say ; but he (Lord Plunket) had not introduced the name of Mr. O'Connell. Too much stress had been laid on the name of that gentleman. He (Lord Plunket) was not to be induced to bring in a Bill because Mr. O'Connell approved of it, or to be diverted from bring ing in a Bid because Mr. O'Connell disapproved of it. All that he asked himself was, if the measure was a fair and a proper one. But there never was a more wild and ridiculous supposition, than that the present Bill origi nated from any suggestion of Mr. O'Connell. It was founded on the measure introduced by Sir Robert Peel, who certainly was not very likely to act in concert with Mr. O'Connell. If this were a Bill intented to conciliate Mr. O'Connell, he (Lord Plunket), found himself in good comp tny in proposing it, for is was not his 13-11 alone; It was likewise the Bill of the Right lion. Gentleman who lately held the office of Chief Secretary of Ireland, and of the Solicitor-General of Ireland, as well as of Sir Robert Peel. It was not a measure founded on any new principles ; it was founded on practical knowledge, for the greatest part of it had already been adopted in England. The Noble Baron bad taunted them with wishing to assi milate the laws of Ireland to those of England. Did the Noble Lord mean to say that it was not right to do so?— (Hear, hear.) He (Lord Plunket) did nut mean to say that a difference ought not to be made in the laws, ac cording to the habits of the country for which they were intended. He allowed it, and, acting upon that principle, had made such altemions as he thought necessary, in order to suit the laws in force on the subject in England to the state of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) And would the Noble Lord say that it was improper thus to assimilate the laws of the two countries? For his part, he would con sider that it would not only be absurd, but dangerous, to act On a contrary principle. He regretted that Noble Lords, in discussing the measure, had not confined themselves to the consideration of the question before them, but had wandered from it in order to make unnecessary attacks on the Government It had been said that this was an im proper time for the introduction of such a measure; that it was not at the very time when they had passed a Coer cive Bili which might abolish trials by jury in Ireland, they should bring in a Bill for the regulation of juries. lie could not agree with the Noble Lord who had made that assertion. He thought that there could not be a more appropriate time to introduce a measure for the improve ment of the administration of justice in Irelaud, than at the time when it was found necessary to employ harsh measures for the suppression of the disturbances. It would show the people of Ireland that the Government, while they were ready to adopt 'effectual means fur the suppres sion of those disturbances, were likewise ready to improve the course of justice. It was by a gradual succession of suc h improvement s that they could get free of that terrible l a w, and relieve the p eop l e f rom i ts operat i on . Th e N o bl e Lord had said that the present measure would destroy the sharacter of jurors. W as t h e N o bl e L or d aware o f t h e qualification whichentitle f i itt irt to be a juror as the law at present stands ? What did their Lordships think wq' the qualification? From the manner in which the Nehl Lord had expressed himself, they must think that the ' qualification could not be less than 100/ at the very least. No ; the qualification was, that the claimant should he in possession of a 40s. freehold. And the only difference made by the present Bill was, that the persons qualified instead of being, as formerly, forty. shilling freeholders, should be 15/. leaseholders : a change which he hoped flair Lord ships would consider an improvement. The Noble Lord had likewise said, that the change in the qualification of the jurors was nettle in opposition to the opinion of the judges. Now the fact was directly the reverse; for they had, in direct terms, a; proved of the contemplated change in the qualification. He, therefore, thought that he hid a right to complain that the Noble Baron should have stated that he had brought forward that measure in oppo sition to the opinions of the judges.-Hear, hear.) He had a great respect for the great learning and experience of the judgis of Ireland ; but he could not allow that they Were n.t to legislate on the laws of that county without their consent—(Hear hear)—or even in opposition to tleir opinions. That, however, was not the case in the present instance, for they did approve of the measure. He denied another assertion made by the Noble Baron— namely, that that Bill h a d b een formerly rejected by the ll , use when brought before them. That was not the case. The Bill had been referred to a Select Committee of the House ; but before the Com mittee could make any report the House ad journed, and sets soon afterwards dissolved, by which all the previous proceedings taken fell to the ground. He now came to the main objection stated by the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord objected to the clause which took from the sheriff, who is the sworn officer of , h Crown, the privilege of choosing jurors, which, as the law at present stands, he had. And he stated very justly and propedy, that the amount of property was not the propel criterion by which tin judge of the qualifications of a man for that duty. He (Lord P.unket) did not deny that there was some difficulty in th it part of the measure, and he had taken considerable pains to consider it; and he would then state bow he hoped to overcome the objection. By the Bill before them, the barony collectors were to make returns of the names of all /persona witWn their district who were, by right of property, qualified to sit as jurors. In England that duty was performed by the overseers of the poor, but there being no overseers of the poor in Irel and, he could not follow that part of Sir R. Peel's Bill. The returns were to be made by the collectors, to the clerk of the peace, and the justices were empowered at the quarter-sessions to strike out the names of all improper persons, and to add the names of such as were entitled to have their names inserted. There was also a clause inserted, which spe ciaily reserved to the sheriffs all the jurisdiction which they had as the law at present stood. He (Lord Plunker) thought that the Noble Baron would more readily approve of that part of the Bill, when he was told that it was adopted on the suggestion of the twelve judges. lie would add, that he meant, if the Bill went into Com mittee, to add a clause, by which retailers might be added to the list of special jurors, if they proved that they were in possession of the sum of 5,000/. The Noble Lord con cluded by saying, that so far from considering it impro per to introduce the Bill, on account of the Bill which had lately passed that House, it was the very reason why it should be adopted. Lord WYNFORM and Lord PLuNKET mutually ex plained. After which, Lord Wynford's amendment was nega tived without a division.—The Bill was then read a second time, and was ordered to be committed to-mor row (this day). The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Ciitheroe, tor the prevention of Sunday trading, which he said had no reference to the Bill on the same subject before the other House.—Laid on the table. The House adjourned at nine o'cl,ek. FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. WAR-OFFICE, APRIL 2. MEMORANDUM.—The half-pay of the undermentioned Officers has been cancelled from the Ist instant, inclusive, they having accepted a commuted allowance for their commissions, viz : Lieut. R. Wallace, half-pay sth Foot. Ensign Thomas Evanson, Retired full-pay sth Royal Veteran Battalion. Lieut. H. J. Brownrigg, half-pay Unattached. •: Cornet It. Coleman, half-pay ~ . 2.(1 Light Dragoons. Lieut. M. Handcock, half-pay 89th Foot. Ensign M. Stewart, half-pay 91st Foot. Lieut. J. B. French, half-pay 9th Light Dragoons. Ensign G. Smith, half-pay 38th Foot. Lieut. J. Ready, half-pay 34th Foot. Lieut. W. Lcmon;us, half-pay York Light Infantry Volunteers. Lieut. J. R. Griffiths, half-pay 5:2e1 Foot. Assistant-Surgeon W. B. Clements, half-pay 9th Foot. Ensign J. Mglitosh, half-pay 70th Foot. Assistant-Surgeon G. Portelli, half-pay 10th Foot. Capt. A. W. Ludwig von Schlutter, half-pay Ist Line Batta. lion King's German Legion. Lieut. J. Wittmer, half-pay de Meuron's Regiment. Lieut. J. K. Taylor, of the 16th Foot, has also been allowed to retire from the service, on Ist instant, receiving a commutation for his commission. WHITEHALL, TREASURY-CHAMBERS, JAN. 23. The Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury have con. stituted and appointed Joseph Phillimore, Esq., Doctor of Laws ; William Empson, Esq. ; and Henry Marten, Esq., to be Commissioners of French claims. BANKRUPTCIES UPERSEDED. GEORGE BYERS, hatter, Pall-mall. JAME • LUPTON and JOHN HUDSON, commission wool_ agents, Wakefield BANKRUPTS. CHRISTOPHER 1.111,TC ALF, common-brewer, Leeds, to surrender April 13, at half-past one, and May 14, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Brooking and Surr, Lom bard-street, London. JAMES MEEK, wine -merchant, Strand, April 16, at ten, and May 14, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Fowler, Clement's Inn. JOHN ATTREE, grocer, Brighton, April 16, at ten, and May 14, at eleven, at the Court of Barakruptcy. Wire, St. Swi thin's-lane, London. JOHN SLATER and WARD SLATER, grocers, strand, April 12, at two, and 11lay 14, at twelve, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Adamson, Ely-place. JOSEPH CHA LESWORTH, merchant, Halifax, York shire, April 19, and May 14, at twelve, at the White Swan Inn, Halifax. Jaques, Battye, and Edwards, Coleman-street, Lon don ; Edwards, Halifax. SETH STEVENS, builder, King's Swinford, Staffordshire, April 16, and May 14, at twelve, at the Royal Hotel, Temple. row, Birmingham Clarke, Richards, and Medcalf, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London Mason, Bilston, Staffordshire. JOHN MATCIiIT'I and RIDLEY JOHN MATCHITT, grocers, Derby, April 20, and May 14, at twelve, at the Bell Inn, Derby. Scargill, Hatton.court, Threadneedle.street, London ; Smith and Spencer, Derby. GEORGE BA REHEAD, corn-merchant, New Malton, Yorkshire, April 15, and May 14, at eleven, at the Old Sand Hill, Collier Gate, York. Lewis, Ely-place, Holborn ; Ander son, Castle Gate, York. RICHARD CU RTIS, tanner, Warrington, Lancashire, April 19, at five, 20, at eight, and May 14, at three, at the George Inn, Warrington. Milne, Parry, Milne, and Morris, Mitre-cuurt, London ; Neville and Eccles, Blackburn. THOMAS WATKINSON, tobacconist, Liverpool, April 14, and May 14, at one, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool. Leigh, George-street, Mansion-house, London ; Leather, Liverpool. DIVIDENDS. J. Bartholomew, upholsterer, Derby, April 23, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Williamson, worsted-spinner, Keigh_ ley, Yorkshire, Apt il 22, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy— W.Mabley, pawnbroker, New Bridge-street, Vauxhall, April 24, at half-past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy—S. Barnett, mercer, Conduit-street, Bond-street, April 13, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy—George Underwood, bookseller, Fleet street, April 23, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy— G. Stovell and It. H. Maddox, Hanover.square, uphol. sterers, April 29, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy -D. Currie, army accoutrement maker, April 23, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Blake, chymist, Norton folgate, April 23, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy--J. T. and W. Perkins, pattern card-manufacturers, Monmouth-street, Soho, April 24, at twu, at the Court of Bankruptcy-11. G. Bowyer, grocer, Brick-lane, Old-street, April 24, at one, at the Ctiturt of Bankruptcy—J. Fox, cabinet-maker, Newgate-street, April 23, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy—G. Spittle, horse dealer, Francis-street, Tottenham-court-road, April 23, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Love, ironmonger, Havant, Southampton, April 2.3, at twelve, at the Bear hin, Havant—E G. Blackband, grocer, Macclesfield, April 25, at one, at the Macclesfield Arms Hotel, Macclesfield—T. Piper, grocer, Walsall, Staffordshire, April 19, at eleven, at the White Hart Inn, Digbeth, Birmingham—J. Blackford, watchmaker, Devonport, April 25, at ten, at Elliott's Royal Hotel, Devon port—C. Potter, E. Potter, and S. Roberts, calico-printers, Man chester, April 25, at nine, at the Palace Inn, Manchester---W. Fernley and T. Buckley, cotton.spinners, S ockport, April 24, at nine, at the Star Inn, Deansgate, Manchester—S. Huxtell, New House Farm, Thannington, Kent, May 20, at eleven, at the Guildhall, Canterbury—T. Hollins, saddler, Salford, Lancashire, May 6, at nine, at the Palace Inn, Manchester—R. Charles, ship-chandler, Liverpool, April 24, at twelve, at the office of Mr. Mawdsley, Liverpdol—R. Humphrys, woollen-draper, Winchester, April 25, at two, at the White Hart Inn, Winchester—T. Jackson, miller, Laverick Hall, Ennerdale, St. Bees, Cumberland, April 30, at the Black Lion Inn, White haven—H. Owen, corn-dealer, Liverpool, April 25, at one, at the Office of Mr. Hinde, Liverpool. CERTIFICATES.—APitn. 23. W. Poile, dealer, West End, N..rtholt, Middlesex—J. Knibb, H bookseller, St. Helen's, Worcester—J. ornby, corn-merchant, Liverpool—S. G. Sikes, banker, Huddersfield, Yorkshire—W. Plowright, wine-met chant, Wells-next-the-Sea, Norfolk—J. Woods, coal.metchant, Liverpool—C. A. Bushby, builder, Brighton—F. Burgin, tanner, Staffbrd—J. N. Andrews, vie [natter, Northampton—J. Proctor, wine -merchant, Gould-square, Crutched-friars--F. Taylor, carpenter, South Molten-street—G. Stovell, upholsterer, Lower Grosvenor-street, St. George's, Hanover-square—G. Mathews, wine-merchant, Lawrence Yount ney-lane—J. Briggs, builder, Leeds, Yorkshire—J. R. Cureton, fishing-rod manufacturer, Cannon-street —Cl. Cooper, stationer, Exeter—J. 111 , Cormiek and A. MiCormick, drapers, Leeds, Yorkshire—M. Thompson, coal-merchant, Red Cross Wharf, upper Thames.street. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. J. Tootal and W. Tootal, corn-merchants, Wakefield, York. shire—H. Verey and M. Lemon, hatters, Oxford-street—J. P. Gibbins and J. N. Gibbins, drapers, Rathbone-place—C. Ains worth and Co., calico-printers, Barrow-bridge, Lancashire—M. ci r. Walker)—J. oi a( i l.coe, a e tr Wood and W. Wo o d , i ronmongers, Leeds— as ü ß a r r e e s b , R o binson amid E. D. Robinson, plumbers, Brentford, Middl esex W. j k a —A. A. Woolf and Ce., corn - merchants, High-street, White. c hapel—T. Fulham and J. T. Fulham, ironfounders St. Luke's _W. Bruce and Co., cloth-manufactur ers , Leeds (so ' far as re gards Leicester—C. Birchenough and I. iN k, d ury, Cheshire—J. Griffith and Co., e l t s ilk-mercers, Wein, Shropshire ( s o f ar as regar d s J . G r ifti t h) — W. Neville and A. H o ld en, coach-ironmongers, King-street, Holborn—W. Grant and J. M organ, li nen-drapers, Wi nslow, Berkshire—J. Cooper an d J . S ki nner, i n lzklayers, Westbourne t r r eat' cheuinclhic-o—streCei _S jtepshteaonsionng andandJ. W. Starling, Ha r , hatters, attrs ironmongers, orea t Yarmouth—J. Wright and G. Wright, timber-merchants, Stour. so DALKIETH CORN MARKET.—March Wheat. Barley. Oats. Pease. First 66s 04 32s td 22s Od 30s Od C2s Od 28s Od IN Od 28s Od Third 42s Od 244 Od , IBa Od 24s (Id Beans. 306 Od 28s Od 446 Od THE INVISIBLE GENTLEMAN.—" The ad ventures of this remarkable and truly original story, fol low each other with delightful rapidity and variety, and wild as is the source from which they spring, they are in themselves characterised by nature and virisirni litude. The latter is, indeed, one of the principal charms of the work, and is sustained not merely by simplicity of style, but by general conception and management of cha racter."— Court Magazine. CONSTANCE, oR LIFE AS IT IS.—" Among h e characteristics of this work (attributed to the pea of Mrs. TuomsoN, the successful author of the Life of Henry the Eighth) is a keen feeling of the beauties of nature, without being wearied by description ; the most touching scenes take an added grace from the natural liveliness more indicated than delineated, and we leave Constance,' in the co nv i ct i on t h at the work will be a favourite with all who enjoy and appreciate a picture of real life, drawn with equal truth, gaiety, and feeling, the three graces of fiction."—Literary Gazette. SCOTCH ENTAILS.—TiIe Select Committee on Scottish entails have reported to the House that the Lily on this subject demands immediate alteration a nd amendment. In their opinion " the power of settlin g land substantial the in. Scotland under entail should henceforth be sub ject to such limitations as shall not materially interfere with the uterests of successive generations, and of . the commu n i ty at large." They recommend the new principle to whiche let in ui~j u ee p t on a e n x rie,hts and interests of individuals." The report eoucludes • • th.t the Clistrnam tiring in Bills ist with an instruction at:cords:lce with the report. etinetig actederi ail w s iatthtahedueeacheegsatrpdetr:iodthaet port, WorcestcrEtire----W-I.'ShZems:r- and V.'. D:.ke, ta;lor6, Li. s'po , l—S. P. Wright atid-T. Duithage, wliNtlng-I;rush zr,:tuta f..eturers, Citristoplu.r.strect, 11 .:tton-g.arden—R. :cholison and Co., lillen-drapurs, Yo. k, as hr reg.:rds G. lluthon —G. Me rington and Co , linen-drapers, N . e W Bond -street—J. Hall, jun., and G. Hall, grocers, Whitby, Yorkshire—l. Bullinan and Co., tailors, Ashton-under-Lyne—J. Harrison an d T . Vs ilde, silver. nianufacturel - s, Sheflield—J. Johnson and Co., shopkeepers, Hudderstield—W. Liddle and IL Poole, auctioneers, Newport, Shropshire, LONDON MARKETS. (Frain the " London New Price Current" of yesterday.) SUGAR.—The demand for coloury sugars last week was considerable, and as the reduced stock consists chiefly of the very low descriptions, an advance of Is. per cwt. was obtained on the fine; the other qualities were without alteration in prices, but there was generally more inquiry for sugars, and the estimated sales during the week were 3,000 hhds. and tierces; it is calculated there are only 5,00011105, and tierces in the importers' hands in London. The stock of Writ India Si.lgar is now 11,757 hhds and tierces, which is 3,481 more than Tact year. The stock of Mauritius is 48,180 bags, bring 4,651 more than last year. The delivery of West India Sugar is 2,371 lids and tierces, being 584 more than last year. The delivery of Mauritius 6,796 bags, being 1,553 less than the corresponding week of 1832. There is snore business doing in sugars th,l morning. At the close of the market the estimated sales were 1,200 hhds and tierces ; the market is Is. lower for brown sugar, on account of the eagerness of the holders to sell ; the prices of coloury sugar are supported. Bright brown Sugar sold to day 465. and 475. In the refined market there was little alte ration last week ; the prices of the low goods are well supported ; the fine being in snore plentiful supply, are offering on rather lower terms ; crushed 295. In the RefirnAl Market there was no alteration this afternoon, the inquiries have rather in. creased. EAST INDIA SUGARS.--The sales are still confined to small parcels good white Siams 235. and 245.; yellow 18s. and 19s. ; Bengal white 22.5. a 245.. ; Java 225. a 2.35. This day's public sale 276 bags fine yellow to low white Siam 20s. Gd. a 21s. fid. former prices. MAURITIUS SUGARS.—There have been no public sales since Tuesday last; the prices by private contract are without alteration, with more firmness in the Market. This day's public sale 1,‘.2 - 21 bags were low washed Sugars from the Cape, forming no criterion of Market prices. FOREIGN SUGARS.—At public sale 1,794 boxes Havan , nah Sugar, very strong white 275. a Zs. 6d., good yellow 6d. low to good white 2.45. a 275. being heavy at former prices. This , day's public sale 136 boxes Havannah, ord. to good white sold 255. 6d. a 28s. about former prices. COFFEE.—There was no alteration in Foreign or East India Coffee last week, but generally the Market appeared very heavy. The British plantation descriptions continued in good demand for the home consumption, and the prices in several instances were Is. a 2s. higher, Jamaica clean triage sold 70s. a 755. Gd., fine ord. Sts. a 84s. ; Sumatra sold 475. a 475. 6d. ; Havannah good ord. pale 51s. 6d. up to 555. 6d. for fine ord. ; for the coloury Ceylon 5-1 , . The Market this afternoon is steady, only 10 brls. Jamaica at public sate. RUM, BRANDY, •ND HOLLANDS.—There is little doing in Rum; the Market continues very dull, and purchases may be made a shade lower. Brandy is at a small decline; the best marks 3s. I Id. a 4s. Geneva is at nominal quotations, on ace count of the few transactions lately reported. This afternoon proof Leewards appear scarce, no parcels offer at Is. 9d. Rather considerable sales of low quality Jamaica Rum are reported, 30 over, at 2s. 7d. a 3s. TA LLO W.—The Tallow Market continues very heavy, and lower. OlL—Fish Oils remain as last week, with a fair business. Linseed Oil, owing to the export demand, has advanced to X/. per ton, and, from scarcity, is expected to go higher. INDIGO.—The deliveries of Indigo this month are nearly one.third more than in March of last year ; the improvement is in the home consumption of the country. The quantity now declared for the India House Sale on the 16th instant is 4,348 chests, a very large proportion is of good strong con suming qualities; taking last sale's prices they are valued at 3s. 6d. a 3s. 104. ; 189 Madras, pretty good quality. The whole sale, it is expected, will not exceed 5,000 chests. COTTON.—The Cotton Market is very steady, but the purchases reported are quite inconsiderable. TEA.—The delivery has again last week exceeded a million of pounds weight; the Market remains firm. SALTPETRE.—There is no alteration in the demand or in the prices of Saltpetre. This day's public sale 300 bags, 836 re fraction, sold 30s. a 30s. 6d.; Company's Refined may be quoted 325., British 345. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING THE WEEK. Wheat. Barley. s. to s. I s. to s. t 48 24 57 34 53 67 345 41 42 58 24 5 , 1 44 52 25 33 46 60 30 39 48 54 28 35 47 59 30 36 46 60 ,22 32 Oats. Beans. Per Quarter. Boston Gainsborough Grapth am Urinasby liorncastle Lincoln Spilsby itamford s. to s. 1 s. to s. 14 IIN 17 25 14 22 12 18 10 21 14 18 21 23 14 21 40 37 39 25 40 40 42 36 40 3'2 al 33 36 26 35 NORWICH. March 30. Wheat (per qr.) 443 58s. 625. reans (per qr.) - 265. 30s. Barley 20s. 303. 31s. )' ease, Grey * 265. 30s. ,Mts 20i. 23, '2si. Flour. fine (ner ,gek , 42, 44g. CAN l'Ett lit, It 1. March 30 565. to Ms. —s. to —B. 465. to 583. —s. to —s. 265. to 355. Grinding.. 2•25. to 265. 17s. to 245. Old 20s. to 2gs. 27s to 3 ls. Old-- :14s. to 38s. 355. to 375. 325. to 345. Wheat, whit, Barley, Malting Oats ~......................, Beans —...—..... Pease .—.— MANCHESTER, March 30. Wheat, per 701 b. Bs. 6d. to Bs. 10d. Red 7s. 94. to Ss. Od. Barley, per 601 b 5 0 5 6 Oats 3 0 3 1 Beans, per Imperial quarter Pease, White, per Imperial bushel 5 0 6 0 Malt, per 6 Imperial bushels 4O 0 45 0 Flour, per Sack of 2801 b. 4O 0 48 0 EXETER MAR Beef (score)--Bs. Od. 9,6 d. '!tutton 50 0 6 Veal and i amb-0 6 0 7 Pcrk 0 4 0 6 Geese (each) »4 0 5 6 Ducks 'couple 0 5 0 Fowls 0 4 0 K ETS —March 29. Wheat (bushel) ..78. Od. 7s. 6d, Barley 4 6 4 9 Oats 9 3 2 5 Beans 5 6 6 0 Butter (1b.)«.....—.1 0 1 3 Eggs (12) .....0 0 1 0 Potatoes (peck) .41 6 0 7 IRISH MA DUBLIN MARKET NOI RKETS. I'E.....FRIDAY, March 9.9. From To Average. 841 Wheat, per barrel 20 stone 20 0 30 6 26 6 0 Bete - 16 stone 0 0 0 150 Barley. l6 stone) 12 0 2,705 Oats 12 stone 7 0 1d,772 Cwt. Flour 8 stone 0 0 1,007 Oatmeal 8 atone 9 0 Sold to liakers only. 12,998 Cwt. Flour l3 0 I 19 0 Average price of Wheat and Flour Od. per Firsts, from 18s. Od. Receipts of Flour, 13,3321 Seconds from 13s. 6d. dales of Do. 16,772 Thirds., from 6s. Od. 14 6 I 13 i 12 0 8 7 20 0 1 - 0 13 0 I 10 '2 I 15 8 sack. to 19s. Od. to 17s. Ott. to 9s Oct. PRICE OF BREAD. -7.3 id . I Half Quartern Quartern Loaf. i)e- Wheat, Barley, Oats. Flour, per cwt. per barrel per barrel per barrel 20 stone. 16 stone. 14 stone. Ist. I 2d. s.d. a 5.6.18.0. a s.d. s.d. a 5.0.15. d. as. 0. s. d.as. d. 200 24 912 0 130 75 82,146 166 50 140 123 4 268 94 114 62 0;16 0 19 0 00 150 0 10 25 012 0 13 6 7 0 8017 0 18 010 0 150 123 4 21 4LI 0 13 0 7,0 89 16 0 17 013 0 16 0 124 0 25 011 0 12 0, 7 0 8620 6 21 00 0 00 Beef. IMutton.l Pork. 1 Butter. s.d.as.d.is.d.a Cork 0 24 9 12 0 Limerick i 23 4 26 8 9 4 Waterfordj2l 0 25 0 12 0 Clonmel -.123 4 214 12 0 Carlow —124 0 25 0 11 0 Beef, 'Mutton, per lb. per lb. Pork, per cwt. 4th. s th. s. d. s. d. 46 1 40 0 42 0 34 0 613 0 61) 0 —O-0 600— 0 d. a d. d. a d. Cork 5 6 5 6 Limerick— 31 44 34 4 ‘Vaterford 3 6 3 5 Clonmel 34 454 64 Carlow...—. 4 54 0 0 s. d. a a. d. 27 0 34 0 33 0 320 00 30 0172 35 0,66 3.5 (1174 33 0 76 0 0 82 s. d. s. d. 68 0 56 0 58 0 .0 0 73 0 70 0 720-0 80 0 7C 0 KILKENNY.—Butter 82s. to 84s. per cwt. ; Wheat 225. to 255. per barrel ; Flour 20s. to 345. per bag; Oats 7s. to Bs. per bar rel ; Barley 12s. to 13s. ; Beet 4d. to sd. per lb. ; Mutton 4d. to NI. ; Potatoes 2d. per stone; Coals Is. 2d. per cwt.; Bacon Pigs 355. to 365. per cwt. SCOTCH MARKETS. HADDINGTON CORN MARKET.—March Wheat. Barley. Oats. Pease. Beans. First 62s Od 34s 6d 29s 6d 265 6d 29s Od Second s3s Od 28s Od 19s 6d 25s Od 27s Od third 50s Od 26s Od 18s Od 23s 6d 26s Od There were 352 qrs. of Wheat in market,32ls whereof were sold. 26 thasold -0 Grey V. 13s. Avenge 6-12.ths.